Switch Theme:

Fixing Eldar Guardians!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Kalamazoo

Wait, no, this isn't what you think. The Eldar are already a dying race, no need to help them in that regard. What I mean is that the Eldar Guardians are don't even come close to the fluff in rules terms.
Here we have a dying race, who can't even deploy an army without conscripting poets and particle physicists to help pick up the slack. Yet they then turn around and give said poets flimsy armor slightly tougher then a Catachan T-shirt and the equivalent of two bolt pistols duck-taped together and send them out to play team meatshield for the expensive aspect warriors and harlies.

Whatever happened too "Their arrogance is only matched by their firepower"?

Now I know people have proposed giving shurican catapults rending or increasing their range, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Defender squads should not be the equivalent of
marine tactical squads or guardsmen infantry divisions with a points ratio adjustment. The eldar fight smarter, not harder. Therefore I propose amending Defenders to allow them to take up to 3 weapons platforms, and those platforms include the Shadow Weaver, Vibrocannon, and Distort Cannons. Here is why.

In 5e, the heavy weapons platforms become an even more marginal choice. They use the small blast template, so they will often miss their targets. Or if they are in line of sight, the 6 t3 5+ wounds don't last long.

By the same token, defender squads will not have much time to shoot with their platforms before being assaulted. Outflank and Run mean that they cannot flee to the back field shooting all the way. Nor do they have as much time to whittle down attackers before that final round of shuricat fire. A Defender Squad with three D-cannons becomes a credible threat on its own, but at 230 pts it would go up against a decked out marine squad or several infantry platoons. It also fits the fluff better. Expensive, fragile, but with a big kick. Not a game winner on their own, but you wont feel bad taking them and having them sit on an objective sipping wine and commenting on the awful colorschemes the Mon-keh use on their armor.
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I think the problem isn't with Guardians, but the fact that you think that they are used as 'meat shields'. They aren't, and if you're going to treat them as such then you won't get your money's worth out of them.
   
Made in ca
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers






Well I kind of moved near Toronto, actually.

There are three ways to get good use out of Guardians.

0) Take an Avatar.
1) Take a heavy weapon, rush 'em towards the enemy and shoot Shuricats.
2) Take a heavy weapon, play more defensively and shoot Shuricats when they come at you.

After that, Bikes and Pathfinders make more one dimensional and immidiately useful Troop choices.

As for giving them more weapons, taking two standard weapon platforms is not a bad idea. Especially if there is a +5 or +10 point cost on the second one. I don't like the idea of 3 Support Weapons but taking 1 is not unreasonable. Or maybe 3 and 2 in a 20 man squad.

Shuricats are a great weapon for 8 points. Especially when stacked with a Farseer.

It's true that Guardians are possibly bumped down to being a B level Troop selection. Maybe in between Guardsmen and Storm Troopers and behind Dire Avengers, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

Dakka Articles: Eldar Tactica | In Defence of Starcannons (math) | Ork Takktika Quick Tips
taco online: WoW PvP
ur hax are nubz 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I don't think Nurglitch has quite got the hang of the concept behind the proposed rules forum.

BYE

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





Knoxville, TN

I'm not sure guardians need fixing. I take them in all my lists. Sure, you don't have the range and bladestorm of Dire Avengers, but you can take a heavy weapon ( that can move and fire, mind you ) and a 'lock ( with a move and fire lascannon at short range ). If you stack it with a Farseer, you have the potential of rerolling hit rolls, wounds, and armor/cover. The armor rerolls are particularly nice with the new cover rules. Guardians have always been and are more so now a very hard unit for the price. If you're running the farseer with them you have a guy that can snipe out characters and hidden power fists with mind war.

If your conversion skills are up to it, running the same unit on jetbikes is very choice. I'd love to do that at some point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/21 13:54:17


 
   
Made in us
Bush? No, Eldar Ranger





San Francisco

I think that idea, fluff wise, is that eldar poets and physics nerds are as up to the task (and more so) as highly trained IG, and they have better guns.

Now, would I love it if guardians had their old 24" range? Absolutly. Would I love it if you could take two weapon platforms (putting them equal to their dark cousins)? Absolutly.

I don't think the support weapon idea is quite the right fit though. Support weapons should stay as they are.

He's not going to kill the Falcon anyway, it's built from magic fairy wings and dreams. -- Phyraxis 
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





Knoxville, TN

From the fluff standpoint, I believe the idea that the Eldar are a dying race is entirely relative to the other races of the galaxy. I would think it reasonable to assume there are a heck of a lot more Eldar citizens than Space Marines.

Also, if you assume that the Eldar fight because they have to to survive, then in desperation you'd expect to see their citizenry take up arms and fight.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Conceptually, Guardians don't make sense as their rules and Fluff are supposed to intersect.

As Nurglitch notes, Guardians being a fodder mob is bad unit design. And that traces back to an extremely foolish decision by Gav when Eldar got their 40k3 book, that Eldar Guardians would somehow be the mainstay of the army. In the modern / progressive era, only a tiny percentage of the population is part of the active professional military (like Aspects), and an even smaller percentage serves as Reservists (like Guardians).

SPECIAL RULES

Guardians
Guardian Defender Squads, Guardian Storm Squads, and Guardian Jetbike Squads count as Troops, but do not consume an FOC slot.

____

Guardian Defender Squad
Troops, but do not consume a FOC slot.

Guardian WS3 BS3 S3 T3 I4 W1 A1 Ld7 Sv4+ 8 pts
Warlock WS4 BS4 S3 T3 I5 W1 A1 Ld8 Sv4++ +12 pts

5 to 10 models armed with Shuricats (18" S4 AP5 Assault 2)

One model may be upgraded to a Warlock armed with SP & WB
The Warlock may exchange his WB for SS at no additional cost.

All models armed with Shuricats may exchange then for Lasblasters (24" S3 AP5 Assault 2) at no additional cost.

If numbering 10 models, Guardians may buy an AGP for +XX points, and two models will serve as its Crew. In the shooting phase, either Crew may serve as the Gunner, and the other Crew may fire his normal weapon without penalty. AGPs may be transported, but count as an additional model.
____

Comments

Squad size of 5-10, 18" guns and Sv4+ to emphasize preservation. Return 24" Lasblasters to further increase standoff distance. Heavy weapon at 10 models, per 5th Edition mandates. Non FOC slot, similar to Lesser Daemons, allowing Aspects to move to Troops a la Cult CSM.

   
Made in ca
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers






Well I kind of moved near Toronto, actually.

Grignard wrote:From the fluff standpoint, I believe the idea that the Eldar are a dying race is entirely relative to the other races of the galaxy. I would think it reasonable to assume there are a heck of a lot more Eldar citizens than Space Marines.

Also, if you assume that the Eldar fight because they have to to survive, then in desperation you'd expect to see their citizenry take up arms and fight.


not to go off-topic, the Eldar are a dying race because they used to own the galaxy but now they have to compete with the other races. They are the High Elves/ Romans. They lost their homeworlds when in their arrogance/ hedonistic decadence they give birth to Slaanesh. Now they fly around in what were effectively merchant-yaughts. The Tyranids eat their craftworlds and they compete with Orks for new planets. They aren't very good at making friends, either.

Dakka Articles: Eldar Tactica | In Defence of Starcannons (math) | Ork Takktika Quick Tips
taco online: WoW PvP
ur hax are nubz 
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





Knoxville, TN

JohnHwangDD wrote:Conceptually, Guardians don't make sense as their rules and Fluff are supposed to intersect.

As Nurglitch notes, Guardians being a fodder mob is bad unit design. And that traces back to an extremely foolish decision by Gav when Eldar got their 40k3 book, that Eldar Guardians would somehow be the mainstay of the army. In the modern / progressive era, only a tiny percentage of the population is part of the active professional military (like Aspects), and an even smaller percentage serves as Reservists (like Guardians).

SPECIAL RULES

Guardians
Guardian Defender Squads, Guardian Storm Squads, and Guardian Jetbike Squads count as Troops, but do not consume an FOC slot.

____

Guardian Defender Squad
Troops, but do not consume a FOC slot.

Guardian WS3 BS3 S3 T3 I4 W1 A1 Ld7 Sv4+ 8 pts
Warlock WS4 BS4 S3 T3 I5 W1 A1 Ld8 Sv4++ +12 pts

5 to 10 models armed with Shuricats (18" S4 AP5 Assault 2)

One model may be upgraded to a Warlock armed with SP & WB
The Warlock may exchange his WB for SS at no additional cost.

All models armed with Shuricats may exchange then for Lasblasters (24" S3 AP5 Assault 2) at no additional cost.

If numbering 10 models, Guardians may buy an AGP for +XX points, and two models will serve as its Crew. In the shooting phase, either Crew may serve as the Gunner, and the other Crew may fire his normal weapon without penalty. AGPs may be transported, but count as an additional model.
____

Comments

Squad size of 5-10, 18" guns and Sv4+ to emphasize preservation. Return 24" Lasblasters to further increase standoff distance. Heavy weapon at 10 models, per 5th Edition mandates. Non FOC slot, similar to Lesser Daemons, allowing Aspects to move to Troops a la Cult CSM.


I agree that guardians shouldn't be cannon fodder, a la gaunts, but I don't see how the current rules necessitate or even encourage using them as such.

I'm not really seeing how modern "progressive" society has anything to do with the highly militarized universe of 40k.
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





H.M.B.C. wrote:I don't think Nurglitch has quite got the hang of the concept behind the proposed rules forum.

Maybe not, but it seems to me that if someone is going to start a thread about fixing an existing Warhammer 40k unit, then it's going to have to be the case that the unit actually needs fixing. I'm not convinced that Guardians need fixing, and I don't find the argument (that Guardians are a meat-shield, shouldn't be a meat-shield, and therefore should be fixed) to be sound since using the Guardians in the current codex to act as a meat-shield for anything in the army is not a strategically sound idea.

They're quite alright if you don't use them as a meat-shield and use them as the second-line troops that they are. Hold them back to baby-sit backfield objectives or use them as cheap support for squads of Aspect Warriors, and they're good enough for their points.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Durandal wrote:I propose amending Defenders to allow them to take up to 3 weapons platforms, and those platforms include the Shadow Weaver, Vibrocannon, and Distort Cannons.

You know that GW moved away from having Heavies as Troops for 5th Edition, right?

So this can't possibly work.

This is why I proposed giving even Guardians decent (Sv4+) armor and longer-ranged weapons.

   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Between the Sun and the Sky

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Durandal wrote:I propose amending Defenders to allow them to take up to 3 weapons platforms, and those platforms include the Shadow Weaver, Vibrocannon, and Distort Cannons.

You know that GW moved away from having Heavies as Troops for 5th Edition, right?

So this can't possibly work.

This is why I proposed giving even Guardians decent (Sv4+) armor and longer-ranged weapons.


I think both you and the OP are missing the point here. They aren't broke! They're just not that good!

The proposed rules you gave are tied not with the fluff, but with rules you think they should have and gamey 5th Edition "mandates." Guardians get the weapons they have because that's what makes sense for them. They are the militia of the Eldar race... it would make sense for them to have the most basic weaponry available in the Eldar arsenal, and have access to a very limited amount of Grav-platforms (that, mind you, no one else in the army really needs or would make sense for them to have). Giving them all those fancy options basically makes them a toned-down Dire Avenger, which is not what they are at all. You also have to look at it from the DA's perspective--the fluff explicitly states that DA Shuricats have longer barrels than the average shuriken catapult. If you gave Guardians 18 inches, you would have to give the DAs at least 24", which wouldn't make sense.

Catch me if you can.
 
   
Made in gb
Proud Phantom Titan







.... er they're the cheapest troop choice in the eldar codex (per man not per unit) and they do suck ... however in the new rules you can put them in a building and shoot ... if that building is an objective then they're going to be a pain in the *** to move ... a unit of 20 can fire 38 shots that are as powerfull as bolters and a fire heavy weapon ... as prefrence i go for the missile launcher now ... why? it give you pinning when fied as plasm shoot any advancing unit and when pinned move forwards and the shoot them ... no they're not the best troop choise the eldar have got ... but how many people are going to bring wrathguard ? (who also have a poor 12" range)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/23 01:40:24


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

And I think you are misunderstanding how the Fluff works. Or doesn't work. Or can be selected to mean pretty much whatever one chooses, depending on emphasis. Primarily because GW loves to change their mind about things, or create new stuff out of nowhere.

Do you recall back when the Grey Knights were composed almost entirely of non-Psykers, and they followed standard Marine organization except for their Terminators?

The perception of whether Guardians are "broke" depends on what Fluff you expect them to follow, and which Craftworld types you think are more typical of those that interact with non-Eldar types. Hint, hint - it isn't the nearly-dead ones, because those become fully-dead in short order. The most likely source of Eldar activity comes from two types: Biel-Tan "military interventionist" types, and Ulthwe-type "preemptive striking" types.

For example, when assigning stats to Guardians, you are aware that the Fluff never says "mesh confers a 5+ save on 1d6", right? They have a Fluff description of how it hardens to provide point protection, how it protects the whole user, and then go on to say that the heavy Aspects are better-protected. Now that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Which is why, in 2E, Hawks only had Sv5+, despite being Aspects, because this was a useful in-game differentiator from the other Aspects, especially Warp Spiders.

And while they may play a "militia" role, relative to Aspects, that doesn't mean that their equipment is poor relative to other forces, especially Guard. The basic Eldar trooper, has a lot of technology backing him up. An 18" S4 AP5 A2 Shuriat is quite reasonable, as is a 24" S3 AP5 A2 Lasblaster.

And comparing them to a Dire Avenger, their Fluff was revised considerably. Particularly with the nonsense of having longer-barreled Shuricats. If you go back to the 2E models, you would know that Guardians (with NEW! metal Shuricat upgrades) had longer-barreled weapons than the older, 1-piece Dire Avengers.

And quite frankly, Dire Avengers would be just fine with a 18" S4 AP5 A2 Shuricat. They still have WS4 BS4 I5, and the advantages of Shimmershield and Exarch skills.

In summary, please don't argue Fluff from a limited 5th Edition perspective. The Fluff goes back *much* farther than that.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Scyzantine Empire

JohnHwangDD wrote:And I think you are misunderstanding how the Fluff works. Or doesn't work. Or can be selected to mean pretty much whatever one chooses, depending on emphasis. Primarily because GW loves to change their mind about things, or create new stuff out of nowhere.

Do you recall back when the Grey Knights were composed almost entirely of non-Psykers, and they followed standard Marine organization except for their Terminators?...

...In summary, please don't argue Fluff from a limited 5th Edition perspective. The Fluff goes back *much* farther than that.


Not to beat a dead horse here John, but "fluff of long ago" i.e Rogue Trader and 2nd ed always indicated that Eldar equipment was never "stronger" or produced results any different from it's Orky or Human counterparts, but was simply more efficient. The example provided was the shuricat itself: as of RT, they weren't race specific, but the fluff indicated that Eldar versions had a more efficient energy exchange resulting in a higher ammunition capacity. This wasn't represented in game stats at all though, since it's impact of play was minimal at best.

By 2nd ed, shuricats had disappeared from the Wargear lists of any army but the Eldar, even if the Eldar were lauded for the power/efficiency of their lasguns, supporting your proposal for Guardians with lasblasters. I think it's a good alternative that is "fluff supported" and honestly the trade off of strength for range is one that can be taken advantage of.

Upgrading the armor save to 4+ doesn't sound like "old school" fluff at all though. Eldar as a whole have pretty much had the shaft with mesh armor since the RT era, although those Eldar were conceptualized as pirates or mercenaries (I loved the Void Dragon symbology) and not a Craftworld's fighting force. Aspect Warriors were absent from the Eldar concepts until 2nd ed, and Guardians still retained the mesh armor (with it's 5+ save) as standard garb. While improving this may work to improve the Defender's chances of surviving, I feel the argument for "fluff represented" changes doesn't hold up.

Now, taking them off the FOC is something I'm interested in. They are a reserve force, per the fluff, more so for Iyanden than say Saim-Hann, but the non-Craftworld list of the last codex makes that point moot. Leaving DA's, Wraithguard, and Rangers/Pathfinders Troops on the FOC allows even small lists to fulfill minimum requirements with very effective units while allowing the Guardians to fulfill objectives and act as "filler" units to plug holes. Even without the lasblaster option, this is a very effective proposed rule that could stand some number crunching and test playing.

I don't think I'd go so far as saying that Guardians are a "broken" troop selection, but Dire Avengers have eclipsed them in the roles they have held in the past. Many are the Dakkites that have the point that Guardians are NOT DA's and shouldn't be used as such, but their role as "meatshields" is even less savory...

What harm can it do to find out? It's a question that left bruises down the centuries, even more than "It can't hurt if I only take one" and "It's all right if you only do it standing up." Terry Pratchett, Making Money

"Can a magician kill a man by magic?" Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. "I suppose a magician might," he admitted, "but a gentleman never could." Susanna Clarke Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

DA:70+S+G+M++B++I++Pw40k94-D+++A+++/mWD160R++T(m)DM+

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Gavin Thorne wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:And I think you are misunderstanding how the Fluff works. Or doesn't work. Or can be selected to mean pretty much whatever one chooses, depending on emphasis.

Not to beat a dead horse here John, but "fluff of long ago" i.e Rogue Trader and 2nd ed always indicated that Eldar equipment was never "stronger" or produced results any different from it's Orky or Human counterparts, but was simply more efficient.

Upgrading the armor save to 4+ doesn't sound like "old school" fluff at all though. Eldar as a whole have pretty much had the shaft with mesh armor since the RT era, although those Eldar were conceptualized as pirates or mercenaries (I loved the Void Dragon symbology) and not a Craftworld's fighting force. Aspect Warriors were absent from the Eldar concepts until 2nd ed, and Guardians still retained the mesh armor (with it's 5+ save) as standard garb. While improving this may work to improve the Defender's chances of surviving, I feel the argument for "fluff represented" changes doesn't hold up.

Please note that my Fluff argument and proposal isn't to take them back to RT / 2E. It's to say that the Fluff is mutable, and can be molded to support whatever rules or stats one wants for the unit.

So in my case, I want the Sv5+ (or Sv6+) to be a Dark Eldar Pirate thing, while Craftworlders wear Sv4+ (or Sv3+) and Harlequins have only their Holosuits. Just as 3E brought 40k down the path of forced differentiation between Imperials and Xenos, I want to force stronger differentiation within the Eldar family.

If I wanted to go back to RT/2E, Shuricats would be 24" A2 Rending, making cheap, massed Guardians a terror on the battlefield ...

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Scyzantine Empire

With the option of fielding lasguns, powerswords, and ... ::gasp!:: shields! Of course, the craftworld eldar as presented in RT are a different animal completely than the eldar presented in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. More mercenary bands or pirate fleets akin to the dark eldar than the path-driven craftworlders. And speaking of craftworlders, if you'd like more differentiation in eldar that's one way to go, albiet a potentially broken one (depending on who you ask).

I completely agree with fluff molding the rules (or not as the case may be), but prudence would suggest that it should be an "all-or-nothing" judgement. If you use fluff to provide one benefit/drawback, all such benefits would be given as well.

The problem with making such an argument is that GW is so very arbitrary in the use of fluff as written in rules as written. I think Necrons are the best example, being soulless, unfeeling machines subject to leadership tests and the effects of poison. Who writes that stuff? My old 'cron codex actually has verbage indicating that "despite what would be logical, (i.e. Daemons, Tyranids, and Necrons being immune to poison, neuralizers, stun weapons, etc.) we've decided that battlefield weapons can be adjusted to affect these targets." I take that with a grain of salty game balance, but it still cries stupid to my analytic mind.

I was introduced to the 40K Revisited project in one of the threads I started that seeks to create a more balanced version of 40K while supporting the fluff as closely as possible. Similar proposals for fixing guardians have been made there, but whether they straighten out the kinks, who knows?

What harm can it do to find out? It's a question that left bruises down the centuries, even more than "It can't hurt if I only take one" and "It's all right if you only do it standing up." Terry Pratchett, Making Money

"Can a magician kill a man by magic?" Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. "I suppose a magician might," he admitted, "but a gentleman never could." Susanna Clarke Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

DA:70+S+G+M++B++I++Pw40k94-D+++A+++/mWD160R++T(m)DM+

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I completely agree that the modern Craftworlders are not at all like the Pirates of RT, and that the Dark Eldar are a closer match. Hence why the DE Warrior wears mesh, and the Guardian doesn't. Though it would be nice to have Storm Guardians gain RT-style dragonfly flight packs...

Given that Inquisitional Storms, Dire Avengers, and Carapace Guard aren't exatly setting things on fire, I think it's safe to say that bumping the Guardsman's save from 5+ to 4+ isn't broken. It isn't that all-important 3+, so nobody really cares. Besides, Guardians are going to be getting 4+ Cover Saves most of the time, anyways. So going from 5+/4++ to 4+/4++ really doesn't have that much impact. So they just get a slightly better save against some stuff that negates cover saves, like, say, Heavy Flamers.

If I'm shifting fluff to claim good armor to support the preservation of a "dying race", and the rules impact is that no Craftworlder wears less than 4+, that's going to affect Defenders and Storms, along with heavy AGPs. Jetbikers are 3+ already, which makes them awesome.

Harlequins would still be -/5++, but then they're not really part of the Craftworld - they're from the Webway.

And Rangers would similarly be 5+, as they're not really part of the Craftworld either. Also, because they tend to be in 4++ Cover *and* have Cameoline to boot. Their 5+/3++ doesn't need to bump to 4+/3++.


Picking at Fluff for inconsistencies would be one thing if GW didn't give so much to work with. The Necron example is a good one. In any case, I find the whole dying race bit combined with a fodder horde approach to Guardians is rather offensive.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Scyzantine Empire


JohnHwangDD wrote:I completely agree that the modern Craftworlders are not at all like the Pirates of RT, and that the Dark Eldar are a closer match. Hence why the DE Warrior wears mesh, and the Guardian doesn't. Though it would be nice to have Storm Guardians gain RT-style dragonfly flight packs...


Interestingly enough, I've made some concept sketches for aspect warriors with dragonfly-style or "sprite" wings based on the eldar mercenary attack scene in the RT book. I used the wings from the Reaper Nymph as a basis for modelling providing an organic feel, but with smoother edges keeping it in line with the eldar design philosophy. The aspect "Stinging Wasps" were to be counter-assault troops with high mobility, armed with weapons similar to Harlequin Kisses and Refractor Shields. I haven't gotten the on-sprue female guardians and swooping hawk legs I need to make the conversions though.

I think you've got some great ideas here John... would you be willing to share them over at the 40K Revisited project?

What harm can it do to find out? It's a question that left bruises down the centuries, even more than "It can't hurt if I only take one" and "It's all right if you only do it standing up." Terry Pratchett, Making Money

"Can a magician kill a man by magic?" Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. "I suppose a magician might," he admitted, "but a gentleman never could." Susanna Clarke Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

DA:70+S+G+M++B++I++Pw40k94-D+++A+++/mWD160R++T(m)DM+

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Gavin Thorne wrote:I think you've got some great ideas here John... would you be willing to share them over at the 40K Revisited project?

You're free to steal whatever you like, but my more recent off-and-on painting progress (or lack thereof) leads me to hesitate on commitment to any project that I can't see through to completion.

You know, family and all that...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/31 18:06:23


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Scyzantine Empire

Okay, I'll cut and paste what you've got going on here over there and see what they think.

I completely understand about the painting/project/family front. My wife does not begrudge me painting time, but somehow does not connect any modelling I do to the hobby. She'll say, "you want to paint.... that's ok. Oh wait, you're going to mix that green stuff or cut apart garage sale signs? No, you should do dishes instead." Inexplicable I tell you.

What harm can it do to find out? It's a question that left bruises down the centuries, even more than "It can't hurt if I only take one" and "It's all right if you only do it standing up." Terry Pratchett, Making Money

"Can a magician kill a man by magic?" Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. "I suppose a magician might," he admitted, "but a gentleman never could." Susanna Clarke Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

DA:70+S+G+M++B++I++Pw40k94-D+++A+++/mWD160R++T(m)DM+

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

With my wife, sometimes I find life is easier when we simply accept, rather than try to understand or explain too deeply.

Now she's OK with my making stuff - building & painting models produces clearly visible results. And I'm usually at home. It's the playtime out of the house that she doesn't quite get.

   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

der Wiskinator wrote:I think that idea, fluff wise, is that eldar poets and physics nerds are as up to the task (and more so) as highly trained IG, and they have better guns.

The problem here is that the guardians don't have better guns. Guardians are crippled by their weak nature combined with short range. I would much rather have las guns or bolter than shuriken catapults. In both cases, I would have the option of shooting at 24" instead of having to move into assault range to shoot anything. Really, what might be the best option would be to give guardians las blasters (the swooping hawk weapon). That way they could keep their move and fire nature, get the bump in range that they need to actually use their basic weapons without getting killed and still not be too over powered. This might be cause the bump up their cost a point or so, but I'm willing to foot the bill for a unit that might actually do something other than sit back and fire its heavy weapon.

**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in us
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine





Los Angeles

Phoenix wrote:might actually do something other than sit back and fire its heavy weapon.


and move while firing that heavy weapon, from two different points in the squad at any time

and hold an objective

and be large enough to weather a large amount of firepower

and be pretty reliable when it comes to morale tests to not run off the objective/board edge

Frankly I don't see what you're complaining about

I play

I will magnetize (now doing LED as well) your models for you, send me a DM!

My gallery images show some of my work
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Lormax wrote:and move while firing that heavy weapon, from two different points in the squad at any time

and hold an objective

and be large enough to weather a large amount of firepower

and be pretty reliable when it comes to morale tests to not run off the objective/board edge

Being able to fire from 2 points doesn't matter much, although being able to move 6" per turn is pretty handy.

Holding an objective with WS3 T3 A1 Sv5+ only works if the enemy doesn't care to take it by force.

Being large enough requires an un-Fluffy horde approach. The very idea is abominable, because the casualties would be enormously un-Fluffy. This is why I would cap Guardian squads at 10 models.

Guardian morale is mediocre, so I don't know what you're talking about.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I really like both of the ideas to fix Guardians propsed in this thread the JHwang idea and the 3 platform idea.

They seem great!

As they currently stand I think Guardians are the worst troop choice in the entire game.

Being an IG player I had a concept for guardians to fix them possibly.

Make them come in platoons like IG, call the platoons hosts, as in hosts raised by Eldar families.

Offer each host a mini character: a seer or a Mini Autarch (like an Eldar Lt. with simple gear choices) and a squad of simple attendants (4) then do 2-6 Guardian squads and 0-1 support weapon squad, all for one Troop FOC slot. Probably for reduced costs per model also.

How about that?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/08/05 21:23:07


 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

Lormax wrote:
Phoenix wrote:might actually do something other than sit back and fire its heavy weapon.

and move while firing that heavy weapon, from two different points in the squad at any time
and hold an objective
and be large enough to weather a large amount of firepower
and be pretty reliable when it comes to morale tests to not run off the objective/board edge
Frankly I don't see what you're complaining about


First off, let me just throw out there that I wouldn't mind a point increase to compensate for greater ability.

That being said, the shooting from 2 points in the squad thing is of minimal use but handy on ocasion. Holding an objective is difficult if anyone really devotes resources to getting rid of the guardians or other horde units. Your view point might be a bit skewed because I always keep my guardians back-ish in my army and support them fairly well with my fire base. But all in all, they are not any more or less difficult to kill than guardsmen. The difference is that guardians are I4 instead of 3 and their guns are different (and I wouldn't say better). Regardless, any troop unit can hold an objective, but as things stand, guardians are much worse at it than many other troop choices like marines (any flavor), necrons, huge orc mobs, etc.

Leadership is questionable. They are leadership 8 and the only way to bump that up is to put some sort of HQ with them. Adding a warlock doesn't up the squad's leadership (although I guess you could give them embolden but that's really expensive to do).

All in all though I think guardians would not only be more effective with las blasters, but they would also be a lot more fun to play with (as well as tacticaly dynamic).

The question is how much to charge for them. 10 points each seems like it might be a bit much since while they are doubling the range of their weapons, they are going down to S3 on them...so they are taking a 33% hit on weapon lethality (probably a bit more since I think las blasters are AP6). Maybe 9 points each. Might be interesting to play test and see how it works. Maybe the extra range is worth 2 points even in the face of the decreased damage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/08/05 23:44:52


**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Phoenix wrote:First off, let me just throw out there that I wouldn't mind a point increase to compensate for greater ability.

IMO, Guardians are currently overcosted by about a point, maybe 2. I think this is intentional, to encourage Aspects over Guardians, but I'm not sure.

At 10 ppm, Guardians are simply horrible compared to a DE Warrior.

   
Made in us
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine





Los Angeles

JohnHwangDD wrote:Being able to fire from 2 points doesn't matter much, although being able to move 6" per turn is pretty handy.

Holding an objective with WS3 T3 A1 Sv5+ only works if the enemy doesn't care to take it by force.

Being large enough requires an un-Fluffy horde approach. The very idea is abominable, because the casualties would be enormously un-Fluffy. This is why I would cap Guardian squads at 10 models.

Guardian morale is mediocre, so I don't know what you're talking about.


Lets be a little realistic here. You, the player, gets to place the objective(s). If you know you're going to be using guardians to hold the objective then you place it in/near cover. Suddenly it has a 3+ cover save (go to ground). A squad of 16-20 + warlock isn't un-fluffy. I'm not saying go Guardian horde, I'm talking about using one unit effectively. A warlock in the squad allows you to reroll the leadership test. I honestly don't know what the points cost is to add the warlock with embolden, but this is your main objective holding squad. How much is that worth to you?

I don't have the codex near me, but if I remember right, jetbikes, rangers and dire avengers are your other troop choices (wrathguard as well, sort of). Out of those, what are better to hold an objective? We can take jetbikes right out of the arguement since if they're sitting there then you paid for mobility and not using it. Dire Avengers are decently hardy but don't have a long range weapon thus they just sit there doing nothing. Wraithguard for the same reason. That leaves Rangers as an excellent choice but at what points cost?

Comparing their cost to a Dark Eldar warrior really doesn't work, as the DE codex was written for 3rd edition. DE warriors are undercosted compared to the books coming out now.


I play

I will magnetize (now doing LED as well) your models for you, send me a DM!

My gallery images show some of my work
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: