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.

Amanax wrote:See, and I feel things should move in the other direction. The problems you pointed out are true, however, going with more defensive stats would again promote a more static style of play. I would rather have more hit and run special abilities combined with slightly higher firing strength to provide that more mobile firepower that Eldar should be.

Well, you cannot really go static with an Eldar army. Like... IIRC only Dark Reapers have weapons that allow this. Everyone else should go around (with better or worse saves), as they need to get close to their targets. The only difference with better save is that they will suffer less casualties from the attack/counter-attack. And of course the player will feel way more safe with them as they can survive tactical fumbles.

I don't have any intention to boost their armour saves largely across the board. It would simply unbalance things IMHO. Such a change would make Scorpions, Spiders et al. as 2+ and Banshees, Hawks, Avengers et al. as 3+ and that's not needed and isn't fair on Marine players.
If you then suggest only having it not reach 2+, then it's Scorpions and Spiders et al. being imbalanced against.

Increased durability in true Eldar fashion is provided by A: Increased range on Shuriken Weaponry and B: Eldar fleet.
The advantages of increased range is obvious, the advantage of Eldar fleet allows for increased movement in an offensive fashion, to close the gap with the enemy or contest objectives, or in a defensive fashion to avoid return fire/charges or back into cover.

As has been stated, increasing their saves largely encourages more static and callous gameplay, rather than the surgical, glass-scalpel nature that Eldar are renowned for and that this Codex (IMHO) emphasises.

I understand the merits of increasing their armour saves, but as you basically said yourself, it's a fairly 'lazy' fix and IMHO it is not needed in this/my Codex, doesn't fit with the fluff and would otherwise imbalance the Codex.

I believe with the changes I've made, it's not needed. Eldar are individually often expected to not have the punch or durability to work individually, that's why you manipulate it to their advantage.
For example, a Dire Avenger unit may be unlikely to wipe a Tactical Squad, so that's why you use Bladestorm and/or Doom and/or Guide and/or combine them with another squad.

Ultimately, it's not happening and hopefully I've explained why sufficiently.

They key with Eldar is movement. Being faster than the opponent is key in surviving, and should continue to provide some safety if they go fast (cover saves, harder to hit, etc), plus the added mobility of finding and selecting targets.

And obviously, Eldar needing this perhaps a bit more than other armies, but usually you need to isolate small parts of the enemy force and combine your targets to really only deal with 1-2 enemy units a turn. Maybe a pot shot here or here to shut down a tank for a round, but you really have to pool your resources to kill that one tactical squad, or deepstriking Terminators, or whatever. But between avenger/guardian fire with support Cannons/Emls/Scatter lasers, etc for infantry, and various heavy weapons/Fire Dragons for tanks, etc, you can lay some serious damage to secure wiping out a unit. Combined with Force multipliers like Guide, Doom, and Fortune, isolating units seems to be one of the best strategies for Eldar.

My point here is that any modification to the rules should encourage this style of play, with fitting in with the Eldar style and feel. Eldar are a dying race, few and far between; for them war is a delicate balance of fates, each death weighs a heavy toll on the battlefield. Being fragile and dying easily to the enemy's weaponry makes winning a well earned challenge of outwitting and solidly outplaying the opponent with all the tools they bring to their disposal.

With this in mind, I highly approve of some of the ideas in this codex - Vyper Jetbikes getting an assault move, for instance - keeping the feel, making it a little more competitive. Eldar Fleet? Make em faster than the other armies again, another great step.

..... One idea for the "Eldar Fleet" Rule ... subtle, but possibly a good choice: what if Eldar infantry moved an additional 1" for models with Fleet via a universal army special rule? Base move 7" vs. 6"? Might be silly (like the paint it red rule), but to make Eldar able to outrun slightly with an advantage, without running waaaaay too far (9" or 12", for instance), might be a fun choice, as you benefit from the speed before choosing to shoot/run.

Edit:
Obviously Eldar can go the footdar route with slow units aka War Walkers, Wraithlord, Reapers and Rangers ... not that this playstyle is bad, just seemed that the outmaneuvering was a key Eldar Tactic and feel. I'm just really enjoying my Mechdar right now (new army, yay!).

Brilliant Fandex but some of the points prices went up for no viable reason ie Maugan Ra (nerfed) Avatar (230 points....ouch?) and Eldrad (Nooooo!!! Give us back T4 and re-deploy ability!)

A couple things: is the Avatar's Wailing Doom a power weapon? Also, why is the Wraithlord now T7? Also, how did you make the template/layout for the codex?

This looks interesting, I'd have to make a more thorough reading to give you more detailed feedback but I would like to note two things one a quick glance:

Typo: On page 43, the Runes of Emanation add 6" to the range of the effect of Runes of Witnessing, since Runes of Witnessing don't actually have a range I suspect you meant Runes of Warding.

Errata: On page 28, the Swooping Hawks' Intercept rule as written allows them to hit a Venerable Dreadnaught on a 4+ in close combat despite it having a WS of 5; the official GW errata for the current Eldar Codex specifies that the rule applies to vehicles without a WS, you may want to add that clause.

Other notes:

Seer Strike Force should put limits on the number of Aspect Warriors taken to remain in-character, I think, probably make any Aspect unit 0-1.

If we're adding additional units (you added a new Aspect and the Harlequin Shadowseer into Elites), I'd like to request the Firestorm and Warp Hunter grav-tanks make it into these rules in one form or another.

Replying on my phone, so I'll reply to the quicker comments now...

Lightning Shadows wrote:Brilliant Fandex but some of the points prices went up for no viable reason ie Maugan Ra (nerfed) Avatar (230 points....ouch?) and Eldrad (Nooooo!!! Give us back T4 and re-deploy ability!)

Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words. I suspect some of the things you think are nerfed actually have improved in other ways:
The Avatar is much tougher and hits much harder; having more versatile ranged attack or extra close combat attack, as well as re-rolls and is much tougher. With FNP only 4 ranged weapons in the SM Codex can (IIRC) reliably negate his FNP and armour save; plasma weapons (which are rare) and Lascannons; meaning he's much tougher, acts as target saturation for vehicles and doesn't rely on a Farseer to survive.

Eldrad is more fragile, but divination is arguably better, his offensive psychic powers are better, he has lots of buffs via Runes and more powers overall. And lets be fair, he's arguably too good in the current Codex.

Finally, Maugan Ra is arguably better than before; being a much better force multiplier, having more shots and actually still being Str6 vs. Vehicles. I have realised however that his Exarch powers aren't in-line with the Reapers new powers; count them as if they were.

McNinja wrote:A couple things: is the Avatar's Wailing Doom a power weapon? Also, why is the Wraithlord now T7? Also, how did you make the template/layout for the codex?

The Avatar's a MC, so ignores saves in CC.
The Wraithlords got 2 more wounds, so is actually tougher, whilst there's few (if any) T8 models left in the game. I didn't really examine his cost closely when i changed him to W5, T7 so I'll give that another look to make sure i think its fair.
The template was actually originally designed by Majortom11 (who also designed the new Dakka logo) for my CSM Codex, but otherwise its done in Word and converted into a PDF.

Just Dave wrote:
The Avatar's a MC, so ignores saves in CC.
The Wraithlords got 2 more wounds, so is actually tougher, whilst there's few (if any) T8 models left in the game. I didn't really examine his cost closely when i changed him to W5, T7 so I'll give that another look to make sure i think its fair.
The template was actually originally designed by Majortom11 (who also designed the new Dakka logo) for my CSM Codex, but otherwise its done in Word and converted into a PDF.

I seemed to have missed the whole "MC" thing... And I do believe that the Wraithlord would be the last one. However, 5 wounds more than makes up for it. I've also tried using word, and it has sort of worked. Perhaps I just need more text boxes.

evildrspock wrote:They key with Eldar is movement. Being faster than the opponent is key in surviving, and should continue to provide some safety if they go fast (cover saves, harder to hit, etc), plus the added mobility of finding and selecting targets.

And obviously, Eldar needing this perhaps a bit more than other armies, but usually you need to isolate small parts of the enemy force and combine your targets to really only deal with 1-2 enemy units a turn. Maybe a pot shot here or here to shut down a tank for a round, but you really have to pool your resources to kill that one tactical squad, or deepstriking Terminators, or whatever. But between avenger/guardian fire with support Cannons/Emls/Scatter lasers, etc for infantry, and various heavy weapons/Fire Dragons for tanks, etc, you can lay some serious damage to secure wiping out a unit. Combined with Force multipliers like Guide, Doom, and Fortune, isolating units seems to be one of the best strategies for Eldar.

My point here is that any modification to the rules should encourage this style of play, with fitting in with the Eldar style and feel. Eldar are a dying race, few and far between; for them war is a delicate balance of fates, each death weighs a heavy toll on the battlefield. Being fragile and dying easily to the enemy's weaponry makes winning a well earned challenge of outwitting and solidly outplaying the opponent with all the tools they bring to their disposal.

With this in mind, I highly approve of some of the ideas in this codex - Vyper Jetbikes getting an assault move, for instance - keeping the feel, making it a little more competitive. Eldar Fleet? Make em faster than the other armies again, another great step.

Thanks man, this is basically exactly what I was shooting for and my motivation behind the changes.
Furthermore, the increased fallback distance also represents their speed, need to conserve lives and adds balance.

..... One idea for the "Eldar Fleet" Rule ... subtle, but possibly a good choice: what if Eldar infantry moved an additional 1" for models with Fleet via a universal army special rule? Base move 7" vs. 6"? Might be silly (like the paint it red rule), but to make Eldar able to outrun slightly with an advantage, without running waaaaay too far (9" or 12", for instance), might be a fun choice, as you benefit from the speed before choosing to shoot/run.

Thanks again for the feedback.
I did originally consider this, but IMHO it doesn't quite represent their speed in its entirety, whilst it also doesn't provide the hit-and-run benefits of the current Eldar Fleet, which also has key restrictions, such as those for Heavy Weapons and when units would be unable to perform an assault move.

AnomanderRake wrote:This looks interesting, I'd have to make a more thorough reading to give you more detailed feedback but I would like to note two things one a quick glance:

Typo: On page 43, the Runes of Emanation add 6" to the range of the effect of Runes of Witnessing, since Runes of Witnessing don't actually have a range I suspect you meant Runes of Warding.

Errata: On page 28, the Swooping Hawks' Intercept rule as written allows them to hit a Venerable Dreadnaught on a 4+ in close combat despite it having a WS of 5; the official GW errata for the current Eldar Codex specifies that the rule applies to vehicles without a WS, you may want to add that clause.

Ooooh, thanks man, very good spots. I'll change those for the next update. Cheers!

Other notes:

Seer Strike Force should put limits on the number of Aspect Warriors taken to remain in-character, I think, probably make any Aspect unit 0-1.

One of my design philosophies - that can also be seen in my CSM Codex and upcoming SM Codex - is to avoid restricting the player where possible, but to provide them the opportunity to customise and make unique armies, without going overboard.
Basically, I let the unit choices and FoC account for the vast majority of the customisation, but push/encourage the player in a certain direction and allow them to specialise through modifiers such as the Legion Rules and Autarch Powers (and later Chapter Tactics).

As I said, I'm really not a fan of restrictors and often i feel they're not needed. For example, with Seer Strike Force, you'd already be liable to eat away at your Elites section via Farseers, whilst the increased usability of non-aspect units itself discourages the use of Aspect Warriors. It's subtle, but IMHO it works, but I'm aware (and OK with this) that it's not entirely fool-proof.

If we're adding additional units (you added a new Aspect and the Harlequin Shadowseer into Elites), I'd like to request the Firestorm and Warp Hunter grav-tanks make it into these rules in one form or another.

I did originally consider these, but decided against it as A) they're Forgeworld's units, B) the HS slot is pretty damn well accommodated for already and C) They're not really needed.
I can really understand you suggesting so - and as I said, I did originally consider it - but I feel there are several reasons for them not to be included, whilst I'm perfectly happy for them to remain as Forge World units, which are themselves more usable [with other players] then Fandex's!

Thanks for the feedback man, much appreciated.

Honestly, I couldn't be more chuffed with this codex. You have created a codex which actually fits in with fluff and is fair while allowing for fun builds! I am definatly going to be using this (providing my buddies will let me )

And did I see you're planning on doing a Space Marine one?

The thing with speed is that it's only a defense if it allows you to do extra movement after you've executed what your unit is meant to do, or if it allows you to get into a position in which you are safe (such as close combat, in case you are a good CC unit).
In the case of the Eldar, they lack both the armour and toughness to withstand much firepower or melee, even their dedicated melee units, and their weapons are the shortest ranged weapons of all codexes bar Tyranids - even shorter ranged than their more melee-oriented dark kin.
As such, simply adding movement to the Eldar will not really benefit them much. Sure, they will be able to unleash their weapons prior to as sever casualties, but it is not protection.

Now, should Eldar simply have improved armour save the balance between Dark Eldar and Craftworld will shift such that Craftworlders are on average tougher but more susceptible to power weapons (melee units have no dodge). When compared with Marines, Eldar will still be lower toughness and lower strength.
Warp Spiders, Scorpions and Reapers would be the Eldar equivalents of Terminators, but without the invulnerable saves, and I don't think this is a bad thing as such, it's just that the perception need to shift from comparing Scorpions to assault marines.
I am really warming to this idea, although something would still need to be done in order to make Wraithguard and Jetbikes actually worth while and to make Wraithlords more than just gimmicky.

My current problem with the Eldar codex is simply thus: I don't want to use any troop choices.

(P.S. written at work as a response to page 7, sort of, so this is my disclaimer for oddities)

I feel that increased armor saves is the LAST thing Eldar need, that will take them into the opposite direction of their fluff. The game needs it's share of lower than 3+ Armor Saves, and the Eldar fulfill that role quite nicely with a variety of units. I am quite happy with majority 4+ armor on Aspect Warriors, that is formidable enough for my pointy-eared folk. Craftworld Eldar are already much tougher than Dark Eldar anyways, with Grav-TANKS and higher saves. I admit I am not too familiar with the new Dark Eldar, but I remember they had lots of 5+ & 6+ armor saves before.

I never thought about their Range being so short compared to other codexes. Are they really shorter Ranged than Marines, a run-of the mill for average ranges? Sure, Shuriken Catapults are 12" Assault, but Avenger Catapults balance it out nicely with 18" Assault, and they have plenty of Range 36", even some 48", 60" & 72". I can see Tau & Imperial Guard out-ranging Eldar for sure, but not really other armies.

It's true the Troop Choices are generally short Range (gotta love 12" Catapults!), but then you have units of Rangers with Sniper Rifles, & 2 others can take Wave Serpents, so ... I would offer Eldar are a strong middle-range.

Yeah, I've explained why already, but I am not putting in increased armour saves throughout the Codex.

And as for troops being weak, I'd like to think that's a problem with their official Codex, not this one.

Just a random question that was brought up in a game: the high heavy weapons costs are intentional or some uncleaned leftover from the previous editions? Because 30/25pts Bright Lances are kinda'... expensive.

Also, did you consider a Melta Cannon-like heavy weapon? A multi-melta with Blast. It could help to balance the longer ranged anti-AV14 monopoly of lance weapons.

Oh, I just remembered.

Part of me always wanted an Autarch with swooping hawk wings to make swooping hawks troops/scoring/D3 scoring/one unit scoring. They're badass models, and they're certainly better in your iteration, but there's just something extra about making them scoring if you have a winged autarch.

Just a thought.

*Edit* I also re-remembered something else.

In the wargear section listing weapon profiles, the laser lance and star lance are stated as being AP1.

In the wargear section for close combat weapons, it explains what they do in close combat, and also that their ranged attack is AP3. Which one is correct?

That would make swooping hawks go from suck to awesome quite quickly.

I still think Swooping Hawk's Rifles should have a vehicle armor penetration rule similar to the Hawk Grenades

Blacksails wrote:
Part of me always wanted an Autarch with swooping hawk wings to make swooping hawks troops/scoring/D3 scoring/one unit scoring. They're badass models, and they're certainly better in your iteration, but there's just something extra about making them scoring if you have a winged autarch.

If you take an Autarch with Swordwind (or what) then your Swooping Hawks become Troops (and thus Scoring).

AtoMaki wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
Part of me always wanted an Autarch with swooping hawk wings to make swooping hawks troops/scoring/D3 scoring/one unit scoring. They're badass models, and they're certainly better in your iteration, but there's just something extra about making them scoring if you have a winged autarch.

If you take an Autarch with Swordwind (or what) then your Swooping Hawks become Troops (and thus Scoring).

Swooping hawks are not included in that list.

Blacksails wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
Part of me always wanted an Autarch with swooping hawk wings to make swooping hawks troops/scoring/D3 scoring/one unit scoring. They're badass models, and they're certainly better in your iteration, but there's just something extra about making them scoring if you have a winged autarch.

If you take an Autarch with Swordwind (or what) then your Swooping Hawks become Troops (and thus Scoring).

Swooping hawks are not included in that list.

Nah... that's just a mistype. Everything else are in, but no Swooping Hawks? That should be accidental.

AtoMaki wrote:

Blacksails wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
Part of me always wanted an Autarch with swooping hawk wings to make swooping hawks troops/scoring/D3 scoring/one unit scoring. They're badass models, and they're certainly better in your iteration, but there's just something extra about making them scoring if you have a winged autarch.

If you take an Autarch with Swordwind (or what) then your Swooping Hawks become Troops (and thus Scoring).

Swooping hawks are not included in that list.

Nah... that's just a mistype. Everything else are in, but no Swooping Hawks? That should be accidental.

I'm hoping so...but we'll wait for Dave.

very nice job!

Swooping Hawks not being included under Swordwind is indeed an accident and will be rectified.
I'll address the other points later. As ever, all feedback is welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cheapbuster wrote:very nice job!

Thanks man. Nice Avatar btw.

evildrspock wrote:That would make swooping hawks go from suck to awesome quite quickly.

I still think Swooping Hawk's Rifles should have a vehicle armor penetration rule similar to the Hawk Grenades

Blacksails wrote:Part of me always wanted an Autarch with swooping hawk wings to make swooping hawks troops/scoring/D3 scoring/one unit scoring. They're badass models, and they're certainly better in your iteration, but there's just something extra about making them scoring if you have a winged autarch.

Personally, I'm very satisfied with the role and abilities of Swooping Hawks in my Codex; I think they're a solid and versatile unit, much improved over their maligned official counterpart. I.e. I think they're far from "suck" (whether that was a reference to my 'Hawks, or the official ones, the point stands) and I don't believe any further revisions are really needed, except maybe a boost to Haywire grenades, which i am currently looking at.

As has been clarified - and VERY good spot, thanks for seeing that - they're supposed to be 0-1 troops as part of Swordwind, which has been added.

In the wargear section listing weapon profiles, the laser lance and star lance are stated as being AP1.

In the wargear section for close combat weapons, it explains what they do in close combat, and also that their ranged attack is AP3. Which one is correct?

Again, very good spot Blacksails, thanks! The AP3 is the correct version and will be changed.

AtoMaki wrote:Just a random question that was brought up in a game: the high heavy weapons costs are intentional or some uncleaned leftover from the previous editions? Because 30/25pts Bright Lances are kinda'... expensive.

Most of the prices are intentional, some of them are slightly-cleaned left-overs from the previous edition. I can see the point though and it's been edited so 25pts is the maximum cost for an upgrade-version of the Bright Lance (still being 30pts for a Wraithlord, as he doesn't purchase it as an upgrade and is BS4).

Also, did you consider a Melta Cannon-like heavy weapon? A multi-melta with Blast. It could help to balance the longer ranged anti-AV14 monopoly of lance weapons.

I don't really see the problem of the monopoly of lance weapons for AV14 tbh. Amongst other things, the Eldar probably still possess more long ranged anti-AV14 weapons that most other Codices, having the Prism Cannon, Bright Lance & Nova Lance. Whereas Space Marines for example, only have the Lascannon and Conversion Beamer for anti-AV14 at 24" or more.

---------

The necessary changes are being implemented, as well as rules for that battle-suit-like unit mentioned before.

---------

As ever all C&C is welcome, thanks.

P.S. Please don't mistake brevity for rudeness or a lack of appreciation; I'm a busy man!

First I would just like to say that you're doing an amazing job and the Codex is extremely solid.

One thing I never liked about the Eldar is the whole Wraithsight rules. I understand why they are there lore-wise, but in terms of modern codex armies it's just too far of a detriment to really want to take them. I don't see Wraithguard played very much, locally or abroad, and I actually asked a few people who play Eldar why they don't play (or even own) any Wraithguard. Their response was almost always because of the Wraithsight rule. This, in my opinion, is also why virtually nobody plays Tyranids in the tournament scenes anymore and why new players shy away from Tyranids (Synapse Creatures/Instinctive Behaviour).

If anything I think that Random Behaviour of any kind should (and if rumours are true, already is) be removed from the game, the Wraithsight rule being no exception. In its place, perhaps reducing certain characteristics of Wraithguard and Wraithlords (WS, BS, and I) slightly and allowing the Wraithsight rule to simply increase these attributes when within range of a psyker or spiritseer. Perhaps put Wraithguard at WS 3, BS 3, and I 3 and Wraithlords at their current range, with psykers/spiritseers increasing these values by +1.

I dunno, just my two cents, really don't like units which I can randomly lose control of.

Thanks Dave. Writing this from my phone, so excuse the lack quoting.

Swooping hawks became that much better,so myself and my fiance are quite pleased.

As to my second point, kind of sad as AP1 is awesome. I understand fully the balance reasons and agree completely, as much as Id love to see 6+ shining spears shooting S7 AP1 shots at vehiclee.

Still great work and your ability to accept criticism and work it in (within reason) is second to none.

I look forward to your next codex, as my fiance will be using this one, and Ill be using your next.

Just Dave wrote:Most of the prices are intentional, some of them are slightly-cleaned left-overs from the previous edition. I can see the point though and it's been edited so 25pts is the maximum cost for an upgrade-version of the Bright Lance (still being 30pts for a Wraithlord, as he doesn't purchase it as an upgrade and is BS4).

Well, the common opinion here is that a Bright Lance type weapon worths 15 pts (as it is clearly inferior to the 20pts lascannon), that should/could be 20 in your codex. 25 is a bit high, because there isn't any cheap "spamming platform" in the codex (like Ravagers for DE).

I don't really see the problem of the monopoly of lance weapons for AV14 tbh. Amongst other things, the Eldar probably still possess more long ranged anti-AV14 weapons that most other Codices, having the Prism Cannon, Bright Lance & Nova Lance. Whereas Space Marines for example, only have the Lascannon and Conversion Beamer for anti-AV14 at 24" or more.

It isn't really a game problem, more like it is just boring. And on most platforms, it either competes with something better (AP1 Starcannons) or simply doesn't worth the points (transports). The only exception is Nova Lances on Support Batteries. Those things are beastly (i fell victim to them too many times to care ).


Oh, and just sayin', but our Eldar player uses your codex with minor changes (FW units, unqiue Autarch weapons, "old" Wraithlords) and the Kustom Armour Upgrade (tm) and he has the following success rates:
- He crub stomps Grey Knights (!!!), Blood Angels (!!), Dark Eldar and Tau
- He gives IG, Necrons, Orks and Salamanders a run for their money
- He has hard time against SoB (!!!) and CSM
- His nightmare enemies are Tyranids (!!), Space Wolves and Chaos Daemons (!!)

AtoMaki wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Most of the prices are intentional, some of them are slightly-cleaned left-overs from the previous edition. I can see the point though and it's been edited so 25pts is the maximum cost for an upgrade-version of the Bright Lance (still being 30pts for a Wraithlord, as he doesn't purchase it as an upgrade and is BS4).

Well, the common opinion here is that a Bright Lance type weapon worths 15 pts (as it is clearly inferior to the 20pts lascannon), that should/could be 20 in your codex. 25 is a bit high, because there isn't any cheap "spamming platform" in the codex (like Ravagers for DE).

I don't really see the problem of the monopoly of lance weapons for AV14 tbh. Amongst other things, the Eldar probably still possess more long ranged anti-AV14 weapons that most other Codices, having the Prism Cannon, Bright Lance & Nova Lance. Whereas Space Marines for example, only have the Lascannon and Conversion Beamer for anti-AV14 at 24" or more.

It isn't really a game problem, more like it is just boring. And on most platforms, it either competes with something better (AP1 Starcannons) or simply doesn't worth the points (transports). The only exception is Nova Lances on Support Batteries. Those things are beastly (i fell victim to them too many times to care ).


Oh, and just sayin', but our Eldar player uses your codex with minor changes (FW units, unqiue Autarch weapons, "old" Wraithlords) and the Kustom Armour Upgrade (tm) and he has the following success rates:
- He crub stomps Grey Knights (!!!), Blood Angels (!!), Dark Eldar and Tau
- He gives IG, Necrons, Orks and Salamanders a run for their money
- He has hard time against SoB (!!!) and CSM
- His nightmare enemies are Tyranids (!!), Space Wolves and Chaos Daemons (!!)

Lascannons do have a better range and have 1 higher strength but are WORSE than Brightlances against AV14 and the same as AV13. For AV 12 and lower you would probably want to spam SL or Star Cannons anyways. For IG we use ACs against AV 12 and below. So the Bright Lance is not "clearly inferior" they simply have different roles. I think Bright Lances as they are is simply fine.

I don't understand your point of it being boring to use the Bright Lance. Why are lascannons fun in comparison? Maybe I'm missing something.


I'm glad to hear that the codex has worked as a counter to other codexs but still has armies it does not do well against, especially the "weaker" codexs.

felixander wrote:
Lascannons do have a better range and have 1 higher strength but are WORSE than Brightlances against AV14 and the same as AV13. For AV 12 and lower you would probably want to spam SL or Star Cannons anyways. For IG we use ACs against AV 12 and below. So the Bright Lance is not "clearly inferior" they simply have different roles. I think Bright Lances as they are is simply fine.

Compared to the lascannons, the bright lance is:
+ Better against AV14
x The same against AV13
x AP2
- Worse against AV12/11/10
- Worse against T8/9/10 (LOL, but true)
- Has -12" range

It is 1 + versus 2 x and 2 (3) -. So clearly inferior. And you cannot even smear it with a "but it is for different roles!" because both weapon is a heavy-duty AT gun.

felixander wrote:I don't understand your point of it being boring to use the Bright Lance. Why are lascannons fun in comparison? Maybe I'm missing something.

No they aren't fun either, but at least i can take multi-meltas.

Marik Law wrote:First I would just like to say that you're doing an amazing job and the Codex is extremely solid.

Thanks man, much appreciated. Cheers!

One thing I never liked about the Eldar is the whole Wraithsight rules. I understand why they are there lore-wise, but in terms of modern codex armies it's just too far of a detriment to really want to take them. I don't see Wraithguard played very much, locally or abroad, and I actually asked a few people who play Eldar why they don't play (or even own) any Wraithguard. Their response was almost always because of the Wraithsight rule. This, in my opinion, is also why virtually nobody plays Tyranids in the tournament scenes anymore and why new players shy away from Tyranids (Synapse Creatures/Instinctive Behaviour).

If anything I think that Random Behaviour of any kind should (and if rumours are true, already is) be removed from the game, the Wraithsight rule being no exception. In its place, perhaps reducing certain characteristics of Wraithguard and Wraithlords (WS, BS, and I) slightly and allowing the Wraithsight rule to simply increase these attributes when within range of a psyker or spiritseer. Perhaps put Wraithguard at WS 3, BS 3, and I 3 and Wraithlords at their current range, with psykers/spiritseers increasing these values by +1.

I dunno, just my two cents, really don't like units which I can randomly lose control of.

I don't blame you for your dislike of Wraithsight/more randomised behaviours, however, I personally do not mind Random Behaviours/aspects when there's an element of control, which there is with Wraithsight; through having Psykers in the unit or nearby. Therefore - to me at least - Wraithsight usually has relatively little effect, due to the prevalence of Eldar psykers.

If anything, I would've made Wraithsight even more debilitating - and reduced the cost of Wraith units - to show their reliance of psykers; which could make an interesting game mechanic IMHO. Obviously this is still done, but to a much lesser extent.

Again, I can understand your qualms, but IMHO - like with synapse - I feel random behaviours work, so long as there is an element of control/they're not entirely random. Which is the case with Wraithsight as-is.

Blacksails wrote:Thanks Dave. Writing this from my phone, so excuse the lack quoting.

Swooping hawks became that much better,so myself and my fiance are quite pleased.

As to my second point, kind of sad as AP1 is awesome. I understand fully the balance reasons and agree completely, as much as Id love to see 6+ shining spears shooting S7 AP1 shots at vehiclee.

Still great work and your ability to accept criticism and work it in (within reason) is second to none.

I look forward to your next codex, as my fiance will be using this one, and Ill be using your next.

Thanks man, I really appreciate your kind words and constant support, I'm glad you like them. Cheers!

I'm also glad you added the 'within reason' bit to the criticism part! I honestly believe the amount of feedback I take in may be a bit deceptive, as although it's refined, these Codices have actually changed relatively/very little from their original design, but obviously player feedback such as yours has really helped refine them.
Again, thanks.

I'm afraid the next 'dex has been put on the back-burner for now due to work commitments, however I'll still get it done when I can however and hopefully I won't disappoint!

AtoMaki wrote:Oh, and just sayin', but our Eldar player uses your codex with minor changes (FW units, unqiue Autarch weapons, "old" Wraithlords) and the Kustom Armour Upgrade (tm) and he has the following success rates:
- He crub stomps Grey Knights (!!!), Blood Angels (!!), Dark Eldar and Tau
- He gives IG, Necrons, Orks and Salamanders a run for their money
- He has hard time against SoB (!!!) and CSM
- His nightmare enemies are Tyranids (!!), Space Wolves and Chaos Daemons (!!)

I don't feel this is information I can or want to use to be completely honest. If the increased armour is applied as your previously suggested then I do not feel it will represent my Codex, nor would I like it to tbh, particularly if used alongside my Eldar fleet and unit pricing/abilities.

felixander wrote:Lascannons do have a better range and have 1 higher strength but are WORSE than Brightlances against AV14 and the same as AV13. For AV 12 and lower you would probably want to spam SL or Star Cannons anyways. For IG we use ACs against AV 12 and below. So the Bright Lance is not "clearly inferior" they simply have different roles. I think Bright Lances as they are is simply fine.

This is why I feel Bright Lances are equal-to or slightly inferior to Lascannons and worthy of a similar cost, rather than a dramatically reduced 15pts cost.
The Codices heavy weapons are generally priced in the following manner:
Scatter Laser & Starcannon - Equal cost (around 15pts)
Eldar Missile Launcher - 5pts more (around 20pts)
Bright Lance - 5pts more than EML (around 25pts)

The Bright Lance is still usable and is priced similar-to, if not better-than Lascannons in other Codices it seems.

Just Dave wrote:
I don't feel this is information I can or want to use to be completely honest. If the increased armour is applied as your previously suggested then I do not feel it will represent my Codex, nor would I like it to tbh, particularly if used alongside my Eldar fleet and unit pricing/abilities.

Nah, as i said before, the Kustom Armour Upgrade (tm) doesn't count that much. The army becomes more durable and intimidating, but also more elite (KAU comes at a cost of +2 ppm for every affected unit except the Autarch). Still zipping around in Wave Serpents/Falcons or jumping around and causing havoc with Spiders/Hawks only with safety-belts fastened. And the scene where 30 Ork Boyz runs away from 4 Fortuned Striking Scorpions instead of charging them is priceless !

AtoMaki wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
I don't feel this is information I can or want to use to be completely honest. If the increased armour is applied as your previously suggested then I do not feel it will represent my Codex, nor would I like it to tbh, particularly if used alongside my Eldar fleet and unit pricing/abilities.

Nah, as i said before, the Kustom Armour Upgrade (tm) doesn't count that much. The army becomes more durable and intimidating, but also more elite (KAU comes at a cost of +2 ppm for every affected unit except the Autarch). Still zipping around in Wave Serpents/Falcons or jumping around and causing havoc with Spiders/Hawks only with safety-belts fastened. And the scene where 30 Ork Boyz runs away from 4 Fortuned Striking Scorpions instead of charging them is priceless !

If that really is how it's implemented, then in all honesty I neither believe that is balanced, nor something I would like to have as representing this Codex or my own efforts/rules.