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.

For vypers I'd suggest they loose open topped and gain deep strike (a la land speeder). Then give them a special rule that let's the main weapon always fire.

Another idea I've brought up several times is to only allow war walkers to have certain heavy weapons (shuricannons, scatter lasers ect) and only allow vypers the anti tank weapons.

Gorechild wrote:For vypers I'd suggest they loose open topped and gain deep strike (a la land speeder). Then give them a special rule that let's the main weapon always fire.

Another idea I've brought up several times is to only allow war walkers to have certain heavy weapons (shuricannons, scatter lasers ect) and only allow vypers the anti tank weapons.

This, i totally agree with.

Gorechild wrote:For vypers I'd suggest they loose open topped and gain deep strike (a la land speeder). Then give them a special rule that let's the main weapon always fire.

What do you mean by always fire? Even when moving flat out?

Possibly, seeing as there is a seperate gunner on the back of a vyper I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pull a trigger if the pilot is going fast. It would probably make sense to have a -1 BS modifier if firing when moving flat out though.

A separate gunner is hardly justification, almost no vehicle weapons are fired by the pilot. Aside from that, I can't see that ever being rule that didn't cause the opposition total disgust.

Flying a Scatter Laser from across the board to behind a vehicle would never sit well with anyone.

ok how about the Vyper can fire all is weapons, even when it moved 12", and arent we still talking about heavy Support not fast attack?

@Nulipuli2- We were but we've kind of digressed If you care to set us back on track with some suggestions I'd be happy to run through them

@DE- I don't really see a BS2 scatter laser (that is only really reliable VS AV10) striking fear into many players. It would just help make them stand out as something different and interesting.

ok lets talk about the Dark reapers shall we? lower points cost is a must of course, any other suggestions? there you go Gorechild

How about some specific unit-to-unit synergy?
Dark Reapers: May draw line-of-sight to determine cover and target visibility with their missile weapons from any unit of Dark Reapers or Swooping Hawk.
(Swooping Hawks: Only roll one 1D6 instead of normal 2D6 if they attempt to land within 18" of a unit of Dark Reapers or Swooping Hawks.)

I'm not terribly certain on the second one, just thought I'd give something back to the Hawks.

I think i had suggestions earlier in the thread:

fast shot becomes a squad power linked to relentless - if the squad doesn't move, they get +1 shot

I also feel they could be a source of additional light-AT, with a S7 Ap4 heavy 1 profile, as well as S5 Ap3 Heavy2 profile

targeting vanes are an option - a -1 modifier to cover saves or obscured saves.

Also - 2+ armor (i think they should get it)

Nulipuli2 wrote:ok lets talk about the Dark reapers shall we?

Eldar Missile Launchers instead of Reaper Launchers.

I agree with darkness. Either that or the targeting vanes idea from gwyidion.

Hawks I think should only scatter 1d6 period, or have an exarch power that allows them not to scatter at all.

NO EML. They have a role. Don't change it.

Eldar is based on Speed and Lighting Fast Crippling Attacks.

The "Problem" Right now is not their speed. Eldar is still one of the fastest armies in the game. The "problem" that eldar players face now is that alot of Eldar Weaponry is Overpriced and or not combat effective. Eldar needs more power/ap/melta weapons for a cheaper price.

Eldar need a balistic skill of 4, or it needs its guardians to be reduced in point cost by ALOT. If you look at an Eldar guardsmen and compare it to a conscript they are the same stats, but the eldar player pays 3 points more? Ok lol. Eldar guardians need to be buffed or lowered in point cost.

There are a few things that would make the Eldar Codex more viable.

1) Lower the Bright Lance cost to 25 points.

2) give the wave serpent fire points.

3) Give vypers twin linked weapons and an armor front value of 11.

4) Allow Dark Reapers to bring Str 8 Weapons.

5) Give Falcons an Armor value of 13, and allow its off weapon to be twin linked.

6) Allow Eldar Jetbikes to Bring Melta Weapons/Power Weapons.

7) Allow Shining spears to bring Melta Weapons/Give them a 4+ Invul with 3+ normal and or lower the points value.

8) Increase Wraithguards Range and give them an invul save.

9) Make Wraithlords an elite choice, Dreds are so why not wraithlord.

10) Make more Psychic Powers. A Str 8 Lighting Strike AP 2 would be nice.

11) Make Eldrad ignore instant death.
Give Phoenix lords invul saves.

12) Give Guardians something to make them actually decent or viable.

13) Warlock Power/Farseer Power- Open Warp/Teleport gate. 30 points.
Exarch Power- Teleport

"The Eldar Farseer is able to open a rift in the warp, allowing Eldar elite units with an exarch to warp in. During the Eldar players movement phase, if the eldar passes a psychic test, a warp is opened anywhere 6 inches from the eldar farseer. units warping in may assult/shoot that turn".

I think Eldar Elite choices should have the ability to Teleport in, much like CSM players and Icons. This would make eldar elite units viable, and would allow the eldar player to effectively use his elite units.

These are some of my ideas. I think GW must do a few things when updating the codex.
1) Rebalance the point costs, especially those of Bright Lances and Guardians.

2) GW needs to make Striking Scorpains an Banshees Viable. they need to reach their target somehow.

3) Eldar need Melta weapons on simple units.

4) More Phychic powers/Warlock powers need to be added.

5) The entire army should be given a BS of 4. Why does Eldar have Bs3 but Dark Eldar have bs4? It doesnt make sense and needs to be changed.

The best thing to do with Swooping Hawks, I think, is give their Exarch the ability to strike with haywire grenades at his usual number of attacks. Coupled with never needing more than 4+ to hit a vehicle, that means he'd have good chance of doing something to the vehicle, especially if the grenades are made better. Don't know what they are in the new Codex: Dark Eldar.

And it'd be good if they had the ability to consolidate d6 away from the vehicle BEFORE it gets to explode on them, taking half of the models with them.

As for the Dark Reapers, I quite like Gwydion's suggestion + DarknessEternal's, just as long as we realize Fast Shot on the whole squad equipped with EMLs is a bit OTT. Crack shot too.

The dark reapers role in 2nd (3rd?) Ed was long range with proper missile launchers. I don't see why we shouldn't consider changing them back, especially with the lean towards cover and vehicles in 5th ed?

5) The entire army should be given a BS of 4. Why does Eldar have Bs3 but Dark Eldar have bs4? It doesnt make sense and needs to be changed.

A Dark Eldar that isn't capable with a gun will end up as a corpse or stuck in a slave in a weapons factory. An Eldar that can't fire a gun can still be a highly successful and important part of their society, they can simply be drafted in as a guardian as and when they are desperatly needed.

I'm against giving Reapers EML's, I'm firmly in the "more variety = more fun" school of thought. When Guardians and every vehicle can have EML's why do you need a unit dedicated to them? I think Reapers would either need a S7 anti transport mode for their weapons, or the exarch to have a extra special anti tank weapon. Personally I'm a big fan of the Heavy 2 AP3 weapons, just not the mad point cost that comes with them!

I'd like to see Crack Shot made squad-wide for Dark Reapers instead of Exarch-only. But I'm concerned that might be a bit unbalanced.

Plus, I've a sneaking suspicion that if we did get that, it'd promptly get farmed out to the Marines, IG, and Tau in fairly short order...

give the wave serpent fire points.

I'm somewhat dubious about this one, personally. The Wave Serpent is supposed to be a sealed environment craft that can even be used in a vacuum. Firing points don't exactly fit with that. But firing points are so ridiculously common and over the top right now that I'm not sure what else could be done to compensate for the Serpent not having any. I think it would be fun to allow Rangers to snipe models using the firing points, but that might set a bad precedent.


My fluffy vibro-cannon idea -

Models hit by a vibro-cannon don't get cover saves (the ground is shaking - that wall you're hiding behind isn't going to protect you!). Additionally, any models hit by a vibro-cannon that are within an inch of an object that provides a 4+ or 5+ cover save must take a dangerous terrain test if they move during their next turn due to the cover being shaken and breaking apart (6+ cover is too light to pose a serious hazard, and 3+ cover is too sturdy to readily collapse).

@gorechild: I would be more than happy with this. I suppose if they went this way though, i would want BL's to come down a smidge in price. Yes, sacrificial fire dragons are great, but they're in almost every Eldar army and the Eldar aren't supposed to be a sacrificial style army. Every Eldar life is supposed to be sacred, dying race and all...

@Slice- If you hop back a couple of pages (maybe page 2 or 3?) you'll find all the changes we've suggested to heavy weapons in general, point reductions and changing things to stop everything being S6. They are the basic framework we've been working around.

Bit or a re-working and it comes out like this. Thoughts?

Dark Reaper
4 4 3 3 1 4 1 9 3+
Reaper Exarch
5 5 3 3 2 5 2 9 3+

SPECIAL RULES
Infantry.
WARGEAR
Reaper launcher: The reaper missile launcher has the following profiles:
Range: 48” S: 5 AP: 3 Heavy 2
Range: 48” S: 7 AP: 4 Heavy 2
EXARCH WARGEAR
Tempest Launcher: The Exarch has an ancient reaper launcher that fires clusters of small reaper missiles in a great arc. It has the following profiles:
Range: G48” S: 5 AP: 3
Heavy 2, ignores cover, pinning, small blast
EXARCH POWERS
Snap shot: The unit is adept at laying down a lethal hail of fire from any weapon on the move. If the unit moves their weapons are treated as Assault 1
Crack shot: The members of the unit are supreme masters of ranged combat, able to pinpoint their targets with unerring accuracy. Any cover saves claimed against a unit with crack shot have a -1 modifier.

dayve110 wrote:
WARGEAR
Reaper launcher: The reaper missile launcher has the following profiles:
Range: 48” S: 5 AP: 3 Heavy 2
Range: 48” S: 7 AP: 4 Heavy 2

I think Heavy 1 would be better (although that screws up the snap shot rule suggested), unless the AP was changed more significantly. Maybe you have S5 AP3 or (adding two to both stats) S7 AP5. I'm still not convinced that a unit theat can fire that many shots at such range shoud be that strong.

dayve110 wrote:
EXARCH WARGEAR
Tempest Launcher: The Exarch has an ancient reaper launcher that fires clusters of small reaper missiles in a great arc. It has the following profiles:
Range: G48” S: 5 AP: 3
Heavy 2, ignores cover, pinning, small blast

G48" is outdated, not that it makes any difference but I'd re word it to " Range: 48” S:5 AP:3 Heavy 2 blast, Barrage.

dayve110 wrote:
EXARCH POWERS
Snap shot: The unit is adept at laying down a lethal hail of fire from any weapon on the move. If the unit moves their weapons are treated as Assault 1
Crack shot: The members of the unit are supreme masters of ranged combat, able to pinpoint their targets with unerring accuracy. Any cover saves claimed against a unit with crack shot have a -1 modifier.

I like the snap shot suggestion, it's an alternative to giving them the option to move normally or have S&P.
Crackshot is a nice middle ground between what we have currently and the (IMO) slightly over the top idea of etting the whole unit ignore cover.

All in all I like it

Mahtamori wrote:How about some specific unit-to-unit synergy?
Dark Reapers: May draw line-of-sight to determine cover and target visibility with their missile weapons from any unit of Dark Reapers or Swooping Hawk.
(Swooping Hawks: Only roll one 1D6 instead of normal 2D6 if they attempt to land within 18" of a unit of Dark Reapers or Swooping Hawks.)

I'm not terribly certain on the second one, just thought I'd give something back to the Hawks.

I actually like this idea, different aspect warriors boosting each other, either as an innate special rule or as an Exarch power. It could result in some less used/viable units to be taken as a support roll for more popular ones. Preferably I would like to see them guided something like this:

-Exarch power: Needing both the giving and receiving units' Exarchs to take it. This would help balance points cost between scenarios of three giving units to one receiving unit (or reversed) and also let the point cost scale based on unit size if it becomes more advantageous if one half is larger (e.g. In the quoted DR/SH synergy 10pts per SH unit (so 10pts for one spotter unit, 30 for 3; Fixed price per unit as the effect is the same if there's 5 Hawks or 10) then a 2pts/model cost on the DR end (ability more powerful the more DR in a unit)).
-No aspect giving more than 2 bonuses: We don't want one aspect a must have because it gives a bonus to every other aspect
-No aspect receiving more than 2 bonuses: We don't want to take everything just to make one aspect invincible (or do we )
-Bonuses only travel one way: This would mean if the Hawk's synergy is to act as DR's spotters there would be no chance to have a synergy where Hawks get a bonus from DR. This would help cut down on the chances that a single team up will become a must have.

As for actual synergies (receiver/giver: (Power Name) power rules [Fluff Notes/reasoning]):
DR/Hawks: (Circling/Spotters) DR do not require LoS to fire upon a unit within 6" of a Hawk. Hit units do not receive cover saves from intervening units or terrain (Saves from occupied cover my still be taken). [Mahtamori's wording seemed a little too much for me, this way I feel it still gets the intention/fluff across without becoming too OPed]

Banshees/Scorpions: (Shady Backup) Any successful roll to wounds against a unit of Banshees may instead be taken against a unit of Scorpion engaged in assault with the attacker. This shift of wounds is done before rolling saves, which are then taken as normal. [While the foe is distracted by the Banshees' howls/onslaught, the Scorpions take the chance to sneak closer allowing their more nimble allies to jump back behind their tougher armour. Over all this leaves the Banshees more likely to survive after the initial assault, a problem they seem to have, but at an obvious risk. I had considered just giving the Banshees a reroll on the saves, but I like the idea of Eldar tactics being a little more subtle and deeper, do you take the hit and leave those better in prolonged assault, or do you take the better save to allow the Banshees to live long enough to get the first hit again later.]

Banshees/Avengers: ('kay, thanks, bye) While all enemy units currently in base to base with the Banshees are also in base to base with DA, the Banshees may make use of the Hit and Run USR. [With their part done the Banshees move one to find a fresh foe. Again Banshees don't like prolonged combat, but giving Banshees Hit and Run outright might be a little too much to ask.]

Hawks/Scorpion: (Sharp-Eyed Flankers) When attempting to deep strike within 12" of a Scorpion model, Hawks will only scatter 1d6". [With the Scorpion's infiltrate this can get the Hawks where you want them. The problems I saw with Mahtamori's suggestion was that 18" seemed like too large an area and DR are likely to stay back when you want Hawks attacking the enemy tanks that will also stay back (I think, did we ever really decided what to do with Hawks?)]

Shining Spears/DR: (Support Fire) Shining Spears do not need to test to use Hit and Run against a target hit be DR shooting in the Eldar's previous shooting phase. Alternative: Shining Spears gain +1 attack against a target hit be DR shooting in the Eldar's previous shooting phase. [As the foe cowers from the bombardment they are unprepared to engage the new areal threat]


I tried to keep the abilities somewhat toned down while also giving enough incentive to cause the "Standard" Eldar list to diversify and become more varied. I wanted to see it follow the patters of, "Well I'm taking DR, so it's probably a good idea to have a unit of Hawks to act as spotters. But I'll want them to Land where I want them, so a unit or two of Scorpions what go astray. If I'm taking Scorpions the..." Ideally all the synergies would come full circle so no matter where you start you'd end up wanting to take a unit of each.

One of the things I've always wished was better explored in the eldar codex was the property of being eldar that makes one psychically inclined.

Rules such as:
Rangers : all eldar units which fire at a unit rangers have shot at in the same shooting phase treat their weapons as twin linked
Guardians : may use the leadership value of any model within 12" for all leadership and morale tests.
Harlequins : enemies within 6" of harlequins suffer a -1 penalty to their leadership value for each model the harlequin unit outnumbers their unit by. (a 5-model Ld10 unit taking a test near a 10-man harlequin unit takes tests at ld5)
Farseers & warlocks: if a farseer can see the unit or model which inflicted a wound for which a warlock is about to roll a save against, the warlock may reroll if he fails.
Avatar: The avatar's strength is proportional to the number of eldar near him. He gains +1 S for every 10 models within 12".

Thoughts on above:
don't like EMLs on reapers. S8 is a very special strength value - it instant kills T4, obviously, which can be very powerful. S7 is anti-tank enough.

Dayve110's reapers are pretty nice, but i would change a few things -
#1 is add slow and purposeful
#2 is change the 3+ armor to 2+ armor

and thats it. point them right and i feel like those are good for DRs.

Smitty, a lot of your suggestions have problems...

2) wave serpent with fire points is iffy considering the durability of wave serpents and the firepower of some eldar units. This allows dragon wagons to move, flambe ANY tank in the game outside of the monolith, and place themselves at little to no risk of reprisals. That, all by itself, is a perfectly good reason to never put fire points on a wave serpent. (not to mention the fluff reasons)

4) Instant death to T4 models, no cover saves, ap3, high # of shots. No. (not for the amount of points i'd like to be able to field the models at, anyway)

5) Take away its ability to transport anything, and sure, why not.

6) Eldar jetbikes + meltas + power weapons = other troops choices never see the light of day (except for stormies. shooting their flamers and meltas out of firing points on wave serpents)

7) this doesn't fix shining spears. they suck because they're a fragile unit which has to get into CC against an enemy unit that is - small, high save, has no invulnerable, and can't hurt them in return.

8) wraithguard with an invulnerable save = a unit which will never, ever, ever die. +Range = yes, invuln = no.

9) Dreads aren't 3W T8 MCs.

10) not really in the idiom of the eldar. A better power would be the ability to make a psyker's head explode if he uses a psychic power which has a weapon profile.

11) I assume you mean Eternal warrior - why? he isn't an eternal warrior. He just isn't.
11.5) Sure, why not. They're still bad. They need more revamping than a invuln.

13) so, a farseer is sitting in a wave serpent, which moves flat out. The farseer then uses this power (which isn't a shooting attack), and deploys three eldar elite units, which can then do whatever they want. I hope I don't have to diagram why allowing a 36" charge range with absolutely no risk is a bad thing.

Gorechild wrote:All in all I like it

Thanks!

Just had a thought! Not much thinking through... but we can rip it apart and put it back together unit it works right.
So far we've been holding off on warlocks, if we bump up warlock power/stats/abilities to improve their units (guardians, storms, bikes) then we inevitably make the seer council OP... so...
Why not have 2 ranks of warlock? For working titles lets go with Apprentice and Battle Mage.

Essentially the Battle Mages are there for unit champion stand ins, having reieved sufficient training to be able to operate alone and command a unit. The battle mage for instance could be able to take 2 powers, one sustained, as it is now, always on and one requiring a psychic test. Along with a slightly better stat-line

The Apprentices would follow the farseer around, the farseer charged with keeping them safe while they learn important battefield roles. Their powers would be limited and basic, not having fully trained themselves in the art of war. There could be an option to include one battle mage, so as to have one powerful warlock spell but not OP the unit as a whole.

Here's a thought: how holy is the seer council?

There's a few ways you can go about this:
1. Keep it the way it is (Warlock unit is an independent unit purchased as a 0-1 upgrade to Farseers)
2. Stick the Seer Council down as an elite unit.
3. Scrap Seer Council completely and make them so that
a. you can purchase one warlock per type: infantry or type: jetbike squad, regardless of Aspect Warrior or not!
b. they are a body guard to Farseers
c. they may only be purchased by Guardian squads

Naturally, 3c lends itself best to upgrading the Warlocks, while the current strength-level on the Warlocks would lead to them being quite a good unit on their own right in the elite slot (2). If you are able to purchase them for all units (including for example Banshees) as per 3a, their psychic powers need to be looked over and the integration between certain Exarch abilities.

4. As an alternative you could revive them by incorporating them in craftworld specific sub-codices.
Non-Ulthwe can purchase them for Guardians, Ulthwe can purchase them for all non-jump infantry. Or Ulthwe can purchase entire units of them.

Design 4 lends itself best of all to power increase.

dayve110 wrote:

Gorechild wrote:All in all I like it

Thanks!

Just had a thought! Not much thinking through... but we can rip it apart and put it back together unit it works right.
So far we've been holding off on warlocks, if we bump up warlock power/stats/abilities to improve their units (guardians, storms, bikes) then we inevitably make the seer council OP... so...
Why not have 2 ranks of warlock? For working titles lets go with Apprentice and Battle Mage.

Essentially the Battle Mages are there for unit champion stand ins, having reieved sufficient training to be able to operate alone and command a unit. The battle mage for instance could be able to take 2 powers, one sustained, as it is now, always on and one requiring a psychic test. Along with a slightly better stat-line

The Apprentices would follow the farseer around, the farseer charged with keeping them safe while they learn important battefield roles. Their powers would be limited and basic, not having fully trained themselves in the art of war. There could be an option to include one battle mage, so as to have one powerful warlock spell but not OP the unit as a whole.

I like this alot too (you're on a roll this week ). It would sort out all of the problems we were worrying about with making them decent squad leaders

Maybe introduce 3 tiers of psychis powers: Seer, Warlock and Apprentice Warlock. Say you can select any powers from their tier or lower. Something along the lines of:

Seer: Doom, Guide, Fortune, Eldritch Storm (given we change it)
Warlock: Mind War, Conseal
Apprentice: Enhance, Destructor

Obviously that doesnt include everyhting but it will help with my example. A Doomseer could also have Conseal and be joined by 5 Apprentices with destructor. A guardian squad could be joined by a warlock with Conseal and enhance.

It would allow us to make psychers more prolific in the ary without uttery breaking the seer council.

The Seer council is good as it is, are we done with the Dark Reapers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and its much easier to talk about one unit at a time, so lets stick to it guys!

Nulipuli2 wrote:The Seer council is good as it is

Thats the point, they are brilliant as they are, but we want to be able to improve warlocks so that they become more prolific psykers without breaking the seer council.

Nulipuli2 wrote:are we done with the Dark Reapers?

Well there seem to be a lot of good suggestions from dayve110, if you check through his suggestion and find anything else you might want to tweak then we can throuw some more suggestions around

Dark Reapers: 20 points per model
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv
4 5 3 3 5 1 1 9 3+
Reaper Launcher:
48" Str: 5 AP:3 Heavy 1
or
48" Str: 7 AP:4 Heavy 1
Special Rules:
Slow and Purposeful
Exarch Powers:
Fast Shot-every dood in the unit gets +1 shot if the unit did not move
Crack Shot-enemy gets a -1 modifier on cover saves made


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i still find we should not change the warlocks, or the seer council. Maybe some more Psychic powers, but thats all