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.

 iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

Unfortunately small arms ranges sounds mental untill you realise some units are rocking 6inch move plus advance so 9.5 inch move in the move 1 and double move for another 9.5 and still charge for say 7 inches that puts you at 26 inches of movement in 1 player turn. Okay that might not be every uniy but it's a big component of why fixing 1 issue greats another issue that results in another issue.

Being able to make deployment zone to deployment zone charges means people need to be able to shoot futher than that to get at least a single turn of shooting potential before they get charged, meaning they can now with large chunks of their army have deployment zone to deployment zone shootouts.

You either play with much bigger tables a royal PITA, or you have to change movement ability and shooting ranges, both of which would slow the game down significantly which goes against GW stated aim of trying to make the game quicker and easier to play (their achievement of that aim is not my point)

It's a game system designed for the instant gratification generation.

Armies were obliterated from the deployment zones in 2nd ed.

Please can units in open topped vehicles please benefit from auras and shoot in overwatch. In return units in open topped vehicles should be able to be hit by certain weapons such as flamers.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the sound of that, but I feel it might be hard to execute. Troops with 36" guns are typically equipped with sniper rifles, and those feel oddly short-ranged as-is. Most troops are looking at 24" or less on their basic guns. So let's say you drop those 24" guns down to 18". Then compare those to really short-ranged troop guns like fleshborers and shuriken catapults (12"). Do we really want to reduce the range of those 12" guns even more? And if so, isn't it a bit odd that we're making so many weapons fit into a 12"-18" range band.

I think it would be reasonable to cut the range on typical Rapid Fire guns from 24" to 18", but leave those Assault 12" guns alone. Back when those profiles were first introduced, a lasgun or bolter on the move was getting just a single shot at 12". You had to stay still to get the full range, and couldn't shoot and charge in the same turn. Now those Shuriken Catapults and Fleshborers are kind of crap, because they're no more mobile than their longer-ranged counterparts.

I don't think the problem is strictly the weapon ranges, per se. It's the weapon ranges combined with the significant increase in mobility that extends those units' threat ranges, plus abilities like Bolter Discipline and FRFSRF that have multiplied the amount of firepower basic troops send downrange. It used to be that you simply could not shoot the enemy with your basic rifles if you got the first turn- reducing the range on Rapid Fire weapons is a roundabout way of accomplishing the same effect.

 iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

What if all ranged weapons other than pistols hit at minus 1 if a unit is outside of half range ?

 Elfric wrote:
Please can units in open topped vehicles please benefit from auras and shoot in overwatch. In return units in open topped vehicles should be able to be hit by certain weapons such as flamers.

Open topped is broken enough, thanks.

 Elfric wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

What if all ranged weapons other than pistols hit at minus 1 if a unit is outside of half range ?

I've been a proponent of this, along with obscuration imposing a -1, ever since seeing it in Kill Team.

However, be aware that this will straight up break a lot of units with 12" range, and disproportionately affects low-accuracy armies without ready access to re-rolls (like Orks), so it would need a massive balance pass to the entire game.

 catbarf wrote:

 Elfric wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

What if all ranged weapons other than pistols hit at minus 1 if a unit is outside of half range ?

I've been a proponent of this, along with obscuration imposing a -1, ever since seeing it in Kill Team.

However, be aware that this will straight up break a lot of units with 12" range, and disproportionately affects low-accuracy armies without ready access to re-rolls (like Orks), so it would need a massive balance pass to the entire game.

Rather than half range, how about -1 to hit for any weapons over 16" range? The exception could be for AA guns against Flyers.

 Slayer6 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Elfric wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

What if all ranged weapons other than pistols hit at minus 1 if a unit is outside of half range ?

I've been a proponent of this, along with obscuration imposing a -1, ever since seeing it in Kill Team.

However, be aware that this will straight up break a lot of units with 12" range, and disproportionately affects low-accuracy armies without ready access to re-rolls (like Orks), so it would need a massive balance pass to the entire game.

Rather than half range, how about -1 to hit for any weapons over 16" range? The exception could be for AA guns against Flyers.

Yeah great idea lets have everyone short of a spacemarine basic troop able to be rendered unable to hit anything.
Alitoc flyer spam was and still is pretty toxic with a -2 to hit, your now suggesting rolling that level of modifier out game wide.

You've functionally made any 4+ to hit unit redundent against any army with the ability to manoeuvre and a -1 to hit trait. And even then your changes would require an entire point rebalance for a lot of shooting units.

Ice_can wrote:

 Slayer6 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Elfric wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

What if all ranged weapons other than pistols hit at minus 1 if a unit is outside of half range ?

I've been a proponent of this, along with obscuration imposing a -1, ever since seeing it in Kill Team.

However, be aware that this will straight up break a lot of units with 12" range, and disproportionately affects low-accuracy armies without ready access to re-rolls (like Orks), so it would need a massive balance pass to the entire game.

Rather than half range, how about -1 to hit for any weapons over 16" range? The exception could be for AA guns against Flyers.

Yeah great idea lets have everyone short of a spacemarine basic troop able to be rendered unable to hit anything.
Alitoc flyer spam was and still is pretty toxic with a -2 to hit, your now suggesting rolling that level of modifier out game wide.

You've functionally made any 4+ to hit unit redundent against any army with the ability to manoeuvre and a -1 to hit trait. And even then your changes would require an entire point rebalance for a lot of shooting units.

Sounds like a win to me, let's do it!

I remember discussing with a GW employee about how the current CP system spoils the core aspect of the game as many people burn SO much CP for a devastating alpha strike that the rest of the game just isn't worth playing. His thoughts were that 40K should have a CP generation system similar to Age of Sigmar where your leaders actually matter as something other than a beatstick and it means you have to use your points more sparingly as although you can get more overall, their availability is spread through the course of the game.

Try and bring back templates OR introduce a rule that models in a target unit cannot be hit more than once to such a weapon. I know JFK was hit by a magic bullet, but it gets a bit repetitive when my tank gets hit 6 times by the same battle cannon shot.

Cheers

Andrew

Ranges and movement speed are definitely 2 of the core issues with the game at the moment and probably something that I would fix first. In 2nd Edition the maximum range any basic weapon had was 24" (granted, back then the basic weapon was pretty much either a Bolter or a Lasgun) and a human's movement was 4" rather than 6". Now we have 30"-range double-tapping AP-1 Bolt Rifles as the standard weapon of the most common Troop unit in the game and units routinely able to cover more than 50% of the distance between deployment zones without Advancing or other movement shenanigans. Add those shenanigans in and the mobility/range in 40k is, frankly, absurd. I can't think of a single other modern wargame that allows units to be so easily in range of each other in the first turn. Other games have opening turns where very little or no shooting happens, and it's all about jockeying for position. 40k has armies being reduced by 25-50% in the first turn on a fairly routine basis. In general 40k is far too lethal. If a unit can't delete its preferred target in one turn it's often not worth taking. That heavily contributes to the mindlessness and lack of proper decision-making that characterises a lot of 40k nowadays.

I think reducing range and movement would be a good place to start. The-1 to hit idea at longer ranges isn't terrible, but would probably need some tweaks. I'd maybe just restrict it to over half range with Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons and leave Assault and Pistol weapons as they are. You'd also probably want to trim movement a bit. If you really want to keep infantry at 6" I'd make nothing move faster than 12" base, and even that should be reserved for Eldar jetbikes and the like. Jump infantry could be 8-10" with bikes being 10-12" as standard.

Really, though, what 9th needs is a ground-up rewrite. I don't think the core of 8th is terrible. I think it just needs a bit more of a radical overhaul than GW gave it. Strength and Toughness values are too close to their 7th Edition numbers, for example, when 8th allows for a much wider range of values.

 AndrewC wrote:
Try and bring back templates OR introduce a rule that models in a target unit cannot be hit more than once to such a weapon. I know JFK was hit by a magic bullet, but it gets a bit repetitive when my tank gets hit 6 times by the same battle cannon shot.

Cheers

Andrew

That's not unrealistic though. A single shot from a tank's main gun, especially if that shot is APHE, can easily hit multiple locations once both spalling and the explosive itself is factored in.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Try and bring back templates OR introduce a rule that models in a target unit cannot be hit more than once to such a weapon. I know JFK was hit by a magic bullet, but it gets a bit repetitive when my tank gets hit 6 times by the same battle cannon shot.

Cheers

Andrew

That's not unrealistic though. A single shot from a tank's main gun, especially if that shot is APHE, can easily hit multiple locations once both spalling and the explosive itself is factored in.

This is why weapons have a Damage value

 kodos wrote:
This is why weapons have a Damage value

Is it? I doubt a lascannon or a lance weapon causes spalling the way a battle cannon round does, that's supported by them being Heavy 1 weapons instead of Heavy 1d3 or 1d6.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 kodos wrote:
This is why weapons have a Damage value

Is it? I doubt a lascannon or a lance weapon causes spalling the way a battle cannon round does, that's supported by them being Heavy 1 weapons instead of Heavy 1d3 or 1d6.

If a single shell/laser/ray/plasma-ball can damage several things on a single target causes it to lose more than 1 Health Point, it is represented by a higher Damage value

if weapon causes more hits from a single shell, it would be represented by causing more wounds

if a weapon fires more than one shell, it would have higher rate of fire

a Heavy 1d3 D1 weapon would fire 1-3 shots representing a not very constant rate of fire, Heavy 1 D1 that causes d3 hits would be our second case and Heavy 1 D d6 would be the first case


for gameplay more hits vs high damage is similar with the difference that each hit needs to make a wound roll while other needs to roll for damage

a APHE shell would be a high damage weapon as it only hits once than explodes in the inside causes damage to multiple systems
a HE/Shrapnel shell would explode, and the pieces would cause multiple hits each one doing damage

Both of you are applying real world logic to a game, which is good but don't reflect the changes in edition. Battle cannons, for example, used to be heavy 1, large blast. When they removed templates they increased it to heavy d6 to represent the greater number of models in a unit being hit.

What that meant was that the maximum times a unit could be harmed was equal to the number of models. A limit that was lost with the template. And incidentally increased the level of lethality 8n the game.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Both of you are applying real world logic to a game, which is good but don't reflect the changes in edition. Battle cannons, for example, used to be heavy 1, large blast. When they removed templates they increased it to heavy d6 to represent the greater number of models in a unit being hit.

What that meant was that the maximum times a unit could be harmed was equal to the number of models. A limit that was lost with the template. And incidentally increased the level of lethality 8n the game.

Cheers

Andrew

Additionally the same change lead to some very odd interactions where generalised blast weapons do better against vehicals than dedicated anti tank weapons.

that the replacement rules for templates by GW was done poorly, and Battlecannons not having mutliple ammo types (like HE with blast and AT with higher strength) like the Forge World models is a different problem

but we have the mechanics somehow in the rules that there is a difference between an Anti-Tank shell, good against a single target with high Toughness and Wounds (eg Heavy 1, S9 D6) or High Explosive shells good against multiple small targets (Heavy D6+1, S5 D1)

so it is not something that need to be re-written in the core, just the unit profiles need to be adjusted to be more in line

going back to the old topic that GW needs to stick with a core and start doing proper faction rules instead of changing the core each edition but keep the profiles the same since 3rd

 kodos wrote:
If a single shell/laser/ray/plasma-ball can damage several things on a single target causes it to lose more than 1 Health Point, it is represented by a higher Damage value

Is it now, because it seems like there are plenty of weapons, especially those that used to have blast tamplates, that don't follow that rule.

for gameplay more hits vs high damage is similar with the difference that each hit needs to make a wound roll while other needs to roll for damage

Invulnerable saves favor gaining additional hits as opposed to doing additional damage after the invulnerable save has been factored in. This is why melta and lascannons are out of favor at the moment in favor of things like overcharged plasma.

because GW did not made a second thought about those things and just used old profiles with new rules and added layers of other rules to correct mistakes that were made in the initial process

I had hopes for the game after they said that there will be soft re-boot but they kept the wrong stuff the same and it it the same problem like with each edition, there is the one Anti-Infantry weapon that is better at killing tanks that the dedicated Anti-Tank weapon (and it is usually cheaper in points too)

They should never have combined multi shot weapons with blast weapons for rules purposes.

Multi shot weapons and blast weapons are very different.

It should be a single hit roll multiplied out for blasts and multiple shots for ... multishot.

Tristanleo wrote:
I remember discussing with a GW employee about how the current CP system spoils the core aspect of the game as many people burn SO much CP for a devastating alpha strike that the rest of the game just isn't worth playing. His thoughts were that 40K should have a CP generation system similar to Age of Sigmar where your leaders actually matter as something other than a beatstick and it means you have to use your points more sparingly as although you can get more overall, their availability is spread through the course of the game.

From an army-building perspective, maximizing alpha strike via stratagems is definitely a common thing. With my Tyranids, I'm generally looking to take one strong melee beatstick that can use the fight-twice stratagem, and one highly shooty unit that can use the shoot-twice stratagem, and employ both on turn 1 for maximum damage. If I were generating CP per-turn instead, I'd have to pick one or the other on T1, which would make it more attractive to focus on just one in my list.

Here's an idea- being Battle-Forged gives you 1CP per turn, Battalions give you 1CP per turn, Brigades give you 3CP per turn, and other detachments give you nothing. This puts the CP generation over the first three turns as roughly equivalent to what you would get under the at-launch CP system (before Battalions and Brigades got buffed, which led to the current CP battery meta).

This would keep stratagems in the game as relevant abilities, but reduce their impact in the early game, and force harder decisions about what to spend them on.

 catbarf wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
I remember discussing with a GW employee about how the current CP system spoils the core aspect of the game as many people burn SO much CP for a devastating alpha strike that the rest of the game just isn't worth playing. His thoughts were that 40K should have a CP generation system similar to Age of Sigmar where your leaders actually matter as something other than a beatstick and it means you have to use your points more sparingly as although you can get more overall, their availability is spread through the course of the game.

From an army-building perspective, maximizing alpha strike via stratagems is definitely a common thing. With my Tyranids, I'm generally looking to take one strong melee beatstick that can use the fight-twice stratagem, and one highly shooty unit that can use the shoot-twice stratagem, and employ both on turn 1 for maximum damage. If I were generating CP per-turn instead, I'd have to pick one or the other on T1, which would make it more attractive to focus on just one in my list.

Here's an idea- being Battle-Forged gives you 1CP per turn, Battalions give you 1CP per turn, Brigades give you 3CP per turn, and other detachments give you nothing. This puts the CP generation over the first three turns as roughly equivalent to what you would get under the at-launch CP system (before Battalions and Brigades got buffed, which led to the current CP battery meta).

This would keep stratagems in the game as relevant abilities, but reduce their impact in the early game, and force harder decisions about what to spend them on.

I really like this idea, but as I stated earlier, it would require reworking armies that rely on strategems and combos to function, such as csm, orks, or your tyranids. Which is something else I'd like to see in a new edition, I hate combos. If I wanted to use combos I'd play a fething ccg.

Hellebore wrote:They should never have combined multi shot weapons with blast weapons for rules purposes.

Multi shot weapons and blast weapons are very different.

It should be a single hit roll multiplied out for blasts and multiple shots for ... multishot.

I still like the idea of having blasts fire X-shots per Y-models (rounded up) in the enemy unit. So a frag missile fired into a 30 boy ork unit might fire a ton of shots, but that same frag fired at a 5 man tac squad might only fire like, 3. Doesn't change the standard attack resolution process, just the number of dice rolled. Scales up based on unit size making such weapons better against hordes without also making them better against elites. Makes your average and maximum damage output against a horde higher, but still takes to-hit modifiers into account.

catbarf wrote:
Here's an idea- being Battle-Forged gives you 1CP per turn, Battalions give you 1CP per turn, Brigades give you 3CP per turn, and other detachments give you nothing. This puts the CP generation over the first three turns as roughly equivalent to what you would get under the at-launch CP system (before Battalions and Brigades got buffed, which led to the current CP battery meta).

This would keep stratagems in the game as relevant abilities, but reduce their impact in the early game, and force harder decisions about what to spend them on.

Seems like it would be brutal for armies that depend on strats. GSC would go from being able to make a few big plays to maybe pulling off one per game. Harlequin survivability would go down quite a bit without Lightning Fast Reactions, Prismatic Blur, and the one that kicks in after you take casualties. Plus, armies that can fill out brigades efficiently seem like they'd have a pretty big advantage. There's a big difference between having access to 5CP a turn versus the 2 or 3 you'd get from Battleforged + 1 or 2 batallions. You'd be reducing alpha strike for some armies (less so armies like Iron Hands), but you'd be creating a lot of other issues that would have to be resolved. Plus, you'd have to figure out how to handle pre-game strats.

Also, I'm not really a fan of systems that tie CP to troops. It punishes players for playing thematic armies (regardless of how OP or UP those armies might be) and armies that don't have cheap and/or cost-efficient troops.

 catbarf wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
I remember discussing with a GW employee about how the current CP system spoils the core aspect of the game as many people burn SO much CP for a devastating alpha strike that the rest of the game just isn't worth playing. His thoughts were that 40K should have a CP generation system similar to Age of Sigmar where your leaders actually matter as something other than a beatstick and it means you have to use your points more sparingly as although you can get more overall, their availability is spread through the course of the game.

From an army-building perspective, maximizing alpha strike via stratagems is definitely a common thing. With my Tyranids, I'm generally looking to take one strong melee beatstick that can use the fight-twice stratagem, and one highly shooty unit that can use the shoot-twice stratagem, and employ both on turn 1 for maximum damage. If I were generating CP per-turn instead, I'd have to pick one or the other on T1, which would make it more attractive to focus on just one in my list.

Here's an idea- being Battle-Forged gives you 1CP per turn, Battalions give you 1CP per turn, Brigades give you 3CP per turn, and other detachments give you nothing. This puts the CP generation over the first three turns as roughly equivalent to what you would get under the at-launch CP system (before Battalions and Brigades got buffed, which led to the current CP battery meta).

This would keep stratagems in the game as relevant abilities, but reduce their impact in the early game, and force harder decisions about what to spend them on.

I think you also seriously need to address the massive issue of cheap battalions and brigades making soup still the best way to play any army.
Heck sub 200 points to double your CP for the game just made the loyal 32 and rusty 17 even move mandatory, double down on them and you have 2 CP detachments and your power house detachment the same as 8th just with a little less alpha, balance will still favour allies heavily over mono codex armies, which sucks.
Though that could be addressed with a slight modification of your suggestion.

If your army is battle forges for a single codex it gets 2 CP per turn
Battalions generate 1CP and Brigades 2CP.
Would bring armies way closer on CP generation and makes the allies trade off way more af an actual choice.

 Valkyrie wrote:


Strategems
I don't particularly mind Strategems, but I would personally scrap any of the "Fight/Shoot Twice" ones.

And scrap Guard orders while they are at it too... Or alternatively try the following:

Shooting is still too strong, my personal favourite simple solution is to create a decision for players, by dropping the AP values across the board by 1, even going into the positives. So Lascannons become AP-2, Heavy Bolters and Autocannons become AP0, and Lasguns become AP+1 - this means that against spammy armies, they won’t just melt under sheer weight of fire. Sure the strength will remain the same, but it will serve to make horde armies that little bit more viable given the Blast changes. Do you take a Plasma Pistol on your sergeants to give additional punch against Marines or just save the points for another Ogryn? Orks and Gaunts will still die in mass numbers from a Punisher Cannon, but not as extreme. Their 6+ becomes a 5+ against shooting from certain ranged weapons.

Let's look at some examples:

Termagants: T3, 1W, 6+
Lasguns (current): RF 1 S3 AP0 = After hitting, has a 41.66% of killing the Termagant
Lasguns (change): RF 1 S3 AP+1 = After hitting, has a 33.33% chance of killing the Termagant
Not a hugely significant drop, but it's there. Next let's look at a Punisher Cannon

Punisher Cannon (current) Heavy 20 S5 AP0 = After hitting, has a 55.56% chance of killing the Termagant per shot
Punisher Cannon (change) Heavy 20 S5 AP+1 = After hitting, has a 44.45% chance of killing the Termagant per shot
Again, a difference, but not hugely significant. Now let's look at a Primaris Space Marine Intercessor versus a Lasgun, Autocannon, then lastly a Lascannon

Primaris Space Marine Intercessor: T4, 2W, 3+
Lasguns (current): RF1 S3 AP0 = After hitting, has a 11.11% chance of wounding the Intercessor per shot
Lasguns (change): RF1 S3 AP+1 = After hitting, has a 5.56% chance of wounding the Intercessor per shot
A big difference, but this can be mitigated by weapon options. Now we have the Intercessor against an Autocannon.

Autocannon (current) Heavy 2 S7 AP-1 D2 = After hitting, has a 33.33% chance of killing an Intercessor per shot
Autocannon (change) Heavy 2 S7 AP0 D2 = After hitting, has a 16.67% chance of killing an Intercessor per shot
Given how prolific Autocannons and their equivalents can be, this isn't too much of a problem. Now for the Lascannon

Lascannon (current) S9 AP-3 D6 = After hitting, has a 69.44% chance of wounding the Intercessor, with a 57.86% chance of killing it
Lascannon (change) S9 AP-2 D6 = After hitting, has a 55.56% chance of wounding the Intercessor, with a 48.15% chance of killing it
Again, the difference is there, but it's not as severe.

But shooting armies will get nerfed even harder! Then they should take some CC options to at least mitigate the blow then. Tau have Kroot (this might actually create some incentive to using them!) Guard have Ogryns, Crusaders and Sentinels with Chainsaws, and other armies have their own equivalents. Hell, even tanks aren’t as helpless in this edition now, although stuff like Leman Russ Exterminators are now more viable. The decision will be for situations of: Do I keep my Infantry Squads bare and basic at 50pts, for FRFSRF, or do I take a Plasma Pistol, Plasmagun, and a Lascannon to deal with tougher stuff and bump the price up to 75 points per squad? Hell, go with the idea of Overwatch being an additional rule for certain units if it's still needed. Obviously armor test rolls of 1 always will fail, there will be no 1+ saves here.

What it needs is the return of BS and WS and I as comparative stats.

Always hitting on 2+ regardless of opponent is dumb and too powerful.

The game has far fewer styles of play, we're restricted to T/W/SV army styles.

Speed and initiative are gone.


The game now only works for MEQ, hence why necrons are the opponent- they're already the equivalent of space marines and rely on the same mechanics to survive.

All flavours of Eldar and Tyranids used to rely on speed (negative to hit and high initiative) for their survival.


The game just does not represent glass cannons at all anymore.

Eldar high toughness? Doesn't work.
Eldar high wounds? Doesn't work.

The only thing they could do is give them all an invulnerable save to represent reflexes.


Without that, those glass cannons elites are just trash plebs.