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.

I'm thinking Crimson Hunter but the Wraith fighter also looks tempting. Any suggestions?

One is cheaper and better and fullfils the AA role that is so lacking in this codex whilst the other costs more and does a job that most of the codex can already do more effectively.

None... the Wraith is very situational, can be very good if a warlock gets the -3 Ld power, but otherwise the Crimson Hunter is better. The CH itself is an excellent source of AA and is quite mobile for a flyer, but dies with bolters and it's too expensive. Against a CH you don't even need AA, you just Snap Shot it to death...

Teschio wrote:
None... the Wraith is very situational, can be very good if a warlock gets the -3 Ld power, but otherwise the Crimson Hunter is better. The CH itself is an excellent source of AA and is quite mobile for a flyer, but dies with bolters and it's too expensive. Against a CH you don't even need AA, you just Snap Shot it to death...

I disagree a little bit.

First of all, if your opponent is shooting his bolters at a your Crimson Hunter, then he's not shooting them at your troops - which are more valuable tactically. Second, after you take into account that a bolter needs 6's to hit and 6's to glance you have to remember that you still get a 5+ save for being a flyer. So what are the odds that a single bolter shot will actually remove a hull point?

= (chance to hit)*(chance to glance)*(chance to miss save)
= (1/6)*(1/6)*(2/3)
= 1/54
= 1.85%

Ok, so that means that you should expect to shoot about 50 bolter shots PER HULL POINT removed. So to take down the Crimson Hunter with only bolters, your opponent should expect expend the equivalent of 25 space marines rapid firing exclusively at the Crimson Hunter for 3 turns. Considering that the CH won't come in until at least turn 2, that's basically the whole game.

Still think the Crimson Hunter is vulnerable to bolters?

If it's evading for the 5+ it won't be useful the next turn so that comparison is a bit off.

Also, if the argument is that you are happy the fire on the flier instead of the "tactially more valuable troops", why not take troops instead? You're not, because you need the AA.

Even without evade you're looking at 36 boltgun shots per hull point, so 108 shots to kill it... without evade!

 Nivoglibina wrote:
If it's evading for the 5+ it won't be useful the next turn so that comparison is a bit off.

That's a good point. So if you DON'T evade, then the odds of a single bolter shell causing a hull point increased to 1 chance in 36 or about 2.7%. So it still takes the equivalent of 18 space marines rapid firing at your flyer crimson hunter for 3 turns to bring it down. That's a very small improvement.

The other thing is that you don't have to choose to evade UNTIL he shoots at you. So if it looks like he's really going to make an effort to shoot you down, then you can evade and get your 5+ save. If he doesn't even try, then you'll get to shoot your pulse laser & double bright lances. But my point is that you can afford to lose your air craft while he cannot afford to lose his troop units - especially in an objective game.

Also, if the argument is that you are happy the fire on the flier instead of the "tactially more valuable troops", why not take troops instead? You're not, because you need the AA.

Precisely. You need the AA and the Crimson Hunter is ideal in that role. But also, the Crimson Hunter exarch can make precision shots. For 10 more points, you can make precision shots on a ToHit roll of 5+. So in the special case where your opponent doesn't have any aircraft, the Crimson Hunter can shoot at the enemy warlord's unit instead. If you get reasonably lucky, you can put your S8 AP2 shot right on his 200 point character.

Summary : The Crimson Hunter is Excellent in the anti-air roll and Above Average to Good in the Anti-tank roll. It has poor to very poor protection from skyfire, mediocre to poor protection from other stuff. If you have air supremacy, then it's dangerous but not game winning. If you don't have air supremacy, then one or two crimson hunters can help you establish it - or at worst contest the skies. I'd say it's an OK choice for it's 160 point price tag but - like every Eldar list - you need to make sure it fits into the army and is performing the job it was built for.

Problem with the Wraithfighter is that he has to sit around for a turn before he can cast Terrify.

You can basically only use half of it on the turn it arrives from reserves. And those 2 D-scythe blasts aren't as good as 4 S8 BS5 shots.

The Nightwing Interceptor is also better than both of the Codex fliers and costs less

Where can I find the Nightwing Interceptor rules?

Imperial Armor Aeronautica

Ok cool

 RIGLER705 wrote:
Where can I find the Nightwing Interceptor rules?

Or Army Builder, as none of the rules it has really are 'specialized' from the Aeronautica book and need to be looked up.

Edit: Added quote so people know who I'm responding to.

Crimson Hunter is my choice, although I do want to try out the new Hemlock. No FW for me thanks.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
then the odds of a single bolter shell causing a hull point increased to 1 chance in 36 or about 2.7%. So it still takes the equivalent of 18 space marines rapid firing at your flyer crimson hunter for 3 turns to bring it down.

Why would they be shooting bolters instead of three or so of their twin-linked lascannons?

Who needs Skyfire when you have Prescience and 15 lascannons.

Bolters aren't a big deal for the Hunter, at least unless you opt to use one dangerously to go for rear armor shots. Vector Dancer and premeasuring mean the CH is really hard for people to hit with 36" weapons unless the CH actually wants to be within 36" of them. It can fire at full strength every turn while never leaving your deployment zone.

A CH mostly trumps short-ranged ground-based AA. HYMP-equipped Broadsides, even - it moves such that the BLs are just barely in range of one model (a drone, perhaps), then it rotates to face the squad and lights them up, possibly scoring precision shots. It even has the option of staying at 48" instead, although this will rarely make sense. It's only really scared of 48" guns, especially ones with Interceptor, or highly mobile AA, but fortunately the rest of the Eldar list is plenty capable of taking down a quad-gun on the first turn. Wave Serpents are actually a pretty good way to take out Crimson Hunters (short of another flier, which is more of a "who shot first?" thing).

 RIGLER705 wrote:
Where can I find the Nightwing Interceptor rules?

Also make sure Forge World is accepted in your local meta before you drop big money on a FW book and kit. It is a supplement to the game that not everyone uses and FW itself tells you that their rules are experimental and that you have to have your opponent's permission to use them before you play with them. The simple fact is that the book, rules, and kit were out a long time before the Eldar Codex and GW decided to not use them, which is kinda telling to me. Even though GW owns FW, FW is never mentioned in the Base Rule Book or the GW web sites. If your local meta uses it and doesn't care, have fun. But if you buy it and show up at a Tourney or your friends think it is broken, to cheap, or whatever and don't want to play against it, your wasting money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the point is, if you have nothing better to shoot at but a AV 10 flyer and your not running, why not?

Yes you have better choices to shoot at flyers, but it is /really/ scary when you have AV 10 and /every/ weapon on the other side has a chance to kill it or hurt it.

And to counter the argument of 'at least their bolters are not killing my troops', they can say 'all of your bright lances and EMLs are trying to kill my ADL gun instead of my tanks'.

The simple fact is that the CH needed AV 11-12 or at least a 3rd HP for that price. Or the Wraithfighter needed something better at least for being made out of wraithbone. I like the CH, but it is making me want to roll a Autarch and a ADL with a DR Exarch to make sure I kill all of their flyers and AA before that thing hits the board, because 1 Vendetta will smoke it.

On top of that, your only getting 3 fighters if you fill all of your fast slots, and I am still not quite sure what they mean by '1 exarch per detachment'... is that 1 exarch for your list (I am leaning this way to be safe)?

As cool as it is, and as good offensively as it is (CH is the best flyer the Eldar have IMO), it is way to fragile and way to expensive.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
then the odds of a single bolter shell causing a hull point increased to 1 chance in 36 or about 2.7%. So it still takes the equivalent of 18 space marines rapid firing at your flyer crimson hunter for 3 turns to bring it down.

Why would they be shooting bolters instead of three or so of their twin-linked lascannons?

Who needs Skyfire when you have Prescience and 15 lascannons.

15 Lascannons and Prescience? 3 psykers with 3 full squads of Devs? I don't see how that is a good idea to bring in a TAC world, let alone fire those shots at an AV10 flyer....overkill and not really worth discussing IMO.

If you aren't firing those Lascannons at something else in the list moving up the field like our Serpents or Wraith units....I think you just lost the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlkTom wrote:

 RIGLER705 wrote:
Where can I find the Nightwing Interceptor rules?

Also make sure Forge World is accepted in your local meta before you drop big money on a FW book and kit. It is a supplement to the game that not everyone uses and FW itself tells you that their rules are experimental and that you have to have your opponent's permission to use them before you play with them. The simple fact is that the book, rules, and kit were out a long time before the Eldar Codex and GW decided to not use them, which is kinda telling to me. Even though GW owns FW, FW is never mentioned in the Base Rule Book or the GW web sites. If your local meta uses it and doesn't care, have fun. But if you buy it and show up at a Tourney or your friends think it is broken, to cheap, or whatever and don't want to play against it, your wasting money.

Certainly not experimental rules for most units. Experimental rules are posted on the website, rules in the books are no longer experimental and are meant to be used with 40k. You still should ask first, but they are just as balanced as most GW items.

 BlkTom wrote:


The simple fact is that the CH needed AV 11-12 or at least a 3rd HP for that price.

It does have 3 HPs. But it is still mathematically worse than the Nightwing defensively.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
then the odds of a single bolter shell causing a hull point increased to 1 chance in 36 or about 2.7%. So it still takes the equivalent of 18 space marines rapid firing at your flyer crimson hunter for 3 turns to bring it down.

Why would they be shooting bolters instead of three or so of their twin-linked lascannons?

Who needs Skyfire when you have Prescience and 15 lascannons.

I was responding to someone who said that Crimson Hunters are too vulnerable to bolter fire.

 BlkTom wrote:

Yes you have better choices to shoot at flyers, but it is /really/ scary when you have AV 10 and /every/ weapon on the other side has a chance to kill it or hurt it.

I agree. Still, vector dancer means that it's difficult to get close enough to use your weapons. Not impossible, but you have to work.

And to counter the argument of 'at least their bolters are not killing my troops', they can say 'all of your bright lances and EMLs are trying to kill my ADL gun instead of my tanks'.

Or all of your crimson hunter's bright lances are shooting at my flyers instead of my tanks, but yeah. I agree.

The simple fact is that the CH needed AV 11-12 or at least a 3rd HP for that price.

Actually the Crimson Hunter DOES have 3 HP.

On top of that, your only getting 3 fighters if you fill all of your fast slots, and I am still not quite sure what they mean by '1 exarch per detachment'... is that 1 exarch for your list (I am leaning this way to be safe)?

1 Exarch per detachment means you can have one exarch in your primary detachment, or 1 exarch in your allied detachment. So basically, 1 exarch per army since you can't ally Eldar with Eldar. But let's be honest - who's going to take 3 Crimson Hunters in a single Eldar army when they cost 160 points apiece? In my opinion, this is the biggest drawback - points cost.

As cool as it is, and as good offensively as it is (CH is the best flyer the Eldar have IMO), it is way to fragile and way to expensive.

Definitely expensive - compare to a vendetta for example. Probably only super fragile if misused, but certainly it is fragile - just the way all Eldar are supposed to be - graceful, elegant and fragile.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
then the odds of a single bolter shell causing a hull point increased to 1 chance in 36 or about 2.7%. So it still takes the equivalent of 18 space marines rapid firing at your flyer crimson hunter for 3 turns to bring it down.

Why would they be shooting bolters instead of three or so of their twin-linked lascannons?

Who needs Skyfire when you have Prescience and 15 lascannons.

15 Lascannons and Prescience? 3 psykers with 3 full squads of Devs? I don't see how that is a good idea to bring in a TAC world, let alone fire those shots at an AV10 flyer....overkill and not really worth discussing IMO.

I explicitly said "three or so". 15 will be in the army, they can spare one unit to annihilate your paper airplane.

Yeah yeah, 3 HP... still wish it was harder to kill due to the fluff on wraithbone.

I lost a Crimson Hunter to a Land Raider Crusader in a recent game. So yeah, bolters can definitely down the things.

I explicitly said "three or so".

3 or so won't annihilate it. They will do a hull point to it. It takes on average about 10 twin linked Lascannons to kill it.

Time to correct some bad information, yet again. You'd think that people would stop repeating the same incorrect information once I've done it the first time...

 BlkTom wrote:
It is a supplement to the game that not everyone uses and FW itself tells you that their rules are experimental and that you have to have your opponent's permission to use them before you play with them.

No, they tell you that you SHOULD tell your opponent in advance because they might not be familiar with FW rules (unlike, say, orks, where most people know if they want to play against orks or not), not that you MUST. It's about being polite, not a mandatory request for permission. The old rule about needing to ask for permission hasn't been in FW books for years.

As for being experimental, no. This is absolutely wrong, the only experimental rules are the ones that are occasionally published on their website so you can play with new models that don't have a book entry yet. Everything published in a book, including the Nightwing, is final and no longer experimental.

The simple fact is that the book, rules, and kit were out a long time before the Eldar Codex and GW decided to not use them, which is kinda telling to me.

You know what it says? That GW figured out that it's stupid to put the Nightwing in the codex and give it a plastic kit when they can make an entirely new flyer kit and sell both models. It's purely a business decision about what sells the most model kits and has nothing to do with one set of rules being more "official" than another.

Even though GW owns FW, FW is never mentioned in the Base Rule Book or the GW web sites.

FW is mentioned frequently on the GW website. For example: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=9600002

It's also liked to, on the front page, under the countries pop-up.

This conversation has gotten off topic over and over again. It's not whether or not the fliers are worth it...

It's which one should Rigler use, which leads to the next question, what else is in your army.


Cliche as it is, the birds are apples and oranges, used for completely different reasons.

Crimson Hunter all the way

No, they tell you that you SHOULD tell your opponent in advance because they might not be familiar with FW rules (unlike, say, orks, where most people know if they want to play against orks or not), not that you MUST. It's about being polite, not a mandatory request for permission. The old rule about needing to ask for permission hasn't been in FW books for years.

I took it from their web page. However you want to play it man, I don't care.

As for being experimental, no. This is absolutely wrong, the only experimental rules are the ones that are occasionally published on their website so you can play with new models that don't have a book entry yet. Everything published in a book, including the Nightwing, is final and no longer experimental.

So the only experimental rules are their experimental rules. Yeah...abosolutely wrong, except when you say I am right.

The simple fact is that the book, rules, and kit were out a long time before the Eldar Codex and GW decided to not use them, which is kinda telling to me.

You know what it says? That GW figured out that it's stupid to put the Nightwing in the codex and give it a plastic kit when they can make an entirely new flyer kit and sell both models. It's purely a business decision about what sells the most model kits and has nothing to do with one set of rules being more "official" than another.

And yet GW drops the Dire Avengers from 10 to 5 guys, with the same kit and the same models and keeps the price the same, and your saying GW isn't stupid enough to do something. Or, GW could have paid for a single page in one of apparently /two/ codexes and included it to those who don't normally play with Forgeworld and sold both. I mean, really... your kinda grasping for straws here. There is no reason to /not/ included it if they consider FW as much of their 40k universe as you believe they do. Is there /anything/ that existed in FW in either of the codexes? Where are the Corsairs? The Wraithseer? The Spectres, much less /any/ of the vehicles? Not a single damn thing, yet its the same old song with you and you poo-poo anyone who calls it as it is. There is not one damn reason why FW stuff that has existed for /years/ not to be included in new codexes if it was as intergrated as you believe. Then FW can make /new/ stuff. FW is a supplement made with 40k in mind, but is otherwise NOT PART OF THE GAME OR IT WOULD BE IN A CODEX.

Even though GW owns FW, FW is never mentioned in the Base Rule Book or the GW web sites.

FW is mentioned frequently on the GW website. For example: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=9600002

If you're going for a codex flier, I'd go for the crimson hunter.

The two blasts are nice on the wraithfighter, but not being able to cast its psychic power when it arrives is annoying. Also, the mindshock pods work when you are within 12" of something.
As I almost always seem to fight marines, I don't want to keep an av10 flier in rapid fire range of bolters, just to try and make them fail a leadership test.

From forgeworld - The nightwing is very good. Only 2 hull points, but its got stealth and shrouded so it gains a 2+ evade. The only difference weaponwise from the crimson hunter is its got 2 shuriken cannons rather than a pulse laser.
I've converted mine out of razorwings, which also made it affordable.
The phoenix bomber is ok - its good against troops and side armour on tanks.

I'm planning on getting a crimson hunter myself. To go with my nightwings and phoenix

As for FW they are a part of the 40k ruleset. You don't have to ask permission anymore but that is a misnomer anyway. If some one sees you have FW they can refuse to play the game just as if they see my Necron army includes 6 Nightscythes and refuse to play that. In a tournament what is allowed and restricted will be clearly laid out.

Why isn't FW in the codexes? Well again it is business reasons. FW sells their own books which would become redundant if their rules started getting put into codexes. Also GW want the hobby to be as accessible to new people as possible. Therefore they don't want FW highlighted to new customers as it is for more advanced customers. Hence why it is kept separate. FW is doing 2nd editions of ttheir rules with 40,000 approved stamps on stuff that is fully integrated with normal 40k. Yes it is a supplement but it should be seen as integrated into 40k as death from the skies or Iyanden...

Would you kick up a fuss if a Space Marine player had a 125pt Storm Talon without telling you first that he was using death from the skies?