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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
Welp, it's confirmed. Scatterbikes for the win. http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1429643714870.jpg

Yes, let Eldar players waste their points on bringing Scat riders galore.

As GW are known for writing sloppy rules I have to wonder if any windrider might be intended to mean any one windrider rather than every windrider.
The new studio windrider models that GW have made up carry one heavy weapon per squad, which indirectly supports this.

Each bike sprue actually has all three weapon options unfortunately

Ya know, in any other situation we would be praising this like crazy.

Warp Spiders got a crazy good buff this codex, to bad we'll never see them because JETBIKES

Hollismason wrote:
Warp Spiders got a crazy good buff this codex, to bad we'll never see them because JETBIKES

I think we will see tonnes of aspect warriors, jetbikes are not as super good as people state, and warpsiders are a lot easyer to hide than a tonne of bikes on the field.

I apologize as I was incorrect and my reading comprehension is dismal

BS 5 Reroll LD , Warp Spiders are pretty good In My Opinion

Also with the Warpspiders if I'm correct and if this hasn't already been mentioned - If the 2D6 roll is a double 1, one member of the unit is removed.

It used to be any double. They added the extra numerical 1 before the comma when comparing to my old codex description on page 67.

Yeah it's only on a Double 1 which is a perfectly fine draw back.

People seem to forget the Warp Spiders are no longer as good vs. vehicles. the +1str vs init3 or less is gone. Now that they "wound" vs Init, they are back to str6 guns vs AV.

While they are still good, the above should be taken into consideration. Also, wounding vs Init makes they worse against other Eldar, DE and most importantly: Daemons (specifically any FMC, Soulgrinders, daemonettes, seekers, etc)

I play both Eldar and Daemons semi-competitively and 4/5 of the matchups I have played as either vs the other resulted in a win for the Daemons. Most Daemon armies could hard counter Eldar in 6th, and I don see much of a change for 7th

Good.

They're firing monofilament nets at targets. They shouldn't get any kind of bonus against AV just because vehicles are low I.

A full squad is over all cheaper as well with an Exarch.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Good.

They're firing monofilament nets at targets. They shouldn't get any kind of bonus against AV just because vehicles are low I.

Not like I think this codex needs to be stronger or anything, but from a fluff perspective, which you seem to be arguing for here, I don't see that making much sense. How would it be harder for them to get more of their filament spray on target when attacking a large, possibly stationary metal box that is certainly much slower than themselves?

 eohall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Good.

They're firing monofilament nets at targets. They shouldn't get any kind of bonus against AV just because vehicles are low I.

Not like I think this codex needs to be stronger or anything, but from a fluff perspective, which you seem to be arguing for here, I don't see that making much sense. How would it be harder for them to get more of their filament spray on target when attacking a large, possibly stationary metal box that is certainly much slower than themselves?

It's not a question of how much spray they're getting on target, but how effective said spray would be against something like a Land Raider or Leman Russ.

 Elemental wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Yes, so strategically place your units. Feed them a chaff unit if need be. Then, no that they're within range, eat them for breakfast next turn. 135 allied points, plus, what, 210 points for the D Scythes? Yeah, lots of points down the drain. Hope whatever they killed was worth it.

Not having a crack at you in particular, but there's a common error I see people making when arguing that a powerful thing isn't actually powerful. They assume that the one facing it will be a tactical genius, who will have available the exact counter, and will perfectly execute it. Meanwhile, the player of the unit in question will simply move forward and shoot at whatever's closest, with no tactical depth, no battle plan and no awareness of enemy units that actually threaten their plan and which should be eliminated first thing.

You are absolutely correct. I was the same way when starting out. Heck, first time I played Tau it was against 3 Riptides and I did everything in my puny power to hurt them, ignoring the things I should've been killing. But the thing is, this is supposed to be a more casual game, among people at a local store. So, going up against something you're not familiar with, you should ask your opponent what it does, and learn from the experience. That, and I'm hoping most people don't have a guy at their store that constantly runs 2-3 Wraithknights and only Jetbikes. He probably won't find any games that way, anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mr_draken wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Warp Spiders got a crazy good buff this codex, to bad we'll never see them because JETBIKES

I think we will see tonnes of aspect warriors, jetbikes are not as super good as people state, and warpsiders are a lot easyer to hide than a tonne of bikes on the field.

This is true. Aspects also aren't 27 points a model for pretty much the same durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DiceDH wrote:


I'm glad you see it this way, I wish my Necron playing friend would. We've had a chat about the rumours and I've said I'd still like to use my WraithKnight and bikes, I've told him that I'm not intending to spam either. On occasion my WraithKnight and 12 Jetbikes with some warlocks in with them. He's of the opinion that he'll be shot of the board and what's the point. Even with Decurion 4+ Re-rolling 1's. If it turns out that way I'll adjust my list, I want a good game with the dice deciding not an auto win. I hope he comes round as he's my regular opponent.

I mean, I do think this codex has way too much room for abuse (Which is surprising, I thought a lot of that was going away with 7th edition cdexes), which I dislike. Jetbikes should not have been troops, much less have access to a heavy weapon each. That being said though, there are a ton of counters. Anything that can get within range will probably kill a few, as they are space marines. So tell your Necron player to use Night Scythes. Drop some guys, have them shoot at a unit of bikes, then have the Scythe shoot at another unit of bikes. And the Wraithknight? Destroyers, Deathmarks, Wraiths, ext. Necrons (granted, yeah, they're the other OP army currently) are the best counter for most things Eldar have, even taking into account the D-weapons galore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
Welp, it's confirmed. Scatterbikes for the win. http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1429643714870.jpg

Yes, let Eldar players waste their points on bringing Scat riders galore.

As GW are known for writing sloppy rules I have to wonder if any windrider might be intended to mean any one windrider rather than every windrider.
The new studio windrider models that GW have made up carry one heavy weapon per squad, which indirectly supports this.
One per squad rather than one per three would be a nerf but it better than the cheesefest.

The cynic in me has to keep in mind that the 'mistake' of not specifying any one windrider might be rectified after they have sold enough of the new models.

It is very possible to see an FAQ. In fact, it would make a lot of sense. So I'll be hoping for it. It would bring the codex in line much better with the other 7th edition codexes. (Then, just make the Wraithknight not spammable and we're good.)

Yeah, while I like bikes I can see 2 of the Aspect Hosts in any list I build with a probable 2 Hawk/4 Spider ratio. Spiders are just so fast and the ability to get out of rapid fire range if needed is huge.

What is next, allow marines to have as many heavy weapons as they like per squad?

Well, to be fair, Marine Bikers/DA biker units of three can take three specials (two weapons, one combi). Though one usually sees White Scars in units of five to unlock them as troops, the bikes are extremely competitive due to the weapon spamming reason.

 eohall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Good.

They're firing monofilament nets at targets. They shouldn't get any kind of bonus against AV just because vehicles are low I.

Not like I think this codex needs to be stronger or anything, but from a fluff perspective, which you seem to be arguing for here, I don't see that making much sense. How would it be harder for them to get more of their filament spray on target when attacking a large, possibly stationary metal box that is certainly much slower than themselves?

Go attack an Abrahms with a Brillo pad, let me know how you get on.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 eohall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Good.

They're firing monofilament nets at targets. They shouldn't get any kind of bonus against AV just because vehicles are low I.

Not like I think this codex needs to be stronger or anything, but from a fluff perspective, which you seem to be arguing for here, I don't see that making much sense. How would it be harder for them to get more of their filament spray on target when attacking a large, possibly stationary metal box that is certainly much slower than themselves?

Go attack an Abrahms with a Brillo pad, let me know how you get on.

Update.

The Abrahms is now super shiny and clean. I feel proud.

Hawks are still the best aspect. They are faster now, still ruin tanks and infantry, can redeploy anywhere and now can combat fliers. At 16ppm I think they are a bit too cheap, but keep in mind I play DE and scourges are the same cost for a model thats worse at everything I listed and requires upgrades that shift the units role one way lol.


edit I am still shocked at how inexpensive exarches are. 10pts for an extra BS WS W I and A with another USR... There no brainers.

Yeah the Exarch thing is nuts, here are extra rules a better dude and a cooler weapon.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Ah here it is. Can't tell page # because I'm looking at pdf of the ibook. It's on page 481 of the ibook.

Gargantuan creatures - shooting - When a gargantuan creature or flying gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired. In addition, firing ordnance weapons has no effect on a gargantuan creature or flying gargantuan creature's ability to fire other weapons. Gargantuan creatures and flying gargantuan creatures cannot fire overwatch.

What about that paragraph says you can only fire 2 weapons?

The second paragraph under the Gargantuan creature section. It says Gargantuan creatures are monstrous creatures that have additional rules and exceptions given below.


The real question is: Is the gargantuan creatures rule that says each of it's weapons may fire at a different target referring to the 2 it is allowed to fire as a monstrous creature, or does it mean it can fire every weapon it has?

By the way both interpretations are completely valid, as the language used can literally mean both ways.

Maybe this one should go to the rules discussion section, and hopefully get an FAQ.

Its a permissive ruleset. GCs have additional exceptions, one of those being it can fire each of its weapons. If it has 27 weapons, it can fire each of those weapons. Pretty clear to me. I've also never seen a single tournament FAQ interpret it any other way.

Yes it is a permissive rule set. However, you are told that Gargantuan Creatures ARE Monstrous Creatures with additional rules and exceptions. The shooting rules for Monstrous Creatures allow you to fire 2 weapons. The Gargantuan Creature rules allow you to fire each of those 2 at separate targets, and further allows them to fire ordnance weapons without restrictions.

Although, like I said before, the rule is so poorly written, it can be interpreted correctly both ways.

Then why does it say "each" instead of "each of its 2 weapons" or "both of its weapons"? This is honestly the first I've ever heard of people interpreting GCs as being able to fire 2 weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the chances of bike weapons getting an FAQ are exactly 0. What happens when thousands of players model their bikes with scatter lasers? People said the serpent shield range would get an FAQ too, how did that work out for y'all? Oh that's right, it remained unchanged for the entire 2 year life span of the codex, just like I said it would. GW doesn't write FAQs to fix broken units in case you hadn't noticed. They may change some wording or fix how a USR works in a new edition, and clear up contradictions (stormfang template being listed as AP2 on one page and AP3 on another), but that's the extent of their FAQs. If you think they're going to FAQ wargear on models that tons of people have already glued the weapons onto, you're delusional.

GW doesn't write FAQS anymore. I don't know why people think this. They do not care about rules and your rule interpretations.

The last FAQ had like 2 Questions answered that no one asked.

None of the Eldar stuff will be FAQED ever ever ever.

This is the Eldar book for the next several years.

Hollismason wrote:
GW doesn't write FAQS anymore. I don't know why people think this. They do not care about rules and your rule interpretations.

The last FAQ had like 2 Questions answered that no one asked.

None of the Eldar stuff will be FAQED ever ever ever.

This is the Eldar book for the next several years.

There's a difference between 'GW doesn't write FAQs anymore' and 'GW doesn't write FAQs that I like anymore'.

 pretre wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
GW doesn't write FAQS anymore. I don't know why people think this. They do not care about rules and your rule interpretations.

The last FAQ had like 2 Questions answered that no one asked.

None of the Eldar stuff will be FAQED ever ever ever.

This is the Eldar book for the next several years.

There's a difference between 'GW doesn't write FAQs anymore' and 'GW doesn't write FAQs that I like anymore'.

Well, this would be rather disappointing, as there are tons of things in the Necron book that could use FAQs, just to clear things up. R.I.P - the other 2 Canoptek Spyders I bought awhile back.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes. I do not see ANYONE fielding the cannon over the scythe on Wguard. Even with the slightly shorter range (8" template vs 12" shot) and the -1D, a unit of D-scythes will still roast any vehicle faster than 5 cannons (or 10 meltas)

Lets do some rough maths, assuming all 2 unit are within 6":

How did you teleport them to the enemy? Fire Dragons can be put in a Falcon that can Deep Strike without scattering. Wraithguard can't.

.

Don't you have to take multiple Falcons in a squadron to not scatter? That's a hefty investment in and of itself and you have to rely on reserve rolls and deploying multiple falcons in your opponent's backfield is sometimes a difficult task. WG can go into a very durable WS, flat out turn one, be in position by turn 2 to deploy and erase.

I don't have my book with me, but doesn't a 2-5 on the destroyer chart do d3 penetrating hits instead of glancing?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes. I do not see ANYONE fielding the cannon over the scythe on Wguard. Even with the slightly shorter range (8" template vs 12" shot) and the -1D, a unit of D-scythes will still roast any vehicle faster than 5 cannons (or 10 meltas)

Lets do some rough maths, assuming all 2 unit are within 6":

How did you teleport them to the enemy? Fire Dragons can be put in a Falcon that can Deep Strike without scattering. Wraithguard can't.

.

Don't you have to take multiple Falcons in a squadron to not scatter? That's a hefty investment in and of itself and you have to rely on reserve rolls and deploying multiple falcons in your opponent's backfield is sometimes a difficult task. WG can go into a very durable WS, flat out turn one, be in position by turn 2 to deploy and erase.

I don't have my book with me, but doesn't a 2-5 on the destroyer chart do d3 penetrating hits instead of glancing?

It does a single Penetrating hit, but does D3 hull points.

 Talys wrote:

 hiveof_chimera wrote:

 Galef wrote:
No, they actually generate 1 WC per Warlock:

http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1429643191286.jpg

Dammit, can't view pic. Will take your word for it, though I'm sure this was the case for something

The text reads:

A unit containing 1-3 Warlocks or Warlock Skyrunners is Mastery Level 1; a unit containing 4-6 is Mastery Level 2; a unit containing 7 or more is Mastery Level 7. If a unit's Mastery level is reduced as a result of models being removed as casualties, select one psychic power known to the unit for each Mastery Level lost. That power is immediately lost and cannot be used for the rest of the battle. This unit generates one Warp Charge point at the beginning of each Psychic phase for each Warlock or Warlock Skyrunner in the unit, regardless of its current Mastery Level.

That's almost comical.....Eldar will likely generate more WC than they will actually ever use (since they can reduce the cost of their spells and such). Of course, that means the farseer will never Perils with all those extra charges laying around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes. I do not see ANYONE fielding the cannon over the scythe on Wguard. Even with the slightly shorter range (8" template vs 12" shot) and the -1D, a unit of D-scythes will still roast any vehicle faster than 5 cannons (or 10 meltas)

Lets do some rough maths, assuming all 2 unit are within 6":

How did you teleport them to the enemy? Fire Dragons can be put in a Falcon that can Deep Strike without scattering. Wraithguard can't.

.

Don't you have to take multiple Falcons in a squadron to not scatter? That's a hefty investment in and of itself and you have to rely on reserve rolls and deploying multiple falcons in your opponent's backfield is sometimes a difficult task. WG can go into a very durable WS, flat out turn one, be in position by turn 2 to deploy and erase.

I don't have my book with me, but doesn't a 2-5 on the destroyer chart do d3 penetrating hits instead of glancing?

It does a single Penetrating hit, but does D3 hull points.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. Still better than JUST d3 hull points.

Is it not d3+1 hull points and d3+1 wounds?

 nathan2004 wrote:
Is it not d3+1 hull points and d3+1 wounds?

Nah, I'm pretty sure that was the old wording. I kept thinking of the Escalation book, and that even a roll of 1 is an auto-pen. My friend had to point out that is no longer the case. Phew.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Is it not d3+1 hull points and d3+1 wounds?

Nah, I'm pretty sure that was the old wording. I kept thinking of the Escalation book, and that even a roll of 1 is an auto-pen. My friend had to point out that is no longer the case. Phew.

Same with the Imperial Knight codex.

They both used the Apocalypse rules.

I am very thankful it's been toned down somewhat but seriously, even toned down it's not something I would have ever considered giving to an army in bulky. Mind you, I still loathe the introduction of Super-Heavies.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:


That's almost comical.....Eldar will likely generate more WC than they will actually ever use (since they can reduce the cost of their spells and such). Of course, that means the farseer will never Perils with all those extra charges laying around.

All you need is one Culexus Assassin in range to kill all of them. If there's 10 warlocks, within 12" -- that's 30 S5AP1 attacks And then that special grenade forces a Perils of Warp.