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.

@John and Augustus- Not saying that I feel it is right. Just if that is the path GW is going to take then make it so for all of the armies.

I do see a certain logic to it but at the same time can see problems, too. In this case I believe the benefits will outweight the negatives.


Easy E- Similar to what I was suggesting. They could make it a buyable upgrade or make the ability armywide or just unit specific. It would give the need perfomance boost while still being fairly easy to balance.

Oh, no doubt, GW will do this for all of the armies. If you look at the recent MEQ books, it's clear that GW has already started down this path. Expect to see this accelerate in the coming years, as more and more Codices appear.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, no doubt, GW will do this for all of the armies. If you look at the recent MEQ books, it's clear that GW has already started down this path. Expect to see this accelerate in the coming years, as more and more Codices appear.

The thing I worry about is that GW will decide "yeah we made those too good" and tone down all the codexes from here on out.

In late 3rd/ early 4th they were on a trip of "army customisation" rules with doctrines and chapter traits. Suddenly they got to the non Imperial codexes and 'voila' back to standard stuff with less variety.

In other words, just because they start making army lists to a given patter/standard, don't count on them to maintain that pattern for the whole edition.

I'm not looking at the edition per se, but more overall trends in WFB and 40k. And that trend is for much higher specialization of each army compared to anything that we've seen in 40k to date.

GW armies are being largely pre-designed to play a certain way, and while other options may be available, they will be decidely inefficient because they're only to be used to complement or round out an army, not as a primary function.

For example, if you want to play Assaut MEQs, you *will* play BA, BT, CM, or SW, or you simply won't be competitive. And for each of those flavors, there *will* be a preferred way of playing - JPs vs Drop Pods vs Land Raider Assault vs Rhino Rush. And so on. That way, GW can sell several flavors of differentiated MEQs.

I see the current trend of emphasizing characters over races/armies as a decided downturn in the game. Overall, when the latest codex eldar came out it was an improvement. The only codex nerfing I can think of was guardian minimum size doubling. (Instead of 5 guardians plus weapon it went to 10 guardians plus weapon.) The named characters were limited and with the exception of Eldrad, not army changing.

The problems are the subsequent changes:

1. Base cost of orcs going to 6, base cost of marines staying the same but with freebies, base transports of other races reducing in cost. Pretty well making guardians overpriced/underpowered and eldar vehicles awesome but at a high premium.
2. 5th edition: Absolute cover almost non-existent. Everyone moves as fast as eldar on foot. Vehicles move slower than infantry. Defensive weapons nerfing every eldar vehicle weapon option except EML. (and TL-Catapults) Vehicle damage charts replaced with one chart AND removing auto-glance from skimmers.

It is one thing to justify spending 180 points for an very hard to kill vehicle with a transport capacity of 6 that can unload all the weapons it has, moves faster than infantry. Now they are moderately armored, ignore the secondary weapons, move slower than eldar on foot, can't assault out of vehicles for the exact same cost.

I am not saying go back to the way falcons and prisms used to be but 12 armor that can only be glanced and are the definition of speed on the battlefield is WAAAY better than 12 armor that lives in fear of autocannons/lootas and can be run down by terminators and rarely fire other weapons.

I think that there is a place for special characters who change the game. It just needs to have a balanced approach. Make either the points cost force the balance or bring in force organization restrictions.

As long as non-special lists are just as capable of winning as the Special character lead armies.

Barring this, then stop naming them and just give us Generic Heros.


Now back to the Eldar. I would still like to see the next Codex Have rules for craftworld specific armies but only if you take the expensive Famous hero from that craftworld. No hero and your back to running the generic lists that are still just as capable of winning.

Giving the WL back a little bit of what they lost would be a good idea. They used to be walkers, and had 3 attacks because they had two dread cc weapons. The change to MC dropped their attacks annoyingly to 2. Making them MCs also meant that they lost out on walkers being able to fire all of their weapons; MC can only fire 2.
Giving them the sword option was great except ....... it only makes them have the same number of expected hits in cc as they USED to have, plus it costs 10 points now!

Obviously when the last codex was in the works word was passed down to nerf the WL but just saddling them with the stupidity problem was enough, they really should have their attack added back in.


Sliggoth

I don't want to derail the conversation, but can someone explain the Assault Ramp rule for me?

The Assault Ramp rule could be "fluffed" as Warp Portals, trap doors, or a special maneuver (like a double bootleg reverse...) but so long as the wording for it's rules are consistent with other armies, it's met muster.

Whether this requires remodelling or converting for existing models is completely up to the method of explanation. I could see any of the panels on the WS opening up as a trap door or the warp portal being hardwired into the structure of the WS. This has been done before and with no modelling updates necessary - when did serpents get the extra room for Guardian's AGP?

"Assault vehicles" simply let you assault on the same turn the vehicle moves.

There seems to be a consensus that the Eldar should be able to assault out of some sort of vehicle. I agree with this and feel as long as it isn't every unit or even the majority of the units in the Eldar army then it won't steal too much of the Dark Eldars thunder. Maybe, make it an aspect based ability.

What would be the next thing changed?

Just give certain aspect warriors the ability to assault after disembark instead of the vehicle.

Make phoenix lords a little cheaper but make it so they can take their aspect as troops

Only the Wave Serpent should allow assault, the Falcon should not. This helps to further differentiate the two Grav-Tank Transports.

Go with what I stated earlier...

Make the Howling Banshee Acrobatic ability confer the ability to disembark and assault from a moving transport.

Leaves Harlequins as the best on-foot assault unit and Scorpions as stealth experts.

DAaddict wrote:Go with what I stated earlier...

Make the Howling Banshee Acrobatic ability confer the ability to disembark and assault from a moving transport.

Leaves Harlequins as the best on-foot assault unit and Scorpions as stealth experts.

The only problem with the idea of "stealth experts" is that a unit on foot, whether it infiltrates or not, only assaults with the enemy's permission, and while Harlequins can mitigate the effects of enemy fire with Veil of Tears... well scorpions cannot.

So you'd put Banshees into the realm of "good, usable unit" while scorpions would be relegated to "stuff I like to look at on the shelf." Which, honestly, is kind of where scorpions are at right now for most decent Eldar builds.

I really think the main things hurting them are (some have been said already):

PROBLEMS
-High-cost Transports
-High-cost Guardians
-Mediocre-stat Aspect warriors
-High-cost Heavy weapons/upgrades
-Slower units

SOLUTIONS
-Lower cost like 5-10 points
-Lower to 6pts with same stats, or lower to 7 with WS/BS 4
-Add 1 more A and/or 1 more WS for CC-oriented Aspects, add BS and/or better weapons to ranged ones
-Lower the cost by 5-10 points (each weapon), and lower the vehicle upgrade cost
-Give a special fleet rule and faster vehicles

That's all of the real problems that I see, because, though we haven't had an update in a while, we are still doing OK, just not as competitive.

PS. When do y'all think a new 'Dex would come out (after DE and SW of course)?

augfubuoy wrote:PS. When do y'all think a new 'Dex would come out (after DE and SW of course)?

I wouldn't expect it in 2010, perhaps early 2011, Eldar are not that bad right now (yes the need to be updated for 5th like everthing), I think other armies deserve new codex's before eldar (Nids, Necrons, Inqusiton come to mind).

I have given some serious thought to balance issues. Here are my fixes.
Eldar are suppose to be a incredibly mobile, high fire power , but weak on toughness excepting 2 units.

They need to make exarchs more powerful.

They need to allow Banshees some sort of rule to assault on disembark.

Dire Avengers need to have a role that suits them better as a jack of all trades master of none; give them haywire grenades or something. i dont actually know what to do with Dire Avengers maybe a 3+ save and remove fleet or something.

Dark Reaper are perfect

Wraithlord needs to have the option of having a D Cannon again.

Vibrocannons and that other Shadowweaver thing need to be reworked

They need to produce some new damn warp spiders and reduce their point cost by about 3 to 4 points. 18 point warp spiders just feels right.

Wraithguard need a slight point reduction.

Phoenix Lords need to be made similar to Space Marines special characters
Phoenix Lords : Their legends embodied.
Give them the ability to 1. Take one free troop of their type that does not use up a force organization chart. 2. Allow their troop type only to count as scoring.

Baharath - Deep Striking: Allows reroll of scatter

Karandaras : Striking Scorpion he joins gains furious charge; may fleet.

Maugan Ra ; Gain Stealth

Asurman ; All Dire Avengers gain Stubborn

JainZar : Gain Preferred Enemy



Additional

Reduce cost of Warp Spiders by 4 points.

Allow the Wraithlord to take D- Cannon and other support weapons.

Banshees - Allow assault out of vehicle due to acrobatics.

Avatar : Increase Invulnerable save to 3+ increase Attacks to 6 , Give Flame Breath Weapon ST4 ap3 , Give Preferred enemy.


Psychics : Increase ranges of all psychic abiities by Farseer

Bring in new troop type Wraithbone Singer able to repair techmarine but from distance.

Give them Web Portals; their known to attack from web portals it makes no sense they do not have this.

I've been thinking about it, and bright lances should be AP1, but kept the same price they are now.

It would make them into actually viable tank-busting weapons. Whereas now, if you want to try to kill a vehicle with them, you have to pray at a shrine to khaine and hope for the best.

To these last two posts I would only add BS 4 on the Falcon with the two turret weapons systems counting as a single weapon when firing.


I would like to see the Eldar farseer and warlock abilities being buffed a bit. This comes more from a fluff sense rather than any in game need.

Instead of Phoenix Lords allowing their chosen aspects as troops, allow them to be scoring (ala Pedro).

Also, I'd like to see a use for autarchs besides Master Strategist. He's a great little add on to aspect squads, giving you an extra Reaper or Shining Spear, but doesn't effectively fill the HQ role as a Farseer. Personally, I'd like to see him be able to rearrange the FOC - taking wraithlords or falcons as elites or bike squadrons in fast attack, etc.

I like the idea of a Bonesinger upgrade for Farseers as well - one that eliminates the wraithsight rule or extends coverage to 18". I remember the old Eldar dreads from 2nd didn't require a psyker, just another eldar to measure the wraithsight from.

I think Autarchs would be a better option for a CC capable commander if he were allowed to take one piece of Exarch wargear.

You'd have to change the fluff too, though. Currently, they have aspect warrior gear because they've managed to serve in different aspects while avoiding the Path of the Exarch.

You could say that Autarchs are those rare Exarchs who do manage to escape the trap of the Shrine, and then go on to be great battle-leaders because they understand the intricacies of battle and bloodshed, but without being so single-minded as to be unable to think outside one aspect of Khaine.

But the fluff and the weapon options indicate pretty clearly that they were only Aspect Warriors, not Exarchs - who ARE trapped on the warrior path. Aspect Warriors are not on the path of the warrior all the time and thus are able to experience options of other life paths.

Autarchs are only able to equip themselves with basic aspect warrior weaponry, not Exarch weaponry, which is reserved for those totally dedicated to a specific method of warfare. Autarchs have sacrificed depth for breadth and are now Exarchs of the Path of Command. It's my belief that they should be able to enhance the command structure, rearranging the FOC, and allow the army as a whole to synergize more effectively.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Autarchs should allow Guardian squads to purchase a "sergeant" upgrade that allows them to fill a tactical role more effectively - +1 WS for Storms, +1 BS for Defenders, or take a USR like Hit and Run, Scouts, or Preferred Enemy.

This sergeant could be chosen instead of a warlock for the squad, would have a single Aspect Warrior weapon upgrade and I could see an Autarch allowing you to field a unit of them in the same way a Seer allows for 'lock squads. I see this option as more appropriate for the martial craftworlds like Iyanden, Biel-Tan, and Sam Haine, although Iyanden's Ghost Warriors should get some love in a new edition.

That's why I said they should change the fluff too. It happens, you know.

Gavin Thorne wrote: I mentioned in an earlier post that Autarchs should allow Guardian squads to purchase a "sergeant" upgrade that allows them to fill a tactical role more effectively - +1 WS for Storms, +1 BS for Defenders, or take a USR like Hit and Run, Scouts, or Preferred Enemy.

This sergeant could be chosen instead of a warlock for the squad, would have a single Aspect Warrior weapon upgrade and I could see an Autarch allowing you to field a unit of them in the same way a Seer allows for 'lock squads. I see this option as more appropriate for the martial craftworlds like Iyanden, Biel-Tan, and Sam Haine, although Iyanden's Ghost Warriors should get some love in a new edition.

I really like the idea of a sergeant. And if you add a warlock, so much the better. I feel like guardians really are overpriced and just can't be customized, save for their one heavy weapon. Sure you can add a warlock, but that's not the point. They shouldn't need to have a warlock. They should have some options in and of themselves. Just give the space elf sergeant 2 attacks, a power weapon, and some horribly expensive upgrade that'll help the whole squad (5+ cover save, etc.) just like you said.

Either that or we could just make separate codex's for all the chapters like space marines have. How about a Biel-Tan or Ulthwe codex? And while we're at it, how about a Nurgle and Tzeench and Khorne codex? How about we just put some time and effort into game development.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:Either that or we could just make separate codex's for all the chapters like space marines have. How about a Biel-Tan or Ulthwe codex? And while we're at it, how about a Nurgle and Tzeench and Khorne codex? How about we just put some time and effort into game development.

This is almost sig worth... as HBMC has stated relentlessly, GW is not a games company that makes miniatures to sell rules, it makes rules to sell miniatures. This bites them in the a$$ since making units undesireable in game makes selling the models more difficult, but eldar are second string compared to the better sellers like marines and chaos.

@Gavin: That's probably true, but SM & CSM are the two biggest sellers for 40k.

Based on support, I would imagine that Eldar (historically) sell better than any other Xenos (i.e. Necrons, Orks, Tau, Nids). Orks are catching up for lost time, and Eldar took a big hit in 5th, so Orks may have be passing Eldar now.

Funny how the Fluff is catching up with reality.

Gavin Thorne wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:Either that or we could just make separate codex's for all the chapters like space marines have. How about a Biel-Tan or Ulthwe codex? And while we're at it, how about a Nurgle and Tzeench and Khorne codex? How about we just put some time and effort into game development.

This is almost sig worth... as HBMC has stated relentlessly, GW is not a games company that makes miniatures to sell rules, it makes rules to sell miniatures. This bites them in the a$$ since making units undesireable in game makes selling the models more difficult, but eldar are second string compared to the better sellers like marines and chaos.

First of all, thank you!

Second of all, that was sig worth too. How are you doing yourself a favour if your rules make the most expensive models undesirable? Is GW like one of my schizo ex-girlfriends? Does the right hand have no idea what the left hand is doing? How about the codex writers and developers and marketing and purchasing people all get together and WORK together.

Well, if we look at some of the most desireable lists recently, things like Bike Council, Mechdar, Tri-Prism and Ghost Army/Elfzilla, we see that the more expensive models do get good rules. Things like Prisms, Wave Serpents, metal Farseers/Warlocks and Jetbikes en masse, Wraithlords, and Wraithguard all cost a pretty penny, supporting the argument that $$=win! in the eyes of the great gee-dub.

Other models don't get the same love. The relatively low-$$-cost Guardians are seen as a drawback in most lists because they don't have tooth. They're too soft and essentially are extra wounds for a heavy weapon.

I'd love to see Guardians get more bang for their buck, but I don't see it happening.

Gavin Thorne wrote:Well, if we look at some of the most desireable lists recently, things like Bike Council, Mechdar, Tri-Prism and Ghost Army/Elfzilla, we see that the more expensive models do get good rules. Things like Prisms, Wave Serpents, metal Farseers/Warlocks and Jetbikes en masse, Wraithlords, and Wraithguard all cost a pretty penny, supporting the argument that $$=win! in the eyes of the great gee-dub.

Other models don't get the same love. The relatively low-$$-cost Guardians are seen as a drawback in most lists because they don't have tooth. They're too soft and essentially are extra wounds for a heavy weapon.

I'd love to see Guardians get more bang for their buck, but I don't see it happening.

Too true if you want to make Guardians useful... well more useful then they'd normally be, you turn them into Storm Guardians (a pair of fusion guns or flamers is fair more useful YMMV)

8 SG = £17.60
10+platform GD= £17.60

And how do GW do it? They make it out of metal (badly in the case of Fire Prisms). For example 4 plastic Guardians is £4.90 and a 4 metal models (A Farseer and 3 Warlock Bodyguard) is £17.60. And detail wise my 4 guardians with green stuff robes are just as detailed (and they also come in at just under 3 times cheaper as well)

I agree with you G_f_C,

If GW stepped up and produced and released a complete, balanced ruleset and codeci for all armies simultaneously, we wouldn't have the problems codex creep and obsolete lists present. While I doubt this would completely solve the problem of models being over-valued or under-valued (both points and price wise) due to their effects in play, I think it would go far at addressing the issue.