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.

On day 1 of the FAQ I saw the Warlock nerf and got super confused. They (if I am not mistaken) doubled in points? I've never actually heard many people complain abiut Warlocks and, in fact, mostly saw people saying they were still too expensive in the codex. There are no Eldar players in my area so i have never come across a Warlock in game so I was wondering why they were nerfed?

Because they were being abused by Ynnari to buff Yvraine by exploding.

If I had to guess, it relates to a lot of mini-Psykers going up in points a while back, and Warlocks being missed.

Maybe after Astraopths doubled in points, GW thought that Warlocks were too cheap in relation to them. They were about 5pts more but had better Movement, WS, BS, superior weapons, an extra attack, an extra power, a 4++, and the ability to benefit from Craftworld Attributes, character auras and so forth.

Personally, I think they went too far in both cases, but over-correction is the price we pay for a living ruleset.

It was pretty weird. I think at 55 points, they ought to have four wounds like other level 1 psyker characters.

pismakron wrote:
It was pretty weird. I think at 55 points, they ought to have four wounds like other level 1 psyker characters.

I think they should have at least 3 wounds. 2 seems really low.

My theory is that it's to make the cost of the cheapest possible Aeldari battalion higher, seeing as they now give +5CP

 Silentz wrote:
My theory is that it's to make the cost of the cheapest possible Aeldari battalion higher, seeing as they now give +5CP

Except the cheapest possible was already 2 Succubus and 3 Kabal Warrior units for 160. Even at 35 points a Craftworlds Battalion was 182pts. Since AELDARI is still a viable keyword for all detachments to share (just not inside a single detachment) you could take the Dark Eldar in an "Craftworlds" army with no issue.

Expected spiritseer to go up, but a Warlock increase just makes the spiritseer an auto take over them again. Just odd.

As for the Yvraine BS, that is no reason to raise points. That's a Ynnari issue (that faction is an utter mess) not an Eldar Warlock problem.

65 pts for spiritseer, 45pts for Warlock would be better.

Ynnari needs to be cut out and entirely redesigned (or you could just stop at the cutting part). Until they're seriously (and this time, intelligently) rethought to actually work in a way that isn't built around breaking the game, they'll always be a blight on everything they could potentially break the game with.

 Fafnir wrote:
Ynnari needs to be cut out and entirely redesigned (or you could just stop at the cutting part). Until they're seriously (and this time, intelligently) rethought to actually work in a way that isn't built around breaking the game, they'll always be a blight on everything they could potentially break the game with.

The state of the Ynnari is such a shame. They're cool concept, and I really liked an idea of different Eldar factions working together. I wanted to make a small Ynnari force composed of my favourite Eldar models from various subgroups; I already have bunch of them (not a singe Dark Reaper among them.) But instead their rules lead to OP cheese, in some very specific combinations, so they get nerfed all the time. Yet, this has pretty much killed their usability in more causal sense; you cannot even make Ynnari detachments out of mixed Eldar any more, which was their original selling point...

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Ynnari needs to be cut out and entirely redesigned (or you could just stop at the cutting part). Until they're seriously (and this time, intelligently) rethought to actually work in a way that isn't built around breaking the game, they'll always be a blight on everything they could potentially break the game with.

The state of the Ynnari is such a shame. They're cool concept, and I really liked an idea of different Eldar factions working together. I wanted to make a small Ynnari force composed of my favourite Eldar models from various subgroups; I already have bunch of them (not a singe Dark Reaper among them.) But instead their rules lead to OP cheese, in some very specific combinations, so they get nerfed all the time. Yet, this has pretty much killed their usability in more causal sense; you cannot even make Ynnari detachments out of mixed Eldar any more, which was their original selling point...

Yeah at this point just removing them would be the most humane thing to do they have been nerfed so many times that at this point they don't serve a purpose anymore even thematically never mind game wise.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

pismakron wrote:
It was pretty weird. I think at 55 points, they ought to have four wounds like other level 1 psyker characters.

I think they should have at least 3 wounds. 2 seems really low.

2 wounds is fine for a 30 point psyker with a pretty good lore. But at 55 points? A primaris psyker is 46 points and a Weirdboyz is 62 points and both of them has 4 wounds. Granted, they both have poor armour saves, but still.

 Fafnir wrote:
Ynnari needs to be cut out and entirely redesigned (or you could just stop at the cutting part). Until they're seriously (and this time, intelligently) rethought to actually work in a way that isn't built around breaking the game, they'll always be a blight on everything they could potentially break the game with.

GW doesn't know how to balance. You really ought to know this by now.

Warlocks are just really sub-par figures when you look outside of their ability to cast...one psychic power. The only thing they have which is vaguely good on occasion is a 4+ invulnerable save (but they die to lasgun and boltgun fire more then lascannons, so this is almost a waste).

The mini-smite is useless and didn't get a exemption from the new Smite rule. The two wounds means they die to perils 2/3rds of the time. Their stats are on par with a Guardian in close combat - and you'd never want to even give them a Singing Spear because of how gak they are in combat.

55 points makes them extremely tough to justify, particularly when a Warlock bike is 70 points. The extra speed, toughness, wound, and double guns make the biker warlock waaaay better (while still being mediocre).

I should admit I'm still angry about the retcon they did for Warlocks and Farseers after 2nd edition, so there will be no pleasing me. It's embarrassing how the game took them from being competent psychic warriors, leaders of the Craftworld...and made them jumped up little psyker pawns. It saddens me that Eldar psykers are so weak now that they can't even fend off a few attackers in close combat. Shame it ended up that way.

They should have gone down 5 points - not up 20. GW is incompetent. Proven over and over again.

 Fafnir wrote:
Ynnari needs to be cut out and entirely redesigned (or you could just stop at the cutting part). Until they're seriously (and this time, intelligently) rethought to actually work in a way that isn't built around breaking the game, they'll always be a blight on everything they could potentially break the game with.

Ynnari needs its own codex with its own datasheets, this way only the datasheets within the codex can be used, and you can heavily limited the units (0-1 per detachments etc..) and even change point costs to balance Ynnari while still keeping its flavor.
Also it will have its own relics, stratagems, etc...

This is IMO they best route for them.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Ynnari needs to be cut out and entirely redesigned (or you could just stop at the cutting part). Until they're seriously (and this time, intelligently) rethought to actually work in a way that isn't built around breaking the game, they'll always be a blight on everything they could potentially break the game with.

Ynnari needs its own codex with its own datasheets, this way only the datasheets within the codex can be used, and you can heavily limited the units (0-1 per detachments etc..) and even change point costs to balance Ynnari while still keeping its flavor.
Also it will have its own relics, stratagems, etc...

This is IMO they best route for them.

Kill them off until then. Same for Inquisition. GW clearly cannot deal with these soup factions in their current state, and to pretend to make an effort to do so is only hurting them and the factions they draw from.

The simplest reason for footseer and footlock/spiritseer price increases seems to be GW trying to increase the "minimum cost" for craftworlds to bring buff powers.

think of it this way: they can increase every other unit in the line by a few points because of its ability to recieve buffs, or they can just increase the points costs of the things that give the buff.

option 1 just leads to units being trash unbuffed, option 2 is at least somewhat sensible. considering how much craftworlds rely on power/buff synergies, increasing that minimum cost makes a lot of sense.

 Elbows wrote:

I should admit I'm still angry about the retcon they did for Warlocks and Farseers after 2nd edition, so there will be no pleasing me. It's embarrassing how the game took them from being competent psychic warriors, leaders of the Craftworld...and made them jumped up little psyker pawns. It saddens me that Eldar psykers are so weak now that they can't even fend off a few attackers in close combat. Shame it ended up that way.

Same. They used to be pretty terrifying in close combat. Even after all these years it feels wrong to me that this is no longer the case. I really loved the 2nd edition Eldar, they were my first army.

 WindstormSCR wrote:
The simplest reason for footseer and footlock/spiritseer price increases seems to be GW trying to increase the "minimum cost" for craftworlds to bring buff powers.

think of it this way: they can increase every other unit in the line by a few points because of its ability to recieve buffs, or they can just increase the points costs of the things that give the buff.

option 1 just leads to units being trash unbuffed, option 2 is at least somewhat sensible. considering how much craftworlds rely on power/buff synergies, increasing that minimum cost makes a lot of sense.

Except nobody relied on Warlocks for those buffs, and there's even less reason to use them now.

pismakron wrote:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

pismakron wrote:
It was pretty weird. I think at 55 points, they ought to have four wounds like other level 1 psyker characters.

I think they should have at least 3 wounds. 2 seems really low.

2 wounds is fine for a 30 point psyker with a pretty good lore. But at 55 points? A primaris psyker is 46 points and a Weirdboyz is 62 points and both of them has 4 wounds. Granted, they both have poor armour saves, but still.

6+ save compared to a 4++? It's a pretty drastic difference. The Weirdboy has 4W to mitigate the virtually guaranteed perils he suffers every round too.

I think we need to look at this a little more objectively. Though I'm going to preface this by saying that I believe Warlocks are slightly over-costed with this increase, they do bring quite a bit to the table and there are more things we need to consider in my humble opinion;

1. Access to arguably the most important stratagem for Craftworlds' players in Seer Council.
2. The most flexible casters bar none as all of their powers are dual use.
3. Runes of battle is probably the most powerful psychic discipline in the game.
4. They aren't beasts in combat by any stretch but they wound anything on a 2+ and do D3 damage per unsaved wound.
5. Character protection - which should mitigate their low wound count and toughness.
6. HQ choice. HQ options are always useful.

Am I saying that 55pts per Warlock is right? No, I'm not. I don't think it's as far off as this thread implies though.

It's worth noting that skyrunner Warlocks did not increase in price.

Their problem really lies in the existence of Spiritseers who are pretty much better in every way for their cost, apart from the lack of access to Seer Council. The quick fix is to increase the cost of Spiritseers proportionally. An alternative is to decrease the stats of the Spiritseer. The 'proper' fix for me would be to make Spiritseers and Warlocks the exact same cost and give them the same statline, possibly 3W. Seers keep their buff to Wraith units and Locks get the Seer Council stratagem and become more useful when taken in a conclave, although expensive units with multiple wounds ala TEQs are pretty garbage across the board as things are now.

 Elbows wrote:

I should admit I'm still angry about the retcon they did for Warlocks and Farseers after 2nd edition, so there will be no pleasing me. It's embarrassing how the game took them from being competent psychic warriors, leaders of the Craftworld...and made them jumped up little psyker pawns. It saddens me that Eldar psykers are so weak now that they can't even fend off a few attackers in close combat. Shame it ended up that way.

Agreed. And don't let me start up about the range of shuriken weapons.

I think the range of the shuriken catapults is the main reason why the Eldar are a dying race.

 Elbows wrote:
I should admit I'm still angry about the retcon they did for Warlocks and Farseers after 2nd edition, so there will be no pleasing me. It's embarrassing how the game took them from being competent psychic warriors, leaders of the Craftworld...and made them jumped up little psyker pawns. It saddens me that Eldar psykers are so weak now that they can't even fend off a few attackers in close combat. Shame it ended up that way.

How were they that different in 2nd?

2nd edition rules for Farseers and Warlocks (of which there were three different classes) were far more representative of the fluff. I'm not sure what edition chopped Eldar psykers from being combat-capable, probably 3rd?

In 2nd edition a Farseer was something to behold and was priced accordingly. He was a great psyker and could hold his own in combat (though still was not capable of matching a Space Marine Captain or a Hive Tyrant, Assassin, etc.).

M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 7 7 4 5 4 9 3 10

To put this in perspective, a Farseer cost more than any of the Phoenix Lords and had stats which rivalled if not exceeded them in many instances. They really felt like the super powerful world-leading mega-psyker warriors.

You also only had two options to lead your army, the Farseer or the Avatar (they hadn't made up the Autarch yet, thankfully). Warlocks could be almost as stat-heavy with three options (Warlock, Warlock Master, and Warlock Champion). You did pay quite a few points, but they weren't non-combatant chumps like they are now. Also, witchblades and singing spears were something to really fear (the spear being on par with a lascannon at close range). A witchblade or singing spear adde the Mastery Level of the psyker to his strength, meaning a Farseer (Mastery Level 4) had a Strength 8 witchblade which could carve through infantry and even vehicles on occasion.

Exarchs suffered a similar fate (they were originally the combat-machines). They were statted much better, carried options of wargear and special Exarch powers (you could design your own Exarchs which was awesome). The large Eldar shift killed off Farseers and Warlocks as actual combat leaders, making Farseers want to hide and cast spells, and Warlocks became petty sergeants for Guardian squads. Likewise, Exarchs lost stats and became "just another" Aspect Warrior who lent special abilities to the squad. In general it killed the feel of Eldar being those powerful, nimble, deadly 'Space Elves' who also happened to be potent psykers.

Couple that with an Avatar who has lost stats as his model has been outgrown (he used to be on par with a Bloodthirster - but now sucks ass by comparison, simply because his model is 1/3rd the size now), Shuriken Catapults being chopped to 12", etc. and the 'feel' of the Eldar army is drastically different, and not so much for the better.

Maybe a little bit overcosted (by maybe 5 pts) but it seems like its sitting in the right ballpark now. 2 Wounds is low but, then again, they're fragile space elves.

etb342 wrote:
Maybe a little bit overcosted (by maybe 5 pts) but it seems like its sitting in the right ballpark now. 2 Wounds is low but, then again, they're fragile space elves.

You realize they can't cast real smite right? They have a pistol and a sword that has -0AP. They can cast a single spell - and when they perils there is a good chance they die. Going into the FAQ - this unit was high on a list of units need point drops. To go up 20 points - is literally insane. The spiritseer going up make sense it was obviously too cheap.

Yeah, simply put it's not a good unit. I think one issue is probably that the basic Warlock is an HQ. Some people mentioned it above. A 35 point HQ is a big boon to an army which can run 60 point squads of Rangers. That's 250 points for a Battalion which now yields 5 command points.

However, the Warlock is not being fixed, but rather punished because of how it was initially designed (i.e. poorly).

 Elbows wrote:
2nd edition rules for Farseers and Warlocks (of which there were three different classes) were far more representative of the fluff. I'm not sure what edition chopped Eldar psykers from being combat-capable, probably 3rd?

In 2nd edition a Farseer was something to behold and was priced accordingly. He was a great psyker and could hold his own in combat (though still was not capable of matching a Space Marine Captain or a Hive Tyrant, Assassin, etc.).

M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 7 7 4 5 4 9 3 10

To put this in perspective, a Farseer cost more than any of the Phoenix Lords and had stats which rivalled if not exceeded them in many instances. They really felt like the super powerful world-leading mega-psyker warriors.

You also only had two options to lead your army, the Farseer or the Avatar (they hadn't made up the Autarch yet, thankfully). Warlocks could be almost as stat-heavy with three options (Warlock, Warlock Master, and Warlock Champion). You did pay quite a few points, but they weren't non-combatant chumps like they are now. Also, witchblades and singing spears were something to really fear (the spear being on par with a lascannon at close range). A witchblade or singing spear adde the Mastery Level of the psyker to his strength, meaning a Farseer (Mastery Level 4) had a Strength 8 witchblade which could carve through infantry and even vehicles on occasion.

Exarchs suffered a similar fate (they were originally the combat-machines). They were statted much better, carried options of wargear and special Exarch powers (you could design your own Exarchs which was awesome). The large Eldar shift killed off Farseers and Warlocks as actual combat leaders, making Farseers want to hide and cast spells, and Warlocks became petty sergeants for Guardian squads. Likewise, Exarchs lost stats and became "just another" Aspect Warrior who lent special abilities to the squad. In general it killed the feel of Eldar being those powerful, nimble, deadly 'Space Elves' who also happened to be potent psykers.

Couple that with an Avatar who has lost stats as his model has been outgrown (he used to be on par with a Bloodthirster - but now sucks ass by comparison, simply because his model is 1/3rd the size now), Shuriken Catapults being chopped to 12", etc. and the 'feel' of the Eldar army is drastically different, and not so much for the better.

I remember those monsters from when I first started playing. The old school Singing Spear and Witchblade were pretty terrifying. The souped up Exarchs were seriously awesome too. Dammit...now I'm getting all nostalgic

I think WindstormSCR has it right, they thought many Craftworld units were just too good when buffed with psychic powers so rather than increase the cost of every unit that might become too good when buffed they increased the cost of the buffs (warlocks, spiritseers and farseers all went up).

I used to run 3 warlocks before the changes for thematic reasons (it felt wrong having a load of spiritseers when I run an aspect warhost with no wraith units) so the changes were pretty painful. I get why they wanted to increase the cost of accessing the psychic powers but it now makes warlocks an even worse choice because their 2 wound stat line is not appropriate to the current price tag and because spiritseers are still only 10pts more than them.

Personally if I were doing things I'd want to swap the statline and smites of warlocks and spiritseers (since warlocks are supposed to be the actual battle psychers) which would hopefully have the effect of making warlocks the default choice with spiritseers being chosen specifically for their ability to buff wraith units which seems to encourage more thematic armies in my mind.