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.

incarna wrote:Autarch – An Autarch should have his points reduced somewhat and given purchasable army-wide special rules such as; Perfect Initiative: +1 to the players roll for who gets first turn, Master Tactician: +1 to reserves roll, Master Strategist: may select one aspect warriors squad within the army to count as scoring, Logistical Genius: may re-roll the die to determine which side reserves arrive from and allow 6’s to come in from ANY edge, Inspiring: may issue commands to allow a broken unit to automatically regroup,

I don't like all of these but i like the idea that Autarchs can buy powers that affect the game before it begins like +2 to an attempt to seize or mess with deployment/reserves. About the only one i don't like there is Master strategist which I think should be a phoenix lords thing instead.

incarna wrote:Farseer – Eldrich Storm needs a serious revision – possibly removed entirely and given to Warlocks as a purchasable power. Fortune should have its range increased to 24”, Guide should have its range increased to 24”, Mind War should function like a “ranged” Broodlord hypnotic gaze. Additional purchasable powers; Ancient Wisdom: May bestow Preferred Enemy to any infantry squad within 24” as he telepathically communicates his knowledge to the squad, Foresight: may bestow Stubborn to any infantry squad within 24” as he telepathically communicates the importance of their roll in the combat at hand and the consequences of failure for the Eldar Race, Certainty of Purpose: Farseer and any unit he joined becomes fearless, Master Psycher: when the Farseer casts a psychic power he may roll a die – on a 4+that psychic power cannot be stopped in any way other than a perils of the warp.

I think he needs more and more powerful powers. I agree on a range boost (eldar spread out over the table typically so this makes sense). i like the preferred enemy and stubborn powers, not so much the fearless one and master psycher is just inelegant design. If hoods are crippling you you can always kill the hood wearer. A power to negate a power that negates a power is just clumsy.

incarna wrote:

incarna wrote:Warlocks – Conceal should bestow a 4+ cover save and count as cover when the unit is charged. Additional warlock powers; Psychic Warrior (cheap): +1A, Disciple (expensive): May allow a Farseer who joined the squad to cast an additional psychic power – if a perils of the warp is rolled, the warlock must take the wound instead of the Farseer. Warlocks should be able to trade in their witchblades to purchase either a weapon that functions like a Nemesis Force Weapon or power weapon.

None of the here is a free cover save powers grant anything better than a 5+ so conceal shouldn't either. Ditto the charging effect. I like disciple, working like the old thrall wizards but I'd add a cap of maybe 4. Is that +1A to the squad of the warlock? No power weapons for warlocks, they are different from everyone elses assault specialists now and different is a good thing.

incarna wrote:Avatar of Khaine – Molten Body should include plasma, lascannons, and lasguns in addition to melta and falmer weapons. Inspiring should have its range increased to 24”.

Yes to the lascannons, etc. Why increase the range?

incarna wrote:Phoenix Lords should be removed from the codex and replaced with “Named” Exarchs. It’s a nit-pick, but I tend to think of Phoenix Lords as on-par with Space Marine primarchs and have no place on the tabletop. I don’t have ideas on how they should be revised but they should make their respective aspect count as troops.

Again I think count as troops is too powerful (the all dark reaper army, shudder) but 1 squad taken as troops lets you build a nice bile tan list and open up the heavy and elite slots a little bit more.

incarna wrote:Striking Scorpions – Scorpions claw should not count as a power fist but rather a strength 8 power weapon. Biting Blade should add +1S but, in addition, each successful to-wound allows another to-hit and to-wound roll a-la Blood Angels Dreadnought infinite loop attack without the inability to save against the wounds inflicted.

Why do they need an init striking p-fist? Just a p-fist is fine as it is. I like your idea for biting blade.

incarna wrote:Fire Dragons – slight point hike. Dragons breath flamer should work as either a fusion gun or flamer. Crack Shot should be replaced with “Exarch’s guide to not nuking your own Fire Dragons” – a power which makes the Fire Dragon squad immune from ALL wounds inflicted by exploding vehicles.

Yes on flamer and fusion gun. I can't see an in game reason why that power would work though.

incarna wrote:Wraithguard – attacks should be rending as the strength of the wraithguard should be enough to bypass armor on some occasions. 4+ invulnerable save a-la Thousand Sons. Wraithcannon increased to 18” range – remove the instant death.

all horrible ideas. Rending is the mindless fix for everything these days and makes no sense for wraithguard. Ditto the invulnerable save. T6 s3+ is plenty good. Maybe 2W a model. I agree that the wraithcannon needs something to make it a bit betetr and an extra 6" of range might just be it.

incarna wrote:Howling Banshees – War Shout should be replaced with “combat agility” – a 4+ invulnerable save while in close combat.

Treads all over the design space of harlies so no.

incarna wrote:Harlequins – I have no reel input on harlequins. I’ve never used them in over ten years of 40k.

incarna wrote:Wave Serpent – 10 point reduction, reduced cost EML, Starcannon, and Brightlance. BS4.

One or the other. improve the BS or reduce the gun cost.

incarna wrote:Dire Avengers – Dire Avengers should be trained to use their Avenger Shuriken Catapults in close combat and, as a result, count as being equipped with 2 close combat weapons.

Yeah, sure, why not.

incarna wrote:Rangers/Pathfinders – moderate point reduction. Ranger Disruption: Rangers and pathfinders are masters of stealth and guerilla tactics and spend months before a battle preparing the area for combat. Enemy units (including vehicles) within 24” of a full squad or rangers move as if in difficult terrain. Enemy units (including vehicles) within 24” of a full squad of pathfinders move as if in dangerous terrain. Rangers and Pathfinders have the hit and run USR.

Unbelievably OTT.
With infiltrate and this power it would be ludicrously easy to make the entire board count as difficult terrain. That just ends an ork or nid army before the game begins. To put this in some perspective Deathleaper costs nearly 200pts and only does this for assault. Rune Priests cost 100 pts and can only do this versus skimmers, jetbikes and jump packs and require a psychic test.
Maybe 6" effect and 12" for pathfinders.
Defensive grenades maybe. Generally I think rangers and pathfinders are fine. They're a cheap scoring unit that pins stuff, can kill marines in the open and can infiltrate directly onto the objective. Plus stealth makes them almost impossible to kill with shooting. If you can't shoot them and it takes 4 turns to assault them (through dangerous terrain) how the hell do you beat them?

incarna wrote:Guardians – Shuriken catapult range should be 18”. Guardian Defenders may take one heavy weapon platform for every 4 members of the squad (including warlock). Brightlance, EML, and starcannon get point reductions. Storm Guardians should be able to take a flamer or fusion gun for every 4 members of the squad (including warlock).

18" or my agile rule. 12" is too short as it leaves them in assalt range.
5 heavy weapons a squad makes them more heavy weapon based than marine devvies or guard heavy weapon teams. I htink 1 per 10 is fine.

incarna wrote:Guardian Jetbike Squadron – slight point reduction. Wildrider Host: A guardian jetbike squadron may be upgraded to a wildrider host for 10 points per model. All guardian jetbikes receive WS4, +1A, their attacks become rending as the riders are adept at ramming their bikes into the enemy, and receive the Hit and Run USR.

10pts gets you +1A +1WS rending and hit and run!!!!
+1A is 5pts, +1Ws is 3, Rending is 5 and hit and run is 3 so your looking at more like 16pts for that upgrade. Drop rending (again its lazy and makes no sense. Rending is sharp things not blunt ramming bikes, that would be more like furious charge). Frankly I think this is unecessary as you can do a Saim Hann army just fine.

incarna wrote:Shining Spears – slight point reduction. Should get 2 attacks base, laser lances should be either strength 8 AP4 or strength 6 AP2. Withdraw should be much cheaper.

Str 6 ap 2 works for me and either or attacks go up or pts go down.

incarna wrote:Warp Spiders – Withdraw should be replaced with a power similar to Descent of Angels

Why, withdraw seems plenty fluffy. And who deepstrikes spiders?

Swooping Hawks – Moderate point reduction. Lasblasters become Assault 3, Range 36”. Swooping Hawks may always move 6” in the assault phase. Swooping Hawk grenade pack template automatically hits the rear of a vehicle with a single strength 6 hit a-la Tyranid Mawlock.

I agree with all of this.

incarna wrote:Viper Squadron – moderate point reduction. EML, starcannon, starcannong and brightlance cost reduced. BS4.

One or the other, BS or reduced weapons.

incarna wrote:Support Weaon Battery – god help me, like Harliquins, I have yet to ever use a Support Weapon battery and do not have a reasonable suggestion for improving them.

I think the weapons themselves need review. The shadow weaver needs to work like the new tank does, the D-Cannon needs either more range or large blast and the vibro-cannon, umm more strength?

incarna wrote:Dark Reapers – point reduction. Fast shot and crack shot should benefit squad.

These are fine really, its just that these days mech is so much more powerful that a) defensively they seem weak and b) offensively their old targets are hiding in tanks or in cover where they can't get them.
I would say the exarch can add crackshot (not fast shot) to his squad with a sucessful leadership test.

incarna wrote:Wraithlord – reduced cost starcannong, EML, and brightlance. Optional addition of “wraithshield” which makes the wraithlord save invulnerable. WS and BS should be at least 5. Purchasable abilities; Hero of Ancients: When a wraithlord loses its last wound roll a die. On a 3+, the legendary warrior is not removed from battle but continues to fight on with 1 wound (this ability has no effect against weapons that cause instant death such a Tyranid Boneswords), Memory of Death: The Wraithlord harbors a seething memory of its demise at the hands of the enemy and it receives 5 Attacks in close combat and the Fleet USR but MUST move AND run directly toward the nearest enemy unit each turn and charge if within range.

Wraithshield is lazy and unecessary. It's T8! You don't need to make it tougher.
WS BS increase would be fine with me for a cost increase.
As for abilities - hero of ancients is too powerful as is, maybe of a 5+ but imho Wraithlords are so tough that this is OTT.
Memory of Death sounds so un-eldar to me. Berserker robots? Even in death I would imagine the wraithlord is calm and aloof even if he is simmering with rage inside.

incarna wrote:War Walker Squadron – BS4, reduces cost EML, brightlance, and starcannon.

One or the other.

incarna wrote:Falcon – moderate point reduction, BS4, reduces cost EML, brightlance, and starcannon.

One or the other.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Cheaper wave serpents and wave serpent guns. A wave serpent with stones and lances is 145, a vendetta with 2 heavy bolters and 3 lascannons is 140. Plus it can scout and deploy guys easier.

Fire prisms could use a slight boost to firepower or become cheaper, in general falcons and prisms need about a 10-15% reduction in points or an increase in firepower. BS4 falcons and prisms shooting the linked blasts regular would work.

Cheaper transports is a given, the question is how much will transports go down? I think next codex will see the WS around the 75pts mark plus weapons, also having the shurican already included and then upgrade it to other weapons would be cool. Prisms with regular twin linked shoots are too much I think unless the points go up and then turn the tank not cost effective.

M.

I think a wave serpent with stones and lances should cost 100 points, 110 at most. If you look at say the manticore, it can put out much better shots, d3 S10 large blasts, for the same points as a prism, which either shoots a giant heavy bolter blast or a small lascannon blast

Too cheap if it carries a BL, 100pts for a SL/stones is about right, the lances should be around the 120pts mark (a 25pts discount), a Falcon with all the holobells and whistles should go for 150pts (around the price of a LRBT or a Predator, so it gets a 30pts discount from the current price)

An option to assault from the front of the WS would be a welcomed addition too.

M.

Actually I just had a good idea on how to help the eldar deal with their psychic hood, etc issues.

Make Mind War unlimited range for other psykers.

os against normal models he still needs range and line of sight but against psykers the farseer doesn't require range or line of sight. He can always pick you out.

the fluff would be something like because they're a psyker their mind stands out as a gigantic beacon amongst all the other minds of the battlefield and the trained farseer can discern them amongst the chaos.

This would let eldar players snipe hoods and staffs early so they can cast powers later in the game. But it isn't a sure thing like a farseer's ignore hoods peice of wargear or as inelegant as rule that allows them to cancel a power that cancels their power.

@Everyone requesting they bring back Crystal Targeting Matrix.............(Whacks on nose with rolled up newspaper)....NO!....NO!

The CTM Style assault move should either go to a tau vehicle or any Eldar vehicle that gets it should be limited to 6" in the movement Phase. This is because of the momentum of that much mass changing direction that quickly makes no sense, considering their other Tech limitations.

@All posters-My suggestions are:


Reworked Vipers that have an optional two passenger transport capacity upgrade. This upgrade means that any Squadron of 3-4 Vypers can become a dedicated transport for Harlequins and Banshees. The Passenger upgrade replaces the rear weapon mount and gunner, but the Vyper has the shuricannon and the passengers may still fire their weapons. Make the Acrobatic rule where the models may dismount while the Skimmer continues to move its full distance.

All Eldar vehicles May use the outflank rule(Or just come in from any table edge, srill working on it) when arriving from reserve. This is to represent the Eldars potential for speed by how quickly they can perform flanking actions.

Halcons now count both of its Turret weapons as a single system for the purposes of determining the number of weapons firing.

New Crystal Targeting Matrix that reduces obscurment/cover saves by 1

Wraithlords- Change Wraithsight to where it determines whether the Wraithlord has the Fleet rule or not. Also, bring back the D-Cannon for the Wraithlord. Finally, up the number of base attacks to 3 and introduce a pair of CC weapons or a double-tipped spear that counts as a pair of CCW.

Swooping Hawks- Cut Squad sie down to 5 Max but they carry Plasma Rifles

Boost the power level of the Eldar Pyskers up by a notch or two.

Storm Guardians get twin-linked pistols along with their swords.

Warp Spiders- Maybe make their weapond Poisoned teplates? How about they don't suffer problems on second jump if Harlequins are on table within 12"?



Just a few ideas

I don't think rending would do spiders any good I'd prefer it if they were 18" Assault 3 and AP6, Oh and 2 attacks basic (3 for Exarch) but obviously with a good points increase to go with it all. If all marine vets get 2 attacks each why not eldar?

focusedfire wrote:
Reworked Vipers that have an optional two passenger transport capacity upgrade. This upgrade means that any Squadron of 3-4 Vypers can become a dedicated transport for Harlequins and Banshees. The Passenger upgrade replaces the rear weapon mount and gunner, but the Vyper has the shuricannon and the passengers may still fire their weapons. Make the Acrobatic rule where the models may dismount while the Skimmer continues to move its full distance.

That's actually a great idea - doesn't require a whole new vehicle, would look cool. I don't think it's going to happen though.

Trouble for the vyper transport is what happens if only one is shot down?

Also Focusedfire I don't like your hawk suggestion. The 36" Assault 3 gun (I'd even go for 24" assault 3) would be fine. Smaller squads make the already difficult to use haywires even less useful, and since plasma rifles are rapid fire their range goes down by a lot. I think their las blasters should go to assault3 and haywires pen on a 5-6 and they should be good (though make deepstrike more accurate. Either re-roll or only scatter 1D6. They fly on the map not jump or drop. They should have control over where they land).

Ail-Shan wrote:Trouble for the vyper transport is what happens if only one is shot down?

Same thing that happens to drones when one piranha in a squadron is shot down. All passengers disembark, at which point they get cover from the remaining Vypers. It really works quite well without being OP. It gives the Eldar an assault transport that fits their theme, while being more durable than using a DE style transport. Also there is nothing to say that all of the Vypers have to be loaded up. Run 6 banshees on 4 Vypers. Think about what 4 Shuricannons do to an unit or vehicle while leaving the Banshees set to do clean up.

Ail-Shan wrote:Also Focusedfire I don't like your hawk suggestion. The 36" Assault 3 gun (I'd even go for 24" assault 3) would be fine. Smaller squads make the already difficult to use haywires even less useful, and since plasma rifles are rapid fire their range goes down by a lot. I think their las blasters should go to assault3 and haywires pen on a 5-6 and they should be good (though make deepstrike more accurate. Either re-roll or only scatter 1D6. They fly on the map not jump or drop. They should have control over where they land).

Thar's cool. Was suggesting from the thought process of a highly mobile Anti-TEQ unit that would give them enough flavour and purpose to be taken. If you don't like the squad size then bump it back up 10 models, was runnig the unit smaller as a game balancing mechanism. As to plas being Rapid fire, you could always make it a unique weapon called the Plas Blaster and make it an assaut 1 18" weapon.

As to your idea of the Lasblaster going assault 3......doesn't fix he hawks primary problem. They are an anti-GEQ unit in an army full of units that does their job better than they do. Just throwing more shots on a S3 weapon isn't going to fix this.

I agree about the deep-striking needing to be more accurate.

focusedfire wrote:Reworked Vipers that have an optional two passenger transport capacity upgrade.

Warp Spiders- Maybe make their weapond Poisoned teplates? How about they don't suffer problems on second jump if Harlequins are on table within 12"?

In 2E, Vypers could carry a passenger in lieu of the gun mount.

The Spinner guns should probably be Rending, not Poison - monofilament can get into a little hole, making the target soup.
____

DEATH89 wrote:I don't think rending would do spiders any good I'd prefer it if they were 18" Assault 3 and AP6,

12" S6 AP- A1 Blast Rending would be fine.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Autarch – An Autarch should have his points reduced somewhat and given purchasable army-wide special rules such as; Perfect Initiative: +1 to the players roll for who gets first turn, Master Tactician: +1 to reserves roll, Master Strategist: may select one aspect warriors squad within the army to count as scoring, Logistical Genius: may re-roll the die to determine which side reserves arrive from and allow 6’s to come in from ANY edge, Inspiring: may issue commands to allow a broken unit to automatically regroup,

I don't like all of these but i like the idea that Autarchs can buy powers that affect the game before it begins like +2 to an attempt to seize or mess with deployment/reserves. About the only one i don't like there is Master strategist which I think should be a phoenix lords thing instead.

I think Autarchs should make ONE aspect warrior squad count as troops a-la Warboss/Nobs whereas Phoenix Lords (Named Exarchs) make their chosen aspect troops. I think this could be done well so far as Fire Dragon points are adjusted appropriately upward.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Farseer – Eldrich Storm needs a serious revision – possibly removed entirely and given to Warlocks as a purchasable power. Fortune should have its range increased to 24”, Guide should have its range increased to 24”, Mind War should function like a “ranged” Broodlord hypnotic gaze. Additional purchasable powers; Ancient Wisdom: May bestow Preferred Enemy to any infantry squad within 24” as he telepathically communicates his knowledge to the squad, Foresight: may bestow Stubborn to any infantry squad within 24” as he telepathically communicates the importance of their roll in the combat at hand and the consequences of failure for the Eldar Race, Certainty of Purpose: Farseer and any unit he joined becomes fearless, Master Psycher: when the Farseer casts a psychic power he may roll a die – on a 4+that psychic power cannot be stopped in any way other than a perils of the warp.

I think he needs more and more powerful powers. I agree on a range boost (eldar spread out over the table typically so this makes sense). i like the preferred enemy and stubborn powers, not so much the fearless one and master psycher is just inelegant design. If hoods are crippling you you can always kill the hood wearer. A power to negate a power that negates a power is just clumsy.

I don’t disagree with increasing the quantity of powers and the quantity of powers he can use per turn but the strength of Farseer powers should strictly be in “buffing” the army. Eldar Fluff seems to explicitly state that Warlocks are the “warrior” psychers and Farseers are the craftwaord “guides”. Master Psycher needs to have some sort of functionality that applies across all armies from hoods to shadow in the warp. Perhaps simply any roll of a double causes the power to be cast with “irresistible force” similar to fantasy.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Warlocks – Conceal should bestow a 4+ cover save and count as cover when the unit is charged. Additional warlock powers; Psychic Warrior (cheap): +1A, Disciple (expensive): May allow a Farseer who joined the squad to cast an additional psychic power – if a perils of the warp is rolled, the warlock must take the wound instead of the Farseer. Warlocks should be able to trade in their witchblades to purchase either a weapon that functions like a Nemesis Force Weapon or power weapon.

None of the here is a free cover save powers grant anything better than a 5+ so conceal shouldn't either. Ditto the charging effect. I like disciple, working like the old thrall wizards but I'd add a cap of maybe 4. Is that +1A to the squad of the warlock? No power weapons for warlocks, they are different from everyone elses assault specialists now and different is a good thing.

I think having no cap on the “thrall” warlocks is fine so long as the power is appropriately priced – I’m thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 points. Its ok that Conceal gives a 4+ cover saves where other armies don’t. The +1A would be to only the Warlcock who purchased the “Psychic Warrior” power. I’ll agree on the power weapon restriction but it seems that a Warlock could just walk into a Banshee shrine and say “hey – we got a war coming up, I need one of these. Farseer Bob says it’s ok.”

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Avatar of Khaine – Molten Body should include plasma, lascannons, and lasguns in addition to melta and falmer weapons. Inspiring should have its range increased to 24”.

Yes to the lascannons, etc. Why increase the range?

Mostly to keep things simple for Eldar players and opponents. Within 24” = good for Eldar player, bad for Eldar opponent. Outside 24” = bad for Eldar player, good for Eldar opponent.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Phoenix Lords should be removed from the codex and replaced with “Named” Exarchs. It’s a nit-pick, but I tend to think of Phoenix Lords as on-par with Space Marine primarchs and have no place on the tabletop. I don’t have ideas on how they should be revised but they should make their respective aspect count as troops.

Again I think count as troops is too powerful (the all dark reaper army, shudder) but 1 squad taken as troops lets you build a nice bile tan list and open up the heavy and elite slots a little bit more.

No particular aspect is overpowered with the exception of Fire Dragons which, given an appropriate price hike, would work ok and probably still get owned vs. hoard armies.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Striking Scorpions – Scorpions claw should not count as a power fist but rather a strength 8 power weapon. Biting Blade should add +1S but, in addition, each successful to-wound allows another to-hit and to-wound roll a-la Blood Angels Dreadnought infinite loop attack without the inability to save against the wounds inflicted.

Why do they need an init striking p-fist? Just a p-fist is fine as it is. I like your idea for biting blade.

The p-fist is strength 6 which is a bigger issue than many people think. If its strength 6 that hits on Initiative, than that’s fine. If its strength 8 that hits on I1, that’s fine… as it is currently doesn’t work. Initiative order Power fist would be fine so long as it was priced appropriately.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Fire Dragons – slight point hike. Dragons breath flamer should work as either a fusion gun or flamer. Crack Shot should be replaced with “Exarch’s guide to not nuking your own Fire Dragons” – a power which makes the Fire Dragon squad immune from ALL wounds inflicted by exploding vehicles.

Yes on flamer and fusion gun. I can't see an in game reason why that power would work though.

Seems simple enough – Exarch guides his squad through the moment as Shining Spear Exarchs guide theirs through difficult terrain.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Wraithguard – attacks should be rending as the strength of the wraithguard should be enough to bypass armor on some occasions. 4+ invulnerable save a-la Thousand Sons. Wraithcannon increased to 18” range – remove the instant death.

all horrible ideas. Rending is the mindless fix for everything these days and makes no sense for wraithguard. Ditto the invulnerable save. T6 s3+ is plenty good. Maybe 2W a model. I agree that the wraithcannon needs something to make it a bit betetr and an extra 6" of range might just be it.

Rending makes sense – they’re hulking constructs of wraithbone and fitting them with a power fist seems simple enough let alone merely the strength to auto-wound on 6’s… I think it’d be fair to drop their I to 2 though as they probably aren’t as agile as a typical Space Marine in their new wraithbone body. Rending is a good fix to give them a shred of CC bite back. Invulnerable save is also justified as the unit is similar to Thousand Sons being “undead” constructs without vital organs.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Howling Banshees – War Shout should be replaced with “combat agility” – a 4+ invulnerable save while in close combat.

Treads all over the design space of harlies so no.

I don’t consider that a valid reason for dismissing the idea. There’s plenty of room for overlap so long as harliquins are modified in a way that keeps them unique.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Wave Serpent – 10 point reduction, reduced cost EML, Starcannon, and Brightlance. BS4.

One or the other. improve the BS or reduce the gun cost.

EML, Starcannons, and brightlances are among the most inefficient weapons in the game even at BS4. They need both a BS increase and point reduction to regain viability. If a razorback with BS4 twin-linked lascannon/plasma gun comes in at 75 points 135 points is a bit much to pay for a BS3, fast moving, +1 AV front/side, +4 transport capacity version of nearly the same thing – especially when moving fast and firing the expensive weapon are mutually exclusive.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Dire Avengers – Dire Avengers should be trained to use their Avenger Shuriken Catapults in close combat and, as a result, count as being equipped with 2 close combat weapons.

Yeah, sure, why not.

I don’t actually feel Dire Avengers should have enhanced CC ability but there seems to be an Exarch roll for making the squad CC. Supporting that seems fair so long as it exists.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Rangers/Pathfinders – moderate point reduction. Ranger Disruption: Rangers and pathfinders are masters of stealth and guerilla tactics and spend months before a battle preparing the area for combat. Enemy units (including vehicles) within 24” of a full squad or rangers move as if in difficult terrain. Enemy units (including vehicles) within 24” of a full squad of pathfinders move as if in dangerous terrain. Rangers and Pathfinders have the hit and run USR.

Unbelievably OTT.
With infiltrate and this power it would be ludicrously easy to make the entire board count as difficult terrain. That just ends an ork or nid army before the game begins. To put this in some perspective Deathleaper costs nearly 200pts and only does this for assault. Rune Priests cost 100 pts and can only do this versus skimmers, jetbikes and jump packs and require a psychic test.
Maybe 6" effect and 12" for pathfinders.
Defensive grenades maybe. Generally I think rangers and pathfinders are fine. They're a cheap scoring unit that pins stuff, can kill marines in the open and can infiltrate directly onto the objective. Plus stealth makes them almost impossible to kill with shooting. If you can't shoot them and it takes 4 turns to assault them (through dangerous terrain) how the hell do you beat them?

Both a Deathleaper and Rune Priest would own a full squad of Pathfinders – as do MANY things (ANYTHING with a flamer). Remember the squad would have to be full size which is currently very expensive – especially for something that almost completely lacks the ability to address approaching armor. It would certainly be possible to make nearly the entire board count as difficult terrain by taking three squads of Rangers but doing so would leave the Eldar army at a serious point disadvantage. I know you believe rangers/Pathfinders to be fine but they aren’t – they’re fodder for the new era of drop podding/outflanking/template spaming 40k and defensive grenades is not a solution – especially when they are among the worst CC units in the Eldar codex. The old ranger Disruption table was insanely overpowered – this is a reasonable way to reintroduce the concept in a balanced way. Given play testing I could see having to pay for the ability to use “ranger disruption” or reducing the range to 18” but the core concept is in the right direction.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Guardians – Shuriken catapult range should be 18”. Guardian Defenders may take one heavy weapon platform for every 4 members of the squad (including warlock). Brightlance, EML, and starcannon get point reductions. Storm Guardians should be able to take a flamer or fusion gun for every 4 members of the squad (including warlock).

18" or my agile rule. 12" is too short as it leaves them in assalt range.
5 heavy weapons a squad makes them more heavy weapon based than marine devvies or guard heavy weapon teams. I htink 1 per 10 is fine).

Imperial Guard can take 5 heavy weapons platoons per troop slot… not counting the infantry platoons or command squad… Devistators/Havocs can take 4 heavy weapons in a mere 5 man squad. 1 heavy weapon per 4 guardians is fine. I’ve actually kicked around the idea of 1 heavy weapon per 4 guardians OR 1 support weapon per 10 guardians but I don’t any experience with support weapons to know if that’s unreasonable.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Guardian Jetbike Squadron – slight point reduction. Wildrider Host: A guardian jetbike squadron may be upgraded to a wildrider host for 10 points per model. All guardian jetbikes receive WS4, +1A, their attacks become rending as the riders are adept at ramming their bikes into the enemy, and receive the Hit and Run USR.

10pts gets you +1A +1WS rending and hit and run!!!!
+1A is 5pts, +1Ws is 3, Rending is 5 and hit and run is 3 so your looking at more like 16pts for that upgrade. Drop rending (again its lazy and makes no sense. Rending is sharp things not blunt ramming bikes, that would be more like furious charge). Frankly I think this is unecessary as you can do a Saim Hann army just fine .

I’d say +1A, +1WS and rending is worth around 12 points. Rending is not just “sharp” things. It’s anything that can justifiably bring to bear an overwhelming amount of force… an assault cannon is really no different than a heavy bolter or autocannon from a functional perspective. The Idea is fine so long as it’s priced appropriately after play testing – I can see dropping rending for furious charge but someone in the squad needs to be able to buy a power weapon if that’s the case.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Shining Spears – slight point reduction. Should get 2 attacks base, laser lances should be either strength 8 AP4 or strength 6 AP2. Withdraw should be much cheaper.

Str 6 ap 2 works for me and either or attacks go up or pts go down.

I’d say keep points the same if lances become str 6 ap2 and their attack profile is 2.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Warp Spiders – Withdraw should be replaced with a power similar to Descent of Angels

Why, withdraw seems plenty fluffy. And who deepstrikes spiders?

I almost exclusively deepstrike my spiders… very valuable “solution” unit. I actually meant that Surprise Assault should be replaced with a power similar to Descent of Angels.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Swooping Hawks – Moderate point reduction. Lasblasters become Assault 3, Range 36”. Swooping Hawks may always move 6” in the assault phase. Swooping Hawk grenade pack template automatically hits the rear of a vehicle with a single strength 6 hit a-la Tyranid Mawlock.

I agree with all of this.

I dream of the day that the model that inspired my first army to be Eldar becomes viable on the tabletop.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Viper Squadron – moderate point reduction. EML, starcannon, starcannong and brightlance cost reduced. BS4.

One or the other, BS or reduced weapons.

Nope – both. If a Space Marine Landspeeder with multi-melta comes in at 70 points and retains its heavy bolter 75 points is too much to pay for a BS3 brightlance viper that’s open topped.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Support Weaon Battery – god help me, like Harliquins, I have yet to ever use a Support Weapon battery and do not have a reasonable suggestion for improving them.

I think the weapons themselves need review. The shadow weaver needs to work like the new tank does, the D-Cannon needs either more range or large blast and the vibro-cannon, umm more strength?

Not sure. I wish I had more experience with them but I have never seen their viability. I agree that the shadow weaver and new tank need to behave exactly the same way though I’m not sure that’d really make it all that more worthwhile at its current incarnation.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Dark Reapers – point reduction. Fast shot and crack shot should benefit squad.

These are fine really, its just that these days mech is so much more powerful that a) defensively they seem weak and b) offensively their old targets are hiding in tanks or in cover where they can't get them.
I would say the exarch can add crackshot (not fast shot) to his squad with a sucessful leadership test.

I’d say that it might be worthwhile to drop fast shot all together and add some sort of power that gives reapers the ability to targets tanks… like some sort of ammunition (a-la Stern guard) that’s strength – but glances on 3’s, 4’s and 5’s and penetrates on 6’s

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Wraithlord – reduced cost starcannong, EML, and brightlance. Optional addition of “wraithshield” which makes the wraithlord save invulnerable. WS and BS should be at least 5. Purchasable abilities; Hero of Ancients: When a wraithlord loses its last wound roll a die. On a 3+, the legendary warrior is not removed from battle but continues to fight on with 1 wound (this ability has no effect against weapons that cause instant death such a Tyranid Boneswords), Memory of Death: The Wraithlord harbors a seething memory of its demise at the hands of the enemy and it receives 5 Attacks in close combat and the Fleet USR but MUST move AND run directly toward the nearest enemy unit each turn and charge if within range.

Wraithshield is lazy and unecessary. It's T8! You don't need to make it tougher.
WS BS increase would be fine with me for a cost increase.
As for abilities - hero of ancients is too powerful as is, maybe of a 5+ but imho Wraithlords are so tough that this is OTT.
Memory of Death sounds so un-eldar to me. Berserker robots? Even in death I would imagine the wraithlord is calm and aloof even if he is simmering with rage inside.

Wraithshiled IS necessary. With the weapons that are brought to bear against the wraithlord the 3+ save is basically moot. If Space marine terminators can truck around with a 3+ invulnerable save, so to can a wraithbone construct. As for the powers, I’m not married to them. I just think the wraithlord should be more flavorful – akin to Venerable dreadnoughts… heck, they’re much older than most venerable dreadnoughts while they were alive let alone the time they’ve spent in death. I’d go so far as to make an argument that some configuration of a Wraithlord could be taken as an HQ.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:War Walker Squadron – BS4, reduces cost EML, brightlance, and starcannon.

One or the other.

Both. The AV10 open topped nature of the War Walker makes nearly any weapons loadout other than scatter lasers and shuriken cannons completely inefficient.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Falcon – moderate point reduction, BS4, reduces cost EML, brightlance, and starcannon.

One or the other.

Again, both. If Blood Angels can take a fast moving Preditor with autocannon and two lasscannons at BS4 and front armor 13 for 135 points 145 points is too much for an AV 12, BS3, skimmer version of nearly the same thing.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Reworked Vipers that have an optional two passenger transport capacity upgrade. This upgrade means that any Squadron of 3-4 Vypers can become a dedicated transport for Harlequins and Banshees. The Passenger upgrade replaces the rear weapon mount and gunner, but the Vyper has the shuricannon and the passengers may still fire their weapons. Make the Acrobatic rule where the models may dismount while the Skimmer continues to move its full distance.

That's actually a great idea - doesn't require a whole new vehicle, would look cool. I don't think it's going to happen though.

There is a vehicle like this in the arsenal of the Harlequins: the Venom.
It can transport 6 models plus an IC.
GW maintained a page with a conversion from it from a Vyper....

I definitely agree with D-Cannons on Wraithlords.
Also wouldn't hurt if they got any combination of the following:
5+ invuln.
5-6 Wounds
+WS &/or Attacks

Also, I agree with better resistance to Hoods & Rune Priests, or else just double/triple the range of Fortune & Guide?

I think simple point reduction on most of the other things would go a long way...

Oh and also I think Harlequins need a 4++ or a Shadow field!

Sorry if these have already been mentioned (I'm feeling a bit lazy tonight):

Update swooping hawks
Either by making hawk wings = jetpacks (for JSJ), or a points reduction. I don't know whether this is treading on warp spider territory too much though.

Autarch
I've noticed a few posts already; and I have to agree with the inclusion of some purchasable army wide powers; but I like to think that for their current points cost they should be obliged to something akin to "SM chapter tactics" etc.

Firedragons
Maybe a points hike or even alter the Wraithguard rules (to improve them in someway) so that it is not compulsory to take dragons in order to be competitive.

Phoenix Lords
I think their special powers (such as the relevant exarch powers) should be made available to whatever squad they accompany. This would definately justify their current points cost (if not too much).



I'm not so certain about the D-cannons on WL thing, maybe wraithcannons. I could only justify the D-cannons if they were expensive enough; ala equivalent to what they currently cost (then again the current WL heavy weapons are overpriced if you ask me - reduce everything by 5!)

I would also like to see a boxed set of three Support weapon batteries- now that the plastic kit is out.


+edit+

now that I think about, WL should go up in price by +5pt, but their weapons should reduce by 5pt each.

Drop Warlocks on Jetbikes options
Fix how and when you can use certain psychic powers
Falcons with 4 BS
Harlequins as troops
Improve the Wraith lord a little bit. Just make it even better!
Add new choices for Elites or maybe Troops etc!

Get rid of the stupid master stratagist thing on the autarch.
Give the DA exarch a better shuriken catapult or something. The dual catapults are just IMO and everything else he gets is useless.

The Farsees needs an option to forsee the end of the battle (say on a 3+),
just to counter random game length.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Autarch – An Autarch should have his points reduced somewhat and given purchasable army-wide special rules such as; Perfect Initiative: +1 to the players roll for who gets first turn, Master Tactician: +1 to reserves roll, Master Strategist: may select one aspect warriors squad within the army to count as scoring, Logistical Genius: may re-roll the die to determine which side reserves arrive from and allow 6’s to come in from ANY edge, Inspiring: may issue commands to allow a broken unit to automatically regroup,

I don't like all of these but i like the idea that Autarchs can buy powers that affect the game before it begins like +2 to an attempt to seize or mess with deployment/reserves. About the only one i don't like there is Master strategist which I think should be a phoenix lords thing instead.

I think Autarchs should make ONE aspect warrior squad count as troops a-la Warboss/Nobs whereas Phoenix Lords (Named Exarchs) make their chosen aspect troops. I think this could be done well so far as Fire Dragon points are adjusted appropriately upward.

I don't like the idea of all aspect armies. Back in 3rd the option was available and it just made every non-aspect choice in the book redundant (unless you played one of the other craftworlds but in my experience most people played biel tan). Limiting it to one aspect helps I guess but i still dislike the idea of all fire dragon or all dark reaper or even all banshee armies.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Farseer – Eldrich Storm needs a serious revision – possibly removed entirely and given to Warlocks as a purchasable power. Fortune should have its range increased to 24”, Guide should have its range increased to 24”, Mind War should function like a “ranged” Broodlord hypnotic gaze. Additional purchasable powers; Ancient Wisdom: May bestow Preferred Enemy to any infantry squad within 24” as he telepathically communicates his knowledge to the squad, Foresight: may bestow Stubborn to any infantry squad within 24” as he telepathically communicates the importance of their roll in the combat at hand and the consequences of failure for the Eldar Race, Certainty of Purpose: Farseer and any unit he joined becomes fearless, Master Psycher: when the Farseer casts a psychic power he may roll a die – on a 4+that psychic power cannot be stopped in any way other than a perils of the warp.

I think he needs more and more powerful powers. I agree on a range boost (eldar spread out over the table typically so this makes sense). i like the preferred enemy and stubborn powers, not so much the fearless one and master psycher is just inelegant design. If hoods are crippling you you can always kill the hood wearer. A power to negate a power that negates a power is just clumsy.

I don’t disagree with increasing the quantity of powers and the quantity of powers he can use per turn but the strength of Farseer powers should strictly be in “buffing” the army. Eldar Fluff seems to explicitly state that Warlocks are the “warrior” psychers and Farseers are the craftwaord “guides”. Master Psycher needs to have some sort of functionality that applies across all armies from hoods to shadow in the warp. Perhaps simply any roll of a double causes the power to be cast with “irresistible force” similar to fantasy.

Irresisitible force is still a clumsy application but much more elegant than the initial proposal. I like my improved mind war, let him snipes pyskers early in the game to shut down hoods/staffs. Shadow is less of an issue since it has short range if we increase the range on the powers (which should be done).

incarna wrote:

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Warlocks – Conceal should bestow a 4+ cover save and count as cover when the unit is charged. Additional warlock powers; Psychic Warrior (cheap): +1A, Disciple (expensive): May allow a Farseer who joined the squad to cast an additional psychic power – if a perils of the warp is rolled, the warlock must take the wound instead of the Farseer. Warlocks should be able to trade in their witchblades to purchase either a weapon that functions like a Nemesis Force Weapon or power weapon.

None of the here is a free cover save powers grant anything better than a 5+ so conceal shouldn't either. Ditto the charging effect. I like disciple, working like the old thrall wizards but I'd add a cap of maybe 4. Is that +1A to the squad of the warlock? No power weapons for warlocks, they are different from everyone elses assault specialists now and different is a good thing.

I think having no cap on the “thrall” warlocks is fine so long as the power is appropriately priced – I’m thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 points. Its ok that Conceal gives a 4+ cover saves where other armies don’t. The +1A would be to only the Warlcock who purchased the “Psychic Warrior” power. I’ll agree on the power weapon restriction but it seems that a Warlock could just walk into a Banshee shrine and say “hey – we got a war coming up, I need one of these. Farseer Bob says it’s ok.”

Eldar don't work that way. A warlock doesn't go hey banshee bob can I have a power weapon because he isn't a banshee and it is the banshees that use the power weapons. Eldar are specialists and almost fetishistic about the arms and armurs associated with their specialisation. Plus it just makes warlocks a bit more distinct. Thrall is fine if its expensivw and unlimited or cheaper with a cap.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Striking Scorpions – Scorpions claw should not count as a power fist but rather a strength 8 power weapon. Biting Blade should add +1S but, in addition, each successful to-wound allows another to-hit and to-wound roll a-la Blood Angels Dreadnought infinite loop attack without the inability to save against the wounds inflicted.

Why do they need an init striking p-fist? Just a p-fist is fine as it is. I like your idea for biting blade.

The p-fist is strength 6 which is a bigger issue than many people think. If its strength 6 that hits on Initiative, than that’s fine. If its strength 8 that hits on I1, that’s fine… as it is currently doesn’t work. Initiative order Power fist would be fine so long as it was priced appropriately.

Just make scorps str4 base. It gives them the functional equivalent of what they have now plus a powerfist.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Fire Dragons – slight point hike. Dragons breath flamer should work as either a fusion gun or flamer. Crack Shot should be replaced with “Exarch’s guide to not nuking your own Fire Dragons” – a power which makes the Fire Dragon squad immune from ALL wounds inflicted by exploding vehicles.

Yes on flamer and fusion gun. I can't see an in game reason why that power would work though.

Seems simple enough – Exarch guides his squad through the moment as Shining Spear Exarchs guide theirs through difficult terrain.

the difference is terrain isn't moving. It's fixed and he sees it and steers around it. Dodging exploding shrapnel requires foresight which is more of a farseer thing. Besides the maximum explosion range on a tank is6" and the range on a fire dragon's gun is 6". Most of the time this isn't a problem.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Wraithguard – attacks should be rending as the strength of the wraithguard should be enough to bypass armor on some occasions. 4+ invulnerable save a-la Thousand Sons. Wraithcannon increased to 18” range – remove the instant death.

all horrible ideas. Rending is the mindless fix for everything these days and makes no sense for wraithguard. Ditto the invulnerable save. T6 s3+ is plenty good. Maybe 2W a model. I agree that the wraithcannon needs something to make it a bit betetr and an extra 6" of range might just be it.

Rending makes sense – they’re hulking constructs of wraithbone and fitting them with a power fist seems simple enough let alone merely the strength to auto-wound on 6’s… I think it’d be fair to drop their I to 2 though as they probably aren’t as agile as a typical Space Marine in their new wraithbone body. Rending is a good fix to give them a shred of CC bite back. Invulnerable save is also justified as the unit is similar to Thousand Sons being “undead” constructs without vital organs.

If they're similar to thousand sons then they should be T4 4++. There are different ways to represent "tough" in 40k. FnP, a toughness increase or an invulnerable save. Pick 1, not multiples. If you wanna make the t-sons argument then you get t-sons stats. Instead the way wraithbone is represented in game is with a high toughness and a decent save.
I agree that they need some cc bite but I don't like rending as the fix. Look at the units with rending, rending claws = a frenzied attack with claws, wulfen and t-wolf cav = a frenzied attack with claws, penal legion = a frenzied attack with knives, possessed = a frenzied attack with mutated warp talons, harlequins = monofilament mesh whipping around your insides.

The big bulky heavy and strong guys don't get rending. Ogryns, termies, krootox, nobz, they don't get rending. At best if they get a USR its furious charge.

I'd prefer it if they just had the option to buy powerfists or the squad had power weapons, lower init and were priced accordingly.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Howling Banshees – War Shout should be replaced with “combat agility” – a 4+ invulnerable save while in close combat.

Treads all over the design space of harlies so no.

I don’t consider that a valid reason for dismissing the idea. There’s plenty of room for overlap so long as harliquins are modified in a way that keeps them unique.

Harlies are the guys with rending and invulnerable saves. If Banshees are the guys with invulnerable saves and power weapons why would you ever take harlies? Plenty of people take banshees now so all you'd be doing there is creating a problem where presently there isn't one.

incarna wrote:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

incarna wrote:Rangers/Pathfinders – moderate point reduction. Ranger Disruption: Rangers and pathfinders are masters of stealth and guerilla tactics and spend months before a battle preparing the area for combat. Enemy units (including vehicles) within 24” of a full squad or rangers move as if in difficult terrain. Enemy units (including vehicles) within 24” of a full squad of pathfinders move as if in dangerous terrain. Rangers and Pathfinders have the hit and run USR.

Unbelievably OTT.
With infiltrate and this power it would be ludicrously easy to make the entire board count as difficult terrain. That just ends an ork or nid army before the game begins. To put this in some perspective Deathleaper costs nearly 200pts and only does this for assault. Rune Priests cost 100 pts and can only do this versus skimmers, jetbikes and jump packs and require a psychic test.
Maybe 6" effect and 12" for pathfinders.
Defensive grenades maybe. Generally I think rangers and pathfinders are fine. They're a cheap scoring unit that pins stuff, can kill marines in the open and can infiltrate directly onto the objective. Plus stealth makes them almost impossible to kill with shooting. If you can't shoot them and it takes 4 turns to assault them (through dangerous terrain) how the hell do you beat them?

Both a Deathleaper and Rune Priest would own a full squad of Pathfinders – as do MANY things (ANYTHING with a flamer). Remember the squad would have to be full size which is currently very expensive – especially for something that almost completely lacks the ability to address approaching armor. It would certainly be possible to make nearly the entire board count as difficult terrain by taking three squads of Rangers but doing so would leave the Eldar army at a serious point disadvantage. I know you believe rangers/Pathfinders to be fine but they aren’t – they’re fodder for the new era of drop podding/outflanking/template spaming 40k and defensive grenades is not a solution – especially when they are among the worst CC units in the Eldar codex. The old ranger Disruption table was insanely overpowered – this is a reasonable way to reintroduce the concept in a balanced way. Given play testing I could see having to pay for the ability to use “ranger disruption” or reducing the range to 18” but the core concept is in the right direction.

Why do they need this?
Ratlings don't get to disrupt enemy troops.
Space marine scouts don't get to disrupt enemy troops.
Kommandos don't get to disrupt enemy troops.

What is so special about rangers that they need to do it. They're fine as is. They have a focused task, sit in cover and score, pin enemy with rending guns. If they're too expensive then make them cheaper.

As for being deepstrike fodder well yes, they're the one unit in the eldar codex that is. When everything else is non-linear and zippy as hell or incredibly tough there is nothing else in the army that presents a static target for deepstrikers.

Besides, your suggestion does absolutely nothing to prevent them being vulnerable to deepstrikers. all it does is make it nigh on impossible for certain armies (orks) to kill them. Can't shoot them, takes 3 turns to get to the middle of the table to charge them and every turn causes dangerous terrain checks for every 6+ save model. Also it makes absolutely no sense games wise. How does messing with communications and deployment render the ground dangerous.

you want ranger disruption back and to make them less vulnerable to deepstrike. Okay, if a squad of rangers or pathfinder is on the table then the enemy has a -1 to all reserve rolls. Fluffier, much more balanced and actually works to stop deepstrike hurting them so much.

, EML, and starcannon get point reductions. Storm Guardians should be able to take a flamer or fusion gun for every 4 members of the squad (including warlock).

18" or my agile rule. 12" is too short as it leaves them in assalt range.
5 heavy weapons a squad makes them more heavy weapon based than marine devvies or guard heavy weapon teams. I htink 1 per 10 is fine).

oh ya I almost forgot about this how about giving all the phoenix lords invulnerable saves !

I didnt think the Eldar Codex was that old? Hmm.. im a noob.

Well, some good news... You get to read this next month (see pic)

As for the Codex, I dunno. I play whatever unit looks cool. 8)

If I had my way, Id make the Phoenix Lords far more playable. People should want to use them rather then say "err, yeah, points are too high". Its a pity really.

Good thread.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
I don't like the idea of all aspect armies. Back in 3rd the option was available and it just made every non-aspect choice in the book redundant (unless you played one of the other craftworlds but in my experience most people played biel tan). Limiting it to one aspect helps I guess but i still dislike the idea of all fire dragon or all dark reaper or even all banshee armies.

I think 3rd ed didn’t really do it right. Possibly the inability to take aspect warriors from other aspects and ONLY the ability to take non-aspects other than your chosen aspect… “Shrine” armies.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
Just make scorps str4 base. It gives them the functional equivalent of what they have now plus a powerfist.

That seems like a good solution to the Scorpion power fist but I am 99.999999999999% positive that wouldn’t happen. GW seems to like the idea of “one race = one stat line”.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
the difference is terrain isn't moving. It's fixed and he sees it and steers around it. Dodging exploding shrapnel requires foresight which is more of a farseer thing. Besides the maximum explosion range on a tank is6" and the range on a fire dragon's gun is 6". Most of the time this isn't a problem.

I think you’re splitting hairs unnecessarily. A Fire Dragon exarch can guide his squad to safety by using his expertise to predict exactly how to kill the vehicle without endangering his squad, he can carry a big f-ing shield that his buddies hide behind, or he can time his squads attack perfectly so that they’re able to escape the explosion… there are tons of ways to do it and, as for it not being a problem – it IS a problem. I’ve lost nearly as many Fire dragons to exploding vehicles as I have enemy attacks… a fact that wouldn’t be so bothersome if their fusion guns didn’t require them to be inside the exploding vehicle range to gain their melta bonus.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
If they're similar to thousand sons then they should be T4 4++. There are different ways to represent "tough" in 40k. FnP, a toughness increase or an invulnerable save. Pick 1, not multiples. If you wanna make the t-sons argument then you get t-sons stats. Instead the way wraithbone is represented in game is with a high toughness and a decent save.
I agree that they need some cc bite but I don't like rending as the fix. Look at the units with rending, rending claws = a frenzied attack with claws, wulfen and t-wolf cav = a frenzied attack with claws, penal legion = a frenzied attack with knives, possessed = a frenzied attack with mutated warp talons, harlequins = monofilament mesh whipping around your insides.

The big bulky heavy and strong guys don't get rending. Ogryns, termies, krootox, nobz, they don't get rending. At best if they get a USR its furious charge.

I'd prefer it if they just had the option to buy powerfists or the squad had power weapons, lower init and were priced accordingly.

Making the T son’s argument doesn’t require the T’sons stat line. Wave Serpents and Vipers are both made of wraithbone but yet have different AV’s. IG vets all have the same stat line yet some can by carapace armor. There are multiple ways to represent “tough” the t-sons and wraithguard “tough” are very similar and using one as a design basis for the other is perfectly fine even though the end result may be different (spore pod/drop pod).

It’s be fine if they had power fists. The problem I see there is that I think if an Eldar bonesinger went to the trouble of crafting a wraithbone construct designed to house the souls of the living dead he wouldn’t bother to make 1/5 to 1/10 of them with a power fist – he’d just give all of them power fists. Therein lies a cost issue that would, in my opinion, make the wraithguard either too expensive to be worthwhile or too broken to maintain balance.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
Harlies are the guys with rending and invulnerable saves. If Banshees are the guys with invulnerable saves and power weapons why would you ever take harlies? Plenty of people take banshees now so all you'd be doing there is creating a problem where presently there isn't one.

I’m fixing a problem where there is one – the Banshee’s inability to wound consistently without the support of Doom coupled with a brutal lack of any ability to stand up to a buried squad upgrade with a power weapon. Bansees suffer because they either mow down their opponents in one turn and get shot apart or fail to inflict enough damage on the charge and get bent over in consecutive rounds of CC. I don’t have a problem with the former – that’s the price you pay. I do have a problem with the latter… scorpions have a 3+ save, +1A, and str4. What do banshees get? Power weapons (very nice, I won’t argue) and always strike first when they basically always strike first already… They need some additional survivability in CC.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
Why do they need this?
Ratlings don't get to disrupt enemy troops.
Space marine scouts don't get to disrupt enemy troops.
Kommandos don't get to disrupt enemy troops.

What is so special about rangers that they need to do it. They're fine as is. They have a focused task, sit in cover and score, pin enemy with rending guns. If they're too expensive then make them cheaper.

As for being deepstrike fodder well yes, they're the one unit in the eldar codex that is. When everything else is non-linear and zippy as hell or incredibly tough there is nothing else in the army that presents a static target for deepstrikers.

Besides, your suggestion does absolutely nothing to prevent them being vulnerable to deepstrikers. all it does is make it nigh on impossible for certain armies (orks) to kill them. Can't shoot them, takes 3 turns to get to the middle of the table to charge them and every turn causes dangerous terrain checks for every 6+ save model. Also it makes absolutely no sense games wise. How does messing with communications and deployment render the ground dangerous.

you want ranger disruption back and to make them less vulnerable to deepstrike. Okay, if a squad of rangers or pathfinder is on the table then the enemy has a -1 to all reserve rolls. Fluffier, much more balanced and actually works to stop deepstrike hurting them so much.

The sliver of time that a ratling, space marine scout, and kommando has spent in their roll is nothing compared to that of a ranger or pathfinder. They should be very good at what they do – and the silly 5+6+ bonus on the to-hit roll is clunky (but I understand that’s a holdover from 4th).

My goal isn’t to make them less vulnerable to deepstrike – it’s to give them more value so the cost/benefit is more acceptable. Laying traps a-la Viet Cong before the battle is a good way to do this.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
Yes, those heavy weapon platoons are static and consist of 3 T3 models with 2W which are easily insta-killed. And it might be a little bit cheesy even then but "they get to do it" is a not valid design argument.
What your proposing is a 20man scoring squad with 5 mobile heavy weapons that has an always on 4+ cover save from conceal.
What on earth would be the point of warwalkers if guardians can have 5 heavy weapons?

“they get to do it” is a valid design argument because what works within the context of the game works within the context of the game no matter what army it’s in – if requiring some tweaking for purposes of internal balance.
That 20-man scoring squad with 5 mobile heavy weapons and 4+ cover save isn’t unreasonable so long as it’s priced accordingly. If you could merge two IG vet squads with 3 melta guns each and 1 power fists per sergeant you’re getting basically the same thing except a better BS, special weapons instead of heavy weapons (one more in fact), and something of a CC bite-back in their sergeants – for 10 points more than a 20-large squad of guardians with 5 crap-tastic BS3 shuriken cannons and ONE warlock with conceal.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:
You can't compare space marine termies to a wraithlord with a 3++.
Termies can be hurt by every model and weapon in the game whereas the wraithlord at T8 excludes the vast majority of weapons of the game from actually being able to hurt him. You can bring down assault termies through weight of firepower but you can't do that with a T8 beastie.

Do you know how many las-cannons it would take to cause a wound on that wraithlord. 10. 10 lascannons per wound. If you take 3 wraithlords that's 9 wounds requiring 90 lascannon shots. That's absurd. 3 landraiders only requires 60 and they're 250pts each!
Nightbringer! only has a 4++ and he costs about 300pts in an army where his cost is reduced and he is only remotely balanced because of the phase out rule. And you can only take 1 of him. A 3++ save wraithlord would run roughly 300pts even if you don't increase its BS or other abilities.

A single lascannon has exactly the same % chance of destroying a Rhino as it does of inflicting a wound on a Wraithlord with a 3+ invulnerable save… 3 rhino’s come in at 105 points which is less than a typical 3 wound Wraithlord loadout excluding the potential cost of a wraithshield. Small arms can’t hurt Rhino’s either… and they’re FAR more significant a force multiplier than a Wraithlord. I don’t consider Rhino’s broken… do you?
Nightbringers cost has more to do with his other abilities than his 4++

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:I don't like the idea of all aspect armies.

Back in 3rd the option was available and it just made every non-aspect choice in the book redundant

Limiting it to one aspect helps I guess but i still dislike the idea of all fire dragon or all dark reaper or even all banshee armies.

As a Biel Tan player, I like that idea very much.

Aspects are the real fighters, like Marines or Guardsmen. We don't see Imperial Conscripts as the backbone of Imperial forces.

All Dragons wouldn't be bad, nor all Banshees. All Reapers would be odd, and would require their Phoenix Lord. But all that is really necessary is for the Autarch to simply make all Aspects Scoring.

Or if the Autarch can get Exarch powers do that Aspect scoring (a little bit more tame)

M.

I'll respond to other points later but a lascannon versus a wraithlord assuming BS4

2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, 1/3 chance wound is saved = about a 0.148 chance of scoring a wound

Rhino 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to penetrate, 1/3 chance to destroy so exactly the same odds of destroying it.

So your assumption of 3 rhinos is about as tough as 1 wraithlord is correct except that

1. rhinos are not immune to small arms fire.

2. rhinos can be hurt by anything with a str 4 or higher, especially in cc. A wraithlord requires a minimum of str 5.

3. Rhinos can't tie units up in cc where they can never have a chance to hurt them.

As for nightbringers other powers, same str as wraithlord, 2 more attacks, 2 more wounds, 1 point better init, frags, ignore invulnerable and a "wooo scary". The wraithlord has better guns and the cost reduced a bit for ghost sight. Nightbringers cost is artificially reduced because of the balancing factor of phase out.

I'd cost a 3++ wraithlord at about 200pts. They're tougher than a landraider and effectively invincible in cc (unless you have an entire unit with str5+).

@bravely, given that Dreads are completely immune to S5 in HtH, you'll cost them at 250+ pts then?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@bravely, given that Dreads are completely immune to S5 in HtH, you'll cost them at 250+ pts then?

Well first off every tac squad has krak grenades these days so you have low odds admittedly but the potential to hurt a dread with a basic marine and nearly every glance or penning drops a weapon, or an attack, or makes it easier to use grenades, etc. On the flip side str 5 stuff can hurt the wraithlord but not the dread.

Plus the pf strikes from the squad have a 1/2 chance to hit, 1/2 chance to glance and then you definitely do damage, about 4 swings to average a glance. With the wraithlord at a 3++ its 1/2, 1/2, 1/3. That's 12 p-fist attacks required to score a wound. The wraithlord is 3 times as survivable in cc as the dread is versus the only type of weapon you'd really expect to be able to hurt it in cc and worth about 2 dreads in shooting surviability. For that I would probably price it at about the cost of 1 and a half dreads or about 200pts.

Let me put it this way, odds are a full 10 man t-hammer/storm shield unit on the charge will do a mere 2 wounds. I don't expect anything that can withstand 30 p-fist attacks to cost 100pts.

Except a WL has Wraithsight which means it's worth a lot less than a Dread.

Quite frankly, unless you're massively bumping a WL's combat capabilities, no way it's worth 200 pts.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:I'll respond to other points later but a lascannon versus a wraithlord assuming BS4

2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, 1/3 chance wound is saved = about a 0.148 chance of scoring a wound

Adam, I´m guessing that here you are talking about an invul save WL because if not there is no save against Lascannons.

M.

Well, he's giving the WL a 3++ in HtH against the PF, too...

Well, I want a variant of the Fire Prism with a D-cannon (artillery, twin-linked), very similar to the Night Spinner. Ouch!

Baby Cobra?

Yeah, that'd be nice!