Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I feel like DT falcons are really not a good idea. They are very potent tanks (which we want to make better) these things are balanced in other codexes by being either pricy or requiring HS slots - these proposals remove these limitations.

I think AP2 reapers could be an interesting look. I think the multi fire mode with a S7 ap4 or ap5 weapon is good for some better AT, but ap2 reapers denies FNP and causes TEQs problems. I still like my fast-shot for the squad if they don't move thing.

I don't feel that war walkers to FA is a problem, if vypers and other FA units are fixed to be viable.

I have the opposite feeling on Falcons as DT. As stated it looks like a transport and plays like a transport. The tradeoff is just like marines between rhinos and razorbacks. Bigger squad less firepower or small squad big firepower. Serpents and Falcons are the same way just higher cost with racial philosophy in vehicles. (Fast medium armored transports with no light (rhino/razor) or heavy (landraider) options.) Leaving it a heavy slot means it fights with reapers, prisms, wraithlords and nightspinners for playing time. In that scenario the other options are more specialized to fit a need and less costly. A falcon fights with serpents now and it auto wins not only because other heavy choices are more viable but the gain of potential for a falcon is negligilble compared to a waveserpent and then comes at a higher cost. Make it a DT and let cost and squad size needs define the choice between falcon and serpent.

I hesitate about AP2 on any missile technology so don't like that for the reapers. I would prefer a light fast shooting missile like today or a heavy slow firing missile say the standard krak missile S8 AP3. If you want two profiles make it just like a hand-held EML. Then play with the exarch abilities. (Quick shot + 5 reapers = 10 S8 krak shots coming your way or 10 S4 AP4 blast templates.)

I understand the walkers going to FA but then work it out with vypers side by side for comparison. Currently your choice is fast, open-topped, higher cost versus scout move,
closed, lower cost. IF the costs of walkers was raised to equal vypers then it makes it a philosophy choice. Right now open-topped and higher base cost for gaining speed is a no win for the vypers.

I have to say I find comparing Falcons to Razorbacks quite odd. If comparisons are made, it has a lot more in common with Predators, while Fire Prisms are our Vindicators.

The only thing it does have in common is small transport capacity and honestly, if I had to choose between more dakka and losing the transport completely, I'd definitely choose the former.

Or do we really want Fire Prism/Nightspinner kit to be our only HS option for mech Eldar? :/

I agree with Aeraenion, Falcons dont need to be a DT, their fine in the HS section.

Leave them HS then trick them out. WS 4, ability to move and fire all weapons. Finally some option that gives them some protection. Paying @ 200 pts for a vehicle that needs to cost that much because it gets so many shots but really rarely fires because it is either dead or stunned is a non-starter. 2 x 100-120 pt wave serpents win every time or 2 fire prisms or 2 night spinners...

I am glad you have found them tanks "a la SM Predators," my experience was they were survival transports in 3rd & 4th ed and rarely played since 5th ed came out.
The SM analogy used to be spend @ 200 pts for Landraider-like survivablity but even with Spirit Stones and Holofields it fired no more than once or twice in a 6 turn game. Nowadays with penetrating hits being likely the survivability is somewhere above a predator for @200 points. Would you like to field a predator for @ 200 pts or two prisms for @ 250 pts? Leaving Falcons in HS right now is guaranteeing they won't get played. BS4 vehicles with 3+ shots S8 shots that never fire because they are continually stunned is not what I want to spend my HS slots on.

I agree with DAaddict, Falcons really need to be more different from Serpents to even be considered. They are currently acting like a 'serpent with worse protection, no TL, higher price and has to use a HS slot.
The only real benefit is that you don't need to fork out for the DAVU - but then again, that means you're losing scoring.

Realistically, even if they are made DT, they also need to offer a difference to serpents other than just "potentially stronger if I stand still".

P.S. Oh, and the clowns need a car.

Perhaps changing Holofields so they work on the AP, not the damage rolls? That'd nerf the survivability, but would up the chance that it will be able to fire.

Wait... if the fire prisms are ordinance then would the small blast also be ordinance, because otherwise I see no point and it actually being a detriment.

Perhaps allow the falcon as a DT provided it's bellow X points. I'm not too good at estimating viable cost, so I'll leave someone else to consider what a possible limit may be.

Mahtamori wrote:I agree with DAaddict, Falcons really need to be more different from Serpents to even be considered. They are currently acting like a 'serpent with worse protection, no TL, higher price and has to use a HS slot.

This is their biggest issue, they suffer because they do the same job as a serpent but not as well AND they cost more points! They need defining so that there is no overlap in their roles or improving so that the increase in cost is justified. Now they are stuck as a "Jack of all trades, master of none" which just doesnt work with eldar.

The targeting matrix would go some way to fix this I think, but that alone I dont think will save them.

rivers64 wrote:Wait... if the fire prisms are ordinance then would the small blast also be ordinance, because otherwise I see no point and it actually being a detriment.

Ordinance can either be the large blast (what you typically see), a small blast, a standard shot, or even a template. It has nothing actually to do with the size of the blast marker (although, if it just says ordinance blast, that means large blast, but that's just a holdover to clarify older codexes).

What making it Ordinance does is two things:
1) It can't fire the Prism Cannon and the underslung TL-Catapults/Cannon. (Not a big deal, I sometimes forget it even has that gun)
2) On an armor penetration roll, you roll 2d6 and take the highest

It'd improve the anti-vehicle ability of the Prism Cannon and make it more in line with the fluffy Tanks with a single big gun are ordinance.

Going back to a razorback analogy. Currently a BA rhino costs @50 vs @60 for anti-personnel razorback vs @90 for an AT razorback. The waveserpent/falcon has 12 AV so it should cost more.

The cheapest wave serpent - TL Shuriken Cannons- runs about 90 pts but the falcon has anti-tank power built in by virtue of its pulse laser, the falcon with the cheapest secondary weapon costs what around 125 but has no survivability. The survivability options are @ 50 pts so the true difference is 90 vs 175.

Virtually 1.5 to 1 like the SM. The problem to me is a wave serpent is not 2 to 1 better than a rhino nor is a falcon 3 to 1 better than a razorback as a transport or 2 to 1 better than a dakka pred as a tank. The survivability of eldar vehicles needs to be accounted for but this means their price needs to be somewhere less than today. So if a TL Cannon Serpent is a better protected AP razorback form the BA. It needs to cost somewhere more than 60 points anywhere up to the 90 points of today.

So the falcon is comparative to an AT razorback or dakk pred in its role. Magically these cost about the same for a marine. They in turn are about 1.5 the cost of a rhino so for me the base playability/cost issue is whereever a waveserpent is costed a falcon - with survivability - should cost about 1.5 that base cost of wave serpent.
So if the base serpent is 60 to 90, ideally a falcon should run about 90 to 135 to make it a viable option. Personally so the eldar does not end up with cheap tank spam, I would like to see the cost somewhere from 80+ for a waveserpent with TL Shuricannon and 120+ for a falcon with shuricannon.

That basis is really around the current capabilities of a falcon. (BS3, only 1 weapon fireable at 12" move, semi-protection of a holofield in 5th edition world.) If you increase the BS, the value of the guns really goes up. If you increase the weapons that can fire, the cost of the vehicle goes up. If you try to get survivability back to something like 3rd/4th edition, the cost goes up. Those enhancements could be built in or even dealt with as vehicle addons. (e.g. Crystal Targeting Matrix granting the ability to fire a second weapon, Holofield working like the DE personal defense allowing your to ignore D3 hits per fire phase, CTM also adding +1 to WS, etc.)

If a falcon costs 50% more than a serpent, it is priced about right where it will be used. If it starts approaching 100% more in cost, it will remain a non-played vehicle.

If we simply compare the Wave Serpent and the Falcon in terms of effectiveness:

Hull: Same. Base price constant.
Defensive weapons: Same. Price constant.
Purchased weapon: 50% more efficient Wave Serpent. But this you pay separately for.
Default weapon: None wave serpent, pulse laser Falcon.
Default upgrade: Energy Field wave serpent.
Transport capacity: 12 v.s. 6

So the comparison is:
Extra weapon (Pulse Laser) versus Energy Field & +100% TC.

We know from Hornet (taking semi-official as precedent...) that the Pulse Laser is roughly 40 points. The question is thus:
How many points are the Energy Fields and extra transport capacity worth?
and
Is a second weapon that you will most likely not fire really worth 100%?

I'd personally argue that the Wave Serpent is well costed, but rather the other, cheaper, vehicles in other codices are too greatly discounted.

My own knee-jerk reaction is:
1. Cut price of Falcon down to same as Wave Serpent
2. Make Falcon able to fire up to 2 normal weapons when travelling at or below Cruising Speed
3. Make Falcon Dedicated Transport.

Wave Serpent: More survivable and larger transport.
Falcon: More offensive and less survivable transport.
Prices roughly the same.

The alternative is to make Falcons Vehicle Squadron (1-3), cut base price to similar to Wave Serpent, remove transport capacity, and discount the extra weapon by roughly 20%
This has precedent in several other armies where a slightly weaker vehicle is "squadronized".

P.S. I seem to have misplaced my codex

P.P.S. DAVU must be addressed, but I believe the easiest way is to add Exarchs as mandatory would fix it.

in my opinion, you can make the falcon a DT, or you can make it a HS fire platform, but you can't do both at the same time (make it a DT fire platform transport).

I support making it a HS fire platform, because we already have one of the most resilient non-LR transports (and fastest) in the game.

I'm not sold on the necessity for harlequins to have a transport. If harlies are the best foot assault troop (they are), what keeps them from being the best mechanized assault troop?

These last posts all sound very reasonable. But nothing concrete is said as a solution.

The problem with weapon platforms is that once they are even glanced, all their firepower goes to waste. LRs suffer from that same problem, but they're also transporting deadly unit that can assault out of it, so its usefulness is undeterred by this fact.

As for the Falcon, I don't think it needs a transport capacity at all. I think it needs some kind of a rule that allows it to shoot(limitedly) when otherwise it couldn't. Or some reliable way of avoiding being hit at all. Holofields are all nice and dandy when the tank's main purpose is to keep moving no matter what. But when it comes to shooting, Holofields are useless at that.

Mahtamori wrote:
My own knee-jerk reaction is:
1. Cut price of Falcon down to same as Wave Serpent
2. Make Falcon able to fire up to 2 normal weapons when travelling at or below Cruising Speed
3. Make Falcon Dedicated Transport.

Wave Serpent: More survivable and larger transport.
Falcon: More offensive and less survivable transport.
Prices roughly the same.

The thing is that the falcon can go 1 of 2 ways; Transport vehicle or gun boat. I sit on the transport side of the fence.
I agree with all 3 of Mahtamori's thoughts, another suggestion could be that the falcon could have the assault ramp style rule and make it a dedicated transport only for elites.

Then it needs a larger capacity than just 6-man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I still say that a HS section that has just 2 tanks(both with the exact same kit) is a very, very poor FoC. So should Falcon go DT, I expect at least one other tank taking its place.

The Tyranid codexs has no tanks, they aren't the definition of heavy support. Space Marines don't have any MC's in their heavy support, does that make that very very poor? Just because its different it doesn't mean its bad.

There would still be: Fire Prisms, Nightspinners, Wraithlords and Dark Reapers. Its not like its going to become a sparse FOC slot.

Hah, alright, the way I worded my last post I was just asking for a cheeky response like that. Still, taking your SM as an example...well, they can take Dreadnoughts as their HS with a certain HQ, which is their equivalent of a MC and make all-Dreadnought army.

But fair enough.

Thing is, I like diversity. If I want to take something anti-infantry in HS chart that I really like, I want to be able to take my AT within Elites or Fast Attack, for example. Vice versa, if I really like some anti-infantry Elites, I want to be able to fill in the blanks in AT from HS or Fast Attack. Get my drift?

That Heavy Support chart looks very lacking, in stark contrast with today's overcrowdedness. Then again, the only reason it is considered overcrowded is because all our really good units are here, so we want to be able to take many of them.

In short, I wouldn't really mind a small HS slot, as long as our FA and Elite slots fill in the blanks. But looking at it individually, yes, 4 units is a very sparse FoC slot in my view.

Diversity is important in a fun list.

So far, we are really leaving the Eldar locations right where they are today exceipt:

1. War Walkers to fast attack. (Personnally not sure about this)
2. HW Platforms to being an option for guardians.
3. Falcons to DT.

The rest we have talked about changing qualities (how many Wraithguard to be a troop)or quantities. (squadrons of 1-3 for one thing or another in one FO slot.)

So what we have done is empty the heavy slots: That leaves the walker choice, a troop choice and two vehicles. That gives a good variety of heavies. Pehaps it opens it up for eldar supersonic fighters and fighter-bombers.

Taking the falcon out of the heavy mix lends itself to being played. The points total of the force as a whole is still going to define/modify what you will play. Situationally the theoretical firepower of a falcon might be a good force add especially if I can hide a 5-man DA in it. But if points are king, I might just stay with serpents so I field 3 of them rather than 2 falcons even if I am giving up firepower.

The point is by making it DT it no longer means less walkers or prisms just by the fact I am taking one. The cost and squad limitation and lesser resiliency may mean I don't want one but I have the choice of a potential 9 S 6+ shot vehicle with taking up a heavy slot not entering in the equation.

I think recent codices prove that lists can be made to be fun and competitive, not just overusing the exact same thing. I expect no less from a new Codex: Eldar.

@Araenion

Agreed, allowing Falcons a bit more freedom of use (DT) and making it trade off of style and principle as Mahtamori stated, yields to diversity and also means an opponent doesn't know 90% of your list as soon as you say you are playing Eldar.

The issue of mech armies is a core result of the 5th Ed. changes to vehicle damage. So while ideally I want foot armies to be competitive, my minimal goal is I don't want to see 4-6 serpents + 0-3 prisms + 0-3 walkers + Eldrad, DAs and Fire Dragons as THE eldar list.

While at one level it works, it is quite boring.

I think Falcons should stay in HS and war walkers moved to FA, the Heavy support section is not overcrowded then

While my preference is to make Falcons DT an equitable stay in the HS is fine.

Just give me a reason to field one other than a prism or if the cost doesn't change a DAVU/serpent . What I oppose is any notion that a Falcon is viable when it costs more than a prism, is less accurate and I can field a serpent with dragons or DA for about the same.

I just don't want a codex of 50 something options with fluff but ability and/or cost makes the reality a codex of 5 or 6 playable cost effective options.

The notion of walkers - in a vacuum- better suited to fast attack due to the scout rule they have puts them directly in opposition to a vypers. So I can say I would accept walkers as FA but then give me your fixes to vypers. I have had a few ideas and have seen a number posted but right now, a vyper vs a walker is much in the same position as falcons are to serpents. Costs more and is less survivable but then you can add it offers less firepower as it has two weapons but one is locked into a shuricannon orTL catapult. Don't move walkers to FA and then displace Vypers. Make them different enough and cost effective so that they are both good options.

War Walkers can't exist in the same FoC slot as Vypers and Hornets. It'd be pointless.

DarknessEternal wrote:War Walkers can't exist in the same FoC slot as Vypers and Hornets. It'd be pointless.

Hornets are good, really good, but the War Walker doesn't compete with the Vyper. The Vyper offers speed and sacrifices fire power, move twice as fast with option for significantly better "run" at the expense of a single turret.

The Hornet on the other hand completely wipes the floor with both:
* More accurately costed
* Same fire power as War Walker
* Same speed as Vyper
* Discount on Star Engine
* Better armour than both
* Significantly better model than both

Regardless, what the War Walker is offering is two-fold:
* Better, but slower, fire power for your points
* Ability to tie up a squad of S3 infantry with no risk of losing

One potential fix could be to simply increase maximum squad size. For the price of 3 Hornets you get 5 War Walkers.

For Vypers it's more difficult. The most obvious problem is that they're bloody expensive. The second problem is that they have an unmotivated open-topped special rule. Unless you attach some sort of weird special rule to them, I'd say drop in cost and remove open-topped.
One other way to keep the Vyper interesting is to make the Vyper able to always fire the main weapon regardless of speed.

Vyper (Aspect Warrior) BS: 4 AV: 10/10/10 (45 point base)
TL-Shuricat (can be upgraded to Shurican)
Heavy weapon (can fire even if the unit moved up to 24")

Open-topped just has to go.

The swooping hawks really need a remake.

Mahtamori wrote:For Vypers it's more difficult. The most obvious problem is that they're bloody expensive. The second problem is that they have an unmotivated open-topped special rule. Unless you attach some sort of weird special rule to them, I'd say drop in cost and remove open-topped.
One other way to keep the Vyper interesting is to make the Vyper able to always fire the main weapon regardless of speed.

Open-topped just has to go.

What about twin-linking Vyper main gun and adding a possibility of a better second gun than a shuricannon? At any rate, open-topped does indeed have to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Umm...I just read the rules for a Hornet...are we sure it will make it into the regular 'dex? What is the usual deal with these FW stuff?

As it is, I'm at a loss how to improve the Vyper...because the Hornet is a Vyper only made seriously better. Huh.

If the Nightspinner is a precedent, then the smaller Forge World stuff have a chance of making it, but with improvements. The Hornet is, if you are to believe the preview from earlier months this year, costed conservatively "we'd rather buff it late" philosophy.

Meaning the Vyper is excrements

Another interesting way of handling Vypers is to treat them similar to the Spearhead formation - Vypers are upgrade vehicles for Falcons. You buy one Falcon, and up to 2 Vypers. This way Falcons offer a significant difference from the other tanks and do not have to be made DT to stand out enough.

Also, I'm still of the opinion that Shuriken Cannon should be made extreme-rate-of-fire defensive weapon. Or simply have a special rule that says "I'm a defensive weapon". The Shuricannon upgrade isn't an upgrade at all times.

rivers64 wrote:The swooping hawks really need a remake.

We've had plenty of re-hashes on these, but no good conclusion. They're simply difficult due to proximity in purpose to Spiders.

Some of the suggestions include:
Hybrid - has decent shooting and melee
Oversight - prevent or deter deep striking
Fire Command - lending from Tau marker-lights, applies buffs for shooting on enemies for other units
Hot-shot lasers - simply make them Jump-anti-MEQ
Bombers - makes the grenades the primary attack
Engineers - able to stick down mines and raze terrain

For Swooping Hawks, I think we should stay away from them...they always make a dozen pages with no clear conclusion. Let's see what the codex writers have to say on that matter.

And I'd be extremely glad if the Hornet makes it into the codex: Eldar. It's an awesome little piece of machinery.

An idea...how about if Vypers are made into jetbikes instead of vehicles? Just tougher and with more firepower. Something like assault bikers vs regular ones.