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.

Rightyhoo, first 'batch' of replies *wipes brow*, apologies if I miss some stuff off but I can't afford to reply to everything. Cheers!

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

I agree, but with them both being anti-infantry mainly, it was inevitable that they would be similar and whilst I tried to differentiate them somewhat, I didn't intend to make SH solely anti-tank, so they'd always have some overlap in roles, but I hope they're sufficiently different. At the very least, Warp Spiders have more consistent firepower, less reliance on hit and run, superior standard-weapon, better armour and inflict difficult terrain.

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

If that were the case though, then you'd never see Land Speeders used as Predators fit under the same analogy.
Crystal Targetting Matrix adds an extra degree of survivability to Vypers, whilst they are also a good source of hit and run attacks and all-round firepower, for less.
There's inevitably some overlap again in they're both primarily firepower-vehicles (bar Waveserpent), but Falcons, Vypers, Prisms and Serpents are all sufficiently different IMHO.

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

I imagined a cross between Hornet and Falcon/Prism/Spinner/Serpent; smaller than the Falcon, but bulkier than the hornet is how I imagined them.

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

Cheers man, appreciate it.

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

I've corrected where you've suggested; thanks man, I really appreciate the proof-reading and all grammatical corrections are welcome, thanks.

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

Nope; this has been clarified, thanks.

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

Nope; Phoenix Lords only ever occupy a single FoC slot (in total/between them); so you can have as many as you want in an army.
I expected some people may be a bit put-off by this, but bear in mind they are single models that cost over 200pts each; I don't see this as being abusable, but providing potential for some fun armies and scenarios.
As some have demonstrated with sample lists; having a lot of Phoenix Lords in one army really isn't a competitive option, but I think it could be good fun, interesting and lead to really characterful games, like a Rhana Dhandra.

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

Skyleap can only occur in your assault phase; therefore with being unable to leave assault (without baharroth); this is a vulnerability for Hawks.

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

No; I've clarified this to say so.
To be fair though, any unit that's managed to end up in combat with both Harlies and Banshees (and even a Solitaire) is probably toast anyway!

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

As stated, MC's cannot enter vehicles.

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

There's no penalty, Iyanna/Althenian simply cannot be moved more than 6" away from one another; I've tried to clarify this in the 'dex.

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

I feared that it could be a bit OTT, but as stated by Maht, this is the case in the current Codex and isn't complained about AFAIK whilst it doesn't really provide a drawback to targeting them if you then move on to another target.

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

Souless and FoF will; otherwise see above.

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

As someone stated, it's one character/sergeant, rather than squad-wise and it still relies on A) LoS, B) Hitting and C) 5-6 to-wound.
I have bumped this to 25pts however.

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

It is however one-use and if anything less powerful than his current ability; which is a large-blast.

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

That was originally the plan, however I decided to give him his own, but similar, flavour to it.

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

This has been made Str5 but took away pinning.
Please bear in mind however he's Str4/5 with 7 shots, re-rolling to-wound and ignoring cover and rending!

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

Thanks. That's basically my idea though; I wouldn't say he's any more powerful (or significantly so) than the Swarmlord, Ghaz, Mephiston, Draigo, Abby etc.

Whatever vehicle they are in becomes an assault vehicle with relevant rules. I think the 2d6" extra is just too hit and miss for what is already a relatively fragile squad. Rolling a double 1 or 2 wont help much at all.

Personally, I didn't want to make it straight-up assault vehicle, whilst 2D6" adds an element of controllable unpredictability; for only 15pts.

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

That's not a bad idea, however they are currently considered competitive whilst a 3+ would require a points-increase.

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

I've changed the AP to 6; however ultimately this is useless vs. vehicles, has short range and the unit would cost ~240pts.

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

Bear in mind that current WG scoring units also cost in the region of 400pts (as do 10-man termies etc.) and are worse overall than my Wraithguard, so I agree, whilst expensive, I wouldn't say it's unreasonable or something new.
Whilst Ghost Warriors does allow for more flexible Wraithguard-heavy lists.

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

I think Magnus goes over this nicely. Please also bear in mind he's a single unit, with T3 and the Eversor and co. are typically considered uncompetitive. This guy really suffers when shot.

Lord Magnus wrote:

Ratius wrote:

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

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

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

Keep going mate!

Will review in January lots more but great stuff to date!

Just Dave wrote:

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

If that were the case though, then you'd never see Land Speeders used as Predators fit under the same analogy.
Crystal Targetting Matrix adds an extra degree of survivability to Vypers, whilst they are also a good source of hit and run attacks and all-round firepower, for less.
There's inevitably some overlap again in they're both primarily firepower-vehicles (bar Waveserpent), but Falcons, Vypers, Prisms and Serpents are all sufficiently different IMHO.

A Predator isn't a fast skimmer like the Land Speeder, and I fear I must point out that the Land Speeder is both a Fast Skimmer with Deep Strike and BS4 at the same price as a limited JSJ BS3 Fast Open-Topped Skimmer. Land Speeder is a good measuring stock since both perform similar functions and currently cost the same. Review what the different versions of Land Speeders get for 50 points, I think you'll see my point then.

Oh, and shouldn't all vehicles in the squadron have the same upgrades? Maybe reduce the price on Holo-Fields since it's not very effective on open-topped AV10. In general the upgrades on the Vyper needs to be in relation to what it protects - starting off at approximately half the price of that on the Falcon/Serpent/Prism I should say, since the Vyper to start off at half the points. Or possibly make the upgrades squad-wide to promote 2 or 3 vehicle squads.

Also, regarding Star Engines - cover saves are gained at above 12" movement, not 24". Maybe take the opportunity to clarify if this move can be used to tank shock?
- If a vehicle can not tank-shock with the move, there is not a lot of point having it in the shooting phase (except for giving units free line of sight and then moving a tank in the way of return fire). Maybe it could increase vehicle movement increments by +6"? Max speed 30", Combat Speed at 18"? Stationary would still be stationary.

Ratius wrote:Firstly, other armies can "spam" as many armour hulls as that so its nothing new, groundbreaking or game changing.

I can only reiterate what I said before, create interesting, varied and flexible codex options and let the players decide.

Some of my intentions throughout my Codices has been to create interesting, characterful, fluffy, varied and balanced armies that have a wide variety of viable units. I don't think smaller squad sizes changes this, if anything it makes it less characterful and fluffy (remember in Path of the Warrior an Aspect would be disbanded if below 5 (incl. Exarch) men.
Just because other armies can spam units/hulls and adopt certain play-styles, does not make it viable or reasonable for other armies to do it/be able to do it. I have been concious to try and restrict the viability of spam armies (which are inevitable, but I don't encourage them).
Similarly, the design of characters such as Mephiston and Vulkan, units such as Beast-packs, Blood Angel Razorbacks, Jokaero and other units is something I have attempted to avoid. Again, just because others can do it, doesn't mean I want it possible here...

Ratius wrote:However the Exarchs points seem a bit high - 36 if my math is correct? I think thats a lot for his stat line (sans powers) and those powers dont bring a massive boost to the squad in general. Perhaps revise.
Im liking the Reapers a lot more now since the gun has been changed. I think it gives them a chance to pop light to light medium armor whilst still being capable vs MEQs. Again though by my math the Exarch is 46 points without skills? Very high imo.

All Exarchs cost an additional 15pts (for +1BS, WS, I, A, Sv).

Under the Vyper Im a little unclear how CTM works.
...
Is it supposed to be like the Tau JSJ ability?

Exactly.

Shadow Asp seems ok and in keeping with recent Codex trends.

Hmmm... That wasn't intentional; what trend would that be?

Under the Falcon its Pulse Laser counts as defensive? I'd be worried about some combinations with that.

Would you say it contradicts with its partial role as a transport or is any more powerful than the Ravagers ability to move and shoot?
It basically enables it to actually be able to make the most of its manoeuvrability, whilst maintaining its firepower.

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

The Power Diversion Matrix does require your fast vehicle to remain stationary (hence its low cost) and contradicts the defensive ability, furthermore it does only make it AP1 (or 1 lower), not lance.
Furthermore, the above combination costs 155pts. Providing you remain stationary, this provides you with 3 Str8 shots, 2 at AP1, which may re-roll any to-hit roll of 1. Would you say that's worse than the 160-ishpts Tri-las predator? Which has 3 Str9, AP2 shots, but is generally considered uncompetitive?

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

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

Honestly, I fear this would be too powerful. Enforcing difficult terrain relying only on a single wound is quite potent, this would be even more powerful if it affected movement and assault I think. I imagine if a unit wants to be able to assault, then its going to want to be able to reliably move too.

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

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

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

Eldrad seemed a bit nerfed.

We've already gone over Eldrad, his Divination ability is arguably better and he has even more - and better - abilties, for 5pts more and a loss of 1 toughness. Considering his current abilities, I wouldn't call this a nerf tbh.

If Asps were able to be squadroned, then they'd really damage the viability of Vypers and reduce some of their character.

Personally, I completely disagree with the idea of Falcons, Wraithlords and Wave Serpents being far too expensive, I think it's flat-out wrong IMHO. The Falcon costs 5pts more (currently considered semi-competitive), but is BS4, has a defensive main weapon and can be taken as a dedicated transport. And some of its options are cheaper/better.
The Wraithlord is slightly more expensive, but tougher and with better options. Compare it to a Dreadknight; it's of pretty-much equal toughness (bar size-difference) but cheaper and with better options.
The Waveserpent is 5pts cheaper than before, but is currently considered a competitive option and stacks up well with a Razorback in terms of point and ability differences.

That Wraithguard and Dark Reapers are overcosted is debatable, but incorrect IMHO.
Dark Reapers are comparable to a ML Devastator; slightly less durable, slightly less flexible, but slightly cheaper and much more efficient at a specific role.
Wraithguard are comparable to Terminators; tougher, but with significantly better ranged firepower. However, they are weaker in CC (unless equipped with a Wraithsword), have Wraithsight, are more vulnerable to (only, really) AP3 and are 2pts cheaper.

On the Farseer, it doesn't state how many psychic powers it can have or what they cost - was this intended?

Great codex, absolutely love it

Just a quick question though... I take it the fire prisms can no longer link guns as the rule isn't there anymore?

Ratius wrote:Eldar ranged weaponry.

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

Honestly man, I think you're completely off the mark here.
A Bright Lance is better against AV14 than a Lascannon (which it would otherwise be). I see no reason to change it at all tbh.
Furthermore, a fair few ranged weapons work against AV14; Bright Lance, Nova Lance, Wraithcannon, D-Cannon, Star Lance, Fusion Gun, Fire Pike, Prism Cannon, D-Pistol, Fusion Pistol...

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

I feel that would decrease some of the advantage of Dire Avengers. The Shuriken Catapult is only 12" range, but it is Assault and they can then withdraw out of assault range via Eldar Fleet; I see no reason to make Eldar more similar to other armies...

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

Mahtmatori has addressed this...

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

I'd say that's an interesting idea, but tbh I don't see how Template makes more sense than Assault 3.

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

Would you say it's any more powerful than some of the other Psychic Powers out there, such as Murderous Hurricane which inflicts actual damage as well as inflicting difficult terrain.
It is powerful, I won't deny, but it is short-ranged and its effects unreliable. Furthermore, would you see it regularly taken over Guide/Fortune/Doom or being more powerful than some other Psychic Powers in the game. It doesn't actually hurt the enemy and it may not even affect them too...

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

I can imagine being able to save 1 of 6 wounds is a significant change. Furthermore, it only affects 6+ units, which are rare, or cheap...

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

That's a fair point, however this would mean they have potentially no effect, which would be a big problem.
The negative here is that it's unreliable, occurs on a single model (who's Str3 or can't ignore armour saves) and is contextual.
I understand the concern, honestly, but I'm not sure it's entirely... 'correct' tbh.

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

What other abilities/powers?
I think just Move through cover is too weak for such a power, whilst expedite is unreliable and only affects one movement...

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

Yeah, I'll double check this against other bonuses...

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

True. But that is also only 4 guys, at T3, 4++. Furthermore, they don't ignore armour saves and have practically no shooting ability.
Being generous, and saying they all have assail and are all under the effects of conceal, and all have +2 attacks from conceal...
... That's 6 attacks each (24 total, without the charge). Against average MeQ's, that's 4.44 kills in total. For 200pts, with the above drawbacks.

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

I agree, but combinations are supposed to be there and usable. However, hopefully they remain just combinations, rather than exploitations...
Thanks for the feedback man.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saintspirit wrote:On the Farseer, it doesn't state how many psychic powers it can have or what they cost - was this intended?

Yep. They're included in their cost and their abilities (hence the increased cost for Farseers and Spirit Stones), furthermore their ability to accessing extra powers is available through just Spirit Stones, unless a character...

I_AM_THE_SLAW wrote:Great codex, absolutely love it

Just a quick question though... I take it the fire prisms can no longer link guns as the rule isn't there anymore?

Whoops! Yeah, they can still link, I shall correct this!

Thanks man, appreciate the feedback and kind words!

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

I wrote this a bit further upp and i feel you havent addresed this yet so i re-posted this with some mathhammer
10 hawks (w/ out exarch) shooting at 30 guards at 18"
30 shots
20 hits
10 wounds

Guardsmen shoot back

20 shots
10 hits
5 wounds
2,5 unsaved wounds

Hawks are reduced to three quatersstrength and guardsmen two thirds. Also, the hawks began shooting at optimum range at their prefered target while being more expensive. Sure, they have jump pack, but they do not have acces to FRFSRF (or other orders), special wepons or heavy wepons while not being scoring, not being able to shoot beyond 18" not having rapid fire within 12" and can not be taken in platons.
If the guardsmen start to fire within 12" while both has acces to 4+ cover (doesent realy matter to hawks in this case) it will look like this:

Guardsmen shoot
60 shots
30 hits
15 wounds
7,5 dead hawks

While (rounding uppwards) 3 hawks shoot back
9 shots
3 hits
1,5 wounds
0,75 dead guardsmen

EDIT because of stupidity

Swooping Hawks do have Haywire Grenades.

Furthermore, I think such a comparison isn't entirely fair for the Swooping Hawks; it doesn't take into account their far superior mobility, their superior firepower, their slightly better toughness, their slightly better CC ability, their ability to Skyleap, their natural ability to be able to combat tanks and their different prices.
Nor does it account for all different factors that may influence the Guardsmen (orders/ numbers/ cover/ special weapons etc.)

I think such a mano-el-mano, point-to-point comparison isn't a particularly fair method of comparison for such vastly different units.

Here's two ways of looking at it:
1. 160 points of specialist unit engaging their preferred target at their preferred range and only expect to kill 60 points worth of models is a bit of a let down.
(Small note, PA SM 30+ pts, TA SM 54+, any Eldar infantry except Scorpions, etc are better targets)
2. In many cases, the Swooping Hawks can move in to an otherwise suicide position, shoot at a soft target such as a team of Long Fangs (of which they kill 2-ish) and then Skyleap into invulnerability.

In my mind the Swooping Hawks presented by Dave aren't a killing unit but a unit that's a pain in the arse and also a surgical tool. The balance is finding a balance where their tactical prowess meets points cost.
However, due to wound allocation rules the Swooping Hawks must be spammed in order to truly be good. Giving the Exarch a weapon option which allows him to kill hidden 'fists would make the unit godly, for example.

--

Here's a bit of constructive input. I realise that power weapons are good on sergeants, but why not reduce their costs on units that are shooty by nature? Swooping Hawks don't really want to get into melee, so why pay 10 points for a power weapon?
Warp Spider Power Blades are a good example of what I am trying to say, since for 10 points the exarch gains +1A as well.

Just don't give Swooping Hawks 3rd edition Web of Skulls

--

Oh, and while on the subject: Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack and cover! Maybe specify how to handle cover? Is it a directional blast or is it a barrage blast?
Additionally, I always found it odd that the grenade pack when fired from a lonesome 'hawk has the same strength as when fired from a full unit... but yes...

They do have grenades? *facepalm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Dave wrote:
Furthermore, I think such a comparison isn't entirely fair for the Swooping Hawks; it doesn't take into account their far superior mobility, their superior firepower, their slightly better toughness, their slightly better CC ability, their ability to Skyleap, their natural ability to be able to combat tanks and their different prices.
Nor does it account for all different factors that may influence the Guardsmen (orders/ numbers/ cover/ special weapons etc.)

I think such a mano-el-mano, point-to-point comparison isn't a particularly fair method of comparison for such vastly different units.

Hawks have greater toughness and fire power? Mayby firepower if you factor in double grenade packs but not toughness! 10 hawks are defenetly more fragile then 30 guardsmen. Also, I think 30 guardsmen are better in assualt aswell. But, yeah I see your point and it is the problem with most mathhammer but more so in the case with two so different units.

Also Great work( ) much better then current dex and will hopefully use this dex on the next weekend.

RAWR! A couple of things

Dire Avengers: Subsequent Shooting Phase is your opponent's shooting phase - they can't shoot then anyways D:

Striking Scorpions Hunter: "All wounds caused by the Exarch may be allocated by the Exarch's controlling player to any single wounds group." is a bit of a simplification on the wording - I believe it's what you'd intended?

Wave Serpent: perhaps mention rending as well as melta - it's a zone of contention, as d3 != d6, except you usually use a d6 to represent a d3 zzz

Nova Lance: Isn't that simply Ordnance? Or did you not want to deal with the Ordnance + other weapons firing rules :V

Fire Pike: Melta?

Biting Blade: Made at the same initiative, do the extra hits generate more hits?

Diresword: Each wound suffered, or each unsaved wound :V? Potentially awesome

Laser Lance: Perhaps rending in cc, so it can still poke landraiders in assault? Same with the star lance?

Vibrospear see Biting blade

Wraithsabres: Mention that the str is sacrificed and the attacks are made at the model's initiative.

Banshee Mask: Perhaps Ignores all other initiative modifiers, period?

Heavy Aspect Warrior Armour: Typically, models with Heavy* aspect warrior armour do not have fleet?

Neuro Disruptor: "At the beginning of combat, after assault moves but before blows are struck..."

Repulsor Field vs 6+ to hit on cc =...?

Power Diversion Matrix - decreased -> Improved.

Targeting Beacon: Furthermore, it *gains the Acute Senses rule

I always use your dex in vassal, and it's gaining traction at my FLGS. Keep on truckin'!

I must say, one thing I’m surprised people haven’t commented on so far is the Craftworld-to-special character ratio/balance/representation…

Ratius wrote: Change Fog of War to when it is cast the enemy must take a Ld test or suffer its effects. I think it could be very very powerful when used in conjunction with other abilities and the fact that its a simple Ld10 test to activate makes it nasty. Fearless units could be immune to represent them pushing on regardless.

As Mahtamori demonstrated, the chances of failing a leadership test are quite slim, whereas something like an initiative test – whilst preferable to leadership, unless the leadership is on 3D6 – only has one attempt at passing/failing, meaning your power has a flat-out chance of doing nothing, whereas things like JotWW and Warp Rift inflict multiple initiative tests.
Furthermore, would you say Fog of War is more powerful than the psychic abilities (or non-psychic, such as Necrons Tremostave/Writhing Worldscape etc.) that enforce/inflict difficult terrain; as these abilities both reduce movement and can inflict casualties?
I can understand your concern and I’ll likely change it to a Leadership test at Ld8 or on 3D6, but otherwise I’m reluctant to opt for a standard leadership test or single characteristic test.
As a note, Fog of War doesn’t so much as represent fear (but it kind of can/does), but the psyker inflicting hallucinations and false images and psychic mist etc. upon the enemy. Akin to the power presented in the Gaunts Ghosts 2nd novel (forget the name), but much less powerful.

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

I will be playtesting this list against blood angels soon.

Nice list man, please let me know how it goes Woodbok! Cheers!

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

Whoops! Realised I didn’t address this point.
I had considered changing him to T7 and did the math-hammer at T7/W4 and IIRC he was then actually less survivable than he is currently (whereas I wanted it to be more survivable). I did also consider T7/W5 but in the end I stuck with T8.
I considered this, as, as you said, T8 is only present on the Wraithlord these days IIRC…
As for the enforced upgrade, bare-bones Wraithlord at 105pts would not serve much real purpose other than to soak wounds/firepower; this isn’t really a characterful unit design not does it suit the Eldar way IMHO. An enforced upgrade need only cost 10pts however and can turn your Wraithlord into a capable close combat model – and ranged with Reaper Launchers – adding a degree of flexibility.
I think that he’s either carrying a huge pokey stick (CCW) or gun does fit with the fluff and their previous designs IMHO.

Mahtamori wrote: Here's two ways of looking at it:
1. 160 points of specialist unit engaging their preferred target at their preferred range and only expect to kill 60 points worth of models is a bit of a let down.

True, but that’s also not taking into account the grenade pack or that the Swooping Hawks could move out of effective/rapid fire range of the guardsmen via Eldar Fleet.
Note however that they cannot do both in the same turn (cannot Eldar fleet if arrived via deepstrike that turn), so the player has the choice of increased damage output (Grenade Pack) or increased safety/survivability (Eldar fleet).
Furthermore, this 95-160pts unit is also capable of destroying any vehicle in the game AFAIK.

2. In many cases, the Swooping Hawks can move in to an otherwise suicide position, shoot at a soft target such as a team of Long Fangs (of which they kill 2-ish) and then Skyleap into invulnerability.

Just to clarify however, they couldn’t deepstrike behind this unit and then Skyleap on the same turn, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

In my mind the Swooping Hawks presented by Dave aren't a killing unit but a unit that's a pain in the arse and also a surgical tool. The balance is finding a balance where their tactical prowess meets points cost.

Exactly. It’s never been my intention to make swooping hawks a real killing unit or one that will excel in a straight-up fight, but an excellent hit and run unit and one that can kill both infantry or vehicles, particularly if combined with other units (as Eldar should; work in conjunction), whether it be to Haywire a stunned/stationary vehicle, weaken/finish off a horde alongside units such as Dire Avengers, Sundering Sentinels, War Walkers etc. or harass the enemy and their otherwise out-of-reach units.
I’m not sure I’ve achieved this perfectly and obviously they have already had to be changed, but I think with the above role in mind they are at least decent. As I said, there’s a lot of factors that makes straight-up math-hammering them in a single context/vacuum against a single unit flawed IMHO.
Also note that in their latest role, Swooping Hawks are cheaper and can perform multiple Skyleaps in one game (but not in the same turn/if in assault, so they’re not without issue)
Also, Scourges are 22pts yet semi-competitive.

Here's a bit of constructive input. I realise that power weapons are good on sergeants, but why not reduce their costs on units that are shooty by nature? Swooping Hawks don't really want to get into melee, so why pay 10 points for a power weapon?
Warp Spider Power Blades are a good example of what I am trying to say, since for 10 points the exarch gains +1A as well.

That’s a fair call man, but these Sergeants are also fast, WS5, A2 and I6 (though only Str3), whilst 10pts provides close-combat viability and ability, enabling some shooting units (e.g. Hawks/Spiders/Sentinels) to perform in close combat in a pinch too.
Ultimately, I’d say the main problem is that at 5pts it’s too cheap as well…

Oh, and while on the subject: Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack and cover! Maybe specify how to handle cover? Is it a directional blast or is it a barrage blast?
Additionally, I always found it odd that the grenade pack when fired from a lonesome 'hawk has the same strength as when fired from a full unit... but yes...

I’d imagine it would be determined in the same way as normal blasts; from the centre of the blast?
I know what you mean about the always-full-strength blast mechanic, but changing it to per-individual is difficult. Although, I guess granting each Hawk a single Str 4, AP5 ranged attack on the turn they deepstrike wouldn’t be unreasonable instead. Also, theoretically, if on the turn they deepstruck the Grenade Pack made their ranged attacks Str 4, rather than Str3, that would make Swooping Hawks a better, killy, unit...

MrTau wrote: Hawks have greater toughness and fire power?

Well, individually…

nathan2195 wrote: Also Great work much better then current dex and will hopefully use this dex on the next weekend.

Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words!

chrisrawr wrote:RAWR! A couple of things

Dire Avengers: Subsequent Shooting Phase is your opponent's shooting phase - they can't shoot then anyways D:

Will be clarified to subsequent Eldar shooting phase.

Striking Scorpions Hunter: "All wounds caused by the Exarch may be allocated by the Exarch's controlling player to any single wounds group." is a bit of a simplification on the wording - I believe it's what you'd intended?

Will be changed to a blend of both; thanks.

Wave Serpent: perhaps mention rending as well as melta - it's a zone of contention, as d3 != d6, except you usually use a d6 to represent a d3 zzz

Will be clarified, and will not affect rending; they’re tough enough as it is IMHO.

Nova Lance: Isn't that simply Ordnance? Or did you not want to deal with the Ordnance + other weapons firing rules :V

Same effect yeah. But as you said, it’s not actually ordnance.

Fire Pike: Melta?

Whoops! Good catch. Will be changed.

Biting Blade: Made at the same initiative, do the extra hits generate more hits?

No, they don’t generate extra hits; this will be clarified. And yeah, it’s still at normal initiative unless stated otherwise…

Diresword: Each wound suffered, or each unsaved wound :V? Potentially awesome

Yeah, the entry states “unsaved wound”

Laser Lance: Perhaps rending in cc, so it can still poke landraiders in assault? Same with the star lance?

Well they still strike as lance’s at range, so can still harm Land Raiders at range, otherwise at Str6 striking rear armour they’re plenty capable against vehicles, I’m not sure I want them any more powerful against vehicles than this (which is already pretty powerful), but I could make it so they’re lances in CC too.

Wraithsabres: Mention that the str is sacrificed and the attacks are made at the model's initiative.

As with all special CC weapons (AFAIK) they will still strike at normal initiative; same with witchblades/lightning claws/power weapons etc.

Banshee Mask: Perhaps Ignores all other initiative modifiers, period?

Good idea, I don’t see why I didn’t think of this sooner… I can’t think of any modifiers that should actually affect it?

Heavy Aspect Warrior Armour: Typically, models with Heavy* aspect warrior armour do not have fleet?

Again, nice catch!

Neuro Disruptor: "At the beginning of combat, after assault moves but before blows are struck..."

Good call; will be changed.

Repulsor Field vs 6+ to hit on cc =...?

Will remain 6+ and I’ll change it, cheers!

Power Diversion Matrix - decreased -> Improved.

Yep; AP is strange like that and hence the example!

Targeting Beacon: Furthermore, it *gains the Acute Senses rule

Same thing really…

I always use your dex in vassal, and it's gaining traction at my FLGS. Keep on truckin'!

Wow. Brilliant! I’ve been disappointed by how little feedback this has been getting, so I really appreciate that it’s picking up in your area and you use it, thanks man, thanks a lot!
Thanks for the re-wording feedback too, that will be included in the next version. Cheers!
How do you find its performance in vassal? Balanced? OP? Fun?

----

Right, I think that's all the feedback I need to respond to for the moment...

" Diresword: Each wound suffered, or each unsaved wound :V? Potentially awesome

Yeah, the entry states “unsaved wound” "

It stated each wound suffered when I read it, which was why I brought it up. While potentially awesome, I figured it might not've been what you were looking for.

I brought up the extra generated attacks from things because everything that generates extra attacks AFAIK states which initiative they're generated on.

The lances in CC I just brought up because, on 6's, they're already penning any rear armour in the game - Rending or Lance in CC would just allow them to continue this trend against landraiders.

Haven't had a chance to use it yet, my guineapigs have been busy with school lately.

OK, on the game, I forgot to take pics.
Although, the general outline of the game was that the Asps with vibro cannons did an amazing job of keeping blood angel predators shaken. And although I only have 2 troops, you don't actually need more. The war walkers kill anything big, the asps suppress vehicles, and fire dragons kill big tanks.
Another awesome codex, well done dave.

I wept with joy and grief at this Codex. Joy because it fixes many of the problems with the Eldar, and grief because GW won't touch this with a forty-foot pole.

How much does 6ths imment release (leak) put a dampener on this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any point in continuing through it?

I was actually going through my own dex in 6e perspective; I'll go through Dave's and see what might benefit from some basic changes.

Not to throw too much of a damper on it, but the "leak" is far from confirmed whether it is an actual GW document, not to mention that it has nothing to do with a 5th edition fandex

Fact of the matter is, Eldar will remain without an up to date codex for nearly another year, so refining Dave's codex to a state where more people will find it acceptable and challenging is very much a good endeavour.

No one was claiming the leak is going to be anywhere near officail 6e. But it's really, REALLY fun to play, and having a 'dex updated with rules for it would be all the better!

Will you be updating this with the new units from IA 11?

Very good question VI.

Codex will be updated soon...

chrisrawr wrote:The lances in CC I just brought up because, on 6's, they're already penning any rear armour in the game - Rending or Lance in CC would just allow them to continue this trend against landraiders.

True, but I think it's fair that Land Raiders/Monoliths don't also have to fear assault (put can still be nuked by shooting) considering their toughness/price/etc...
I completely understand what you're saying, and thank ye for the feedback, but I think it's OK for Spears to not be able to take out a LR in CC too...

woodbok wrote:OK, on the game, I forgot to take pics.
Although, the general outline of the game was that the Asps with vibro cannons did an amazing job of keeping blood angel predators shaken. And although I only have 2 troops, you don't actually need more. The war walkers kill anything big, the asps suppress vehicles, and fire dragons kill big tanks.
Another awesome codex, well done dave.

Don't worry about pics; it's more the feedback that's important to me (then again, I wouldn't complain at pics either; loves me a good battle report!), thanks man.
Thanks for the big compliment and feedback Woodbok; seriously, cheers.
Would you say the 'dex seemed balanced to you or Vibro Cannons were too good? From your general outline it sounds like you kicked ass, however it also sounds like you have a really good game plan and really well designed list and pulled it off, deserving the win.
All feedback, particularly from this and any future playtesting is welcome man, cheers!

Mordoskul wrote:I wept with joy and grief at this Codex. Joy because it fixes many of the problems with the Eldar, and grief because GW won't touch this with a forty-foot pole.

Thanks!

Ratius wrote:How much does 6ths imment release (leak) put a dampener on this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any point in continuing through it?

chrisrawr wrote:I was actually going through my own dex in 6e perspective; I'll go through Dave's and see what might benefit from some basic changes.

Mahtamori wrote:Not to throw too much of a damper on it, but the "leak" is far from confirmed whether it is an actual GW document, not to mention that it has nothing to do with a 5th edition fandex

Fact of the matter is, Eldar will remain without an up to date codex for nearly another year, so refining Dave's codex to a state where more people will find it acceptable and challenging is very much a good endeavour.

It's not changed anything for me.

6th Edition is what, 6 months away, at least? Particularly with GW's secrecy-policies, there's little way to predict 6th edition or what it will contain, outside of a questionably-accurate leak.
This Codex was designed with 5th edition in mind and I think it would still be pretty good under any later rules too, however if 6th edition comes around (whenever) and it does need an update, then if people are still using this Codex (which I'd love to be the case) then I'll update it for 6th, but as it stands, it doesn't change a thing for me, nor will it for a pretty long time in all likelihood...

VI th legion wrote:Will you be updating this with the new units from IA 11?

No. I don't have any plans to.
For me, Imperial Armour =/= Codex. I'm happy for some things to remain separate and exclusive to one-another (otherwise people would only buy the Codex for one thing; screwing over FW) whilst some units either don't fit, aren't needed, aren't good or are already well accounted for in what is an already pretty-well-accommodated FOC.
When creating the Codex I did consider some FW units, such as Hornets, Wasps, Warp Hunters etc. But I thought they didn't really fit; Hornets and Warp Hunters overlap too much with Vypers and Asps, whilst Wasps are an odd concept that isn't likely to be really missed within the Codex and again, I think most FOC slots are pretty full IMHO.
If you're asking about Shadow Spectres specifically, then I addressed them last page IIRC.

Latest Version of the PDF Codex is up in the opening post.

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

OKAY! Feedback time!

Falcon: Maybe add to the respective unit entries May select a Falcon (see page 35), may only be selected by one unit per army. Just to be a bit more clear on the options. My wording is grossly imperfect, though.

Dark Reapers: Mind Link is good, but why not tie it in with their wargear. Stick it into their mask and make the mask available to the Autarch as well!

Support Platform: The Guardians arming these platforms are essentially Defenders, but they come equipped with Plasma Grenades while Defenders do not?

Sundering Sentinels: What does a Hip-Cannon look like?
I also find it odd that the Exarch of a ranged infantry unit can only upgrade his weapon with melee variations.

Autarch: Shouldn't Hip-Cannon be one of the options?

Mahtamori wrote:OKAY! Feedback time!

Falcon: Maybe add to the respective unit entries May select a Falcon (see page 35), may only be selected by one unit per army. Just to be a bit more clear on the options. My wording is grossly imperfect, though.

Originally I was going to do this, but I think the entry in solely the Falcon listing is better/clearer as it makes it much clearer that it's only 1-per-army, which is much less clear with the above IMHO...

Dark Reapers: Mind Link is good, but why not tie it in with their wargear. Stick it into their mask and make the mask available to the Autarch as well!

Nice idea and I had considered this, but realistically it should only work with the Reaper Launcher and then you get into the issue of would it be taken over something like mandiblasters/banshee mask/crystalline?

Support Platform: The Guardians arming these platforms are essentially Defenders, but they come equipped with Plasma Grenades while Defenders do not?

Good spot; this is changed and will appear in the next update...

Sundering Sentinels: What does a Hip-Cannon look like?
I also find it odd that the Exarch of a ranged infantry unit can only upgrade his weapon with melee variations.

I imagine the hip-cannon as a slightly smaller Shuriken Cannon (kinda similar to Maugan Ra's) that is supported at the forearm and by the linked plate armour via anti-grav/fancy-tech means, or more conventional/low-tech means; therefore held at the hip in a similar manner to Smart Guns off Aliens...

Autarch: Shouldn't Hip-Cannon be one of the options?

I would, but the hip-cannon requires linked plate-armour as support and is quite cumbersome (i.e. can you imagine it being used alongside some close-combat dealies?!).
You may then ask why linked-plate-armour isn't an option, which I have also considered but ultimately decided against it (for now...) as it would cost Eldar Fleet and would be liable to become a must-take...

Bladestorm only functions if the Autarch with the squad has a Shuriken weapon. Mind Link could function "with a missile launcher only". Speaking of which, I don't have the PDF at work, can the Exarch/Phoenix Lord still use a Shuriken Cannon / Maugetar with this rule?

Mahtamori wrote:Bladestorm only functions if the Autarch with the squad has a Shuriken weapon. Mind Link could function "with a missile launcher only". Speaking of which, I don't have the PDF at work, can the Exarch/Phoenix Lord still use a Shuriken Cannon / Maugetar with this rule?

Nope, though the Maugetar would have be benefiting from Fast Shot anyway, so it's at +1 RoF anyways...

As I mentioned in my previous post regarding mind-link; I would imagine it would ultimately be too limited a piece of wargear to be worth taking over the other options?

Right, here is the 1st in a series of posts I will make providing possible army lists (1750pts) with this Codex in order to demonstrate and explore possible builds and (hopefully) balance within the Codex, whilst hopefully keeping it near the top of proposed rules (88 comments, over 2000 views; really?! ).
Some of these lists will be designed to be flat-out competitive, others themed or both...

First up, Saim Hann:

HQ - Autarch - Swift Strike, Eldar Jetbike, Mandiblasters, Dragon's Breath Flamer, Executioner - 135pts


Troops - 5 Eldar Jetbikes - 2 Shuriken Cannons, 1 Warlock with Singing Spear and Conceal - 173pts

Troops - 5 Eldar Jetbikes - 2 Shuriken Cannons, 1 Warlock with Singing Spear and Conceal - 173pts

Troops - 5 Eldar Jetbikes - 1 Shuriken Cannon, 1 Warlock with Singing Spear and Conceal - 163pts

Troops - 2 Vyper Jetbikes - 2x Bright Lance - 150pts

Troops - 2 Vyper Jetbikes - 2x Bright Lance - 150pts

Troops - 2 Vyper Jetbikes - 2x Eldar Missile Launcher - 140pts


Fast Attack - 5 Shining Spears - Exarch w/ Star Lance - 155pts

Fast Attack - 5 Shining Spears - Exarch w/ Power Weapon - 140pts


Heavy Support - Fire Prism - Power Diversion Matrix - 125pts

Heavy Support - Fire Prism - 120pts

Heavy Support - Night Spinner - Power Diversion Matrix - 125pts


Total: 1749pts

So a themed and hopefully semi-competitive Saim-Hann list. Heavy-anti-tank comes from the 4 Bright Lances, Star Lance and 2 Fire Prisms, whilst the 2 EML's, 3 Singing Spears and even Night Spinner can provide some additional anti-tank if needed.
Obviously this army packs loads of mobility; the Vypers and Heavy Support will hang back and provide fire support, hopefully enabling them to stay away from any serious anti-tank firepower whilst the Vypers can seize objectives, whilst the Jetbikes (all with skilled rider) zoom forwards to engage the enemy, using hit and run tactics whilst the Autarch and Shining Spears engage anything heavy. With Stealth and Skilled Rider, the Guardian Jetbikes can either turbo-boost or remain in cover for a good cover save and therefore durability.

Weaknesses are however: fragile vehicles, low model count (26 MeQ's) and potential problems against large numbers.