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.

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:Don't get too hung up on sniper rifles. If the rules for them stay as they are in the final version they'll be house ruled out.

Because they are finally a good terror weapon? The only sniper unit that is really good with these rules are pathfinders. All others are simply competitive. Snipers are heavy weapons, so you are looking at EV2, getting hit on 2+ by most other units. Most sniper units have possibility to get +1 to coversave, leaving them with a 4+ coversave. Scouts can go in a reinforced ruin for a 3+, but they only have BS3. Ratlings are T2 and low leadership. Pathfinders are great, but they are expensive, and very vulnerable to assaults. What other sniper units are out there?

Pathfinders have stealth(2), giving them a 3+ cover save against everything, and their rifles wound on 2+. They would absolutely destroy any foot army. The only time I would play against an eldar opponant with pathfinders would be if I myself only used vets with snipers.

Yes, pathfinders would be a great unit. However, they are around 26pts per model. A unit of 10 = 260 pts. That is two vendettas or 3 hydras + 1 chimera.... The unit is not THAT resilient to shooting, as they are hit on 2+ by most things, they are only T3, and 3+ is hardly invincible. They also fold to anything in combat.

Vets with snipers will still be inferior to vets with meltas or vets with plasma. The sniper will simply move up to being a usable weapon.

Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

No they're just over-powered. It shouldn't be possible to just wipe out enemy leaders/special weapons at will.
I shoot at snipers and they lose a couple of models. They shoot at me and I lose a couple of models, go to ground/flee, and have a reletively expensive unit rendered almost useless in a single turn.

Eldar will get nerfed a bit with the new ruleset.

Mech Eldar will not be quite as good as it is now since fast skimmer swill get nerfed (no more 4+ cover save if going flat out).
No fortuning (or casting in general) when moving flat out.
The squadron rule changes so that Warwalkers will need stones to survive longer.
Witch blades will be nerfed due to S 7 and AP -. So it will be harder to take down armor and AV 14 tanks cannot be touched.
CC is not where Eldar excels and this will also hold in the new ed even if Banshees seem to get a boost. But Banshees generally die quickly when the enemy has a chance to hit back.

Illumini wrote:
Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

It is what snipers do in the real world, but this is a game so the rules should be more balance-friendly then reality-friendly. If you grant snipers "directed hits" then all the units that hide their special weapons/leaders will be useless. Like Ailaros said, think of IG blobs and commissars/meltas/sergeants sniping. That unit would be absolutely useless with direct fire so easily available. Same with all the units which hides special weapons and are on foot.

Nowaday most of the armies are mech-based, because it is the best choice. This rule makes them even better. Do you really want to sit at the game table and see nothing than vehicles?

Yeah, I imagine that directed hits will not survive in its current form. Either directed hits are gamebreaking good, neutering the many squads GW has with only 1-2 special models, or the unit is shielded or otherwise not vulnerable to directed hits, making directed hits useless. So either amazing or useless in the current iteration of directed hits, which is just bad design.

Lothar wrote:

Illumini wrote:
Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

It is what snipers do in the real world, but this is a game so the rules should be more balance-friendly then reality-friendly. If you grant snipers "directed hits" then all the units that hide their special weapons/leaders will be useless. Like Ailaros said, think of IG blobs and commissars/meltas/sergeants sniping. That unit would be absolutely useless with direct fire so easily available. Same with all the units which hides special weapons and are on foot.

Nowaday most of the armies are mech-based, because it is the best choice. This rule makes them even better. Do you really want to sit at the game table and see nothing than vehicles?

There is a lot in these rules that makes mech-spam much less viable. Some stuff makes it better again, like protection from directed hits.

Note that you can also protect yourself against directed hits by having another unit between the shooter and the target, or by taking "shielded" stratagem.

Also note that there aren't really that many snipers around. Deathmarks, pathfinders/rangers, ratlings, various IG squads, scouts... The good ones amongst these units cost a lot of pts. I'm not totally up to date on the deathmark rules, so won't comment on their usability, but all of these units loose their biggest perk if there is an intervening unit between them and their target, or if the target has a transport.

Pretty much everything having directed hits in close combat is a bigger threat to powerfists etc than snipers.

DarknessEternal wrote:
On a related topic, power fists will once again be phased out of the meta. They'll never get to swing.

I don't think that's necessarily true. They will still be a strong anti Dred contingency, they just won't be able to bitch pwn 1000 year old super bad asses any more, which in the current game is just stupid ridiculous. I mean, the Heresy would have been a short lived affair if the emperor would have just thought to sent an assault squad with a PF wielding vet at Horus from the get go .

Well, I figured (not being the first one) that Falcons are more surivable than now.
The malus of -1 being a tank paired with a holofield causes a destroyed result only on a double 6.
Moreover, vectored engines treat each immobillized result as shaken, and stones cause stunned results as shaken as long as there is no hull breach.
In this way, hull breaches can only be caused by several weapon-destroyed results.
Not a bad deal.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I figured (not being the first one) that Falcons are more surivable than now.
The malus of -1 being a tank paired with a holofield causes a destroyed result only on a double 6.
Moreover, vectored engines treat each immobillized result as shaken, and stones cause stunned results as shaken as long as there is no hull breach.
In this way, hull breaches can only be caused by several weapon-destroyed results.
Not a bad deal.

Do you think that they will let stones and engines effect the same hit?

If so, that makes the falcon near-unkillable. A penetrating hit has only a %2.77 chance of destruction.
You can use 3 of those puppies without any fear of destruction for contesting/controlling purposes..

labmouse42 wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I figured (not being the first one) that Falcons are more surivable than now.
The malus of -1 being a tank paired with a holofield causes a destroyed result only on a double 6.
Moreover, vectored engines treat each immobillized result as shaken, and stones cause stunned results as shaken as long as there is no hull breach.
In this way, hull breaches can only be caused by several weapon-destroyed results.
Not a bad deal.

Do you think that they will let stones and engines effect the same hit?

No need to do so. As said, an immobilze result is treated as shaken with vectored engines and a stun result is treated as shaken if there is hull breach already.

Fire Prisms would also get a boost thanks to the new scatter rules. The (large or small) blast scatters 2'' or 4'' if the roll to hit with BS 4 fails.

On the other hand, holding objectives with Eldar infantry is still an issue unless you consider Wraithguard.
Pathfinders gain a 3+ cover save if deployed in cover. But there are some concerns: 1) Fast moving units able to assault them quickly. 2) Deep striking units targeting them. 3) Cover-save ignoring weapons like thunder cannon, whirlwind barrage. 4) Misc. units able to cause a mess like scouting Hellhounds.

Vectored engines only work on the first immobilized result, not on each

Illumini wrote:Vectored engines only work on the first immobilized result, not on each

Thanks for clarifying:

Page 44 - Vectored Engines:
When a vehicle with vectored engines suffers its first
‘Damaged - Immobilised’ result on the Vehicle
Damage table, it is treated as ‘Crew - Shaken’ instead.

To get a immobilsed result, the opponent needs to roll 5,5 or 5,6 or 6,5, while a 6,6 causes a destroyed result.
That's not very likely on average.

No doubt, god-falcons are back. God-Prisms and God-Spinner are both better though. DAVU is not an option anymore, so why would you ever take a falcon?

I actually broke all this stuff down here http://www.3forint.com/2012/01/6th-edition-eldar-codex-update.html
Eldar are going to be awesome with the current codex if the leaked rulebook is true. I can't wait!

Illumini wrote:No doubt, god-falcons are back. God-Prisms and God-Spinner are both better though. DAVU is not an option anymore, so why would you ever take a falcon?

Well, Prisms and Spinners are bad as ever when the face a weapon-destroyed result.

Falcons can bring Fire Dragons or Harlies into positions. Fire Dragons will still be needed to take on heavy tanks since witchblades good nerfed.

No they are not. They have MT(2), so you need 3 weapon destroyed to silence them. They are more awesome than ever.

Dok wrote:I actually broke all this stuff down here http://www.3forint.com/2012/01/6th-edition-eldar-codex-update.html
Eldar are going to be awesome with the current codex if the leaked rulebook is true. I can't wait!

Nice summary. By the way, you need to consider the above remark about vectored engines.

Not sure if Eldar is back as a top tier army. I'd say, no! Eldar infantry is too fragile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Illumini wrote:No they are not. They have MT(2), so you need 3 weapon destroyed to silence them. They are more awesome than ever.

That's good to hear.

wuestenfux wrote:

Illumini wrote:Vectored engines only work on the first immobilized result, not on each

Thanks for clarifying:

Page 44 - Vectored Engines:
When a vehicle with vectored engines suffers its first
‘Damaged - Immobilised’ result on the Vehicle
Damage table, it is treated as ‘Crew - Shaken’ instead.

To get a immobilsed result, the opponent needs to roll 5,5 or 5,6 or 6,5, while a 6,6 causes a destroyed result.
That's not very likely on average.

@wuestenfux you mean the above? I know, that's an amazing buff for all eldar tanks. I really think, that with the speed and survivability that they will have, that they will be close to top tier again.
The troop choices are still a bit lacking, but you should be able to get most of your army in their face early game. Thus giving your pathfinders turns to score vps.

Given the speed increase of fleet infantry, all footdar armies are also quite viable.

I wonder what 20 harlequins, 20 warlocks, 20 pathfinders could do.
You would need 2 seers for your HQ to boost your harlequins.

All that comes out to a bit less than 1750 points. It would be a hard force to stop before it ripped apart tanks and infantry.

labmouse42 wrote:Given the speed increase of fleet infantry, all footdar armies are also quite viable.

I wonder what 20 harlequins, 20 warlocks, 20 pathfinders could do.
You would need 2 seers for your HQ to boost your harlequins.

All that comes out to a bit less than 1750 points. It would be a hard force to stop before it ripped apart tanks and infantry.

Well, I could play this kind of army. First, I thought about trading my Pathfinders (played as an Alaitoc force) but now I'll keep them.
It appears that Harlies and Warlocks can move and fleet 16'' which would bring them in close proximity to the enemy. The enemy will have one round of shooting but this can be tough.

I play a heavy jetbike force and I was wondering what are peoples opinions on the new Eldar jetbike rules.

To me things seem fairly similar except for reference to Draw Back which I'm not 100% clear on. I'm also wondering if the increased mobility of assaulting infantry makes jetbike lists less viable as the speed differential they enjoyed has been lessened.

Also if Farseers have been nerfed I was wondering how viable a cheap Autarch has become? I know I always used my Farseer to fortune the cover save on my suicide Fire Dragons, with that option gone a Farseer becomes less mandatory in mech lists as most of your shots are already twin linked or Str6 +. I've also heard talk of mow powerful reserves can be so maybe this is leveling the playing field in the HQ section a little. Or at least making you HQ choice dependent on your army rather than always a Farseer.

Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Lothar wrote:

Illumini wrote:
Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

It is what snipers do in the real world, but this is a game so the rules should be more balance-friendly then reality-friendly. If you grant snipers "directed hits" then all the units that hide their special weapons/leaders will be useless. Like Ailaros said, think of IG blobs and commissars/meltas/sergeants sniping. That unit would be absolutely useless with direct fire so easily available. Same with all the units which hides special weapons and are on foot.

Nowaday most of the armies are mech-based, because it is the best choice. This rule makes them even better. Do you really want to sit at the game table and see nothing than vehicles?

Because there isn't any way of blocking direct hits...oh wait. There's the basic Ork tactic called "Intervening models" which provides both cover saves, and defense against directed hits. A nice line of grots around the loota's and their protected, a grot line in front of the ork mobz? good to go!

Now replace grots with conscripts, or easily sacrificial infantry, as pathfinders can't move and shoot to get around the blob in front of the really heavily armored blob.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

wuestenfux wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

Yeah with the condition Jet councils are in now I think the fortune nerf made them more of a liability than anything. That in combination with the nerf to wichblades might make me stop my conversion project if all this pans out.

alspal8me wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

Yeah with the condition Jet councils are in now I think the fortune nerf made them more of a liability than anything. That in combination with the nerf to wichblades might make me stop my conversion project if all this pans out.

Indeed, a Seer Council will eventually become a liability, miles away from a deathstar unit.

In this way, fortune and Warlocks will be overpriced which needs to fixed in the new 'dex.

wuestenfux wrote:In this way, fortune and Warlocks will be overpriced which needs to fixed in the new 'dex.

Footlocks aren't too bad. It's only the jetlocks who have been really nerfed IMO. S7 witchblades is not a significant nerf, you wound stuff on 2+ with S7, you gain instant kill (1) against T3, and tons of S7 attacks still hurt a lot against rear 10. You also do not need a farseer anymore, as you have inbuilt fortune anyway and doom is not needed with S7 weapons. Destructors are now even better.

wuestenfux wrote:In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

Warlocks are not that bad. They still have embolden, which allows for rerolls on psychic tests. Warlocks with embolden will complete their powers 84% of the time.

Note the following 2 rules.

In order to use one of his powers the psyker must make a Morale check (psychic) or Psychic test. p108
Embolden : The Warlock and his squad may re-roll any failed Morale check. p31 of Codex Update

Fortune is *much* less useful as its written. The only way you can use it on your opponents turn is to not use the fortuned model during your turn.
As a tarpit unit, bike warlocks seem expensive, but I will need to playtest them to really see.

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

Fortune's wording looks like a horrible copy-paste from Guide. I'd put this down to that the rumours would have these rules be early-testing (v1.5 as opposed to the current 1.6 or 1.7)

Page 28 - Fortune
This is a modifying power. Fortune is used at the start
of the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require
the Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate
one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer.
This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the end
of the unit’s next turn or the end of the current turn if
the unit acts in the same turn as the Farseer.

Page 28 - Guide
This is a modifying power. Guide is used at the start of
the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require the
Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate one
Eldar unit with a model within 6” of the Farseer. This
unit re-rolls any failed to hit rolls made for Shooting
actions until the end of the unit’s next turn or the end
of the current turn if the unit acts in the same turn as
the Farseer.

Note how they changed very, very, few words. As it is, I'd not take it by the letter, especially since we know these aren't the finished rules.