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.

 bullyboy wrote:
D2 power swords do not make sense for banshees

something something cool name ala lethal precision: Against <Infantry>, Banshee Sword is Damage 2. This will make them kill heavy infantry but do nothing against "unrealistic" targets.

I could see them getting D2 on the charge, given that they're shock troops. I think Shadenuat's idea is good as well, to help differentiate their specialty in hunting elite infantry.

Banshees have suffered from 3rd edition onwards for getting basic power weapons, rather than a Banshee Blade with a higher S value.

The S5 they got from a power sword in 2nd ed was what helped them kill things, even with all the hits they were able to do.

I think Banshees are getting D2. Making it D2 versus infantry maybe works - but it adds weird loopholes that are not great.

If you just go "they get 4 attacks, come at me" - what do Scorpions get? 6+?

 Shadenuat wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
D2 power swords do not make sense for banshees

something something cool name ala lethal precision: Against <Infantry>, Banshee Sword is Damage 2. This will make them kill heavy infantry but do nothing against "unrealistic" targets.

Make it D3 (or 4) and only if it kills a model. Otherwise 1.

Something unique and worthless against big stuff.


I feel they need to look at each Aspect and then make them really really good at ONE thing. And ok at other.

Then there is the protection. Which we need.

Some great ideas here. I liked the part about more protection with movement. But I would go with a kind of inverted Dark Reaper thing. Can only
Be hit on 3+, 4+ with full move, 5+ with advance. Kind of. That way the even harder units can have an invul aswell.

Then we have the psychers. Couldn't they give our troops protection a different way? Maybe a rule that gives units within 6" some small number of hits that can be made into misses. Maybe 1-2 for Warlocks. And 3 for farseer. Either as a phantasm thing, or that their psychic
Abilities charges the armour of the nearby units.
(This gives us more wounds, but without turning us into Marines).


Oh well. I must say I am really glad to read that people are (weirdly?) optimistic for the future.

 Farstrand wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
D2 power swords do not make sense for banshees

something something cool name ala lethal precision: Against <Infantry>, Banshee Sword is Damage 2. This will make them kill heavy infantry but do nothing against "unrealistic" targets.

Make it D3 (or 4) and only if it kills a model. Otherwise 1.

D2 is fine, 3W models should require concentrated firepower or heavy weapons to take down.

I still don't like banshees with D2 swords, hurts my head cannon (astartes wielding power swords D1 still). I think you have to make them better in a different way. I would say base 3A and 4 on charge (make it part of mask rule...no OW and +1A). That alone doubles their effectiveness. Thats 5 Banshees killing 2-3 marines without counting Exarch. D2 doubles that of course and makes the exchange 1 to 1. The only way that should happen is a rule like Devastating Charge, so it's D2 on charge only. I dont see that happening though.

As for scorpions, I think they need a redesign, horde blenders doesn't really fit.

I think Eldar players have to admit their base statlines are from old editions, it doesn't hold up anymore. But you can't make them stronger (although scorps have fluff to be S4). You can and should increase their attacks since they are faster than Astartes and should land more blows (since initiative isn't a thing anymore). Aspects need to show off their skills in special rules more than stat or weapon increases, so it doesn't feel artificial.
Now Exarchs on the other hand, god they should be beastly. I wish GW would acknowledge that in the rules.

I think Eldar players have to admit their base statlines are from old editions, it doesn't hold up anymore. But you can't make them stronger (although scorps have fluff to be S4). You can and should increase their attacks since they are faster than Astartes and should land more blows (since initiative isn't a thing anymore). Aspects need to show off their skills in special rules more than stat or weapon increases, so it doesn't feel artificial.
Now Exarchs on the other hand, god they should be beastly. I wish GW would acknowledge that in the rules.

I agree with this. Hopefully we'll be seeing some interesting changes to them in the near future.

It's possible for them steal one of the Lumineth rules from AoS for Aeldari in general, where when you nominate units to fight, you can choose 2 units instead of just 1 to go next. Makes multi-charging/multiple combats less threatening for Eldar.

Why not give Banshees the fight first rule that they get with Jan Zair without needing to have her nearby? Or even, give them a special rule that says that they always attack before any unit that they are engaged with. That way you can get your other charging units to swing before the enemy can interrupt and attack the banshees.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Why not give Banshees the fight first rule that they get with Jan Zair without needing to have her nearby? Or even, give them a special rule that says that they always attack before any unit that they are engaged with. That way you can get your other charging units to swing before the enemy can interrupt and attack the banshees.

That could be the new Banshee Mask rule to be honest, giving them the Judiciar rule of forcing the enemy unit they charge to only be able to attack last and thus not be eligible for counter-attack would make them much more relevant now that Overwatch is much more limited outside of Tau.

Mask should be strikes first and -1 attack for enemies units in engagement range.

The our banshees should get 3 base attacks and +1 on the charge and keep their acrobatic rule for advancing/charging.

And boom I think that's a solid unit. With things like LFR you can then make them somewhat survivable in melee.

With less attacks, hitting first and a potential minus to hit and decent amount of attacks should all add up to be decent threat.

I think D2 is unnecessary with these changes.

Maybe they can differentiate the scorpions from that kind of banshee by giving them assassinate rules:

On a 6 to wound the target receives 1 mortal wound.

Combined with a better mandiblaster and you get the scorpions with lower offence swords that are more likely to kill multi wound units, while banshees are blenders that go through lots of infantry.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Aspects can get different levels of exarch mastery as characters and squad leaders, you can have veteran aspect warrior squads who have trod that aspect multiple times and are REALLY good at it.

...


You can create more guardian command structures, with differing levels of autarch in training as well as other guardian squad types.

You can add new spirit seer ranks, you can add new types of wraith lord/guard.

Can you make those differing skill levels distinctive enough to be interesting and not render each other redundant though? What do "veteran scorpions" look like compared to normal scorpions? How do we make both feel like they're worth their points and not just have one unit be a less efficient version of the other? Ditto for the autarchs and spirit seers and so on. Sincere question. I'm open to it. I've just never looked at the crossover between assault marines and vanguard vets and felt that both were good options at the same time. Ditto captains and chapter masters.

So this is where I think I have a different outlook on 40k. There is what I would prefer, and there's what actually IS. And what IS, is that GW is willing and able to make lots of different units that are very similar for marines, and I would like that for eldar. It's not about whether they are different enough to warrant being their own unit, it's the equality of treatment. Sometimes getting your units uniquely separate for fluff is just as valid as having distinct rules.

So I will say what I always do - I don't care which route you go down so long as everyone is treated equally. A bazillion similar units for marines? ok, then give me a bazillion for eldar, orks, guard, tyranids etc.

Rolling all similar units into one profile for marines to simplify? Ok, then leave everyone else as they are.

The fact is that hobbling eldar unit variety because marines SHOULDN'T have that much variety only punishes eldar players by closing down the opportunity for that variety only for them.

Wyldhunt wrote:

You can add new aspects (or different aspect focus weapons for existing aspects - biting blade scorpions, shuriken cannon reapers etc)

Could be cool. I'd argue that it might be a big enough symbolic departure from the parent aspect to technically be an offshoot aspect rather than "real" scorpoins/reapers/etc., but could be cool. Again, the trick here is to make sure that biting blade scorpions aren't just straight up better or worse than normal scorpions.

I'm not sure how that could be given that the exarch wields the weapon as part of that shrine already. It's clearly a striking scorpion ritual weapon, or the exarch couldn't have it. This is why I've never been a fan of the flanderisation of the complexity of eldar war philosophy down to specific weapons. Scorpions aren't the aspect of the chainsword, they're the aspect of the stalking hunter so whatever weapon you use that allows you to do this is a legitimate representation of that aspect of khaine.

Otherwise you get this image of a disarmed aspect warrior on the battlefield incapable of fighting because the only weapon they know they should use was lost or destroyed and they won't pick up another one. The chainsword doesn't make a striking scorpion, the philosophy of the aspect does and it doesn't live or die based on what weapon he has. A naked striking scorpion fighting bare handed is still a scorpion (their war mask isn't just physical but psychological).

Wyldhunt wrote:

You can bring back the ghost assassin etc, having smaller, faster and lighter wraithguard units.

I'm chuckling at the mental image of a "sneaky" wraith guard bumping into walls, falling over, and randomly freezing up due to spirit sight issues. XD

There are a couple of ways you could reconcile that. One is to say that these chassis are Fall era and still contain some of the programming engrams that help run the system. So you get a soul/AI combo that makes it more awake and alert.

Or you could say that the chassis is lighter and faster and the souls chosen are only the most awake or something.


Plenty of options.

Tyel wrote:
I think Banshees are getting D2. Making it D2 versus infantry maybe works - but it adds weird loopholes that are not great.

If you just go "they get 4 attacks, come at me" - what do Scorpions get? 6+?

Harlequins work great at A4. If you asked me I'd place Harlequins and Scorpions at A4 (probably with a bonus attack in the case of scorps), all close-combat capable aspects at A3 (Banshees Spears and I'd include Dire Avengers since they are supposed to be 'the generalists that can do melee as well as shooting') and then shooting based aspects at A2 with Guardian units at A1. Kabalite Warriors being A2 can be a differentiating factor in the distinction between the more cc-focused dark eldar and the safer, heavy weapon having craftworld guardians (who mostly just need longer range at this point, because come on, 12" range on the super-cautious guardians and 24" range on the cuh-RAAAAZY hedonistic kabalite warriors?)

Considering base strength 3 and shock assault, eldar have a lot of design space to add a greater range of melee capabilities before they start horning in on the 99.999% of the game nobody is allowed to enter Lest They Require We Buff Astartes To Match The Lore.

Attacks are one important factor but not the only one.

eldar could have 10A each, but if they die before they can use them they're no good.


It's going to be a tough buy if they do nothing about survivability of the T3 W1 models.

We've seen the incubi are still T3 W1, but we also know that the DE get their power from pain resilience, so the incubi are slightly more resilient than they appear (unless they've removed that rule...).



IMO they should just create a racial rule that affects all eldar armies (like the angels of death rule affects all marines) that gives them some kind of speed based defence.

Then you can tweak them based on their army types, so power from pain for DE, holofields for Harlequins etc.

On a different note, how do we fix rangers ?

Are they mostly fine with a serious pt drop ? I think they could be as long as they get a proper scout deployment rule again.

 Argive wrote:
On a different note, how do we fix rangers ?

Are they mostly fine with a serious pt drop ? I think they could be as long as they get a proper scout deployment rule again.

IMO they should be one of a few load outs or options. They represent eldar on the path of the outcast, but not all eldar that leave to go on that path are issued cameleoline and a sniper rifle....

Their main thing is wandering the webway, giving them better access to battlefields.

But you should be able to take other equipment like catapults or lasblasters, or CCW and pistols to represent different types of outcast bands coming to the aid of their craftworld. The advantage here is that you can kind of fold corsairs into the same units, and thus have them available to play again.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Argive wrote:
On a different note, how do we fix rangers ?

Are they mostly fine with a serious pt drop ? I think they could be as long as they get a proper scout deployment rule again.

IMO they should be one of a few load outs or options. They represent eldar on the path of the outcast, but not all eldar that leave to go on that path are issued cameleoline and a sniper rifle....

Their main thing is wandering the webway, giving them better access to battlefields.

But you should be able to take other equipment like catapults or lasblasters, or CCW and pistols to represent different types of outcast bands coming to the aid of their craftworld. The advantage here is that you can kind of fold corsairs into the same units, and thus have them available to play again.

the most important thing for them is to get a scout deploy rule IMO. But yes, giving them actual weapons would be a big plus. My rangers basically never killed anything

They are not killy.. But I have managed to plink off key MW wounds on a doomed targets without having to sink major firepower to finish off.. Their main problem isint the gun its the BS. As they are usually out screening/sitting in cover they don't have acess to autarch rerolls and youre not going to cast guide on them.

Their main shtick was just being hard to remove for their pts. With alitoic them sitting out anywhere at -2 was a pain in the ass.

I think that they should have Bs2 and scout move which should allow them to work independantly.

Was thinking about the MW going off on 5's or make them D3 on 6's.. But then everyone would just spam rangers and doom?
So they need something else. Maybe solid ap -3 And 2 damage vs infantry or D1 normaly plus BS2 with option to target characters would give them a role.

 Argive wrote:
They are not killy.. But I have managed to plink off key MW wounds on a doomed targets without having to sink major firepower to finish off.. Their main problem isint the gun its the BS. As they are usually out screening/sitting in cover they don't have acess to autarch rerolls and youre not going to cast guide on them.

Their main shtick was just being hard to remove for their pts. With alitoic them sitting out anywhere at -2 was a pain in the ass.

I think that they should have Bs2 and scout move which should allow them to work independantly.

Was thinking about the MW going off on 5's or make them D3 on 6's.. But then everyone would just spam rangers and doom?
So they need something else. Maybe solid ap -3 And 2 damage vs infantry or D1 normaly plus BS2 with option to target characters would give them a role.

Giving the current scaling of 40k, you could make all specialist eldar units 2+ in their chosen stat(s) and it wouldn't do a huge amount.

BS2+ rangers, reapers, dragons, avengers, crimson hunters, hawks
WS2+ banshees, spears, scorpions, avengers, spiders (this would be a retooling of spiders back to having auto hit flamers and making them more of an assault unit)

You could apply that to the current dex right now and (apart from hunters and reapers) it wouldn't have a huge impact.


IMO I still think that they should get better armour - eldar armour was always described as better than anything anyone else made.

Given that terminator armour is now: 2+Sv, +1w, 5++

Making scorpions, reapers, spiders, dragons 2+ sv, banshees, hawks, avengers, spears 3+ sv, and guardians 4+ sv would increase their survivability a tiny bit (but they're still all T3 W1), but not a lot.


WS/BS 2+ and Sv 2+/3+ for aspects would be a pretty simple way to make them better.

I will have to disagree I think that would make a huuuge impact to how reliable and killy these are..

The alpha strike potential in these units would be very high.

Imagine Dark reapers at BS2+ with inescapable accuracy getting a throw away reroll 1's from skytarch... That's worse than SM CM rerolls cheese... as its very close to 100% hitting.

Fire dragon also would suddenly look interesting - 5x Bs2+ fusion shots at 115 pts jumping out of a falcoln or webway ? with no need for troops.. thats pretty decent spend to fill the elite slot. Again chuck in an autarch for reroll 1's here and there and a doom and thats a lot of damage. Yes it all dies if soemthing looks at it but at least the cannon of the glass cannon part would be vaguely true.

Add some cheekey strategems ala Embark on transport after firing/ JSJ or something and you can see a very flowy mobile and lethal army on the table top.

I do agree aspect and heavy aspect armour needs to do more. Its just not enough currently.
a 2+ & -1 to wound would be decent.

 Hellebore wrote:
Attacks are one important factor but not the only one.

eldar could have 10A each, but if they die before they can use them they're no good.


It's going to be a tough buy if they do nothing about survivability of the T3 W1 models.

Eldar survivability is called a Wave Serpent or Falcon. They really can't be anything other than T3 1W, they're elves.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Attacks are one important factor but not the only one.

eldar could have 10A each, but if they die before they can use them they're no good.


It's going to be a tough buy if they do nothing about survivability of the T3 W1 models.

Eldar survivability is called a Wave Serpent or Falcon. They really can't be anything other than T3 1W, they're elves.

Why? Because they were T3/1W in 3e? Space Marines had 1W/1A then. Crisis Suits had 2W, a battle cannon couldn't hit a vehicle more than once, and a Wave Serpent was 12/12/10, which is now gibberish.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Attacks are one important factor but not the only one.

eldar could have 10A each, but if they die before they can use them they're no good.


It's going to be a tough buy if they do nothing about survivability of the T3 W1 models.

Eldar survivability is called a Wave Serpent or Falcon. They really can't be anything other than T3 1W, they're elves.

Why? Because they were T3/1W in 3e? Space Marines had 1W/1A then. Crisis Suits had 2W, a battle cannon couldn't hit a vehicle more than once, and a Wave Serpent was 12/12/10, which is now gibberish.

Because marines should have had 2W from the beginning. We've seen incubi stats....better get used to T3 1W elves (outside of tougher elements)

Why does an exarch have 2 W ?

Legitamate question. Whats the physical difference between an exarch and an aspect warrior apart?
The only difference is experience

 Argive wrote:
I will have to disagree I think that would make a huuuge impact to how reliable and killy these are..

The alpha strike potential in these units would be very high.

Imagine Dark reapers at BS2+ with inescapable accuracy getting a throw away reroll 1's from skytarch... That's worse than SM CM rerolls cheese... as its very close to 100% hitting.

Fire dragon also would suddenly look interesting - 5x Bs2+ fusion shots at 115 pts jumping out of a falcoln or webway ? with no need for troops.. thats pretty decent spend to fill the elite slot. Again chuck in an autarch for reroll 1's here and there and a doom and thats a lot of damage. Yes it all dies if soemthing looks at it but at least the cannon of the glass cannon part would be vaguely true.

Add some cheekey strategems ala Embark on transport after firing/ JSJ or something and you can see a very flowy mobile and lethal army on the table top.

I do agree aspect and heavy aspect armour needs to do more. Its just not enough currently.
a 2+ & -1 to wound would be decent.

yes I think reapers and hunters would be improved more than others. reapers should be 3-6 per unit though.

So I'd go something like:

Banshees
M8 WS2+ BS3+ S3 T3 W1 A3 Ld8 Sv3+
M8 WS2+ BS2+ S3 T3 W3 A4 Ld9 Sv3+

Scorpions
M7 WS2+ BS3+ S3 T3 W1 A3 Ld8 Sv2+
M7 WS2+ BS2+ S3 T3 W3 A4 Ld9 Sv2+

Avengers
M7 WS2+ BS2+ S3 T3 W1 A2 Ld8 Sv3+
M7 WS2+ BS2+ S3 T3 W3 A3 Ld9 Sv3+

Guardians
M7 WS3+ BS3+ S3 T3 W1 A1 Ld8 Sv4+


Autarch
M7 WS3+ BS3+ S3 T3 W5 A4 Ld9 Sv3+

Exarch Shrine Lord
M8 WS2+ BS2+ S4 T4 W4 A5 Ld9 Sv2+

Phoenix Lord
M8 WS2+ BS2+ S5 T5 W6 A6 Ld10 Sv2+












Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Attacks are one important factor but not the only one.

eldar could have 10A each, but if they die before they can use them they're no good.


It's going to be a tough buy if they do nothing about survivability of the T3 W1 models.

Eldar survivability is called a Wave Serpent or Falcon. They really can't be anything other than T3 1W, they're elves.

Right, so the fact that an exarch in 2nd ed was S4 T4 is irrelevant? That their bodies fuse to their armour and eventually they're just a walking suit of armour with souls swirling in them? Or that Farseers get tougher the older they get because they literally turn to crystal?

Or that Exarchs in 2nd ed had 2 wounds (as much as chaplain and librarian characters and only 1 less than a marine captain) could take +1 Toughness as an exarch warrior power which describes the exarchs as simply being 'incredibly resilient', making them Toughness 5?

Did you know that the eldar had 3 characters with Toughness 6 in 2nd ed, more than all the marine codices combined?

Karandras, Maugan and Eldrad were all T6, eldrad because he was old and crystal, karandras and maugan because they both had the Tough warrior power. This meant that that power swords (s5) only wounded them on 5+.


Kung fu magic psyker powers mean that the eldar are far more than just T3 elves.

 Hellebore wrote:

IMO they should be one of a few load outs or options. They represent eldar on the path of the outcast, but not all eldar that leave to go on that path are issued cameleoline and a sniper rifle....

I mean... they kind of do the way Path of the Outcast portrays it. The main character goes ranger for a while and ends up on an outcast ship with weapon lockers that seem to be stocked exclusively with camo cloaks and long rifles. IIRC, they explain that being farther from the heart of the fighting makes it easier to resist becoming lost to Khaine if you haven't developed a proper warmask by treading the path of the warrior.

But I'm not opposed to giving rangers more loadouts ghostwalker band style. Alternatively, how about giving them a Shoot Sharp and Scarper type rule (basically fire and fade) so that they can improve their durability by getting out of LoS? Seems appropriate for a bunch of sneaky elves wearing camo cloaks. Other possible fixes for them:

* A simple points drop (a deepstriking troop is kind of useful even if it's neither survivable nor killy.)
* Maybe just give them their -1 to being hit back? Feels like the points adjuster guy didn't get the memo that they were losing this. Ironically, this makes the Alaitoc trait less useful for them.
* Give their rifles two profiles; a heavy profile with a better AP value, and an assault profile with the baked in move-shoot-move rule I suggested above. So on a given turn, you're either using your ninja elf reflexes to run and gun or to line up better shots.
* Giving them infiltrate would make them more useful, but it would also make them a sacrificial speedbump. Which feels like the opposite of what they should be.

I also like the idea of bringing back eldar pathfinders as elite character units. Give them a gun that's a bit more threatening to characters. Maybe let them "charge up" their shot by aiming for a turn, doing more damage on the following turn when they do shoot. It would be pretty natural to want them to be screened by rangers at that point (most other options are too valuable to use as a screen or too mobile to babysit them). So you'd be indirectly encouraging people to field more rangers in a ranger themed (Alaitoc) army.

Right, an Exarch was S4, T4, but aspeocts weren't. That's my point, basic Eldar (Guardians, Aspects) are T3, 1W.
Exarchs, as you say, begin to fuse with their armour and therefore were given 2W.
Now, I'm in the camp that feels an Exarch should be S4, T4, 2W...at a minimum. I've stated elsewhere that I think they should be separated from the sqd and work like Lts where you get 2 for 1 slot, or even 0 slots if you take a unit of their particular Aspect. Doubt that will happen.

I'm not opposed to tougher Eldar (agree with your Phoenix Lord stats too), just not on guardians or aspects. I could lean for a S4 scorpion, but GW already artificially did that with a +1S chainsword.
I'm just hoping for a complete overhaul of Eldar infantry as I feel that they (outside of the wraithknight) are the only real issues in the codex. The armour and wraith constructs work just fine.

We need Pathfinders back instead of rangers, which belong in the bin now modelwise IMHO.

I would like to see a ranger type unit with 2+BS, 3+sv, maybe 2 wounds? Make them more like Aspect warriors than Guardians.
The cloak could give -1 to hit in light cover and -1 to wound in dense to show their superior hiding skills?
The rifle could have S5 -1(-4 on 6?) ignore move penalty for heavy when set up for first time from reserve.

Just spitballin but they could easily replace them with a new box that we'd all jump on.

I do like the idea of an assault/CQC variant as well.

kryczek wrote:
We need Pathfinders back instead of rangers, which belong in the bin now modelwise IMHO.

I would like to see a ranger type unit with 2+BS, 3+sv, maybe 2 wounds? Make them more like Aspect warriors than Guardians.
The cloak could give -1 to hit in light cover and -1 to wound in dense to show their superior hiding skills?
The rifle could have S5 -1(-4 on 6?) ignore move penalty for heavy when set up for first time from reserve.

Just spitballin but they could easily replace them with a new box that we'd all jump on.

I do like the idea of an assault/CQC variant as well.

I think thats currently the niche occupied by scorpions. Stealthy CQC unit that likes cover