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.

Push a vindicator towards them, shoot artillery at them, drop pod on top of them, etc.

But blast vs big bases maybe clip 2 models. And something like a vindicator or lemman russ has to first survive a turn in range of eldar to get a shot off. Drop pods are only accesible to marines. Worse all the eldar player has to do to avoid getting his jetbikes killed is runing them in msu style units. Then pods kill maybe 3 or 5 models and the units that were inside die on next turn.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 sudojoe wrote:
Str d ignores cover on a 6. Str 10 does not ignore cover.

Str d does d3+1 hp/ wounds. Will instant kill on a 6. str 10 does 1 hp. Might be able to double out some things.

Str d does a pen/wound on a 2+ on anything. Str 10 does a glance on a 12 on a 2. Needs 4 to glance av14. can guarantee a pen on av14 targets I suppose.

Yes, Ds are more powerful than Distort. Slightly, and only relevantly so against:

multi-wound models
and
vehicles

I will gladly pat bug players on the back and buy them a beer (no sarcasm) for this. There is plenty of Ignores Cover in the game, so one more isn't game breaking.

Since when is 2-4x the number of wounds/hp caused only a slight increase in power?

chanceafs wrote:
If you're seriously saying that you've never seen players look at a new codex and go 'OMG its the most BROKEN THING EVAAARRR!!" before, only to have the game balance eventually catch up with the new dex. Then you really haven't been playing long.

Is it a codex that is better than most out there at the moment? yes. WIll it stay that way? No.

And as we all know, the #1 past time of 40K players is bitching about how good someone elses codex is.

Having received 7th ed codex that is nowhere near the level of Necrons or new Eldar makes me question your reasoning. Care to provide any support to your claims here?

I bet next time they get my codex right and I only need to be patient and learn to play in two years. Sheesh... The excuses people make to defend OP codexes/units.

Yeah that old chestnut

Yeah ifs totally broken BUT probably maybe, perhaps yours might be too - sometime in the future, well maybe - so thats all good and we should just accept that GW say its fine so it is.............

Nothing better than whining eldar players saying everyone is whining in an attempt to justify their over powrre codex since 2nd edition

Don't worry just 5 more editions before we catch up!

Akiasura wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 sudojoe wrote:
Str d ignores cover on a 6. Str 10 does not ignore cover.

Str d does d3+1 hp/ wounds. Will instant kill on a 6. str 10 does 1 hp. Might be able to double out some things.

Str d does a pen/wound on a 2+ on anything. Str 10 does a glance on a 12 on a 2. Needs 4 to glance av14. can guarantee a pen on av14 targets I suppose.

Yes, Ds are more powerful than Distort. Slightly, and only relevantly so against:

multi-wound models
and
vehicles

I will gladly pat bug players on the back and buy them a beer (no sarcasm) for this. There is plenty of Ignores Cover in the game, so one more isn't game breaking.

Since when is 2-4x the number of wounds/hp caused only a slight increase in power?

A month ago, a WraithKnight shoots his Distort weapon at Marneus Calgar, hits and wounds with a . Look Out, Sir! is failed, and if he fails is Invulnerable Save, Marneus takes a wound, as he's all Eternal Warrior. Another multi-wound character without EW dies from Instant Death, having failed an Invuln.

**edit (I misread a calculation)
Now, Marneus will take 1-3 wounds (on a to wound of 2-5) if he fails his saves. He might die, mathHammer; ... 3 wounds one third the time (33%), then figure in failing 3 4+ Invuln Saves (25%). He won't die from just this.

However, if the WK player rolls a , then Marney is in trouble, as d6+6 wounds will total him out, no saves of anykind. Yes, more powerful. But only models like non-vehicle models like Marney (multi-wound Head-Liner named Characters), DreadKnights and other MCs are worried. Hardly rocking the entirety of 40k.

To add that D-weps aren't having the impact people are so worried about:
the Ad-Lance player at our local tourney, for months had failed to do better than 1 & 2 or maybe even 2 & 1, but regularly finishes in the kitty pool. And he's no slouch nooB, having played 40k since 2e. D- weps just haven't had the hurt on the game that every one is claiming they do. Not in my experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Nothing better than whining eldar players saying everyone is whining in an attempt to justify their over powrre codex since 2nd edition

(sarcastic, good natured post)

Yeah, but I also get to whine about my tau. And then I'll whine about the Space Marine models I play and how they changed with the next book. And my Wolves. And of course I'm still complaining about how my Chaos Marines suck. And don't get me started about how useless my daemon army is. And all my termies? My first, beloved DeathWing army? Yeah, I still shed tears about that. My expensive, dust collecting Dark Eldar, Mechdar?

Yeah, eldar players are douches.

stolen from /tg/

Chad Warden wrote:
stolen from /tg/

I can see its not even worth taking vehicles against the Eldar then.

much easier to just use the Edlar Codex for all armies - fair and balanced

Just need to forge the narrative so that you find the right awesome Eldar unit to represent your weaker non Eldar one

 Brothererekose wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 sudojoe wrote:
Str d ignores cover on a 6. Str 10 does not ignore cover.

Str d does d3+1 hp/ wounds. Will instant kill on a 6. str 10 does 1 hp. Might be able to double out some things.

Str d does a pen/wound on a 2+ on anything. Str 10 does a glance on a 12 on a 2. Needs 4 to glance av14. can guarantee a pen on av14 targets I suppose.

Yes, Ds are more powerful than Distort. Slightly, and only relevantly so against:

multi-wound models
and
vehicles

I will gladly pat bug players on the back and buy them a beer (no sarcasm) for this. There is plenty of Ignores Cover in the game, so one more isn't game breaking.

Since when is 2-4x the number of wounds/hp caused only a slight increase in power?

A month ago, a WraithKnight shoots his Distort weapon at Marneus Calgar, hits and wounds with a . Look Out, Sir! is failed, and if he fails is Invulnerable Save, Marneus takes a wound, as he's all Eternal Warrior. Another multi-wound character without EW dies from Instant Death, having failed an Invuln.


**edit (I misread a calculation)
Now, Marneus will take 1-3 wounds (on a to wound of 2-5) if he fails his saves. He might die, mathHammer; ... 3 wounds one third the time (33%), then figure in failing 3 4+ Invuln Saves (25%). He won't die from just this.

However, if the WK player rolls a , then Marney is in trouble, as d6+6 wounds will total him out, no saves of anykind. Yes, more powerful. But only models like non-vehicle models like Marney (multi-wound Head-Liner named Characters), DreadKnights and other MCs are worried. Hardly rocking the entirety of 40k.

Okay, so you compare rolling a 6 with the old distort weapons, to just rolling any wound roll now, and you don't see the difference?
Also, I believe it is d3+1 wound, so it's 2-4, not 1-3 like your math suggests. So, with a failed save, 66% of the time Calgar bites the dust.
Now, Calgar gets no save and just explodes if a 6 is rolled.

Tanks are more effected by the new rules then characters. I don't know what you are talking about here, but let's do some math and things.
• S10 Ap2 Vs Armor 11 – Chance to Deal 1 Hull Point: 67%, Chance to Explode: 9%
• SD Ap2 Vs Armor 11 – Chance to Deal Multiple Hull Points: 83%, Chance to Explode: 33%
• S10 Ap2 Vs Armor 14 – Chance to Deal 1 Hull Point: 33%, Chance to Explode: 4%
• SD Ap2 Vs Armor 14 – Chance to Deal Multiple Hull Points: 83%, Chance to Explode: 19%
• S10 Ap2 Vs T8 5++ – Expected Unsaved Wounds Dealt: .37, Chance of Instant Death: 7%
• SD Ap2 Vs T8 5++ – Expected Unsaved Wounds Dealt: 1.6, Chance of Dealing D6+6 Wounds: 11%

Notice that the word multiple is used.

 Brothererekose wrote:

To add that D-weps aren't having the impact people are so worried about:
the Ad-Lance player at our local tourney, for months had failed to do better than 1 & 2 or maybe even 2 & 1, but regularly finishes in the kitty pool. And he's no slouch nooB, having played 40k since 2e. D- weps just haven't had the hurt on the game that every one is claiming they do. Not in my experience.

An ad lance player doing that bad is a slouch at the game, sorry.
My friend who got me into this game played 2ed, and he's easily the worst player at this, necromunda, and warmachine. He played cryx and thought they were the weakest faction, pre-gaspy nerf.

Akiasura wrote:

BrotherErekose wrote:However, if the WK player rolls a , then Marney is in trouble, as d6+6 wounds will total him out, no saves of anykind. Yes, more powerful. But only models like non-vehicle models like Marney (multi-wound Head-Liner named Characters), DreadKnights and other MCs are worried. Hardly rocking the entirety of 40k.

Okay, so you compare rolling a 6 with the old distort weapons, to just rolling any wound roll now, and you don't see the difference?
Also, I believe it is d3+1 wound, so it's 2-4, not 1-3 like your math suggests.

I did the math before the EDIT with d3 + 1. But then I reread page 163 and now, looking at page 163 in the RB, it says, "d3 wounds, instead of 1". I don't mind if you cite the page where you see d3 + 1.

Akiasura wrote:
So, with a failed save, 66% of the time Calgar bites the dust.

No, if it is d3 +1, then wounding with a roll of 2-5 yields 4 wounds 33% of the time, times Marney's 4 Iron Halo saves. He will fail all four saves 12.5% of the time. So, 33 percent times 12.5% or one-eighth. That's little better than 4%. Or is my calculating wrong? Nicely, I ask.

Akiasura wrote:
Now, Calgar gets no save and just explodes if a 6 is rolled.

Agreed. The Dwep is more powerful here, and Marney and MCs need to worry, but hardly impacting all of 40k's armies.

Akiasura wrote:
Tanks are more effected by the new rules then characters.

Yes, I agree. Let's look at your calculations.

Akiasura wrote:
I don't know what you are talking about here, but let's do some math and things.
• S10 Ap2 Vs Armor 11 – Chance to Deal 1 Hull Point: 67%, Chance to Explode: 9%
• SD Ap2 Vs Armor 11 – Chance to Deal Multiple Hull Points: 83%, Chance to Explode: 33%
• S10 Ap2 Vs Armor 14 – Chance to Deal 1 Hull Point: 33%, Chance to Explode: 4%
• SD Ap2 Vs Armor 14 – Chance to Deal Multiple Hull Points: 83%, Chance to Explode: 19%
• S10 Ap2 Vs T8 5++ – Expected Unsaved Wounds Dealt: .37, Chance of Instant Death: 7%
• SD Ap2 Vs T8 5++ – Expected Unsaved Wounds Dealt: 1.6, Chance of Dealing D6+6 Wounds: 11%

Notice that the word multiple is used.

I'm gonna crunch these numbers for a bit ...

 Brothererekose wrote:

To add that D-weps aren't having the impact people are so worried about:
the Ad-Lance player at our local tourney, for months had failed to do better than 1 & 2 or maybe even 2 & 1, but regularly finishes in the kitty pool. And he's no slouch nooB, having played 40k since 2e. D- weps just haven't had the hurt on the game that every one is claiming they do. Not in my experience.

Akiasura wrote:
An ad lance player doing that bad is a slouch at the game, sorry.

I'll pass that along. We and I like to bust each other's chops.

Akiasura wrote:
My friend who got me into this game played 2ed, and he's easily the worst player at this, necromunda, and warmachine. He played cryx and thought they were the weakest faction, pre-gaspy nerf.

Very well. I will concede that being a long time gamer, based on our two anecdotes, does not yield a *good* player.

No sarcasm was intended in this post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn it. I did the math wrong again. Sorry, man.

66% of D-wep successful hits produce d3 wounds, the roll of 2-5. Marney will save 50% of those.

If *both* Heavy Wraith Cannons hit and wound Marney:

66% times two hits. This will yield, on average 4 wounds, which Marney will only fail all 4% of the time.

So, with only one HeavyWraithCannon hitting, Marney is fine, 84% of the time. If both hit, we can add in the 1 in 36 chance of box-cars to 2 x d6 +6 wounds.

Some really small numbers.

I think.

I may be thinking last edition, and will have to double check the rule book later.

EDIT
It's d3+1 hull points and d3 wounds.
Hull points read as a penetrating hit AND d3 hull points I believe.
My notes could be wrong though.

Akiasura wrote:
I may be thinking last edition, and will have to double check the rule book later.

EDIT
It's d3+1 hull points and d3 wounds.
Hull points read as a penetrating hit AND d3 hull points I believe.
My notes could be wrong though.

My page 163, Destroyer Weapon Attack Table has:

Vehicle
2-5 yields Pen hit, with d3 Hull Points instead of 1

Non-Vehicle
2-5 yields d3 wounds instead of 1

Both results of '6' are the 2 Ton weight on Graham Chapman ending the sketch.

Edition hangover is easily forgivable.

 Brothererekose wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
I may be thinking last edition, and will have to double check the rule book later.

EDIT
It's d3+1 hull points and d3 wounds.
Hull points read as a penetrating hit AND d3 hull points I believe.
My notes could be wrong though.

My page 163, Destroyer Weapon Attack Table has:

Vehicle
2-5 yields Pen hit, with d3 Hull Points instead of 1

Non-Vehicle
2-5 yields d3 wounds instead of 1

Both results of '6' are the 2 Ton weight on Graham Chapman ending the sketch.

Edition hangover is easily forgivable.

Yup, must have fixed the wounds ability and not the hull points. We don't play with LoW, so the eldar dex is the first time its going to come up.

That changes some of the math, I'll have to double check to see how bad it is.

Just FYI - you take saves before you multiply the wounds on the destroyer chart

 Massaen wrote:
Just FYI - you take saves before you multiply the wounds on the destroyer chart

Page citation?

 Xerics wrote:
If you think the codex is balanced and that the formations are limiting I present you this 1850 List

Windrider Host
Farseer Skyrunner: Singing Spear
Warlock Skyrunner: Singing Spear
Windriders x3
Windriders: Scatter Laser x3
Windriders: Scatter Laser x6
Vyper (Naked)
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon

Anyone who thinks this Dex is balanced I just ran the above list in a local game store tournament. I literally lost 1 wraith knight the entire night because a necron player had a nightbringer that happened to randomly get his D weapon on the top of the first turn and one shotted the wraithknight with 8 lost wounds and no saves allowed. Other than that I wiped the floor with imperial Knights, Ferrus Manus, Dark Eldar and nearly tabled the necrons. Running 4 wraithknights like I did is literally point and click unit removal.

But unless im missing something that made this list unbound. WK are LoW aren't they? so you couldn't run 4 of them unless you had 4 formations correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or is their some ridiculous formation where you bring 4 of them?

I don't have any eldar players by me so these changes don't matter, but that book looks absolutely gorgeous! I might have to pick it up since I'm a huge fluff freak.

Was the fluff changed much from the previous book? if so, would it be changed enough to warrant a re-purchase (i have no intention to ever play Eldar, they aint my Xeno)

 Ghazkuul wrote:
But unless im missing something that made this list unbound. WK are LoW aren't they? so you couldn't run 4 of them unless you had 4 formations correct?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
or is their some ridiculous formation where you bring 4 of them?

Yes, it is Unbound. The codex has a capital 'U' for the word. The last three sentences in the paragraph talks about normal, 'Battle -forged method of organizing into Detachments' so insanity only prevails if an opponent agrees.

It would not be allowed in any tourney.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
But unless im missing something that made this list unbound. WK are LoW aren't they? so you couldn't run 4 of them unless you had 4 formations correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or is their some ridiculous formation where you bring 4 of them?

They have a formation much like the necron Decurion Detachment. they can have 12 Auxillaries and one of the option is a wraithknight, wraithfighter or wraithlord... I picked Wraithknight 4 times.

I think a better example will be when people start fielding the new formations and either winning dramatically or its keeping pace with everyone else. Comparing this codex to the ork codex though.....Night and day really.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
But unless im missing something that made this list unbound. WK are LoW aren't they? so you couldn't run 4 of them unless you had 4 formations correct?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
or is their some ridiculous formation where you bring 4 of them?

Yes, it is Unbound. The codex has a capital 'U' for the word. The last three sentences in the paragraph talks about normal, 'Battle -forged method of organizing into Detachments' so insanity only prevails if an opponent agrees.

It would not be allowed in any tourney.

It is not unbound. The detatchment rules allow me to run 1-12 auxillaries and 1 wraithknight is 1 auxillary. the jetbikes and Vyper I had were the core portion.

 Xerics wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
But unless im missing something that made this list unbound. WK are LoW aren't they? so you couldn't run 4 of them unless you had 4 formations correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or is their some ridiculous formation where you bring 4 of them?

They have a formation much like the necron Decurion Detachment. they can have 12 Auxillaries and one of the option is a wraithknight, wraithfighter or wraithlord... I picked Wraithknight 4 times.

So was that a legitimate formation then? Bound army and all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that is the case then the Eldar codex is 100% broken and beyond salvage.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
But unless im missing something that made this list unbound. WK are LoW aren't they? so you couldn't run 4 of them unless you had 4 formations correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or is their some ridiculous formation where you bring 4 of them?

They have a formation much like the necron Decurion Detachment. they can have 12 Auxillaries and one of the option is a wraithknight, wraithfighter or wraithlord... I picked Wraithknight 4 times.

So was that a legitimate formation then? Bound army and all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that is the case then the Eldar codex is 100% broken and beyond salvage.

Using the Craftworld Warhost Detatchment it is a battleforged army. It just doesn't have objective secured as it doesnt use the Combined Arms Detatchment but it is perfectly legal just as the Necron Decurion Detatchment is.

I'd like the new Eldar book a lot more if every army got one that was just as good. But that's the problem, GW doesn't ever say a word about what they're doing or what their long-term plans are for the game, they don't talk to the media and they don't even use their own fething magazine (presumably because that would mean they would have less space to say "BUY THE NEW THING!"), so right now it just looks like GW broke the fething game for no reason, and we have no idea if every army will be getting the same treatment or not. The fact that Eldar are even getting an update at all is really bizarre since the book was only 2 years old and was already one of the strongest in the game, but again, GW doesn't say a word, we're supposed to just accept that a new Eldar book is out and mindlessly upgrade to the new one without asking any questions.

Xerics, I'm looking at pages 94 and 95. Second paragraph under "CHOOSING AN ARMY" says you can use the chart on the two pages, yielding the 'decurion' like chart, Unbound. Up to 12 of blah blah broken stuff.

Then it yammers about 'Battle-forged' and normalcy. I dunno if yakeface wants that much Int. Property copy/pasted, but sorry man, you've misinterpreted the text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Working my way through page 95's Craftworld Warhost text. Murky here, and I think where Xerics is getting validation.

I think

BRB or eldar codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah Page 94 of Codex Eldar: Craftwrolds. Eldar Craftworld Warhost is a battle forged army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 94, 3rd paragraph, first sentance. Under "Choosing An Army"

 Xerics wrote:
BRB or eldar codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah Page 94 of Codex Eldar: Craftwrolds. Eldar Craftworld Warhost is a battle forged army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 94, 3rd paragraph, first sentance. Under "Choosing An Army"

Ah, criminy. What the hell is the stuff Daniel is bringing?

Okay, given, "It has compulsory and optional elements," going to Comd Benefits, etc. I see that a player can bring two "Wraith Host" Auxiliaries, but your list, Xerics:

Windrider Host
Farseer Skyrunner: Singing Spear
Warlock Skyrunner: Singing Spear
Windriders x3
Windriders: Scatter Laser x3
Windriders: Scatter Laser x6
Vyper (Naked)
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon
Wraithknight: 2 Star Cannon

, excludes the WraithLords and WraithGuard that need to be with them. What am I missing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If that is the case then the Eldar codex is 100% broken and beyond salvage.

Stay tuned Ghaz, let's hash this out. Plus, look it over for yourself, whenever you get a hold of this book. It is the usual not-clear-as-day text from GW.

'Course, somebody is gonna state that it is clear-as-day, and if I cannot make sense of it then I must be ...