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.

Mahtamori wrote:Let's see.

Codex Catapults.
GEQ. 2 chances of 1/2 hit, 2/3 wound, 1/1 pierce. 55,6% chance to score at least one kill.
MEQ. 2 chances of 1/2 hit, 1/2 wound, 1/3 pierce. 16,0% chance to score at least one kill

Dave Catapults.
GEQ. 3 chances of 1/2 hit, 1/2 wound, 1/1 pierce. Average 4,5 killed per 6 models shooting. 57,8% chance to score at least one kill
MEQ. 3 chances of 1/2 hit, 1/3 wound, 1/3 pierce. 15.8% chance to score at least one kill.

Conclusion: While the expected outcome is only marginally better, the real difference is the variation in outcome (which will tend to slightly better results) and above all the range.
With 18" range the models do have a chance to do something before they are locked in close combat, but it is above all an upgrade for vehicles where the catapults were often something you could be excused forgetting.

Regarding the Lasblaster change - very neatly done, sir. Differentiating Hawks and Spiders just like that.

Whoops. That's what I meant; same damage output, but better range. Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't done the maths) but I'd imagine this Shuriken Catapult pulls ahead when BS4 or twin-linked.
As you said though, the increased range is the key thing here.
And you get Mind Link on Autarchs as you suggested before.

Thanks for the kind words man.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:Like the new catapults.

Cheers!
Out of curiosity, why the ''? Just 'cause?

Otis The Barbarian wrote:needs more freebooters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
woohoo, my very own page. I don't have the material to make my own, so I pirated yours!! kidding.

I don't even...

motorhead1945 wrote:Maugan Ra, Harvester of Souls:
Is it correct that the Maugetar is "only" a ranged weapon now? It used to have close combat potential...

Oops. Helluva catch man! Yeah, that's a mistake, I'll edit it to include an executioner, so yes, it should also include and executioner...

Otis The Barbarian wrote:you know, Eldar corsairs.

Ah, well then, no, they are not going to be added.
For several reasons really, the main 3 being (in no particular order):
1) They don't have a role within the Codex; as standard they'd be similar to Dire Avengers, whilst the other units have covered most other combat roles and leave little if any space to be occupied by Corsairs.
2) It's a Craftworld Eldar Codex.
3) They're covered by Forgeworld.

Codex has been updated to include the Executioner in Maugan Ra's profile.

Now gonna put the 1st entry in the Space Marine 'dex.

Thanks man! I really appreciate it.

Oriallis wrote:I'm trying to convince my brother and my primary opponent to let me use your fandex in our homebattles. He plays Orks and Grey Knight Inquisition, but the main problem he has with it is that Scorp exarchs and Pathfinders can pick the teeth out of his forces support (Painboyz, Nobs, Inquisitors, Jokero ect.) I really like these powers and was wondering if I could get a quote on their balance. His main argument is that most units that ignore wound allocation are much more exspensive (Assasins, Tellius, ect.) and that a model that costs only around 43 points that can do it is seriously OP.

Thanks Oriallis, if you could use it (even at the expense of those models/powers) that would be great! In regards to the abilities you specifically mention, my opinion behind their balancing is this:

A standard sniper shot would only have a 18.5% chance, per shot, to wound a MeQ. Obviously this would be better with the rending on a 5+, rather than 6+, but the chances are still not that high. Also remember that it's only a single shot, so your Nobs and Painboyz should be relatively safe.
Furthermore, although the model is relatively cheap, it is still 43pts for a single wound, T3 model that must remain stationary to fire.
He suffers many of the limitations of low damage output of snipers, is in a high-cost-per-model unit that has clear vulnerabilities.
Kommandos and Incinerators would provide a serious, serious danger to any ranger unit which are also stationary troops.
That they are stationary also means it can be easier to evade Line of Sight, particularly when combined with vehicles.
I won't deny, the Pathfinder is a powerful model, but he has clear weaknesses and is still expensive for a single-wound. Ultimately, I think it would be best to play-test it ().
Telion and the assassin also have other uses (such as buffing their unit or anti-tank, respectively) unlike the Pathfinder.

As for the Exarch, again, as with all Eldar, he has clear identifiable weaknesses, particularly a complete lack of ranged abilities, a lack of armour-piercing and a relative lack of manoeuvrability.
Against a standard MeQ, a Scorpion Exarch would only do 0.56 wounds and that's on the charge.

I admit, I think your brother faces an issue in that he plays two predominantly low-save infantry armies, which are what these 2 units excel against (whereas proper Grey Knights would probably be fine), but I genuinely don't believe these units are too powerful and I would encourage play-testing if possible, but I honestly welcome the criticism and understand it, but as with most Eldar, these units have limited and specialised use, requiring smart and tactical play which a smart and tactical opponent could counter (e.g. with the use of vehicles for protection or out-flanking).

I'd love to hear if you have anything more to say on this or if you do play with the Codex though, thanks Oriallis!

Ork Kommandos (with Burnas), Battlewagons and Deffkoptas would be my recommendations for the Orks if you're worried about the Rangers. Or almost ANY attack that ignores cover, which can include blast weapons...
As for the Scorpions; as the Ork adage goes, "chop the shooty onez, shoot the choppy onez"

Thanks for the informative feedback and playtesting Ato', I'll respond to the final point/game results 1st as I think it's the most pressing/corcerning issue.

AtoMaki wrote:Oh, and his very bestest 1750 points list:
HQ - 610
Farseer (Doom, Fortune, Jetbike, Spirit Stones, Runes of Warding) - 170
Seer Council x 8 (Jetbikes, 7x Assail, 1x Enhance) - 440
Elites - 258
Fire Dragons 7+Exarch (Tank Hunters) - 153
- Wave Serpent (TL Scatter Laser) - 105
Troops - 540
Rangers x5 - 90
Rangers x5 - 90
Guardian Jetbikes x5 - 120
Guardian Jetbikes x5 - 120
Guardian Jetbikes x5 - 120
Heavy Support - 340
Wraithlord (2x Bright Lances) - 170
Wraithlord (2x Bright Lances) - 170

He fought three battles with this list and tabled his opponents in all three. And all three enemy armies were super-competitive (SW tourny list, IG leafblower, Ork Battlewagon horde).

Honestly, I am truly surprised this list did so well. I'm not saying that as a slight to the player or as defence of my Codex, but I genuinely am surprised. There's only 4 real threats in that list; the Seer Council, Fire Dragons and Wraithlords. Theoretically, 12 missiles at BS4 will down a Wraithlord (who costs 170pts each), that leaves 3 missiles for the Wolves (assuming they have Long Fangs) to target probably the wave-serpent. That's 420pts, leaving 1330pts pretty much free to target the Seer Council. I don't doubt the killyness or toughness of that unit (at 610pts it's justified), but theoretically (IIRC), the Warlocks should only be as tough against small arms fire as 24 MeQ's. While that's still a lot, that's potentially up against 1300pts of firepower from 2 of the potentially shootiest armies in the game (Wolves & Guard).
Again, I don't doubt the strength of that unit, but facing the brunt of the enemy army should really do a lot more damage and they are no tougher than existing jetlocks.

I really think I will need some more information from the games and how they went to seriously consider those results. Again, I don't doubt the power of the jetlock council (and it's already powerful in the current game), but that it won so successfully against the armies, despite the weaknesses of the list REALLY surprises me. And again, I don't mean that as a slight against the player or defence of my 'dex, but as genuine surprise.
How did the V.4 version do btw?

35 points for a Warlock is waaaay too cheap. Especially with the free psychic powers. Especially with Assail.

I'll up their cost to 40pts and take a 2nd look at assail.
Note: at 40pts that includes the cost of the psychic power and minor stats boost and is still a T3, 4++ model with no armour-piercing.

- Sundering Sentinels are way too good compared to Dire Avengers. Especially with the Shuriken nerf. On this note, the Shuriken hip-cannons are still S4 - is this intentional?

I'm surprised you think Sundering Sentinels are so much better than Dire Avengers. 5 Sundering Sentinels costs as much as 10 Dire Avengers, but with their Shuriken Hip Cannons actually inflict less damage than the Dire Avengers against GeQ and MeQ.
Furthermore, whilst individually (but not points-for-point) tougher and have slightly better range, they are less manoeuvrable and cannot score. At double the cost.
And yes, the Str4 is intentional; they're meant to be more Shuriken Cannon than Catapult, but I'll give it a second look.

- Especially with the Shuriken nerf... The drop of strength in the case of shuriken weaponry caused a true rage-fest for our Eldar player. And honestly, i can understand him. Shuriken weapons are essentially hand-held railguns that fire clouds of power weapon chips. And they have the same strength of a lasgun ?

It's not a nerf.
Honestly, I'm saying that flat-out (i.e. without 'IMHO'). It's genuinely not a nerf, only in appearance if that. They gain the all important increased range, making them much more survivable and viable. The damage output is equal - if not superior - against GeQ and MeQ (as Maht' has already gone over) than the Str 4/AP5 2-shot version. It suffers against Monstrous Creatures and AV10, but it allows them to reliably stay out of assault range and I think that's a much greater benefit.
As for being the same strength as a lasgun; they essentially fire discs and the main strength of a shuriken weapon has always been its RoF, whilst it has always struck me as odd that a disc has the same damage output as a boltgun.
Again, it really is not a nerf.

- The list of the completely unusuable units in the codex (under unusuable i mean "totally crap"): Phoenix Lords, Dire Avengers, Guardian Defenders, the whole Fast Attack selection (the Shining Spears have some redeeming qualities), Support Weapon Batteries.

I almost take offence at the "totally crap" comment, but I'll respond politely anyway.
Phoenix Lords; look at their stats and what they provide. Compare them to MeQ characters (such as the still pretty competitive - but not wholly - Ragnar Blackmane). They have stats superior to a Chapter Master, Eternal Warrior, impressive weaponry, manoeuvrability, resurrection, only 1 FoC slot and army & squad buffs. They could easily be under-costed.
Dire Avengers; better damage output than current, cheaper, close combat potential and faster.
Guardian Defenders; cheaper upgrades, cheap & ranged scoring unit, cheaper unit, included grenades, better weapon, Warlock has better Ld.
Whole fast attack section:
Shining Spears - Hefty point decrease, increased damage output on charge and at range. Still vulnerable to pro-longed combat.
Warp Spiders - Minor point decrease, reduced damage output vs. vehicles, increased vs. infantry, more reliable JSJ, inflict difficult terrain-movement.
Swooping Hawks - Reduced cost, increased RoF, decreased range, AP3, can skyleap reliably and multiple times. Good for hit-and-run, vulnerable to straight-up-fights.
Vypers - Increased cost to incorporate JSJ ability and incorporated weapon, weapon & upgrades cheaper.
Support Weapon Batteries; less 'damage' to FoC, cheaper, better weapons, cover save as standard. They're not perfect, they never will be with the artillery rules.

- There was also some whinning about the ExarchAutarch weapons, but just the ones i mentioned before.

I'll think about it.

- And our player also missed the Shadow Spectres. Mostly because he has 14 of them ...

"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 in-game or background IMHO and have no real place in the Codex, I feel they should remain as FW only; much like Tomb Stalkers etc. "

'Dex has been updated.


I'll respond to feedback soon. Thanks.

Btw, Assail now provides +1 attack and a 1/3 chance of +2, which should hopefully be more balanced IMHO and personally, I'd probably take Destructor for sheer offensiveness...

AtoMaki wrote:Aside the problems mentioned above, the Eldar player liked your codex. He put it to the "Imperial Guard power level" so: "Very solid army list with weird internal balance.".

What would he say causes the weird internal balance? Other than the apparently weak units you've told me about...

Dunno about this. He used both in his Aspect Army, but eventually dropped the DA-s for more SS and after the battle with the changed list he said that the Sundering Sentinels kill the Dire Avenger as a unit selection.

I'd be interested to see the justification for it, after what I had already elaborated upon regarding their comparison to Dire Avengers...

It was something about rolling an 5+ to-wound is harder than rolling a 4+. Its kind of a psychological effect (especially for people that rolls with a D4 ...).

Honestly, I'm OK with a "psychological effect" if it's better in-game and arguably more representative of the weapons description, and ultimately it's really boosted Guardians and Jetbikes, without over-shadowing the bolter IMHO.

On the Phoenix Lords, he complained mostly about their lack of synergy with anything but their discipline squad. He said that they are essentially very expensive squad upgrades that also take up a precious HQ slot.
Guardians and DA-s mostly suffer from "job stealing" - ie there are units in the codex that could do the same thing much better.
Shining Spears are good, but they need plasma grenades badly.
I think the only problem of Warp Spiders are their lack of versatility. He said that they would be perfect with S6 weapons.
Same for Swooping Hawks, their biggest issue is the 18" range of their Sunrifles. Increase it to 24" and they will be good.
There weren't much opinion on Support Batteries only that they should be merged with Guardian Defenders.

Personally, I don't see what else they are supposed to 'synergise' with, nor do I entirely agree with that statement. They almost all powerful close-combat models and as such could work very well with any other the other close combat units, such as Banshees, Harlies, Wraithguard etc. For example, Asurman's Diresword would be very potent in combination with Banshees or Harlies Ld modifier.
Many of the Lords also have reasonable-to-potent ranged abilities as well, so could work in any short-ranged shooty unit, such as Dire Avengers or Sentinels. They are getting a lot of bonuses for their points and make a unit of their disciples very powerful, whilst buffing all others, only taking a single FoC slot together and being powerful themselves. To me, their flaws are their cost (but for what they provide they're still pretty good value) and that they compete with the Farseer.

That other units can do their job but better is inevitable as they are cheap and troop choices, but other choices aren't as cheap or scoring. Dire Avengers can still remain one of the premium anti-infantry ranged units in the army (and can score), whilst Guardians are a cheap support unit and source of additional heavy weapons; as they should be IMHO. Maybe I'm too defensive, but I don't know what he expects from these units?

I don't see the sense of models on jetbikes having grenades personally; it wouldn't make sense in fluff (i.e. Jetbikes are faster than grenades), whilst they are quick enough to pick their own targets, without being forced to charge into terrain IMHO.

Again, I'm not sure what is being expected from an Eldar unit that is primarily anti-infantry (particularly in-fluff); they are now better against infantry, as well as more reliable jumpers, cheaper and (most importantly?) inflicting difficult terrain. Eldar aspects are known for their specialisation and I've sought to follow that trend to reinforce that play-style and balance the Codex...

I really have no intentions to make Support Weapons a part of Guardian Squads, nor do I see the logic behind it, personally. It benefits Support Weapons by making them scoring (the only scoring artillery unit in the game AFAIK) and not occupying a precious Heavy Support slot, however it makes Guardians stationary, unlikely to use their catapults and ultimately little more than additional wounds for the Support Platform.
The support platform is now cheaper, tougher (give him conceal for a 3+), with better weapons and has a significantly less detrimental affect on the FoC slot. I would definitely take them in a Footdar list personally (particularly for Nova Lances) and I don't see the logic in changing this at the cost of the role and abilities of Guardians.

Oriallis wrote:Been coming up with a 2000 point list so far with your codex, wanted to hear your opinion...

Thanks for the list and feedback man!
I'd recommend going for either all-mech or all-foot personally, I feel at 2000pts your army has too few vehicles for them to last very long IMHO. There are advantages to either, with Mech providing better protection, firepower and chance to contest in the last turn (enhanced by Mornyynstar), but Foot-slog renders most Anti-tank weapons useless and enables more actual units.
I'd say choose foot-slog or mech and work from there. If mech, then ensure your heavy support can pop-tanks, get anti-infantry troops in some tanks and fire dragons in others and it should be good.
If foot-slog, I'd recommend Hawks for constant, fast-harassment and potential anti-tank, who could keep the enemy suitably occupied (with scorps?) until the rest reaches them. I'd again recommend Dire Avengers at the core though.
Good luck man!

Bloodhorror wrote:*Molten Body The Avatar benefits from the Feel No Pain special rule (included), furthermore Melta weapons and flame/heat based template (not blast!) weapons cannot wound the Avatar; such as Flamers, Heavy Flamers, Flamestorm Cannons, Hellfire Cannons, Hand Flamers, Scorcha’s, Burna’s, Incinerators, Inferno Cannons, Dragon’s Breath Flamers etc.


Does this include then, things like Flamers of Chaos?
They are breathing Pure Warp Energy onto them ?

While I'd be tempted to agree with Maht' in this case, the the Flamers A) breath warp energy, B) which isn't necessarily heat-based and C) need all the help they can get, I'd say that this doesn't include Flamers of Chaos.

jgehunter wrote:I've read your codex and so far I think it's quite a good one, I'll be playing same games using it and doing some battle reports with them, I hope that helps a little.

Thanks. If you do play some games, please let us know how they go!

AtoMaki wrote:

Just Dave wrote:What would he say causes the weird internal balance? Other than the apparently weak units you've told me about...

He actually made a few parallels with you codex and the IG:
- Your Elites and the IG Fast Attack: both filled with the best selections of their respective codex, but there is only place for three... He loved the Stormwind Autarch though .
- Heavy Support selections in both codexes are full with good stuff, one piece of "mehness" (Dark Reapers/Basilisks) and one piece of "toy for fun play" (Support Weapons/Deathstrike).
- And there is one FOC selection that is full with weak selections (your Fast Attack and the IG Elites).
So yeah, i guess his problem is the weak units...

Again, I guess I disagree with the Fast attack section being full with weak selections; I feel every one of the units in Fast Attack is viable personally.

AtoMaki wrote:Hi!

So after an additional 3 battles with the codex, our Eldar player finally summarized his proposals about each unit:

Thanks again for the feedback and play-testing 'Maki, thanks also for cutting out the whining/complaining crap that I don't want to be dealing with.

- No opinions on special characters, as as he didn't tried them out yet.
- Phoenix Lords (in general): Make their discipline boosting powers army-wide, so it will affect every discipline squad in the army, not just the ones the Phoenix Lords joined. Get rid of the Phoenix Reborn rule, but drop their points cost to 170-180 points.

I feel that would be far too powerful. Making them fearless is a big boost, giving out the unit-only power to everything would be far too powerful IMHO; no scatter Hawks, FNP 'Dragons, Furious Charging Banshees, it'd simply be too much. Furthermore, through wargear alone they're worth more than 180pts. Doing some very simplistic maths: Wolf Lord: 100pts, + Belt of Russ/4++ (20pts), + Saga of the Bear/Eternal Warrior (30pts), +2 exarch powers (~20pts) and weaponry (25pts) - that's 195pts for gear alone and that's being generous. on top of this they have the resurrection, disciple-fearlessness, one-unit-boost and the stats boost.
Furthermore, Phoenix Reborn is very fitting with the fluff and likely too popular for me to want to remove it.

- Baharroth: his Hawk's Claw should have a range of 24".

Done.

- Avatar: maybe drop his points cost to 180-190. The second firing mode of the Wailing Doom should be Template instead of Large Blast.

I've been over before why the Avatar should be fairly priced as it is. If template, then in many cases the player would be better off going for the +1 attack over blast IMHO.

- Farseer: Increase the cost of the runes (all of them) by 5. Increase the cost of the Eldar Jetbike to 35 points.

I don't believe the runes should be that expensive; they may not look it but their cost can quickly rack up and can be similar to how people don't take many upgrades beyond the minimum for some models. AP1 such short-ranged and rare-to-use weapons is not worth 10pts, nor is a one-use destructor worth 10pts IMHO. One I can see the price increasing on is Runes of Warding and that's about it.
Jetbike cost has been upped to 35 however.

- Warlock Seer Council: Increase the cost of Eldar jetbike to 30 points per model.

This I don't intend to do; even with their abilities 65-70pts is a lot for a single model; compare it to Thunderwolves for example, there are weaknesses to the Jetlock council such as psychic-nullification, damage-output (particularly against armour saves) and reliance on a Farseer/Guide.

- Autarch: Get rid of the Exarch wargear options, and replace them with unique Autarch wargear options. Increase the cost of Eldar jetbike to 35 points.

I don't think the Jetbike is worth 35pts for the Autarch. I no longer have any intention to remove the Exarch wargear; if I want these Codices to be anywhere near the level of GW's I cannot be afraid to change; there are masses of justification for Exarch wargear which we (myself and others) have been over already, however I see little justification for MORE (there's already several Autarch-only pieces of equipment) Autarch-only gear outside of conservation; furthermore it would add a lot of entries that can only be used by one model in the entire army.

- Harlequins: Increase the cost of the Shadowseer to +35 points. Increase the cost of the Death Jester to +20 points but make his Shrieker Cannon Poisoned (2+).

I don't see the need for the change to the Death Jester, whilst the Shadowseer will be less necessary with the change I'm about to implement for Harlies/Holo-suits.

- Guardians (in general): An option to take 4+ armour save. defenders should have the option to take support weapons on their heavy weapon platforms.

4+ save is a nice idea, although probably not worth it with the prevalence of cover and conceal and may impinge upon DA's.
I have been over the Support Weapon suggestion in my previous post and I see no real reason to change that stance.

- Rangers: Increase their points cost to 20 ppm. Increase the cost of the Pathfinder upgrade to +35 points.

I am considering a point increase on Rangers, however I believe both 20 and 35pts for each is too much; there are far too many exploitable weaknesses for them to cost too much.

- Wave Serpent: Decrease its cost to 75-80 points. An option to take an assault ramp would be nice (for +30-40 points).

Isn't happening. 75-80pts is too cheap; compare it to a Razorback, who may have better armament, but has worse armour, much worse mobility and half the transport capacity. Wave Serpents are a good unit in the current Codex.

- Swooping Hawks: Increase their weapon range to 24".

I have no intention to change this. At 18" they can either shoot and Eldar-fleet back out of the range of most rapid-fire weapons, or they can Skyleap/deepstrike and use their grenade packs to inflict greater damage, but risk greater punishment, I like the tactical decisions it creates, amongst the other boosts to the 'hawks.

- Warp Spiders: Increase their weapon's Strength to 6.

I shall make them AP5. Better damage output against their main target (infantry) and slightly better against tanks without making them as powerful as Str6 does.

- Shining Spears: They should have a "fly-by attack" like Reavers, and an increased cost of 30ppm with it. Also some sort of instant-killing exarch power instead of Tank Hunters.

Why can the reavers ability not remain unique to reavers? Shining Spears are tougher and much harder-hitting, however they're not as manoeuvrable as Reavers. Tank Hunters adds some greater versatility and hitting power to the unit IMHO.

- Asp: MOAR weapon options.

I don't see why; for these weapons players have the options of Vypers or Waveserpents, or Falcons or War Walkers, or Guardians or Wraithlords. Asp weapons are only use by 2 other units in the 'dex and it helps keep them unique whilst their weapons are already powerful.

- Falcon: Drop points cost to 100 points.

This isn't happening. 100pts is much too cheap. Compare them to Predators: for 5pts more, the Falcon has ~equal armour, much greater speed, slightly-worse damage output, but transport capacity and less FoC occupation.

- Wraithlord: Increase its points cost to 130 points. Drop the shimmershield option. The second heavy weapon should make the first twin-linked if the two are indentical.

+1 wound is barely worth 20pts let alone 40pts. The shimmershield provides protection to a large area, such as squads (and provides interesting options for an Autarch) or large creatures, e.g. the Wraithlord. Paying double-price for twin-linking is also too much.

- War Walkers: Increase the cost of Power Diversion Matrix to 10-15 ppm.

I don't intend to do this, although 10pts isn't unreasonable, nor is 5pts IMHO; they're very fragile, only BS3 and one of the big advantages of Walkers is the ability to move and shoot; all of these seem to work against the increased cost of a PDM IMHO.

- Shuriken weapons: They need some sort of pseudo-rending. Like all to-wound rolls of 6 ignore armour, but no +D3 for armour penetration. This would instantly fix the DA-s. Also drop the range of the shuriken pistol to 12".

No. I don't see the justification for this in-game or in-fluff, pseudo-rending is something I only briefly considered when designing this and is too powerful IMHO. I am unsure of the perceived flaw with DA's, I've explained how they are (arguably) superior to Sundering Sentinels (who are 'good') in damage output and point-to-point toughness, however DA's are also faster, better in close combat, scoring, higher AP and inflict cover-penalty.

Personally I don't see the need to change Shuriken.

- Bright Lances: They should be 20 points each at maximum. But preferably cheaper.

They're the Eldar equivalent to a Lascannon but are only 5pts more than a missile launcher a 1-in-3 chance to penetrate a Land Raider is nothing to be sniffed at and twice-as-good as a Lascannon's chance.

But i spare you from these, because they have zero creative criticism ...

Again, thanks for that.

Mantis840 wrote:-Post removed by insaniak. Feedback is great, but please remember Dakka's rule #1, which is to be polite.-

As Insaniak said; feedback is great and I appreciate almost all feedback, but then there's someone posting comments with no support, no back-up and an attitude that suggests I ran over their puppy, which I didn't.

But hey, rather than just making snide comments or having a tantrum as a response, how about I suggest that you back-up your own comments and criticisms, before Insaniak (rightly, IMHO) deleted your response, I recall you saying a few things:
- That I've made units worse. Which ones? Name me any unit you think is worse than its current incantation. Personally, I can't think of any, except potentially Eldrad which is understandable considering his current power.
- That I've made upgrades more expensive. Which ones? If there are any, have I done this without justification?
- That I've ruined the dynamic or play-style of the Eldar? How? Aspect unit's are more specialised, the army hits harder, moves faster but is still very fragile and low on numbers. What they have in hitting power, speed and specialisation, they lack in durability, numbers and cheap-units. Try to tell me where this is different to what is stated or suggested in the fluff.

I_AM_THE_SLAW wrote:I was thinking about Asurmen's battle fate ability and well compared to rest of the phoenix lords its not really that great.

Its very situational and most of the time it goes to waste. Wouldn't an ability like +2 to bladestorm be better? Or make DA more more effective in cc?

As iv said before great work Dave, i have really enjoyed using your codex.

Thanks Slaw, appreciate the kind words and feedback, thanks man!
My reasoning behind Battle Fate is two-fold; 1st, I believe Battle Fate to be deceptive in its effectiveness; there are far more AP4 weapons than there are AP3, which can significantly increase their toughness against most weapons.
2ndly, Dire Avengers benefit most (IMHO) from being fearless as a result of being troops.

Codex has been updated.

Felixander; thanks a lot for the kind words! As you said, being willing to let an opponent use it is the ultimate test I reckon; cheers!

Next in my examples of potential Eldar lists, number 4, an Ulthwe list:


HQ - Autarch - Seer Strike Force - Solar Pulse, Broad Blades, Mandiblasters - 110pts


Elites - Farseer - Doom, Fortune - Runes of Warding, Runes of Emanation - 115pts

Elites - Farseer - Eldritch Storm, Fortune - Runes of Warding, Runes of Emanation - 115pts

Elites - 8 Harlequins - Troupe Master, Shadowseer - 3 w/ Harlequins Kiss, 1 w/ Kiss & Riveblades, 1 w/ Riveblades - 250pts


Troops - 10 Guardian Defenders - Bright Lance - Warlock w/ Conceal - 120pts

Troops - 10 Guardian Defenders - Bright Lance - Warlock w/ Conceal - 120pts

Troops - 10 Guardian Defenders - Bright Lance - Warlock w/ Conceal - 120pts

Troops - 10 Guardian Defenders - Shuriken Cannon - Warlock w/ Destructor & Singing Spear- 103pts

Troops - 10 Guardian Defenders - Missile Launcher - Warlock w/ Destructor & Singing Spear- 103pts


Fast Attack - 6 Swooping Hawks - Exarch w/ Intercept & Sunrifle - 132pts

Fast Attack - 6 Swooping Hawks - Exarch w/ Intercept & Sunrifle - 132pts


Heavy Support - 2 Support Weapon Battery's - Nova Lance - 90pts
2 Support Weapon Battery's - Nova Lance - 90pts
2 Support Weapon Battery's - Nova Lance - 90pts

Heavy Support - 2 Support Weapon Battery's - Shadow Weaver - 60pts


1750pts

I fear this list could be too powerful if anything. I think it also provides evidence to the usability Support Weapon Battery's and 'Hawks IMHO.

Number 5 in my example lists from the Codex: Mech Eldar. Arguably the most competitive army type in the current Codex, it can easily convert to my Codex.

HQ - Farseer - Fortune, Doom - Runes of Warding, Bonesinger - 135pts


Elites - 5 Fire Dragons - Exarch w/ Dragons Breath Flamer - 95pts
Dedicated Transport - Waveserpent 2x TL Shuriken Cannon, Spirit Stones - 110pts

Elites - 5 Fire Dragons - Exarch w/ Dragons Breath Flamer - 95pts
Dedicated Transport - Waveserpent 2x TL Shuriken Cannon, Spirit Stones - 110pts


Troops - 10 Dire Avengers - Exarch w/ Diresword, Shuriken Pistol & Bladestorm - 150pts
Dedicated Transport - Waveserpent - TL Scatter Lasers, Targetting Beacon - 115pts

Troops - 5 Dire Avengers - Exarch w/ Twin Avenger Shuriken Catapults - 75pts
Dedicated Transport - Falcon - Starcannon, Shuriken Cannon, Holofields, Spirit Stones - 185pts

Troops - 5 Dire Avengers - Exarch w/ Twin Avenger Shuriken Catapults - 75pts


Fast Attack - Asp - Twin-linked D-Cannon - 90pts

Fast Attack - Asp - Twin-linked D-Cannon - 90pts


Heavy Support - Falcon - Starcannon, Shuriken Cannon, Holofields, Spirit Stones - 185pts

Heavy Support - Fire Prism - 120pts

Heavy Support - Fire Prism - 120pts


Total: 1750pts

7 AV12 Hulls, including 2 Holofields with a Farseer for fortuned turbo-boost, 2 AV11 Hulls, 3 scoring units.
I'd actually say the army this would be strongest against is Draigowing; with 8 meltaguns, 2 Str9 AP2 Templates, 4 Str8 AP2 shots, 4 Str7 AP2 shots and 2 D-Cannons, combined with manoeuvrability, Paladins would have a serious problem.

Another list; this time a reserve/Altioc themed list:

HQ - Autarch - Master Strategist - Eldar Jetbike - Solar Flare, Laser Lance, Fusion Gun - 145pts

HQ - Autarch - Master Strategist - Eldar Jetbike - Laser Lance, Fusion Gun - 135pts


Elites - 5 Fire Dragons - Exarch w/ Crackshot, Webway Translator - 110pts

Elites - 5 Fire Dragons - Exarch w/ Crackshot, Webway Translator - 110pts


Troops - 5 Rangers - Star Rifle - 105pts

Troops - 5 Rangers - Star Rifle - 105pts

Troops - 5 Rangers - Star Rifle - 105pts

Troops - 7 Dire Avengers - Exarch w/ Twin Catapult, Bladestorm, Webway Translator, Web Beacon - 127pts

Troops - 6 Dire Avengers - Exarch w/ Twin Catapult, Bladestorm, Webway Translator - 111pts

Troops - 4(5) Guardian Jetbikes - Web Beacon, Shuriken Cannon, Warlock w/ Conceal - 155pts


Heavy Support - 3 War Walkers - 2 w/ 2x Scatter Laser, 1 w/ 2x Starcannon - 180pts

Heavy Support - 3 War Walkers - 2 w/ 2x Scatter Laser, 1 w/ 2x Starcannon - 180pts

Heavy Support - 3 War Walkers - 2 w/ 2x Scatter Laser, 1 w/ 2x Starcannon - 180pts


1748pts

Again, I'd say another solid list. Jetbikes (with Autarchs) and Rangers start on board, the bikers and autarchs boosting forwards for a 3+ cover save, further protected by a Solar Flare if needed.
Then, reserves will be modified until everything is wanted, at which point the War Walkers outflank for side and rear-armour shots, the Avengers home in to pepper troops and steal objectives and the Dragons appear to fry heavy armour.
I'm pleasantly surprised to say all bases seem covered and it seems like another, viable but themed list possible with the Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for posting a comparison mech-list Maht', saved me doing it!

Haha, thanks man, appreciate the kind words! No offence taken, I know fandex's are often a bit... Questionable as it were! Thanks again man, that means a lot. If you do play with it please let me know how it goes.
Ironically, I'm actually currently working on making a Fandex for (Vanilla) Space Marines.

Freakehh wrote:I would be quite pleased if this was the real update for the Eldar codex alot of good changes to make certain units more useable, keep up the good work !


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After reading it more warlocks can get like 6 or 7 attacks in close combat? warseer + assail + pistol/ccw pretty crazy they can also have WS 6 and Iniative 6 too, are they meant to be that good?

Thanks man, that's a huge compliment and working as effectively an official 'dex is basically exactly what I aim for, cheers!

Regarding Warlocks, at 37pts base they could have 4-5 attacks standard in close combat. However, bear in mind this is on a WS4, I4, T3 model and doesn't ignore armour saves. For 52pts each they can have 5-6 attacks at WS/I5, but this is a particularly large points cost IMHO.
Compare it to Assault Terminators for example who have stat 4's all-round, 2+5++, 3 base attacks, ignore armour and re-roll wounds for 3pts more.
I can understand the concern regarding Warlocks, but I feel that a unit of Warseers w/ assail is too 1-dimensional and expensive to work as well as it may initially seem IMHO.

chrisrawr wrote:One thing I'm still kind of bummed about; Rangers.

Their special rule is slightly off; normally, to-hit rolls of 6 do nothing, so there's that (you were thinking of to-wound rolls, and ap2.)

Secondly, they're bs4 sniper rifles. As we can see from Ratlings at 10ppm being less than useless, sniper rifles are almost never a very good choice for anything, ever.

For example, what you're looking at here is a total of 1.3r unsaved wounds per turn against MEQ, from 10 rangers. With a Pathfinder and Star Rifle, we get ~1.83r UW/MEQ

This is 200+ Points! Sure, they are gaining a 2+ cover save in most scenarios, which makes them acceptable campers against a decently sized portion of opponents. But starting from the other side of the board, moving slowly and not running, >200 points of any other unit in the entire game (including gretchin, firewarriors, and zombies)< can kill them. When you have a unit that cannot, in any situation, make up its own points value, and doesn't even serve as a credible enough threat to prove as a DISTRACTION...

My offer: Ranger Rifle is at least 48" range, maybe even 60. Heavy 2. Rangers drop down to 15 points per model. Star Rifle is Pinning as well as Rending, Heavy 2. Pathfinder Upgrade confers BS5. Ranger Rifle "To-Hit" rolls of 5+ are AP1. Ranger Rifle "To-Wound" rolls of 5+ are rending.

What this does:

10 Rangers is 150 points.
They put out 13.3r hits per turn.
4.4r of these hits are AP1. 2.2r of those ap1 hits wound, 1.48148r of those would rend anyways leaving....

6.6r wounds, 4.4r of which are rending, .741 of which are ap1, and 1.48148r of which rend at ap1.

Roughly 7.4 unsaved wounds against meq from a decent distance, with little fear of heavy weaponry or mass weaponry reprecussions. Can damage AV11/12 vehicles fairly consistently, if not severely.

This also makes the Ranger and Star Rifle (both expensive upgrades) actually worth their points - almost a guaranteed directed wound each turn for something that comes out at minimum to almost the expense of a vindicare assassin, with much less versatility.

Thanks for the input man.

I fear what you may describe may be a problem with the sniper rules in general rather than specifically rangers.
I think as it stands my incarnation of Rangers may be the best Sniper unit in the game (bar Deathmarks?), I mean despite the damage-output issues associated w/ sniper rules, they are still tough in cover, handy for webway and have a lot of versatility and movement shenanigans. I still find myself including them in lists designed with the 'dex, particularly as solid objective holders and on-board beacons in deep-strike lists.

I really appreciate the input man, although I feel your suggestion is too far in the other direction: 7.4 unsaved MeQ wounds, from 48", with 2+ cover at 150pts and able to damage tanks is wheyhey too much IMHO.
I'll look into a possible change to them, but I think they're a solid unit atm, within existing sniper rules at least.
Good spot with the to-wound vs. to-hit thing though, I shall change that. Thanks!

thephenomenalZ wrote:Won't download right.

Bugger. Sorry man, that's nothing I can personally help you with. If you PM me an email address I can try emailing you a copy.

Mahtamori wrote:Dave, question for you: was it intentional that Eldar Missile Launchers should have such varied costs? 25 points on BS4 Wraithlord, 20 points on BS3 War Walker and BS4 Falcon, 15 points on BS3 Vypers, BS3 Guardians, and twin-linked BS3 Serpents (as well as 10 points to replace BS5 Reaper Exarch weapon).

Hey Maht, I had another look at the 'dex in response to this point, as when you put it like that, it is weird.
However, this was intentional; it's typically costed as slightly less depending on the platform.
For example, on the Guardians and Vypers it's a BS3 platform that's replacing an existing weapon; the Shuriken Cannon.
On the Falcon, it's due to its manoeuvrability and the general stacking of points on the heavy weapons: Shuriken < Scatter & Star < EML < Bright Lance
On the Wraithlord it is again, the weapon stacking and due to BS4 working better with 1-shot weapons.

Would you say the points cost makes it imbalanced or a poor choice on any of these? Personally, I wouldn't.

chrisrawr wrote:Yeah, I'd initially over-halved the number of wounds from them when calculating heavy 2, which is why my second post reneges on that in favour of a simple range increase and the rending fix. I don't even think I'd keep AP1 in the mix; too many dice to designate as different when it all comes down to it. It worked fine when your to-hit roll determined your damage, but it just ain't kosher anymore

Aye. I think snipers (and pinning) as a whole needs fixing, which will hopefully come in 6th Ed.

felixander wrote:On a second look through I have a few things I think are kinda over powered. The first of which are Starcannons. WHOA! Useful Starcannons?!?! But seriously, I think the combo of dropping their price dramatically AND giving it an extra shot is a bit too much. Power diversion matrix is really interesting, BUT for 5 points those Pulse Laser/Starcannon Falcons now get 5 shots that gain +1 on the damage chart from being AP1? I know you're sacrificing Eldar's ever important mobility to do it, but with 36" range you have some room to toy with it. Especially since you can run an Eldar gunline (?!?!?!) now. Plus EMLs' plasma is then AP3, MEQ players will cry foul all day =P Just junk food for thought!

Starcannons didn't gain an extra shot, but a point of strength. They're effectively longer-ranged Plasma Rifles that don't Get(s) Hot, or are roughly equal in power to Plasma Cannons, but more-so than Autocannons.
They're priced as they're effectively the same level as Scatter Lasers; they have half the shots, but greater strength and AP. In doing the maths they typically have an equal damage-output, but Starcannons are fethed by cover. Lets be fair, they needed a big fix from their current 'dex.
My reasoning for the Power Diversion Matrix is as you said; you loose the all-important Eldar movement. Not only does the wargear itself come with a restriction (needing to stay still), but you're paying for it. Most Eldar vehicles (and all tanks?) can move 12" and fire all their weapons; having to stay still can really hinder them; losing out on speed and to an extent toughness (flat-out cover and vulnerable to other attacks).

You do raise a good point on the EML; shall be edited.

evildrspock wrote:Some very good ideas here, excellent work. I particularly like making Guardian squads outflank - suddenly, they're fun and sneaky!

Thanks man, I appreciate it!

TheMostSlyFox wrote:Dave: Thank you for making codices that should bring out what so many other's fail to do: Make EVERY unit in the codex worth taking! I can't explain how much more fun, in depth, and in general 'Eldar-y' this fandex is, it makes me squee! ^^

Wow. HUUUUGE compliment mate; depth, fun, characterful and full of options is what I aim for and that I can apparently fulfil that whilst making someone squee is huge; thanks a lot.




N.B. Holy weird quoting order Batman!

Nice attempts at rules-lawyering fellas, but I think I have already covered those bases.

felixander wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Actually, when I read it as if I were a rules lawyer you replace the Guardian Jetbiker with a Warlock that's walking

Exactly my point. Though I still think Warlock Bikers should be able to have ShuriCannons and Runes of Scoring for a massively overpowered you to Termies, Feel no pain, etc. ;D

- For the Shuriken Cannon it says "One in every three Guardian Jetbikers may replace his twin-linked Shuriken Catapults with:" As Guardian Jetbiker is a different model/profile to Warlock, it's not a Warlock that's equipped with a Shuriken Cannon. Even so, do you really think I'd allow an AP1 Shuriken Cannon for 5pts?!

- For the Warlock that's walking, the entry states "The Warlock comes equipped with Rune Armour, Eldar Jetbike, Witchblade, Shuriken Pistol and Plasma Grenades".

I don't mind rules lawyering guys, and obviously it's something I try to account for in the creation of the Codex, but I'd rather such lawyering wasn't pedantic to be honest. I'm not trying to complain or offend everyone, but neither myself nor GW want to spell everything word-for-word, so some common sense should be applied please.


I may go back to the 'dex and add some new things however; completely original things that really fit the character of the Eldar and update the Codex. I'll try to immerse myself in the Eldar fluff and see what I can come up with, as if it were an official new Codex.

kenshin620 wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

- For the Shuriken Cannon it says "One in every three Guardian Jetbikers may replace his twin-linked Shuriken Catapults with:" As Guardian Jetbiker is a different model/profile to Warlock, it's not a Warlock that's equipped with a Shuriken Cannon. Even so, do you really think I'd allow an AP1 Shuriken Cannon for 5pts?!

- For the Warlock that's walking, the entry states "The Warlock comes equipped with Rune Armour, Eldar Jetbike, Witchblade, Shuriken Pistol and Plasma Grenades".

So this means if you want a warlock with the jetbikes and you want a shuriken cannon you have to have one more model? Ex 2 Normal Jet Bikes, 1 Shuriken Cannon Jet Bike, and 1 Warlock on Jet Bike?

Technically, yes.
This part isn't intentional however, so I'll clarify it.

Two potential ideas for additional units to fit with the fluff of the Eldar:

- Eldar in heavy, highly-advanced armour; appearing as [just-above] man-sized Revenant Titans, these would be of a role/construction similar to Tau Battlesuits, fitting with the specialised, highly advanced nature of Eldar, allowing them to fight without putting their warriors in too much danger. These guys would be of a similar price - but not tougher than - Terminators and be equipped with weapons such as twin-Catapults, Fusion Guns, Power Blades etc. Not sure if they'd be Guardians, Aspect Warriors or like a cross in-between.

- Anti-tank Aspect Warriors; says it all really. Would be something like Str8, AP1. Probably as Heavy Support. Three distinct flaws with this idea however; the Heavy Support is full already, Fire Dragons are close-ranged anti-tank and Shadow-spectres are longer-ranged anti-tank. However, there is some kind of niche/potential for this unit, particularly as ranged, infantry anti-tank.


I'm currently also working on a 'Why?' section and fluff for some of the new additions, which will be included in the next update.

If I do down the Guardian route - which is unlikely, as it won't explain the war mask schtuff - it'd probably be through Guardians that have previously walked the path of the Warrior and have their abilities are enhanced by the suits. Rather than following/worshiping Khaine, they follow/worship Asuryan.
The rules will be definitely somewhat similar to yours Chrisrawr, but I don't think I'll use that general method of background tbh.

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:good read, but i spotted a few problems. one, all phoenix lords have no point values and two your special character in the elites slot has no point value

Thanks, but check again. The Phoenix Lords points are at the top of their 1st page, Iranna's under the Warlock part of the Wraithguard entry.

Mahtamori wrote:Just Dave: maybe I'm just a lousy rules lawyer

Asuryan and Isha worship is sort of short on the craftworlds for some reason, though I can see plenty of homage to Vaul.

For some reason I see anything in combat where direct control of weapons is required to be a Aspect Warrior thing, while Guardians are more indirect through weapons interfaces and the likes.

Is there any other kind of rules lawyer?

I agree with what you're saying regarding Guardians, minus Storm Guardians that's effectively been my intention for them. I think my idea regarding worshipping Asuryan is to make a war unit that doesn't worship Khaine, whilst such advanced suits can make sense with experienced Guardians IMHO. But probably gonna go with the Aspect Warrior theme; worshipping Khaine's unstoppable wrath.

felixander wrote:Slow and purposeful... And fleet? O.o I think Jetpack, no fleet is a better option.

Honestly though aren't war walkers just a big suit of armor with weapons? And the Forgeworld WASP a more mobile one? I know you were thinking more Crisis suit style but the more I think about it I believe we already have it. And I agree that Eldar do not need another anti-tank squad. I'm afraid that if you add too much opponents will start thinking its too much and not let you play it. I already have friends who say its over powered and won't play it :(

Do you reckon you could get your friends to say where/why they think it's overpowered? It doesn't have to be in huge detail or time-consuming, I'd just be interested to know where they think it's flawed, so I can either change it or provide my view on why it may not be?

I really know what you're saying about too many options though, most slots seem very well accounted for IMHO and it's the same size as my CSM Codex at least, and smaller than the current Space Marine 'dex. Really though, I've only added 2 non-unique units. I also admit, I think there may be room for this suit-style aspect warrior, particularly due to it requiring few numbers and having such a large battlefield impact, linking to the limited numbers/near-extinction of the Eldar.
Again though, I agree with what you're saying about not needing more units. I'm going to finish designing this one and see how it may fit...

Also, numbers of units in each 'dex, with brackets being upgrade characters, retinues, or daemonic units.

Codex Space Marines:
HQ - 15 (+2)
Elites - 8
Troops - 2 (+1)
Fast Attack - 7
Heavy Support - 8(+1)
Dedicated Transports - 3
Total - 44(+3) = 47

My CSM Codex:
HQ - 10(+1)
Elites - 7(+1)
Troops - 8(+1)
Fast Attack - 4
Heavy Support - 9
Dedicated Transports - 2
Total - 40(+2) = 42

My Eldar Codex:
HQ - 14(+1)
Elites - 7 (+1, +1)
Troops - 5
Fast Attack - 5
Heavy Support - 7
Dedicated Transports - 1
Total - 39(+3) = 42

The [attached] Codex has been updated.

Changes include:
- Changing the two Dark Reaper Exarch powers; definitely making Reapers worth taking and reducing the idea of the Reapers as 'cheerleaders' for the Exarch, as suggested by Maht'.
- Aligning the Force Shield with Forceshield and clarifying it as an invulnerable save.
- Eldar Fleet also INCREASES Fall Back distance; they're a dying race and it adds balance.
- Costs of Eldrad and Yriel bumped up.
- Plasma Missle is now AP5 to stop Power Diversion Matrix abuse.
- Adding a 'Why' section, like that in my Chaos Codex.


As ever, all feedback is welcome. Thanks.

Thanks Blacksails. Seriously, thanks. That's a HUGE compliment and yours is an opinion I respect, so again, thank you. I'm glad you like it.


The Codex has been updated with a new piece of wargear: Runes of Persecution.

Runes of Persecution basically allows a Farseer to cast an Mind War or Eldritch Storm once-per-game (or twice if the psychic power is also purchased) on top of any other psychic powers.
This basically boosts their damage output and psychic potential.


On the subject of Farseers, I had considered allowing Spirit Stones to be purchased twice and stack; so you could effectively have a bog-standard Farseer casting 3 powers per-turn. However, as I'm sure opponents of Eldrad will vouch for; this is a pretty unfriendly mechanic at times. Even with a steep points cost of around 170pts or whatever with dual stones and powers, being able to cast 3x Guide/Fortune/Doom/Amplify/Fog of War is too much IMHO, and whilst Eldar psykers are bad-ass and the best in the galaxy and whatnot, being able to do this would simply be too much IMHO.
Hence, Runes of Persecution, as in my opinion, multiple offensive Powers like Mind War or Eldritch Storm is a lot less unfriendly or abusable than multiple army-boosters, like Fortune et al.

I had also considered allowing Exarchs/Warlocks to use the Ld of a Farseer on a successful psychic test (with immunity to perils), however I decided against his as Morale is too small a factor within 40K as it is.

AtoMaki wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
On the subject of Farseers, I had considered allowing Spirit Stones to be purchased twice and stack; so you could effectively have a bog-standard Farseer casting 3 powers per-turn. However, as I'm sure opponents of Eldrad will vouch for; this is a pretty unfriendly mechanic at times. Even with a steep points cost of around 170pts or whatever with dual stones and powers, being able to cast 3x Guide/Fortune/Doom/Amplify/Fog of War is too much IMHO, and whilst Eldar psykers are bad-ass and the best in the galaxy and whatnot, being able to do this would simply be too much IMHO.

Uhm... How about a simple limitation that says that one power could be casted only once per turn? So no triple Guide/Fortune/Doom/Amplify/Fog of War. Or just simply replace Spirit Stones with Psychic Mastery levels like in the GK 'dex.

I honestly don't know why I didn't think about it being one of each power per-turn (which the current rules enforce anyway), rather than any number of any power.
I shall think about it a bit more then.

Also, in my gaming group, we play-tested an Eldar "lazy fix" fandex that had one major, simple, but genius power boost: it improved the armour save of all Eldar models by 1 (except for jetbikes and wraith constructs). And hell, it really encourages fluffy armies (aspect warriors with aspect warriors)! It also had Aerial Assault and Assault Vehicle on all vehicles (AV as an upgrade for +20 points), and those were also solid changes.

Are you suggesting a psychic ability that improves the armour save, or a general armour save improvement? Because, honestly, neither really appeal to me.
Fortune fulfils the former, whilst the latter isn't needed; the Eldar are meant to be fragile; they still have a lot of 3+/4+ saves in the army (in-fact IIRC only Guardians have an unmodifiable armour save of 5+) and it enforces tactical, hit and run play-style due to their low numbers and fragility.
As for assault vehicles, I have no intention for that either. Everyone and their mothers would want assault vehicles in any Codex, but that doesn't mean it should happen IMHO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the feedback man, much appreciated.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cheapbuster wrote:very nice job!

Thanks man. Nice Avatar btw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------

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

---------

As ever all C&C is welcome, thanks.

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