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.

Aha! I missed that. >_>

Nice way of including the Crystal Dragons without them sort of overshadowing the Fire Dragons. I like this over all, very nice for example that you included Iyanna and also tadded Autarch powers.

Some things I'd like to point out though, is
- I think you should fix is that at character entries like the exarch, it says the Exarch f.ex. can replace their Close Combat Weapon - shouldn't this be his/her? This is now grammar only, it doesn't really have anything to do with the rules, but still...

- The Bonesinger rules should be something like
If a Farseer is upgraded to a Bonesinger, then at the beginning of each of your turns roll a D6 for every wounded Wraithguard or Wraithlord model within 6”. On a 6 that model regains a single wound.

- The Runes of Warding and Witnessing seems a bit messed up. I'm not sure, but I think you have written wrong names in each entry, but right titles, so to speak.

- No Wraithseer..?

Also, not really a correction, but... The Siren Mirror - Wow!

Saintspirit wrote:Nice way of including the Crystal Dragons without them sort of overshadowing the Fire Dragons. I like this over all, very nice for example that you included Iyanna and also tadded Autarch powers.

Some things I'd like to point out though, is
- I think you should fix is that at character entries like the exarch, it says the Exarch f.ex. can replace their Close Combat Weapon - shouldn't this be his/her? This is now grammar only, it doesn't really have anything to do with the rules, but still...

- The Bonesinger rules should be something like
If a Farseer is upgraded to a Bonesinger, then at the beginning of each of your turns roll a D6 for every wounded Wraithguard or Wraithlord model within 6”. On a 6 that model regains a single wound.

- The Runes of Warding and Witnessing seems a bit messed up. I'm not sure, but I think you have written wrong names in each entry, but right titles, so to speak.

- No Wraithseer..?

Also, not really a correction, but... The Siren Mirror - Wow!

Thanks man, appreciate the feedback.

I'll look into the bonesinger when I get a chance (give me a week or so).
I put 'their' as unlike Marines for example, they can be either gender; then I remembered that 'his' is used in gender-neutral circumstances, so again this will be changed when possible.
RoW/RoW will be cleared up too; i initially got the names the wrong way round, then just copied and pasted the titles! Whoops.
I did consider the Wraithseer or making Eldrad an optional Wraithseer, but I do think it's best that Forgeworld keep some of their exclusivity.
Is that Siren Mirror as in "wow! good", "wow! OTT" or "wow! I get the reference!" ?

As ever, all C&C is welcome. Thanks!

Just Dave wrote:
Thanks man, appreciate the feedback.

I'll look into the bonesinger when I get a chance (give me a week or so).
I put 'their' as unlike Marines for example, they can be either gender; then I remembered that 'his' is used in gender-neutral circumstances, so again this will be changed when possible.
RoW/RoW will be cleared up too; i initially got the names the wrong way round, then just copied and pasted the titles! Whoops.
I did consider the Wraithseer or making Eldrad an optional Wraithseer, but I do think it's best that Forgeworld keep some of their exclusivity.
Is that Siren Mirror as in "wow! good", "wow! OTT" or "wow! I get the reference!" ?

As ever, all C&C is welcome. Thanks!

Actually, it was more about the fact that the word "their" is used only in plural, not singular. Supposed it could be "its" if you wish to be neutral in sexes.

And the siren mirror was mainly "Wow! I must take that on my seer"

A minor typo, in the description for howling banshees "Hell Hath No Fury" I think you missed the word "turn" out at the end

Its looking really great so far

EDIT:
Also, in the 'quins "Face of Fear" I assume you ment to put "...in close combat with a Harlequin Troupe Master (or Harlequin Solitaire)....."

No, that's intended to affect Harlequins as a whole (Harlequin Troupe is the unit). You're right about the banshee's though; I shall edit that.

@ Saint; I'll probably just go for 'his'. I would it's would be suitable if they weren't sentient. We're getting a bit 'deep' in this naming thing, eh?

Updates will be made when I have an opportunity, which may not be for another week. As ever, all feedback is welcome. Thanks!

"Their" can actually be used in the singular instead of his/her according to most grammar styles for cases of indeterminate gender. Overall, great job on the codex. It looks overpowered, but that might just be because I'm comparing it to the current codex.

Thanks man.

I thought 'their' could be singular as well, however I think I'll with his anyway, it feels more 'right' to me at least and it's the same method (bar wyches) used in the DE 'dex.

Honestly, I have worried that it would be overpowered as well (as I do/should with any rules designs), but I don't think it is to be honest; the vast majority of units all have their niche and their identifiable weaknesses, whilst few actually got point decreases and instead increased abilities.
For example, apart from their Ld modifier, Banshees are no better against Guardsmen than they were before, but they still cost the same. They are however better against Marines (hitting on a 3+).
Shining Spears now hit harder and can hit and run (and are cheaper), but ultimately, they are pretty much as tough as a MeQ and struggle against hordes.
Warp Spiders are now less effective against vehicles, but better against infantry.
Vypers are more expensive, but better.
Harlies are better, but just as fragile at range.

Again, I'm not refuting your opinion, I feared it may be overpowered too. but as I've attempted to identify above, I've tried to balance it throughout by maintaining clear roles and weaknesses in the army to encourage it to be more finesse, as Eldar should be IMHO.
I have worried about Eldar fleet, but it's uses are potentially limited and it is worth a pts or 2 in itself.

Again, thanks for the feedback, it's always welcome.

Singing Spears should struggle against hordes, so it's a good design. Warp Spiders were a bit of a jack of most trades, master of none, adding a weakness while implementing a clear role is good, though I do worry they are still somewhat similar to Hawks.

As far as Vypers go... I don't know. They're half the price of a Wave Serpent with none of the survivability. They are absolutely dependent on a good solid cover, which is highly unlikely to be present.
Realistically a single Falcon is a better choice for points over two Vypers since it's more versatile, has better firepower, is more accurate, and provides significantly better returns for vehicle upgrades.

Small point, it is sufficient, under the current rules, for a Shadow Asp not to fire weapons - since moving over 12" automatically disables the option of shooting.
Interesting choice setting these up as Fast Attack, by the way. What hull do they use? Hornet?

Eldar Fleet is definitely required to make a foot army containing melee elements viable. I'm not certain it does require any extra points (over that which is presented in 4th edition codex), but the Eldar (melee) warriors are excessively fragile in comparison to the numerous Orks, and the more durable Space Marines.
Eldar Fleet on Eldar treehuggers (NOT Rangers, since they will remain a weird stationary element in an otherwise mobile force) with guns, though... it's just lucky potential tree-huggers have such short range guns. In and out of a forest (or over a wall and back)...

I think that you should drop the hawks points to 15 so they get the same amount of laser fire as guardsmen for the same points. They are still much more fragile so 10 hawks vs 30 guardsmen seems like a upphill batlle for the hawks anyway, and that while attacking their preferd target. Adding haywire grenades would also be a nice addition.

Oooo another well made Fandex.
First off well done on a great piece of work. It looks great, is well layed out and has some really interesting rules and ideas.
One can see it obviously took a lot of time and effort.
I think some of the ideas really add an interesting dimension to the Eldar, Im less convinced of other changes however but to that later on.

I'll start with a few very minor typos, mistakes and changes needed. Might as well have it as professional as possible

If the D6 rolls any other result, Wraithsight has no effect or that turn.

Change to: on

This third power may be the same as one already cast that turn

Insert fullstop.

Athairiel Morniynstar
Athairiel Mornynnstar,

Difference in spelling.

The Tempestiel Blades are a pair of Witchblades (therefore conferring an additional attack) that on any to-wound roll of 5 or 6, that attack will ignore

armour saves.

Change to:
The Tempestiel Blades are a pair of Witchblades (therefore conferring an additional attack) that on any to-wound roll of 5 or 6, will ignore armour saves.

A Phoenix Lord only contributes a kill point if they have 0 wounds remained at the end of the game.

Change to: remaining.

Mandiblasters that confers 2

Change to: confer

The Farseer may be accompanied by a unit of Warlock Seer Council (see overleaf) for 70pts,

Change to: The Farseer may be accompanied by a Warlock Seer Council unit (see overleaf) for 70pts,

The Exarch may allocate all wounds caused upon an enemy unit (by the Exarch only) in that phase to model(s) with a specific stat-line within that

unit.

A bit clunky. Change to:
All wounds caused by the Exarch that phase may be allocated to models who have the same stat line within that enemy unit (does this apply in the shooting

phase too?)

All enemy units within 6” of the solitaire are at -1Ld. (Note: that this can stack with a Face of Death)

Should this be Face of Fear? I cant find a face of death reference anywhere else.

The Exarch and his unit benefits from the Hit and Run special rule.

Change to: benefit

I think the Eldar fleet rule is a little confusing. When I initially read it it seemed like they could move 6, run 6 and assault 12.
Not a major thing but it did take 2-3 rereads. I'd clarify the wording more perhaps putting in an actual example of a unit using it.

This lasts for the duration of the Eldar players

Insert: turn.

A few rules queries then
Do runes of dawning stack if you have 2 characters with them? Could be a little powerful, in the fact that they can be used each turn on different units?

Under the Pheonix Lords you can have a max of two per army?

Under Baharroths Skyleap can this be used in any assault phase including the enemies? It can be used every turn?

Does hell hath no fury stack with face of fear? I assume so.

If Althenian is in a vehcile how many transport slots does he take up considering he is a monstorous creature, if any at all.

Under Iron Guardin it states he must stay with 6" of Iyanna. What if he does not? What is the penalty?

Under Veil of Tears it staes if the enemy does not spot the Harlies they cannot fire that turn. Is that cannot fire at all? I think thats a little OTT. Perhaps change it so that they cannot fire at the Harlies but can select another target?

Can Soulless, FoF and the Banshee ability stack for -3 LD tests?

Under Pathfinder it does not allow cover saves. However if it rolls a 5-6 it counts as AP1 therefore ignore armor saves too? I think that is pretty lethal for a 20pt squad upgrade. I'd consider a change there. Im not sure to what though.

Suggested rules changes:
Yriels weapon from ap3 to ap5. Too strong vs mid level infantry units and combined with his formidable hth abilities with it being assault is slightly overpowered.

I would change the PL Disciples rule from Fearless to Stubborn. Whilst they are inspirational leaders I dont think they should make their unit Fearless because of the excess wounds rule. In addition whilst hardy warriors there are some terrors not even a PL and his squad can face down. Rules and fluff wise I think stubborn is a bit better.

I would change Karandras' Hidden Death rule from deepstriking to the Ymargl genestealer rule. I think its more characterful, interesting and tactical.

I dont agree with the change to Maugan Ra. I think it makes him an infantry killer only, removing some of his utility. Whilst the pinning rule is nice he becomes defunct vs vehciles and with the Reapers not being superbly effecive vs them either its back to the same porblem of "why bother selecting them?"
I would give his weapon an assault or heavy option firing mode. For the heavy mode something like Str8 ap3 Heavy3. It would then allow him and his squad to take out light to heavy vehicles adding much needed utility. I would also insert a rule that he can fire at a different target then his squad.

I would change Baharroths Furios Angels to allow them once per game to perform a deepstrike and skyleap same turn. Its characterful and would really make them a nice hit and run unit albeit only once per game. Leave the rest of the rule as it is.

I like Kirahnna and Tamarelle Eve a lot though

Taking onboard all that has been written about the Avatar I think he is fine as he stands. You need to view his in relation to other top tier characters and their costs/abilities - Ghaz, Draigo, SW gang etc etc.

My biggest issue overall with the Codex is the ridgid squad size for all the Eldar troops and the mandatroy inclusion of an Exarch.
My view of the Eldar always centered around them being a "relatively" small, elite, flexible force both tactic and fluff wise.
From a fluff perspective having 4 squad members in a squad with an Exarch makes them almost "regimented", too similar to other armies. The Eldar have always been excellent proponents of warfare and this is based on their knowledge, training and skill. It seems more reasonable to allow them the option to form small, elite "hit squads" because their sheer skill over rides their lack of numbers.
From a tactical standpoint, most especvially with Guardians I think it would be very interesting to allow them of squad sizes 3+. You could have 5,6,7 very small Guardian squads running around rather then uniform and unweildy 10 man squads. Same with the Aspects. I would allow them a 3+ squad size rule with the option of a Warlock. The best codexes allow players to field different types of units and setups with flexibility. I think having 4+Exarch is too limited and restricting.
In short(!) allow each troop and Aspect unit to have 3+ members with an Exarch as an option. Leave it up to the player then to decide what is best.

Under the Banshee acrobatic rule (which I really like) I'd amend it slightly however to:
Whatever vehicle they are in becomes an assault vehicle with relevant rules. I think the 2d6" extra is just too hit and miss for what is already a relatively fragile squad. Rolling a double 1 or 2 wont help much at all. Again part of the current Banshee problem is "why take them"? Eldar transports have poor hatch/door setups, they cant assult the turn athey get out and usually have to weather a turn of fire before hth. Making whatever vehicle they ride in assault would fix that
with the cavet they can be the only ones riding in it obviously.

I'd give the Fire Dragons a 3+ armor save. Since 2nd ed they wrere always supposed to be hard hitting but durable troops. 3+ will allow them to survive a bit more after their shooting, something which as it stands is a problem for them.

Sundering Sentinels are very interesting. From my reading of them, they are supposed to be a dedicated anti light infantry unit with teir Hipcannons and Slicing Orbs?
I think the slicing Orbs however are OTT especially if in a 10 man unit with 2 use. I would remove the assault rule for them. Having that hit something like an
Ork unit and then the SS charging the remains would be lethal. 10, 2+ blast templates on hordes is powerful. I'd also chnage the AP to 6, perhaps even "-".

The Wraithguard rule that 10 can become troops isnt very viable imo. By my calculations including a Warlock the squad would cost over 400 points just to get into the troop section.
I can certainly see where the rule comes from, building a Ghostwalker list but I dont think it will work. Perhaps allow Iyanna, if included in the army to make WG count as troops. That could be a very fun idea and army. You will stall pay the points for them but could have multiple 3-5 man squads running around supported by Warlocks and Wraithlords.

As above I think Veil of Tears is too strong and would also amend it to 3d6x2. As it stands a 24" range is too short and contravines the basic nightfight rules from which this rule is derived presumably.

I think the Solitaire rules need a change. As it stands from what I can see he can have up to 11 attacks on the charge with his Blazing assualt rule that can reroll all wounds and get rend on a 5+? Way too powerful imo. Added to Ws7 and I7 hes a true squad wrecking machine even with str3. And for 140 points too cheap. I'd change it to something similar to Lilleths hth rule bonus attack rule.

Under Skyleap can they use it in an enemy assault phase to escape combat? That would seem fitting, characterful and useful.

For the Warp Spiders I would consider giving them some sort of movemtn restricting weapon bonus to reflect the mono filaments and problems it can pose.
I'd suggest something like if a squad is hit and wounded by WS attacks they must pass a initiative test or count as moving through difficult terrain next turn.
It would open up some interesting tactical options for the rest of the army, is within fluff/character and isnt too OP I feel.

Gotta break here but will hopefully come back with the rest of the Codex later.
Again really well done on the work and hope my comments are taken as positives rather then criticisms

Ratius wrote:

I think the Solitaire rules need a change. As it stands from what I can see he can have up to 11 attacks on the charge with his Blazing assualt rule that can reroll all wounds and get rend on a 5+? Way too powerful imo. Added to Ws7 and I7 hes a true squad wrecking machine even with str3. And for 140 points too cheap. I'd change it to something similar to Lilleths hth rule bonus attack rule.

The Eversor Assassin, on the charge, can have up to 11 attacks at WS8 and Strength 5,and I8 as well, with rerolls to wound, that ALSO ignore armour without having to charge certain inches for this bonus, the solitare is 5 points more and as Dave stated he is supposed to be similar, while a little less skilled, he has some more techy sort of abilities, and some defensive ones, but no T4 S4.. I think when you compare the unit that the Solitaire is based around, you will find he is a fluffy, and balanced character.

I hope you don't mind me discussing these comments. First of all, though, big thumbs up for the obvious effort!

Ratius wrote:

The Exarch may allocate all wounds caused upon an enemy unit (by the Exarch only) in that phase to model(s) with a specific stat-line within that

unit.

A bit clunky. Change to:
All wounds caused by the Exarch that phase may be allocated to models who have the same stat line within that enemy unit (does this apply in the shooting

phase too?)

Well, I believe that the Exarch choosing stat-line is the important thing here, so you can snipe hidden power fists, and so on, and therefore the suggested wording might simply give rise to a misbelief of which player chooses. "may be allocated by the Exarch" maybe?

The Exarch and his unit benefits from the Hit and Run special rule.

Change to: benefit

I think the Eldar fleet rule is a little confusing. When I initially read it it seemed like they could move 6, run 6 and assault 12.
Not a major thing but it did take 2-3 rereads. I'd clarify the wording more perhaps putting in an actual example of a unit using it.

I'd agree with the assessment of Eldar Fleet.

Perhaps "Any unit with Eldar Fleet benefit from the Fleet universal special rule, and may additionally make a special run move of the highest of 2D6 in the assault phase instead of assaulting. Please note that any rules for movement still apply, and a unit which has used a weapon or ability which would be prevented by normal movement in the movement phase will also negate this special movement."?

Do runes of dawning stack if you have 2 characters with them? Could be a little powerful, in the fact that they can be used each turn on different units?

Additionally, may be good specifying if they are declared before or after the roll.

Under the Pheonix Lords you can have a max of two per army?

Well, according to codex, Baharroth + Karandras + Maugan Ra = 630 points, 3 KP, 1 HQ slot.

If Althenian is in a vehcile how many transport slots does he take up considering he is a monstorous creature, if any at all.

I believe that Monstrous Creatures can't enter transports under standard rules, and that additionally it would be irrelevant since he's his own unit and can't enter it with other models.

Under Iron Guardin it states he must stay with 6" of Iyanna. What if he does not? What is the penalty?

Good catch!

Under Veil of Tears it staes if the enemy does not spot the Harlies they cannot fire that turn. Is that cannot fire at all? I think thats a little OTT. Perhaps change it so that they cannot fire at the Harlies but can select another target?

This is actually exactly how it work in the current codex, and Harlies aren't exactly a stellar unit at the moment, so there's room for improvement. Don't know how much Dave's done for their viability as is, though. Keep in mind they may not be transported except with a Falcon or a borrowed Serpent, so Veil is absolutely necessary as a delivery method.

Under Pathfinder it does not allow cover saves. However if it rolls a 5-6 it counts as AP1 therefore ignore armor saves too? I think that is pretty lethal for a 20pt squad upgrade. I'd consider a change there. Im not sure to what though.

It's not a squad upgrade, it's a sergeant upgrade and applies only to the sergeant.

I would change the PL Disciples rule from Fearless to Stubborn. Whilst they are inspirational leaders I dont think they should make their unit Fearless because of the excess wounds rule. In addition whilst hardy warriors there are some terrors not even a PL and his squad can face down. Rules and fluff wise I think stubborn is a bit better.

Regarding fluff, the presence of a Phoenix Lord taints an entire Craftworld, and his psychic presence fills the consciousness of all Aspect Warriors, regardless of shrine, almost to the extent of the Avatar itself. I don't know, I don't think Fearless is excessive, but certainly open for debate.

I would change Karandras' Hidden Death rule from deepstriking to the Ymargl genestealer rule. I think its more characterful, interesting and tactical.

Agree on this, since Scorpions can select Webway Translator as default, it's only a minor upgrade.

My biggest issue overall with the Codex is the ridgid squad size for all the Eldar troops and the mandatroy inclusion of an Exarch.
My view of the Eldar always centered around them being a "relatively" small, elite, flexible force both tactic and fluff wise.
From a fluff perspective having 4 squad members in a squad with an Exarch makes them almost "regimented", too similar to other armies. The Eldar have always been excellent proponents of warfare and this is based on their knowledge, training and skill. It seems more reasonable to allow them the option to form small, elite "hit squads" because their sheer skill over rides their lack of numbers.
From a tactical standpoint, most especvially with Guardians I think it would be very interesting to allow them of squad sizes 3+. You could have 5,6,7 very small Guardian squads running around rather then uniform and unweildy 10 man squads. Same with the Aspects. I would allow them a 3+ squad size rule with the option of a Warlock. The best codexes allow players to field different types of units and setups with flexibility. I think having 4+Exarch is too limited and restricting.
In short(!) allow each troop and Aspect unit to have 3+ members with an Exarch as an option. Leave it up to the player then to decide what is best.

While the MSU does seem to be the Eldar flavour Warfare, each shrine is based around an Exarch, and the Exarch of a shrine answers the call of that shrine and decides how to best answer the requirements set by the Autarchs. From Path of the Warrior, having a squad of Aspect Warriors on duty without an Exarch seems completely unheard of, while having very large squads is more common the less traditional the craftworld or Exarch is. In it's essence, it seems likely the Eldar would field Exarch + 2-9 or Exarch + 2-20 Warriors, but a squad without an Exarch is unlikely.
It's a major point raised in the Eldar discussion threads, but the addition of an Exarch may prevent exploitation of DAVU and bring down the appeal of kamikaze Fire Dragons.

Eldar are, more than any other race, very much into guidance and mentorship. When even the civilian roles such as the paths of servitude mandates personal mentors, it would seem unlikely that an Eldar army would let anyone go without their mentor to war.

The Wraithguard rule that 10 can become troops isnt very viable imo. By my calculations including a Warlock the squad would cost over 400 points just to get into the troop section.
I can certainly see where the rule comes from, building a Ghostwalker list but I dont think it will work. Perhaps allow Iyanna, if included in the army to make WG count as troops. That could be a very fun idea and army. You will stall pay the points for them but could have multiple 3-5 man squads running around supported by Warlocks and Wraithlords.

+1 on this

Under Skyleap can they use it in an enemy assault phase to escape combat? That would seem fitting, characterful and useful.

4th edition codex, yes. Just Dave codex, only with Baharroth.

For the Warp Spiders I would consider giving them some sort of movemtn restricting weapon bonus to reflect the mono filaments and problems it can pose.
I'd suggest something like if a squad is hit and wounded by WS attacks they must pass a initiative test or count as moving through difficult terrain next turn.
It would open up some interesting tactical options for the rest of the army, is within fluff/character and isnt too OP I feel.

Gotta break here but will hopefully come back with the rest of the Codex later.
Again really well done on the work and hope my comments are taken as positives rather then criticisms

Warp Spiders actually have the same monofilament rule as Night Spinner and Doom Weaver.

Again, sorry for highjacking your comment, hope you don't mind me addressing stuff instead with my own input.

Not at all Mahtamori, as I said under the recent Nid Fandex, the only way this thing is going to come to fruition is if everyone chips in with logical, open and progressive analysis and comments

"Allocated by the Exarch" is a very nice addition.

Didnt see the 3 PLs rule = 1 slot. Missed that one. So under two HQ slots you can have 6?
Hmmm not sure that would work from either a fluff or game perspective.

Althenian in the transport I suppose relates to the other question of what happens if hes out of range. Assuming its a hard and fast rule an exception will have to be made and since hes monstorous maybe he takes up 3 slots?

Ah wasnt aware of the Veil of Tears current rule, not overly familiar with Harlies.
But since we're tweaking a few things I'd still keep it to Harlies only YMMV

Yes I didnt word the Pathfinder query quite right. My point would be when the seargent hits he can still potentially remove armour and cover saves which is pretty lethal. Not sure if its completely OP but I'd still question it.

We'll agree to disagree on the fearless/stubborn rule! I would point out though the last thing I feel codexs need are "USR spam" such as FNP and psychic powers all over the place, I find it one dimensional tactically and doawn right tough to counter in others. Allowing PL and squads to have fearless, could potenitally have 3 different squads running around fearless and thats before the Avatar is centrally placed. Boring imho.

Concede on the Exarch in squad rule but would still most definetly allow smaller unit sizes. Tactical options are key yo a Codex and I think this option helps that out.

I'd revert Skyleap to original. Not sure I see why the change.

Didnt know about the WS monofil rule. Kinda shows how "poor" they are currently, havent fielded them in months and months!

Good work

Well... you could have:

1 Exarch with Seer Strike Force (HQ#1)
Azurmen, Karandras, Fuegan, Baharroth, Jain Zar, Maugan Ra, Kirahnna, Tamarelle'Eve (HQ#2)
Farseer with 8 Warlocks (Elite#1)
Farseer with 8 Warlocks (Elite#2)
Farseer with 8 Warlocks (Elite#3)
Guardian Squad with Warlock (Troop#1)
Guardian Squad with Warlock (Troop#2)

Although it'd cost you some 2830 points or more and wouldn't be very effective.

I think the Pathfinder's intended to be able to snipe off hidden powerclaws, although it's still a low chance

Swap in the Avatar and you have a mini Court of the Young King

Ratius wrote:

Concede on the Exarch in squad rule but would still most definetly allow smaller unit sizes. Tactical options are key yo a Codex and I think this option helps that out.

While I will agree with you that tactical options are key to viability, allowing squads of three is going to overly abuse Mech spam.

Dire avengers are cheaper than they are currently as it is, so are wave serpents. How would you like to go up against an army like this -
(For this test, we'll say it's 40 points for an Exarch and two dire avengers. Which is actually a bad turn around but it'll just go to show you what I mean)

****HQ - 150****
Autarch (75)

Autarch (75)

****Troops - 725****
2x Dire Avengers + Exarch (145)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent w/ Scatter Laser

2x Dire Avengers + Exarch (145)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent w/ Scatter Laser

2x Dire Avengers + Exarch (145)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent w/ Scatter Laser

2x Dire Avengers + Exarch (145)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent w/ Scatter Laser

2x Dire Avengers + Exarch (145)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent w/ Scatter Laser

****Elites - 555****
4x Fire Dragons + Exarch (185)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent

4x Fire Dragons + Exarch (185)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent

4x Fire Dragons + Exarch (185)
- Dedicated Wave Serpent

****Fast Attack - 100*****
Vyper (50)

Vyper (50)

****Heavy Support - 465****
Fire Prism (155)
- Spirit Stones
- Holo-Fields

Fire Prism (155)
- Spirit Stones
- Holo-Fields

Fire Prism (155)
- Spirit Stones
- Holo-Fields

****Total = 1995****

11 AV12 hulls, and 2 AV10 hulls. All with Eldar tricks to stay alive, making them more durable than most other mech forces. You have +2 to your reserve rolls, so you can almost always ensure you get your alpha strike. You have 15 melta dragons to deal with anything your scatter lasers and fire prisms don't want to deal with. Your vypers duck and dodge providing harassment/support.

Hmm excellent analysis.
I'll have to ruminate some but my initial thoughts would be twofold:
Firstly, other armies can "spam" as many armour hulls as that so its nothing new, groundbreaking or game changing.
Would it be toruney winning or unfair? TBC.
Secondly, whilst I do think that list is evil! it is definetly at one end of army compilation scale. Is it an abuse of the army list? Thats not for me to decide and with the smaller squad sizes that list becomes possible. However, so is a more varied and ultimateloy balanced list.
I can only reiterate what I said before, create interesting, varied and flexible codex options and let the players decide.

However you have a very interesting point.

Just to quickly interject; minimal squad sizes will not be getting reduced, for the reasons outlined by others above. Furthermore, at that point, they become much less a squad, and in game-turns are less valuable to the Eldar player to keep alive, which is not how it should be IMHO.

Thanks for the feedback again; I will respond to it in greater detail when I can. Thanks.
Keep up the discussion though, by all means!

I'll try not to turn this into thread IV of the Huge Eldar Discussion™ and I know it's slightly outside the scope of the codex, but...
The MSU inside Serpents can be reduced if the option for a Serpent is only granted a squad of a certain minimal size. Additionally, a force allocation slot for Dire Avengers (for example) could be good for 3 to 10 Dire Avengers in total. Splitting the squad costs 15 points and each squad will consist of Exarch + 2 Aspect Warriors, minimum - thus a single Dire Avenger slot could provide 3x <Exarch + 2 Dire Avengers> for 144 points (a single squad of Exarch + 8 Dire Avengers would cost 114 points). Each Exarch would, additionally, purchase abilities on their own.
Serpents or a Falcon would only be available to a squad of 5+ which has not been split.

However, I don't think it's a game mechanically potent strategy of having a significant amount of squads since they are easy to take out, most Exarch abilities scale better the more warriors he has, and leadership becomes a problem.
The golden balance must be reached where it is a waste of resources having the squads inside the vehicles all the time, but sadly Eldar do not have the wargear, toughness, nor numbers for this.

Too long, did not read: I don't believe in MSU except for in the fluff-novels, I believe in universally available holographic upgrades for all Eldar infantry similar to Support Battery's Cloaking Field.

(Say... all infantry has a Holographic Distortion Projector which provides the squad, but not it's vehicle, with a 5+ cover save for 5 points. Cover's easy to get in current edition, but this provides a light backup for that turn when you step out of the vehicle or get flanked.)

Edit: ughh... code tag wrong. just wrong.

. Furthermore, at that point, they become much less a squad, and in game-turns are less valuable to the Eldar player to keep alive, which is not how it should be IMHO.

I dont agree with this. Just because the squad has a smaller size dosent make it any less important or valuable to keep alive.
In a KP game they infact become even more important because they can be killed more easily and dont have the survivability of larger squads. Hence it will force players to play more tactically in keeping them alive.
The same in an Obj game. Instead of having a big 20 man guardian squad backed up with Farseer, WLs and Warlocks camping an obj, you could have 2-3 smaller squads doing the same job. They wont have the survivability of that 20 man unit but will be able to support each other much better and provide cover/help to each other. Much more interesting I feel.

I acknkowledge you have made your decision but will simply reiterate to give the playerbase the options to take MSUs and let them decide for themselves. Maybe the wont maybe they will but as a Codex creater one should not make that decision for them. Flexibility.

Anyway! On we go

Wraithguard
Way include a Warlock for 35pts. Who may replace his Witchblade with:

Change to: May.

Wave SErpent seems fine.

Swooping Hawks.
Im not sure they have been changed enough to make them usable. I still wouldnt take them in a competitive list. Granted, whilst not ever unit should make it into a competitive environment I think the following suggestions may make them more interesting and viable.
I would change Mark of Guilt to:
Nominate a single enemy unit before deployment. Once per game any Eldar unit may reroll to-hit shooting rolls against this unit.
This could provide some interesting options, similar to the Necron DMs and would certianly make the Hawks a nice choice.
Under Skyleap I would remove the line that they cannot Skyleap whilst in hth. The fact that it is a once per game use, means that it wont be game breaking but gives them a nice "get out jail" card should they find themsleves in trouble and engaged by a better squad.
I'd also change the Grenade pack to cause pinning. Both from a fluff and game play perspective I think it fits.

Warp Spider look good, I think they can be used as a good hit and run unit, harrying the enemy and slowing them down whilst the rest of the Eldar shoot them/outmanouver them.
However the Exarchs points seem a bit high - 36 if my math is correct? I think thats a lot for his stat line (sans powers) and those powers dont bring a massive boost to the squad in general. Perhaps revise.

Under the Vyper Im a little unclear how CTM works.
If the Vyper moves 6" or less in the movement phase it can assault a further 6" in the assault phase for a total of 12" (or 18" if you add movement too)?
Im not sure I see the point. The extra 6" in the assault phase is pointless since I would hope it will never be charging!
Is it supposed to be like the Tau JSJ ability?

Asp is interesting as an addition. Like to test it out though.
Shadow Asp seems ok and in keeping with recent Codex trends.

I like the Cloaking Field ability on the SWBs.

Im liking the Reapers a lot more now since the gun has been changed. I think it gives them a chance to pop light to light medium armor whilst still being capable vs MEQs. Again though by my math the Exarch is 46 points without skills? Very high imo.

Under the Falcon its Pulse Laser counts as defensive? I'd be worried about some combinations with that.
Add in a PDM for a mere 5 points and you have 2 shots at str8 with lance. Throw in a targetting beacon for 10 and you can only miss on a 2? Could be quite nasty, espeically with an ML added in there too. It means the Falcon can sit in cover popping away but also get out of trouble and still fire if needed. Something to think about

For the Wraithlord, I'd drop his T to 7. I think T8 is gone the way of the Dodo and we might as well keep him up with current trends. A cost drop of 5-10 points could compensate.
Again for flexibilty I would drop the rule that he must take an extra heavy weapon, I'd be very happy having both catapults upgraded to Reapers and leaving it at that. Forcing players to take another HW is perhaps not necessary and he can only fire two weapons a turn anyway so. Having him as a big loaded gunship dosent fit with the fluff imho.

Under monofilament I would change it to affect both the movement and assault phase.
The idea is to use it as a weapon to slow down enemy forces as the Eldar shoot and avoid them. However, say if a unit moves first, is affected but gets a lucky 6, it can still get off a 12" charge range against the Eldar. Having it affect both phases limits that potential and with it not being a very widesrpead weapon in the army it shouldnt be too game breaking.

More later hopefully



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ratius wrote:

I think the Solitaire rules need a change. As it stands from what I can see he can have up to 11 attacks on the charge with his Blazing assualt rule that can reroll all wounds and get rend on a 5+? Way too powerful imo. Added to Ws7 and I7 hes a true squad wrecking machine even with str3. And for 140 points too cheap. I'd change it to something similar to Lilleths hth rule bonus attack rule.

______________
The Eversor Assassin, on the charge, can have up to 11 attacks at WS8 and Strength 5,and I8 as well, with rerolls to wound, that ALSO ignore armour without having to charge certain inches for this bonus, the solitare is 5 points more and as Dave stated he is supposed to be similar, while a little less skilled, he has some more techy sort of abilities, and some defensive ones, but no T4 S4.. I think when you compare the unit that the Solitaire is based around, you will find he is a fluffy, and balanced character.

Dont agree with him either but thats another Codex

To me, I feel that Dark reapers, Wave serpents, Falcons, Wraithguard and wraithlords are far too expensive for what they do.

Swooping hawks still don't really do anything and are also a few points more expensive.

Asps should be able to be squadroned, that'd be cool.

Eldrad seemed a bit nerfed.

Eldar ranged weaponry.

I think the table looks ok overall.
I'd suggest a few minor changes however.
What about making the Bright Lance str9 but removing lance from it. My concern is the Eldars ability to open AV14 vehicles.
As it stands only yhe Nova Lance can do it. The BL change would give them another option but reduce its effectiveness somewhat due to losing lance.

I'd increase the Shuriken Catapult range to 18" and the Avenger SC to 24". With many armies of late being in that 24" range killzone, I think it allows the Eldar to compete on an equal footing or use their mobility to engage at better ranges. I feel the last thing that is needed is another army that can "only fight optimally in one range bracket" (yes a pinch of salt needed there but I hope you get the basic point).

I think the Shirken Cannon at assault6 with AP4 is overpowered. It'll shred all but MEQs and the fact that it can be spammed army wide is worse. I'd reduce the Ap to 5 perhaps even 6. Wounding every troop type on 2s is very powerful as is with assault6.

I would change the monofilament rule to affect both movement and assault phases as per my reasoning above.

I would change the Deathspinner to a template weapon, I think its more fluffy and will force correct placement of the user model to maximise hits rather then spam assault3 shots.

Farseer powers.
They all look quite good. A few minor changes though I would suggest:
Change Fog of War to when it is cast the enemy must take a Ld test or suffer its effects. I think it could be very very powerful when used in conjunction with other abilities and the fact that its a simple Ld10 test to activate makes it nasty. Fearless units could be immune to represent them pushing on regardless.

I would change Eldritch Storms AP from 6 to -. VS Orks, gaunts etc potentially much to strong in addition to pinning and large blast.

Warlock powers.
I would change assail to D3-1. The fact that all Lock powers are "constant" it means Warlocks are running around with an automtic extra attack, potentially up to 3 (4 on the charge). Thats 6 attacks on the charge? Very powerful!
D3-1 means they may get a couple of extra attacks or they might not. I always found it unsettling that Lock powers had beneficial strenghts with no negatives.

I would change Expedite to simply a move through cover bonus. The secondary bonus, again, in combination with other abilities/offensive powers could be much to powerful.

Paths of the Seer.
Is Bonesinger the same as other army repair abilities i.e. sacrifice a phase to do it? Or is it an "any action" sacrifice? Depending on which align it with other armies for game mechanic simplicity and fairness.

I would change Warseer to not stack with enhance or assail.
Picture this combo:
4 man Warlock council as Warseers.
One "casts" enhance, another assail. They charge.
That is 4 guys at Ws7 I6 with witchbaldes wounding on 2s hitting a potential of 7 times all for 200 points on the nose? Ouch!
28 attacks, hitting on 3s vs virtually everything, wounding on 2s. Farseer casts doom on the enemy and its a steamroller unit.

I think a very deep analyiss will have to be done on potential power/path/weapon combos, dont get me wrong, a lot of them I love and are very well thought out individully but I can see exploits with combos even with a skim read to date.
More later hopefully.

Ratius wrote:I think the Shirken Cannon at assault6 with AP4 is overpowered. It'll shred all but MEQs and the fact that it can be spammed army wide is worse. I'd reduce the Ap to 5 perhaps even 6. Wounding every troop type on 2s is very powerful as is with assault6.

Take another look at strength. It's S4. It's a defensive weapon, which is the major advantage.
In terms of killing MEQ, it's gone from 3x[5/6] to 6x[1/2], which is arguably better. Against GEQ it's 3x[5/6]->6x[1/3], which is also better. However, the saving grace with the change is that you can no longer instant death a Farseer or other T3 W2+ models, nor can it effectively attack vehicles - forcing you to upgrade/regrade in order to achieve more versatility. As it stands at the moment, a Scatter Laser is just plain better for near no cost, with Dave's codex the choice is more interesting. You either keep the free weapon, which is generally better at killing infantry and can be used in conjunction with other heavy weapons at 0-12" speed - or you choose the slightly more expensive, longer ranged, and more versatile Scatter laser at the cost of infantry killing power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and you do realize that any power which simply requires the enemy to pass a (personally modified) leadership test has about 1 chance in 12 of succeeding, meaning it is more dangerous for the Farseer to use Fog of War than it is for the single enemy unit to be subjected to it.
If Leadership is going to be a protection against it, it should work against all models in a generous range (such as the entire battlefield) or be a Warlock power.

I do believe, however, that it does not represent fear, but actual crap sight conditions, probably even tanglible smoke which physically might hamper movement as well as obscure it.
Sure, a fearless guy might ignore the little bit of fear he feels for it and just run on, but he'll likely break his leg before he gets anywhere. Fear isn't a drawback, fealing fear is an advantage in most situations (as long as it's in moderation) since you act more cautiously. From a Darwinian perspective, creatures incapable of fear tend towards extinction.

Yep, read the SC wrong, point taken.

Not sure what you mean about the FoW though?
A unit with say a LD8 has an 8/12 chance of passing that test (they can only fail on a 9,10,11 or 12 roll). Thats a 66% pass chance not 1 in 12.
My basic point was that a farseer takes a test, the unit is automatically affected and in conjunction with other abilities in the codex it could be OP. Many powers require the psyker to take the test and then do something else (roll to hit, enemy must take a characteristic test, enemy must roll off Vs the caster etc etc). FoW imo should be no different and the enemy taking a LD test is reasonable enough I feel as a secondary condition.
Other suggestions are welcome of course!

After reading this for some time, I finally came up with a list.

Autarch W/ Dragons breath flamer and seer strike
Autarch W/ Dragons breath flamer
4 Fire dragons + exarch W/ Dragons breath flamer and crack shot // Wave serpent W/ 2X Shruiken cannons and spirit stones
4 Fire dragons + exarch W/ Dragons breath flamer and crack shot // Wave serpent W/ 2X Shruiken cannons and spirit stones
4 Avengers + Exarch // Wave serpent W/ 2X Shruiken cannons and spirit stones
4 Avengers + Exarch // Wave serpent W/ 2X Shruiken cannons and spirit stones
Asp W/ Vibro cannon
Asp W/ Vibro cannon
Asp W/ Vibro cannon
3X War walkers W/ 6 Scatter lasers
3X War walkers W/ 6 Scatter lasers
3X War walkers W/ 6 Scatter lasers

I will be playtesting this list against blood angels soon.

To answer your question regarding my posts with snipers, it is that he needs LOS on the target model, not just the target unit. Again though, this is something I feel should affect any model with the ability to target specific models in a unit.

Latest version of the PDF is up.

Hopefully clarified a few things and make grammatical/proof-reading corrections (as per Ratius' comments; thanks) and changed Swooping Hawks slightly (cheaper and can make multiple skyleaps).

I'll try to respond to peoples comments when I have the time/motivation; I've developed quite a backlog!

Haven't read it entirely yet, but do you intend to include the Shadow Spectre's from The Doom of Mymyrea?

TheMind wrote:Haven't read it entirely yet, but do you intend to include the Shadow Spectre's from The Doom of Mymyrea?

I've never had any intention to include the Shadow Spectre's to be honest. Whilst they have great models, I don't think they really make sense in rules or background, and they are neither a particularly strong or well-fitting concept IMHO and have no real place in the Codex, I feel they should remain as FW only; much like Tomb Stalkers etc.