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.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:These "expensive elite units" compete via being taken alongside other units that complement them. Eldar have never been an army that you can just rely on one unit or two to carry the day; they've always been a glass cannon army, and frankly the comment about "T3 3+" not lasting long suggests that you don't understand this.

Really? From previous editions; Seer councils, harlequins, holo skimmers.
Lets look at spiders against some current ‘top tier’ match ups (imo). Now I’m well aware of using los blocking terrain, focus fire, multiple threats and distance to reduce return fire but even with shooting then running back and the jetpack move you will be lucky to get out of the threat range of fire warriors or psybolt ammo GK.
What about Mr Helldrake too? Yes our fighter (lovely model btw) has a good chance to take it down but a vector strike and a flamer later means a lot of dead spiders.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'm sorry, but if you can't build a list that covers for each unit's weaknesses correctly, then you're clearly not playing the right army.

Apology accepted. You don't know me or my playing experience, just as I don’t know yours (other than my nearly 20 years experience if you digested my OP). It’s very naive to assume I've been playing the wrong army for all that time because I have some criticism for the codex and our pov differs.

xttz wrote:

djn wrote:

Vypers suck, Tau piranhas are superior IMO. Av10 goes down to small arms.

War Walkers have the same statline and they are widely considered a solid unit. So do Vypers 'suck'? Let's take a look!

For 60pts you can get either a Vyper or a War Walker with dual Shuriken Cannons. The War Walker has a 5+ invuln, while the Vyper gets a 5+ Jink save as it moves around (4+ for flat out). The main difference comes down to flexibility. War Walkers can fit a wider selection of weapons, whilst one of the Vyper's options can only ever be a Shuriken cannon. In exchange for less choice, the Vyper can instead move 30" per turn compared to the Walkers 6+D6". This offers great opportunities to reposition and respond to threats all over the board, or escape from potentially crippling melee encounters that Walkers may have trouble avoiding.

Also the Vypers use a slightly-less in demand FA slot, so if your HS is full they're a viable alternative weapons platform.

Shuriken walkers aren’t considered solid by me. Scatter walkers with reliable fortune were however. If you’re a 24 inch range av10 platform you’re needing to be in small arms threat range to put shots out and that really isn’t a good place to be.

xttz wrote:

djn wrote:

I'm struggling to understand how these expensive, elite units can compete against the likes of torrent of fire armies or drakes. Eldar could mech up but serpents whilst they seem effective and durable are still expensive. 3 glances or a lucky one shot later though...

You must have missed the post earlier in this thread where someone worked out that it takes an average 27 lascannon hits to drop a holo-field equipped Wave Serpent moving flat-out (which can cross the battlefield on 1 turn). The interesting thing is that it only takes 21 hits to do the same thing to a Land Raider... which costs twice as much.

I did miss that and it is interesting. As is when Tau strip your cover save and put 3 missile-sides into you that’s statistically 3 glances. Thats not including odds for a pen.
Also when your serpents need to get our close range units into action they could well be in assault range; 9 krak grenades or 27 S4 attacks vs rear av10 should deliver the requisite 3 glances. Again not including the odds for a pen.

Mech was the solution in 5th, I’m not sure it is in sixth unless you can really spam it.

xttz wrote:

 Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

djn wrote:

Warp spiders are admittedly a high light, I've really liked them since 4th ed but T3 3 up isn't going to last long.

These "expensive elite units" compete via being taken alongside other units that complement them. Eldar have never been an army that you can just rely on one unit or two to carry the day; they've always been a glass cannon army, and frankly the comment about "T3 3+" not lasting long suggests that you don't understand this.

I'm sorry, but if you can't build a list that covers for each unit's weaknesses correctly, then you're clearly not playing the right army.

xttz wrote:
Gorskar has hit the nail on the head here. Your comment about Warp Spiders shows exactly how little you understand Eldar.

You’re entitled to your opinion and it’s not about understanding Eldar which really I do. Honest. See the paragraph above regarding spiders, Its about understanding them in the meta. Now I’m willing to admit I could be wrong but I’m yet to see any convincing arguments.

xttz wrote:
In basically every incarnation of their rules, in every format (including BFG, Epic, etc), Eldar have been a fast, hard-hitting army that relies on speed to stay alive because they can't weather much damage. The new Battle Focus rule is the perfect demonstration of that, as you can now get units into perfect position to wipe out the enemy (such as Fire Dragons running into Melta range for the extra pen dice), or being able to take your shots then get out back into cover (most Shuriken units).

I don’t disagree with any of this, but we have always had reliable and durable elements, see the examples I gave above; harlequins which could engineer charges and consolidate into combat (4th), seer councils have always been reliable (3rd onwards - till this codex anyway), serpents and holo skimmers (4th and 5th).

xttz wrote:
Warp Spiders are by far the best example of this trend, as they can move 6+2D6" ignoring terrain, shoot/run or run/shoot, then jump back 2D6" away again (again ignoring terrain). Why is T3 3+ are problem now? To be any tougher they'd effectively be a space marine, and marines certainly can't move like that.
I think I covered this above.
By trying to make Eldar into a durable force, you're just trying to make apple pie out of oranges.

I'm trying to figure out how Eldar can be competitive, reliably.

I'm trying to figure out how Eldar can be competitive, reliably.

The quest has begun yesterday and it seems that its not over yet.

djn wrote:
-snip-

Yeah, I get it. You're mad because, when you put up a thread positing an opinion, people disagreed with you and gave perfectly logical reasons.
Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army. Your playing experience doesn't matter to me, nor does the length of time you've been playing Eldar. There are plenty of people who have demonstrated that your concerns are unfounded, and that, good sir, is that. Just because the army didn't get disproportionate Wardian updates doesn't mean they aren't competitive, you've clearly just not spent enough time examining the codex for the right builds and unit combos.

 wuestenfux wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how Eldar can be competitive, reliably.

The quest has begun yesterday and it seems that its not over yet.

Apparently a claim to 20 years of experience grants one license to shrug off all disagreement and assess a codex within a day.

 Mahtamori wrote:

Read the codexes before you insult people. You are wrong and I won't tell you how, just compare the relevant 4th and 6th edition codex entries (or read below for a hint).

...

Fire Dragons gained an armour save and battle focus at a grossly disproportionate expense, while not changing the fact that they are a specialized unit that are optimal in size of 5 or 6 specifically without an exarch. Each additional Fire Dragon you purchase will contribute a declining amount to the unit's effectiveness which is something you do not see with most units.
...
Even leaving this example behind, Fire Dragons specialize in taking care of a problem that is becoming more and more rare. It should also be noted that Fire Dragons in 3rd edition were 17 points and not very commonly used for exactly the same reasons - mech is not so common as in end of 4th and all of 5th.

So your argument is that they're over-costed because not everyone uses mech lists anymore, so we'll rarely need to kill more than a couple of tanks in a game? It's not like that's the only unit type Fire Dragons are good at killing. You may have noticed that the mech trend has been replaced (at least in part) by increasingly durable MC's. Daemon Princes, Dreadknights, Wraithknights, Riptides, and of course the ubiquitous Tervigon. Lots of things that can no longer be one-shotted into exploding, and are often dangerous to counter in melee. In this situation those extra Dragons definitely do not offer diminishing returns, as you need to be landing up to 6 wounds at a time.If anything it means we shift away from the 5e approach of 2-3 minimal Fire Dragon squads in Serpents to just 1 squad with a couple more members to chip away those wounds.

But thanks for this gem! I'll save it for when I want to be condescending to someone without needing to backup my points!

 Mahtamori wrote:
You are wrong and I won't tell you how

I've never been a huge fan of Eldar...

But I got an army NIB really cheap. I found that what I have is useless.

Howling Banshees are complete crap. Mainly because there isn't a vehicle for them to charge out of.

Falcons.... my god... Why the hell aren't these Dedicated Transports?! They're fething Razorback equivilents!

Eldrad... Had to say if he's worth taking. His points cost is so high in an army that needs to conserve points. I think 2 Farseers may be better.

I think a common build we might see at first will have an Autarch, Spiritseer, Jetbikes and Wraithguard.

The Autarch will try to keep the jetbikes in reserve for later objective grabbing and spiritseers to gain the wraithguard as troops.

The Wraithguard seem way better than Firedragons imho. If monsters are more common than armour I think the S10 will be better than S8 melta.

And S10 flamers?! Good luck charging that.

I spent a lot of the day yesterday reading and speaking with a long-time Eldar player, and I came away with being really hyped for Eldar even though I don't play them. Their stuff seems really interesting and has the potential for a lot of fun combinations. If anything I'm disappointed that I'm going to have a tougher fight on my hand when I play Eldar. Yes some things got a big nerf like runes of warding but for the most part everything got cheaper or if it did get more expensive, it came equipped with enough gear to make it worth the extra expense.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

djn wrote:
-snip-

Yeah, I get it. You're mad because, when you put up a thread positing an opinion, people disagreed with you and gave perfectly logical reasons.
Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army. Your playing experience doesn't matter to me, nor does the length of time you've been playing Eldar. There are plenty of people who have demonstrated that your concerns are unfounded, and that, good sir, is that. Just because the army didn't get disproportionate Wardian updates doesn't mean they aren't competitive, you've clearly just not spent enough time examining the codex for the right builds and unit combos.

That's right I'm fuming! Or in reality I'm also making counterpoints which you gloss over with the equivalent of 'my friend said its true so there'. I'm enjoying the dialogue to be honest when something meaningful and substantial is being posted.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Titan Atlas wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how Eldar can be competitive, reliably.

The quest has begun yesterday and it seems that its not over yet.

Apparently a claim to 20 years of experience grants one license to shrug off all disagreement and assess a codex within a day.

If by 'shrugging off' you mean raising salient points.

djn wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

djn wrote:
-snip-

Yeah, I get it. You're mad because, when you put up a thread positing an opinion, people disagreed with you and gave perfectly logical reasons.
Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army. Your playing experience doesn't matter to me, nor does the length of time you've been playing Eldar. There are plenty of people who have demonstrated that your concerns are unfounded, and that, good sir, is that. Just because the army didn't get disproportionate Wardian updates doesn't mean they aren't competitive, you've clearly just not spent enough time examining the codex for the right builds and unit combos.

That's right I'm fuming! Or in reality I'm also making counterpoints which you gloss over with the equivalent of 'my friend said its true so there'. I'm enjoying the dialogue to be honest when something meaningful and substantial is being posted.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Titan Atlas wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how Eldar can be competitive, reliably.

The quest has begun yesterday and it seems that its not over yet.

Apparently a claim to 20 years of experience grants one license to shrug off all disagreement and assess a codex within a day.

If by 'shrugging off' you mean raising salient points.

Yup, nothing but salient points here.

djn wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

djn wrote:
-snip-

Yeah, I get it. You're mad because, when you put up a thread positing an opinion, people disagreed with you and gave perfectly logical reasons.
Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army. Your playing experience doesn't matter to me, nor does the length of time you've been playing Eldar. There are plenty of people who have demonstrated that your concerns are unfounded, and that, good sir, is that. Just because the army didn't get disproportionate Wardian updates doesn't mean they aren't competitive, you've clearly just not spent enough time examining the codex for the right builds and unit combos.

That's right I'm fuming! Or in reality I'm also making counterpoints which you gloss over with the equivalent of 'my friend said its true so there'. I'm enjoying the dialogue to be honest when something meaningful and substantial is being posted.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Tell me, then, in the twenty years or so of you playing Eldar, is this the first time you've ever looked at your codex and said to yourself "blimey! My army is toughness 3!"
I ask because, insofar as I can see, your point is that your army isn't "durable" enough. Well, fine, maybe there's a point in that. After all, we all know Eldar glass-cannon capabilities and such, and we know that randomisation of psychic powers has hamstrung the psychic support of Eldar - as it has every other army, but whatever. However, when put to an examination, it seems hard to substantiate the claim that Eldar aren't competitive in any way. Wave Serpents are hard to put down and thus are very effective transports, War Walkers, while flimsy - as they have always been - are still very capable fire support platforms, Banshees.... are sadly as they ever have been, and generally speaking any unit's weaknesses can be offset with the right choice of supporting units, who in turn are covered (in terms of weaknesses) by the unit they're supporting.

Now, let's talk about that twenty-year thing. So you've been in the hobby a long time; good for you, I applaud your dedication. It's rare to see people with that kind of pedigree.
However, do not presume to come on here and wave that around like it makes your opinions that much more valid. The game changes constantly, with every new edition of the main rulebook and every new codex shifting the balance of power. In such a fluid game, being a longtime player has a surprisingly small effect, and frankly, while it may not have been your intent, it came across as elitist and arrogant to try and use it as "proof" that you can judge a codex's worth a mere 24 hours after it's release, a case of "well, I wuz doin' this afore you were even born, youngin!"
Naturally, that wasn't going to sit well.

So, then, now that we've both said how we feel, shall we actually discuss the topic, or shall we carry on with the verbal fistfight?
I leave it up to you.
.

djn wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Kina reminds me of...

 DeffDred wrote:

djn wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Kina reminds me of...

Spoiler:

Preeeeeetty much. I would probably spoiler that image though, just in case an overzealous poster (or butthurt neckbeard) reports it for being an off-topic shot. But spoilering seems to get around that problem

 DeffDred wrote:

djn wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Kina reminds me of...

I actually know someone who looks like that, which is weird. No, it's not me.

 Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

djn wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

djn wrote:
-snip-

Yeah, I get it. You're mad because, when you put up a thread positing an opinion, people disagreed with you and gave perfectly logical reasons.
Clearly, if you think this codex is bad, you ARE playing the wrong army. Your playing experience doesn't matter to me, nor does the length of time you've been playing Eldar. There are plenty of people who have demonstrated that your concerns are unfounded, and that, good sir, is that. Just because the army didn't get disproportionate Wardian updates doesn't mean they aren't competitive, you've clearly just not spent enough time examining the codex for the right builds and unit combos.

That's right I'm fuming! Or in reality I'm also making counterpoints which you gloss over with the equivalent of 'my friend said its true so there'. I'm enjoying the dialogue to be honest when something meaningful and substantial is being posted.

My experience and time playing the Eldar was raised for the specific point that you made that I may be playing the wrong army. I think I'm probably more qualified to know which armies are right or wrong for me to play!

Tell me, then, in the twenty years or so of you playing Eldar, is this the first time you've ever looked at your codex and said to yourself "blimey! My army is toughness 3!"
I ask because, insofar as I can see, your point is that your army isn't "durable" enough. Well, fine, maybe there's a point in that. After all, we all know Eldar glass-cannon capabilities and such, and we know that randomisation of psychic powers has hamstrung the psychic support of Eldar - as it has every other army, but whatever. However, when put to an examination, it seems hard to substantiate the claim that Eldar aren't competitive in any way. Wave Serpents are hard to put down and thus are very effective transports, War Walkers, while flimsy - as they have always been - are still very capable fire support platforms, Banshees.... are sadly as they ever have been, and generally speaking any unit's weaknesses can be offset with the right choice of supporting units, who in turn are covered (in terms of weaknesses) by the unit they're supporting.

Now, let's talk about that twenty-year thing. So you've been in the hobby a long time; good for you, I applaud your dedication. It's rare to see people with that kind of pedigree.
However, do not presume to come on here and wave that around like it makes your opinions that much more valid. The game changes constantly, with every new edition of the main rulebook and every new codex shifting the balance of power. In such a fluid game, being a longtime player has a surprisingly small effect, and frankly, while it may not have been your intent, it came across as elitist and arrogant to try and use it as "proof" that you can judge a codex's worth a mere 24 hours after it's release, a case of "well, I wuz doin' this afore you were even born, youngin!"
Naturally, that wasn't going to sit well.

So, then, now that we've both said how we feel, shall we actually discuss the topic, or shall we carry on with the verbal fistfight?
I leave it up to you.
.

Were going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this. It certainly wasn't my intention to be arrogant or wave my time in the hobby about as a badge of honour. More to illustrate I am invested in and familiar with the army. There are no doubt people much more qualified (longer serving too) and able to make an assessment of the codex, hence starting a discussion with my initial feelings about the release to see if I could be persuaded otherwise. As you say lets leave it there.

djn wrote:


Were going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this. It certainly wasn't my intention to be arrogant or wave my time in the hobby about as a badge of honour. More to illustrate I am invested in and familiar with the army. There are no doubt people much more qualified (longer serving too) and able to make an assessment of the codex, hence starting a discussion with my initial feelings about the release to see if I could be persuaded otherwise. As you say lets leave it there.

Can't say fairer than that. -internet handshake-

Ok, so I've looked through the new codex and I really don't see what there is to complain about.
The whole random psychic powers should not have bee a surprise to anyone. I know there are a lot of people who rely on fortune like it's the freakin bible, but really look at the the damage eldar can dish out now!

Look, there is a unit to suit every need in this codex just like the eldar should be. You want durability? Use wraith units. You want anti vehicle? The fire prism has a nice little S9 lance now. Or maybe a BS 4 falcon would suit you better. You want something that can soak up fire? The wraith knight is toughness 8 with six wounds! Sure it can't pump out shots but it makes an amazing distraction that is bound to draw a majority of your opponents fire. You see, eldar might be a little random when it comes to psychic powers and they might also have quite a bit of T3, but the fact is that there are plenty of clever ways to deal with these weaknesses.

I don't think it's as clear cut as saying it's good or bad. I think that a number of Eldar players, myself included, had ideas about how to revise the Eldar codex for 6th edition. As it turns out, GW did things their own way, and it's too soon to say for sure whether the changes they made are good or bad.

I think the Battle Focus rule is a good one, and properly catches the flavor of older Eldar codices, where Eldar were distinguished partially by having Fleet of Foot and being able to run when no one else could. Battle Focus gives a nice boost to the effective range of Eldar weaponry and offensive output. (Why don't Harlequins get it, though?)

A lot of the Warlock abilites are really nice, and I think there'd be a lot less gnashing of teeth if GW clarifies that you can determine what your Warlock psyker abilities are BEFORE you assign them to Squads. It makes much more sense to have Quicken on a Storm Squad rather than a Vaul's Wrath Battery.

There are also some units which REALLY needed some tweaks and didn't get the love they deserved. The Banshee fluff is that their masks paralyze the opposition, guaranteeing them first strike in combat. But with the mask nerf, and no plasma grenades, there are actually situations where the Banshees could strike second. There are changes that could have made them more effective, and I think the Acrobatic ability DOES help, but you could make the argument that they got worse, and they already weren't used much in the overwatch-heavy 6th Ed.

I think there are lots of reasons in this codex to be upset that the fluff has been disregarded, or not implemented as well as it could have been. But there's also a lot of good items in the codex, both fluff-wise and in game terms, and I'm glad that the army has been revitalized somewhat.

I think the idea of 6th edition is to rebalance the armies some, giving them all both strengths and weaknesses. I think the latest codices, from Chaos to Eldar, have been pretty well in line with each other. It's not strictly a rock-paper-scissors system, but there are unequivocally some armies which will struggle with some specific other armies. This preserves a certain balance without requiring every army to be exactly identical in effect. I think this is a reasonable goal IF they stick with it, but I'm very aware that they did the exact same thing with the 4th Ed Dark Angel and Eldar codices before abandoning that and boosting the power levels for every other codex to come.

Eldar will always be heavily mobile and specialized, but also expensive and fragile. The new codex does feel like Eldar to me, in all of those ways. We also are getting some nice nods to previous codices, like infiltrating, stealthed Scorpions and the Wave Serpent shield.

It just feels like they missed some golden opportunities. Would Banshees have been unbalanced with grenades, or an ability that allowed them to charge without suffering from overwatch? Why not distinguish the craftworlds with some FOC shenanigans?

It's not BAD, strictly speaking, what GW did come up with, but I can certainly understand what the OP means by disappointing.

Had some time today to read the eldar dex. Some stuff is nice and it is possible to build an semi ok army with it. What I dont understand is the forcing of weave serpents on people . bikers are nice in a void , but without a +2sv they will always be sub par in an edition where helldrakes are played . the battle trance ability is very nice , when it works . when it doesnt you the unit that fails the roll is almost as bad as melee unit that fails a charge roll.
In a counter to what other people say , I think the 4 las eldar flyer is very good . Sure it costs no vendetta , but 4 lance for less then 200pts is still ok and if quad guns are a problem , just place a large LoS blocking building in front of it durning deployment in friendly games and bring necrons for tournaments.

Am very interested how the second codex works , if eldar and second eldar can battle brother , there maybe utilities we dont know about . At first glance a spirit seer from a normal dex is a bad HQ , but if I can ally 1-5 from the second eldar dex , he could be ok .

It is a bit sad that guardians suck , but I understand that with the new models and a 2 new codex GW wants to sell other models.

I think the random psy rolls for Eldar while maybe not popular to some is maybe they are going for a more story driven theme with rules. It also tones down psy powers which from what i have experienced can be fairly game changing in their own rights and making it random makes other units more viable in some games etc (I am talking all armies not just Eldar here). From what i saw Fritz on youtube discussing about Eldar i think they sound pretty well off with jetbike armies and even the wave serpent/tanks being more survivable... i cant wait to get a codex and see for myself... still waiting til i get some funds... sigh...

Eldar, I love them! They were my first army two years ago and I still play them to this day I also played my first games on Saturday when the Codex first came out and let me tell you It is amazing. Dire Avengers have become even awesomer with the new BladeStorm rule WraithBlades with an 4++ are amazing they drew away my friends gun fire they became the DISTRACTION CARNIFEX to the Eldar a squad of 10 of them WILL kill almost anything in CQC. My WraithKnight (Princton) dropped awesome Pie plates that killed Tau. Eldrich Storm is just PHEW amazing. Now see what I am doing here? I am looking at the awesome things in the DEX yes I admit it is not flawless like Banshees but meh no Codex is perfect. Right? I mean this one comes into a close second when my friend wants to jump over the table and shove the terrain down my neck

 Kain wrote:
Also, do the Shining Spears and Warp Spiders finally have a phoenix lord?

And has Maugan-Ra solo'd another hive fleet/chaos host/waaagh/tomb world/imperial crusade yet?

Seriously, how do you solo a hive fleet!?!

Where do you keep the ammo?!

In your brain. Mind-bullets. Bullets from your MIND.

Overall I think the book is nice, and I'm, actually exited about Eldar first time sine second edition.

However, about random psychic powers. Yes, everyone has them, and I'm OK with that, but there is on crucial difference with the Eldar that bugs me. Psykers in other armies are pretty much always independent characters* so you can assign them into squads after rolling the powers. For some reason they decided that Warlocks have to roll their powers when they're already assigned to their squads, and that's bloody annoying. I just wish that Warlocks would have similar flexibility to join squad that best suits their abilities like psykers of the other armies have.

(*Unless they're MCs that can't join squads to begin with, or squads of psykers with fixed powers. Yes, I know, Broodlord, but it can rip things with or without powers.)

The biggest disappointment are the Banshees.
I also have a distaste for warlocks being LD8.
Other than that I'm happy.

I only play "fun lists" within a closed group so power builds do not concern me that much.

milo wrote:
I think the Battle Focus rule is a good one, and properly catches the flavor of older Eldar codices, where Eldar were distinguished partially by having Fleet of Foot and being able to run when no one else could. Battle Focus gives a nice boost to the effective range of Eldar weaponry and offensive output. (Why don't Harlequins get it, though?)

That's easy. Battlefocus is clearly meant as a trait of the Craftword Eldar, to represent their sense of duty/dedication to the protection of the race. Harlequins flit about the webway doing whatever, and owe no particular allegiance to either of the Eldar kin. As such, they don't have the same level focus that the Craftword Eldar have when it comes to battle, and thus don't have the Battlefocus rule.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

milo wrote:
I think the Battle Focus rule is a good one, and properly catches the flavor of older Eldar codices, where Eldar were distinguished partially by having Fleet of Foot and being able to run when no one else could. Battle Focus gives a nice boost to the effective range of Eldar weaponry and offensive output. (Why don't Harlequins get it, though?)

That's easy. Battlefocus is clearly meant as a trait of the Craftword Eldar, to represent their sense of duty/dedication to the protection of the race. Harlequins flit about the webway doing whatever, and owe no particular allegiance to either of the Eldar kin. As such, they don't have the same level focus that the Craftword Eldar have when it comes to battle, and thus don't have the Battlefocus rule.

Granted, if you are in shurikan pistol range, I don't think battlefocus would come into play as you'd want to charge. Maybe for the Deathreaper, but nobody takes those in a Harlequin squad.

 Crimson wrote:
Overall I think the book is nice, and I'm, actually exited about Eldar first time sine second edition.

However, about random psychic powers. Yes, everyone has them, and I'm OK with that, but there is on crucial difference with the Eldar that bugs me. Psykers in other armies are pretty much always independent characters* so you can assign them into squads after rolling the powers. For some reason they decided that Warlocks have to roll their powers when they're already assigned to their squads, and that's bloody annoying. I just wish that Warlocks would have similar flexibility to join squad that best suits their abilities like psykers of the other armies have.

(*Unless they're MCs that can't join squads to begin with, or squads of psykers with fixed powers. Yes, I know, Broodlord, but it can rip things with or without powers.)

That's still saying 'Eldar should be different because they're Eldar'.

All psykers roll for powers before the game starts but after list creation. It's just how psykers work now. A Warlock can roll a power that doesn't suit his squad just the same as I can roll Iron Arm and Warp Speed on my Zoanthrope. Bad powers can and will happen, for anyone.

I think the Codex is great and am actually going to start them. I think.

The new Codex is really impressive and I'm pleased with the changes. On the subject of disappointments though:

Harlequins:
They simply don't match up in terms to fluff. They're meant to be what Grey Knights are to Space Marines, yet their statlines and equipment are marginally better, if not worse, than standard Eldar equipment.

Banshees:
I'm actually fine with the masks, but the lack of proper transport options is troubling. Seems viable in certain situations, but definitely not a TAC list.

War Walkers / Wraith Blades:
Not competitive with other choices in the same slot for what they bring, save for tailored situations.

Yriel.

Wraithknight I'm up and down about.
The laser and sun or wraith combo seems pretty good,
but you can't make a unit with that physical gravitas and fluff but still treat it the same as every other unit in the codex (Fulfilling a single, specific purpose well but being otherwise lackluster or mundane).

You have a model and storyline that elicits awe and power - but whose statline is marginally better than its much smaller, more common cousins, and whose ability to cause damage or sustain damage is economically inefficient for the point cost to those same alternatives.

Personally I don't like the Wraithknight. It makes me want to pump my fist and watch my opponent cower, but nothing about its presence in-game does that. It doesn't fit the army, it doesn't fit its story, and it doesn't fit in its own damn shoes.

I am however excited for the supplemental Craftworld Codexes and think by and large this Codex was a huge boost, renewing my interest in the army.

 xttz wrote:

djn wrote:
I hoped a 2+ fortuned bike council with attached Tau super commander would be viable but if you don't roll up some key powers its likely to be game over before its even begun.

The main complaint here seems to be that you can't find a guarunteed I-Win unit after a day of reading the codex. A bloo bloo bloooo.

Virtually everything in the codex either got cheaper, got buffed, or more likely, both. Here's a quick comparison of the Fast Attack page between the last 2 Eldar codexes:

Shining Spears cheaper by 10pts each
Warp Spiders cheaper by 3pts each, plus huge buffs to mobility and firepower
Swooping Hawks cheaper by 5pts each, plus mobility and firepower boosts
Vypers are the same base price, but with BS4 and cheaper weapon upgrades (some of which are also buffed)

That's just one page. You don't have to look very far for more. Unless of course you were hoping for Avatars at 5pts each that could be taken as Troops choices and automatically grant an invulnerable save to everything within 48". Then I'm afraid you're out of luck.

Yeah that didnt happen which is why I quit 40k. Maybe ill be back for 10th edition. Screw it man. Im outtie. lol

 xttz wrote:

But thanks for this gem! I'll save it for when I want to be condescending to someone without needing to backup my points!

 Mahtamori wrote:
You are wrong and I won't tell you how

Very well, since you didn't bother fact checking your earlier statement now, either, I'll tell you exactly how your argument was wrong and why you shouldn't insult people when standing on shaky grounds.

You claimed that Fire Dragons went up only 2 points when in fact the correct number is 6 points.

And yes, my argument is that a unit that is good at solving a specific problem that isn't common and poor at solving most other problems shouldn't pay a premium for it. But this is not the reason why you were wrong since that is an argument which can be met with debate, you were wrong because you made a rather huge factual error and based an insult on that error.