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.

warpedpig wrote:
And you base this “cross pollination” on what? Some theory that humans who have plasma guns blow up in their hands somehow are teaching the Eldar about laser and plasma technology. While there Eldar use the webways. Warp jump generators. D-weapons. Etc. all vastly superior technologies

Well, mostly humans copying Eldar tech.

The main thing is a load of their weaponry has the same principle base. The eldar and humans would for sure have had contact during a lot of their interstellar eras, the former being the biggest power in the galaxy at the time and the latter a rapid expanding one.

It makes sense because it makes no sense. Eldar don’t use combat knives. They use spoons. Because. Aliens.

warpedpig wrote:
So it makes sense because it makes no sense. This is your argument.

How do you swallow that BS?

I get why you are so adamant about the "superior tech" argument. I truly get that. Eldar once dominated the galaxy.
But in lore, the Aeldari race have always been portrayed as incomprehensible, more so than straight up superior (yes they are superior, but the point is that they are very alien, despite looking the most like humans)
So the fact that their weapon choice makes no sense TO YOU, AS A HUMAN, fits perfectly well with the Lore. The Eldar mind is a convoluted web of lies and half-truths that no human could ever understand. This is why they will always be mistrusted by Humans, because humans will always fear what they can never understand.

Eldar also adapt FAR slower than the younger races. There are 2 reasons for this:
1) Their civilization peaked, they got to the top of their tech and had no need to further advance. IF innovation and advancement are not enoucourage in your society, innovation and advancement DOESN'T happen. Just look as the Imperium.
2) The life span of an Aeldari being so long actually makes further innovation stagnate. Humans and T'au advance far faster because our lifespans are so much shorter, that the next generation can pick up a problem with "fresh eyes" and a new perspective.
For Eldar, they live so long and procreate so slowly, that the "new perspective" doesn't arrive before the problem can be solved in a new way. So the "old ways" continue to prevail, even if they make little sense.

Also look at it this way, Bolters are considered to be the epitome of standard side arms for the Imperium. Shuriken Catapults are better the Bolters in EVERY way except range.
And since the ideal way of war for Eldar is to strike hard and fast so that retaliation isn't a factor anymore, why bother changing it?

-

Because a 12" gun is a suicide device in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
Because a 12" gun is a suicide device in 8th.

Not when you can drop them into that range, shoot, then immediately move back 7" into some terrain (2+ armour platforms), then gain a 4++ against shooting in the next turn.

Could it stand some alteration? Sure. I've already suggested the following:
18" RF2 S3 AP-1

But I could easily see it just get a straight bump to 18" as-is, with Avenger Cats being bumped to 24".
What I DON'T want to see is it being 24" RF1. Too many races already have that for their standard weapon. It's boring, and would be one more weapons that's flat out better than Bolters

-

It's certainly better to have variety between races, otherwise they just become a carbon-copy of one another with fresh names slapped on them. Having a 12" range is fine if you can move 7" after shooting - it might as well have been a 19" range without the move.

 Galef wrote:
Not when you can drop them into that range, shoot, then immediately move back 7" into some terrain

you cannot do this anymore, models can only move after deepstriking if its for a charge / pile in / consolidate, it becomes a lot harder to position the guardians in a safe spot without losing some shots

I knew something sounded off there.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Not when you can drop them into that range, shoot, then immediately move back 7" into some terrain

you cannot do this anymore, models can only move after deepstriking if its for a charge / pile in / consolidate, it becomes a lot harder to position the guardians in a safe spot without losing some shots

True, but my point stands that it's an option later on, and for the turn they drop in, they can still do so in cover and then get a 4++.
I'd hardly call that a suicide unit, especially if you are able to KILL every thing within 12" of them on that turn (which is easily done with Eldar)

-

I find that everything that closes dies in 8th. Like my whole list.

It's only suicidal if you drop them in around things you aren't going to kill that turn.

Once again, the army is built to go all-in and engage a subset of the enemy all at once. Either fluff or tabletop, if they engage and don't wipe out the enemy, they die. It's only suicide if they fail. A rifle would have the same problem, except be less capable at the sort of blitz combat CWE need to use to survive.

Yeah, I'm not buying that at all.

Bharring wrote:
Once again, the army is built to go all-in and engage a subset of the enemy all at once. Either fluff or tabletop, if they engage and don't wipe out the enemy, they die. It's only suicide if they fail. A rifle would have the same problem, except be less capable at the sort of blitz combat CWE need to use to survive.

This exactly. Eldar are all or nothing

-

That's a really poor survival plan.

Martel732 wrote:
That's a really poor survival plan.

can you stop complaining about it? Thats how eldar have been since the inception of the game, a dying race that is too stubborn to change and will fight with everything they got to defend their craftworld. yes, this includes giving cheap weapons to their militia.

Your attitude towards eldar lore would be similar to complaining that space marines shouldn't be able to run super fast/ never tire/ be immortal/ spit acid/ absorb the memories of who they eat/ etc. Warhammer as a setting declared that this was how the eldar were a long time ago, guardians not getting their own personal *better gun than catapult* is part of their fluff, theyre an improvised fighting force.

imao would be a mistake to make shuriken catapults 24". Specially in an army that can advance and shoot without penalty, has a wide army -1 to hit outside of 12", moves at least 7", has the option to shoot and move, has by far the best troop transport in the game and has a platform capable to pack 2 catapults in a platform that move 16" and runs a flat 6" inches for a ridiculous 18 points.

Also will invalidate other options like shuriken canons or dire avengers.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Shuriken weapons are mechanically just fine.

From a fluff perspective, shuriken catapults maybe make more sense in the context of guardians defending Zone Mortalis style internal passageways within a craftworld or hopping out of a wave serpent to spray stuff at close range. And then there's Ulthwe whose guardians are usually depicted as being competent enough as ambush combatants for the gun to sort of make sense.

That said, having 9 guys baby sitting the one dude who's actually shooting the heavy weapon platform does feel really strange. You end up investing a lot of points and bodies into these short ranged guns that feel at-odds with the long-ranged heavy weapon. I suspect the squad was designed that way to better mirror a guardsman unit (making guardians feel more comparable to guardsmen than, for instance, space marines with their 1 special per 5 guys setup). But it looks and feels a bit awkward.

I'd really like for the minimum squad size of guardian defenders to drop to 5. 5 guys with a platform seems less silly than having 9 short ranged guns crowding around the lone guy with the video game controller. Plus, it would drop the cost of a guardian squad to be comparable to that of a guardsman squad with a heavy weapon team. The ranged offense of the guardians would be slightly higher, but their number of ablative wounds would be lower. Which seems like a good crunch representation of the fluff; eldar are better than you, but there are fewer of them.

All that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to guardians returning to having access to lasblasters either. Lowering the squad size just seems like an elegant improvement for fluff, crunch, and aesthetic.

This would be much more better instead and will give them a niche.

I think the 12" range Catapult is a casualty of the shift from 2nd to 3rd. Lots of things were shifted at that time, and Catapults were shifted to Assault 2 12" at the same time the Bolter shifted to Rapid Fire 1 at a time when Rapid Firing meant you had to stand still, and you could not Assault after Rapid Firing. The Catapult was a great weapon in comparison, because you could move, fire twice, and then Assault.

Since then, the Bolter has evolved to be able to move and fire twice(but no Assault), and then again to being able to Assault after firing twice on the move, and then again to Marines firing twice at long range while standing still. Meanwhile, the Catapult got a little extra penetration bonus, but comparatively it got left behind. I am all for the Catapult having its range increased to at least 18", and pushing the Avenger Catapults to 24. I'd even go for 24" and 30", respectively, and shift points a bit.

Fun fact: for over half of 6th Ed, Shuriken Catapaults were just S4 A2 AP5 12". So the same as an SM Shotgun. Or a Boltgun, if the user wasn't going to charge. No Bladestorm. No battlefocus. And BS4+ on the Guardians.

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact: for over half of 6th Ed, Shuriken Catapaults were just S4 A2 AP5 12". So the same as an SM Shotgun. Or a Boltgun, if the user wasn't going to charge. No Bladestorm. No battlefocus. And BS4+ on the Guardians.

As I've said before, guardians have been argued over from 3rd to 8th ed. There hasn't been a post 2nd Ed edition where they've not caused issues.

No one had a problem with them in 2nd, because they did what they were supposed to do, sit as far back as possible, plink some dudes and stay away from enemy attacks.

Because of the bizarre choices of 3rd and on, they are one of the most confusing units in the game with no clear and sensible reason for then to exist at they do.

All the arguments being made have been made since 3rd ed.

And I will say again, that giving them a rifle instead of a shotgun will only give them more options, it won't take anything away from them.

I don't buy the unique army Shtick. GW has been erroding non marine armies for years and inventing imperial stuff that does the same thing.

The Eldar are running out of uniqueness because of this, not because guardians should have long range rifles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If I wanted generic line infantry, I wouldn't play a force predicated on not fighting pitched battles.

Agreed and as a side note, I started Eldar in 4E because I wanted an army that could field ZERO line Infantry because Jetbikes were Troops.
Since that isn't feasible in 8E, I now field some Rangers to fill that role. Which are Troops with 36"...RIFLES.
True they may fill a more specialized role than other line Infantry, but that's kinda the point with Eldar. There are almost NO generalist units.

And that is probably the "breakdown" of understanding here. Those claiming GW is "stupid" for not giving Guardians a better sidearm are totally missing the point.
Yes, Eldar are more advanced, but they also have a FAR different ideology they us humans here in the 21st century.
We could propose changes to Catapults until we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Catapults are not supposed to allow Guardians to be a generalist Troop.
Dire Avengers are the closest unit Eldar have to fill that role. Almost all other units fill a very specific role.

And while the mindset of our species is to be adaptable, the mindset of 41st millennium CWE is to be specialized to the exclusion of all other roles. It's the whole reason they developed the Path system for their society.
Some may think that's dumb, but that's because they are an unevolved Mon'Keigh (just making a joke, not trying to be malicious).
On the table-top, this over specialization has put Eldar in the top teir for several editions, so maybe their basic Troops having a "garbage" weapon is on purpose to knock them down a peg

-

This is all inference and none of it is supported by the background. The entire modern eldar way of war was invented 10,000 years ago - in the 29th millennium there was no such thing as an aspect, the path, farseers etc.

The eldar invented an entire military structure for their new craftworld homes. They created autarchs (which I personally don't like, but they're there now) who are specialists at figuring out how to get the best out of their military.

It wouldn't take an autarch and a farseer who can see the future long to figure out that deploying guardians with the absolute wrong weaponry to fufill their role is not only bad strategy, it's bad survival, and it's just not aesthetic...

You've also got to remember that not all craftworlds use dire avengers as their mainline - Ulthwe's main army is guardians. And suddenly all these arguments fall apart because suddenly they aren't support crew for a heavy weapon, they're frontline troops trying to do frontline things with a shotgun.

We can dissentangle the argument about whether shuriken weapons should go back to their original profiles from whether guardians should be equipped with rifles or shotguns. IMO shuriken weapons SHOULD go back to their original profiles AND guardians should have the OPTION to choose between multiple different weapon options that best suits the roles they undertake.

It is an oversimplification that the eldar are an all or nothing army. ASPECT warriors are all or nothing in their specific niche. Guardians are far more flexible support troops.

Whether it offends peoples' sensibilities to increase the range on a catapult or not, playtest guardians with 14" range guns.

As in 2nd ed, you'll find your aspects closing in for the kill with your guardians behind them in sujpport. The only change is that guardians will die less and do more.

EDIT
IMO they made a fundamental misstep when going from 2nd ed to 3rd ed. They shouldn't have redefined the guardian, they should have redefined the DIRE AVENGER.

A 12" range weapon is not a 'hold out', or defensive weapon, it's an aggressive assault weapon. A 24" ranged weapon does just as much damage at 12", but ALSO increases the threat range and ensures the guardians are less likely to have the enemy get too close.

IMO they should have redefined the AVENGER as a forward assault unit, using cutdown catapults and shuriken melee weapons to get stuck in down and dirty. So Avengers have a 12" ranged gun, but say assault 4 and the rending rule on their melee attacks. And suddenly they are their own distinct niche that balances melee and shooting, makes them distinct from the guardians who stand 24" away firing heavy weapons and keeping the enemy at arm's length.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's a really poor survival plan.

can you stop complaining about it? Thats how eldar have been since the inception of the game, a dying race that is too stubborn to change and will fight with everything they got to defend their craftworld. yes, this includes giving cheap weapons to their militia.

Your attitude towards eldar lore would be similar to complaining that space marines shouldn't be able to run super fast/ never tire/ be immortal/ spit acid/ absorb the memories of who they eat/ etc. Warhammer as a setting declared that this was how the eldar were a long ti no rume ago, guardians not getting their own personal *better gun than catapult* is part of their fluff, theyre an improvised fighting force.

Marine lore is dumb, too. As far as im concerned, they cant do any of that stuff.

 Galef wrote:
Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile:
12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s)
Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1
Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1

I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them

-

Can Necrons replace their -1 AP with -3 on 6s so they become better against vehicles? That trade is just so obvious and fluffy, although it would probably hurt both factions.

Hellebore wrote:


IMO they should have redefined the AVENGER as a forward assault unit, using cutdown catapults and shuriken melee weapons to get stuck in down and dirty. So Avengers have a 12" ranged gun, but say assault 4 and the rending rule on their melee attacks. And suddenly they are their own distinct niche that balances melee and shooting, makes them distinct from the guardians who stand 24" away firing heavy weapons and keeping the enemy at arm's length.

Easy solution: Make the normal catapult 24" range Assault 2; Dire Avenger catapult 24" range Rapidfire 2. Dire Avengers can still shoot at range, but less effective overall due to higher pointscost and less volume, but once in short range as an assault troop they rip and tear.

But but but Eldar guardians need shotguns for defending corridors because of the fluff!!!!!

Never mind the million things space marines do in fluff that they can’t do in the game

I think some points are being missed.

Noone is saying shorter range is a good thing, or that Eldar would use shorter ranged weapons because they want shorter range. The argument is that Eldar may prefer heavier hitting power over longer range. They might prefer 2 S4 PseudoRending shots at 12" over 1 S3 shot at 24". Now, the finer points of where the balance is certainly is debatable. And there are certainly ways in which range beats out power.

But there are also ways in which power beat out range.

Even in the real world, real militaries don't pick range over firepower in all cases. The average infantry unit isn't a team of snipers. Drones fire rockets instead of ships firing cruise missiles. Machine guns get taken in places they could take mortars. Because the range is a tradeoff.

I, too, wish they'd redo Avengers a bit - although a bit differently (lose overwatch-on-5s, gain A2 - less effective crunchwise, but feels more like Asurman's aspect). But whatever happens to Guardians, I'm sure a reasonable, similar change could be made to Avengers.

The objection to the Rifle is that it's primary advantages are it's versatility; CWE are really *bad* at versatility. Between their culture, their war doctrines, and their arrogance, they're much more likely to have very specific tools instead of versatile, generic tools.

That's why the change I'd like to see is a 24" A2 S3 AP0 "rifle". The ideal tool for engaging at standoff range. It's not intended to be used in place of a Catapult up close - so Assault instead of RF. And, there's already models for them (although they're OOP).

Having a Guardian pick between a close-range heavy hitter, and a long-range peashooter, would allow to the squad to further specialize, and allow people to take what they consider a "more sensible" weapon. As for balance, the numbers could be tweaked as needed, and points could even vary if necessary.

^Eww. I get that Guardians had the option to be deployed with Lasguns back in 2nd, but frankly I think the S3 is a bit insulting. The Catapult upgrade wasn't a "functionality tradeoff", it was just a flat upgrade. Imo the proper thing is to just extend the range of the Catapult. It's not going to make Guardians OP or anything, and the Catapult is as much the signature Eldar weapon as the Bolter is the signature weapon for Space Marines. The issue is that the Bolter has improved dramatically from 3rd through 8th, while the Catapult hasn't kept up.

It's not a shotgun, it's a rifle or at least a carbine, and it should be treated as such.

But wouldn't 8ppm be a bit too cheap for a 24" A2 S4 gun with pseudorending? Even on a GEQ frame?

Bharring wrote:
But wouldn't 8ppm be a bit too cheap for a 24" A2 S4 gun with pseudorending? Even on a GEQ frame?

For 9 pts you could also get a sv3+.

Issue is that army that has that is SoB soo.

Haven't seen SOBs much - who has a 12" A2 S4 Pseudorending gun? At 9ppm and 3+?

Bharring wrote:
But wouldn't 8ppm be a bit too cheap for a 24" A2 S4 gun with pseudorending? Even on a GEQ frame?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for adjusting points if that's waht it takes to get a 18 or 24" range Catapult.

I'd point out that an 8 point Gant has a 18" S4 Assault 3 gun, 6+ Sv. BS 4+. Guardians have a 5+ save and a BS of 3+. The Battle Sisters at 9 points(apparently) have a 3+ save and a 3+ BS. Now while I don't think points from one codex translate to another codex necessarily, I'd say that an 8 point Guardian with a 18" Catapult isn't exactly crazy. Plus, I often see Tyranid Armies with Gants, and Sisters armies with Battle Sisters, but I rarely see Guardians in an Eldar army. That too ought to be evidence of something. This is less a strictly balance issue and ore of a "What do you want the army to manifest as?" issue.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile:
12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s)
Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1
Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1

I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them

-

Can Necrons replace their -1 AP with -3 on 6s so they become better against vehicles? That trade is just so obvious and fluffy, although it would probably hurt both factions.

That would be mathematically worse.