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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Crons have at least some Ignores Cover (Tomb Blades), but I see where you're coming from there. Honestly I'm more for Runes of Fate on Eldar than Telepathy, but that's just me. And Crons are able to wound Wraithknights more readily than most armies (outside of Dark Eldar).

But yeah, I get what you're saying, but the entire Necron army is built around tanking, unlike the Eldar where some things are able to tank in certain circumstances.

The problem is most of the squishy things hide inside the super hard to kill things, and those that can't usually aren't taken, and the resilient stuff is available in just about every part of the army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because so many Eldar are riding in very effective AV 12 vehicles with jink, I'd argue that they are more resilient than most marine lists.

Maybe in your local meta. Not everyone plays the Wave Serpent spam.

I'd love to see Falcons as a DT in the next codex just so people had options of other things to take outside of the WS if they want to put things in a transport.

My question unfortunately then would have to be, why take the falcon over the Wave Serpent? You're still getting more average firepower out of the WS and more potential resiliency, on top of higher transport capacity and lower cost. The Falcon just gets a Pulse Laser. :(

If they dropped the shield as a weapon and just made it a 5+ invul save, there might be some competition, it'd make for a more interesting and focused unit, something that you could move around with and not necessarily need to jink or that could still have some protection from Ignores Cover weapons, but that wouldn't simultaneously exceed the firepower capability of the Falcon, particularly in an anti-medium-tank role.

I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.

And yes, currently Falcons don't have much for options, which is silly since they're basically the Eldar equiv to the Razorback (I'd take them with Fire Dragons for instance) but that is an issue more with the WS being too good and the Falcon being too limited (not to mention the roles are reversed. The Falcon is supposed to the gun tank but it comes across as more of the weaker transport option).

I run corsairs for the most part, and a falcon dedicated transport is pretty boss! As was stated before, their are op things in the eldar dex, this is about blade storm. If we took away blade storm, you wouldn't see people suddenly OK with waveserpents, wraithknights,and scatter lasers. They would want those dropped too. At that point you are looking at the 4th ed codex. And that is entirtely unfair. The wraithknight should be a low, the serpent shield should max at 6", and scatter lasers should only twinlinked things on a 6 to hit (non snapshots) I had a thread where I did these things on here somewhere. People asked me to boost other options to make up for it! LOL.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.

Just make it a 5++ save.

A shield doesn't need to also be a weapon.

 vipoid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.

Just make it a 5++ save.

A shield doesn't need to also be a weapon.

I'm fine with it being a weapon to match the fluff (especially old fluff for Epic) but it needs to be balanced in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I run corsairs for the most part, and a falcon dedicated transport is pretty boss! As was stated before, their are op things in the eldar dex, this is about blade storm. If we took away blade storm, you wouldn't see people suddenly OK with waveserpents, wraithknights,and scatter lasers. They would want those dropped too. At that point you are looking at the 4th ed codex. And that is entirtely unfair. The wraithknight should be a low, the serpent shield should max at 6", and scatter lasers should only twinlinked things on a 6 to hit (non snapshots) I had a thread where I did these things on here somewhere. People asked me to boost other options to make up for it! LOL.

I'd be fine with the Wraithknight being a LoW. At most I'd only (personally) want to run one outside of Apoc and that'd free up a HS slot for a Doomweaver or War Walkers or something.

Bladestorm I honestly feel is fine when everything else is taken into account (like the weapon's short range and how Rapid Fire is a LOT better than it used to be in terms of how it moves and fires), it's just some other things that need to be fixed (like the Serpent Shield, the Falcon not being a DT option forcing people who need to mech up a unit or two to have to run WS and the Laser Lock needs some tweaking).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I run corsairs for the most part, and a falcon dedicated transport is pretty boss! As was stated before, their are op things in the eldar dex, this is about blade storm. If we took away blade storm, you wouldn't see people suddenly OK with waveserpents, wraithknights,and scatter lasers. They would want those dropped too. At that point you are looking at the 4th ed codex. And that is entirtely unfair. The wraithknight should be a low, the serpent shield should max at 6", and scatter lasers should only twinlinked things on a 6 to hit (non snapshots) I had a thread where I did these things on here somewhere. People asked me to boost other options to make up for it! LOL.

There are just a number of things with the Eldar book in general. They got a huge boost in multiple areas with the last book, including lots of changes to otherwise longstanding basics. Shuriken weapons got Blade Storm which made them much more powerful. BS across the board was raised to 4 from 3 on most vehicles and some infantry. Access to Twin Linked became much more widespread thanks to Laserlock. Etc.

It all piled up to make Eldar a whole lot more powerful, beyond what was really necessary. Any one thing in particular was probably fine, but, to illustrate as an example, when an underslung Shuriken cannon went from killing an average of 0.42 MEQ's per turn (just used as a general basic measurement of anti-infantry firepower) to killing an average of 1.04 in conjunction with a laser-lock Scatterlaser, a roughly 250% increase in killing power, that was a bit much.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.

That might be fine too with the one-use provision. I just think the 5+ invul would be easiest.

And yes, currently Falcons don't have much for options, which is silly since they're basically the Eldar equiv to the Razorback (I'd take them with Fire Dragons for instance) but that is an issue more with the WS being too good and the Falcon being too limited (not to mention the roles are reversed. The Falcon is supposed to the gun tank but it comes across as more of the weaker transport option).

Yeah, they seemed to take one hint from the previous codex and avoided making the Falcon overpowered again like it was in 4E, but then turned right around and made the exact same mistake with the Wave Serpent

Wyldhunt wrote:
130 points of avengers will kill something like 4 marines. 120 points of reapers will kill something like 4 marines, but they'll do it from across the board with thicker armor while also having the option of shooting krak missile equivalents into vehicles, MCs, etc. They also ignore jink. They have fewer bodies, so they're more susceptible to return fire, but their reach helps mitigate this against some armies.

Yes, they ignore jink, they have weapon options that you can pay additional points for, and yes, they have a 3+ save instead of a 4+. But they're a dedicated anti-MEQ unit. They should be better at it, full stop. It shouldn't be "they have the same lethality, except they have longer range." A specialist unit should do the thing it specializes in better than a generalist unit in the same army.

I say the One Use Only because the weapon is describe to be used in "extremis". If it's only for emergencies then it shouldn't get to be used regularly.

.

stopcallingmechief wrote:
Great post. how many DA does it take to kill a 6 man squad of white scars vs the jinx ignoring reapers. Frankly DA are decent yet i consider them nothing more than a serpent tax. And while upgrades to a tac squad are not free, taking a combi melta and meltagun in a squad is very nice over non upgradable DA When your running into a vehicle heavy army

Yes, Dark Reapers are better against targets with jink. That is the only thing they are better against. So you have to decide which you value more: increased effectiveness against targets with jink or objective secured. I favor objective secured.

They are better at killing anything with 3+
Or 4+. The range they have allows them to destroy things without fear of reprisal. If my DA kill 4 marines at maximum range, I have to hope to get out of los, or they will gun me down afterward. Reapers have a chance to blow open their transport, and then crush them from a distance without having to put themselves in harms way or even move. The idea the DA are as good at killing them as reapers is a falsehood.

Also, let's not forget that reapers have the same transport options as the DA. so that is also a wash.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They are better at killing anything with 3+
Or 4+. The range they have allows them to destroy things without fear of reprisal. If my DA kill 4 marines at maximum range, I have to hope to get out of los, or they will gun me down afterward. Reapers have a chance to blow open their transport, and then crush them from a distance without having to put themselves in harms way or even move. The idea the DA are as good at killing them as reapers is a falsehood.

Also, let's not forget that reapers have the same transport options as the DA. so that is also a wash.

The transport isn't actually a wash, though: DA waveserpents are also objective secured. DAs are also much better able to get out of LOS thanks to being able to run after (or before) they shoot. The comparison doesn't happen in a vacuum, though. It's not just a question of, "which should I take to counter MEQs?" It's actually, "Given that I am already bringing troops that bring bladestorm to the table, is it worth it to also spend some of my army points on a unit that specializes in killing marines and marine equivalents?"

Don't get me wrong. I love my dark reapers. I used to run them in every list I built. But unless I'm going rangers as a troop choice (yes, rangers have rending, but they also only have one shot each), I don't actually need them.

See, I only have one aspect warrior unit I run anymore, and that's scorpions. My blade storm comes from jetpack corsairs/walkers ,jetbikes, and the harlequins. If they didn't do what they do, my entire army would fold up like wet tissue. We don't get waveserpents, we get falcons and a venom without splinter cannons or an invulnerable save.

As I've said before, blade storm is fine. The rest of the things mentioned are the major issue. If those were addressed, no one would think blade storm was a problem at all. If the eldar only had access to imperial tech( in regards to vehicles) then this conversation wouldn't be happening. Without this rule and battle focus, our troops would be garbage.

Edit for autocorrect

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


As I've said before, blade storm is fine. The rest of the things mentioned are the major issue. If those were addressed, no one would think blade storm was a problem at all. If the eldar only had access to imperial tech( in regards to vehicles) then this conversation wouldn't be happening. Without this rule and battle focus, our troops would be garbage.

Edit for autocorrect

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter at this time. I don't know if I'd say our troops were "garbage" without bladestorm, but they'd be a lot more lacklustre. Avengers would still be able to Move-shoot-move with bladestorm, and guardians would be able to pull of similar tricks while hiding in cover (possibly with a buff from a warlock on), but they'd essentially be a minor annoyance that hoped it got lucky and killed a couple ground trips while also cowering behind cover all game. Bladestorm, to me, generally isn't a game winner. It's a nice minor boost that makes my avengers (who can't hurt armor at all unlike many troops) be able to do a bit more against heavily armored targets.

As for dark reapers vs avengers, hiding behind cover with a (fleet) run move is not so easy as people seem to think, especially if you're doing it with a squad large enough to reliably do any sort of damage. Reapers are hit pretty hard by anything with decent range, but when they're out of enemy range, their long-distance shots are a huge boon. And again, they kill marines just fine. They kill bikes very well. They are a solid choice for bullying many vehicles. They wound most MCs on a 2 or 3 while ignoring armor. Winged MCs still don't jink. In a pinch, you can even shoot them at flyers and have them do okay. Four or eight shots is more likely to hit something than not when snap shooting. The only major downside to reapers is that each model is pricy, so losing a single guy is a lot nastier than losing a single avenger. But now I'm derailing my own thread. <_<

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.

OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.

To be fair, Tactical Marines are pretty lousy. You always end up buying Bikers or Scouts instead for a reason. I'd rather pay for a minimum squad with two Meltas to cheaply suicide into a vehicle while the Bikers do cleanup.

Then again, Tempestus does that better, so there ya go. The specific niche for Sisters has been lost. And the sisters players that read this won't have a sense of humor about it.

What I get from this thread is four camps:
-Bladestorm is fine. But Eldar is broken.
-Bladestorm is a little strong, could be nerfed. But Eldar is broken
-Bladestorm would be rough. It is broken. Rarely matters, though, because so much of CW Eldar is so broken.

(I'm between camp 1 and 2.)

Camp 1 seems to be the most popular, followed by camp 2. There are a few very vocal members of camp 3, though.

(My ideal nerf would be, strip from everything but DAs, change it on DAs to auto-wound on 6-to-hit, and drop Guardians and DAs by 1ppm each.)

(Edit: toned down the bias in camp #3)

"Cause Eldar are OP everywhere. "

This is not true, because Eldar have plenty of units that are merely "solid", but those are not the ones people build around.

Yeah, I could have said that in a more fair fashion. Updated.

"-Bladestorm is a little strong, could be nerfed. But Eldar is broken"

I'm here, but barely. I LIKE bladestorm because it nerfs MCs. I really dislike MCs in general, as I feel most of them are overpowered cheese. Most of them are just much tougher than tanks, and that annoys me. It gives me satisfaction to see them cut apart by millions of little ginsu stars.

At the same time, bladestorm takes a big dump on 2+ armor, which is already incredibly dubious except on MCs or EW ICs. Sanguinary guard: victims. Terminators: victims. Meganobz: Victims, but at least take twice as many shots to kill. Broadsides: victims if the right weapons get close enough. 2+ armor is already frankly terrible for the cost and bladestorm makes this worse.

So I am now tempted to say that bladestorm is fine, other than the fact that it hammers units that can't afford to be hammered any more.

Martel732 wrote:

I'm here, but barely. I LIKE bladestorm because it nerfs MCs. I really dislike MCs in general, as I feel most of them are overpowered cheese. Most of them are just much tougher than tanks, and that annoys me. It gives me satisfaction to see them cut apart by millions of little ginsu stars.

Whilst I certainly agree about MCs, this seems like a poor solution. It screws over any armies not lucky enough to have Bladestorm and further punishes those MCs that are actually reasonable.

I think the best fix to MCs is to fix MCs. In particular, stop making MCs with no real weaknesses or drawbacks (a MC shouldn't have incredible mobility, insane melee/shooting damage output and be extremely durable).

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'm here, but barely. I LIKE bladestorm because it nerfs MCs. I really dislike MCs in general, as I feel most of them are overpowered cheese. Most of them are just much tougher than tanks, and that annoys me. It gives me satisfaction to see them cut apart by millions of little ginsu stars.

Whilst I certainly agree about MCs, this seems like a poor solution. It screws over any armies not lucky enough to have Bladestorm and further punishes those MCs that are actually reasonable.

I think the best fix to MCs is to fix MCs. In particular, stop making MCs with no real weaknesses or drawbacks (a MC shouldn't have incredible mobility, insane melee/shooting damage output and be extremely durable).

It is a poor solution, largely because of what it does to 2+ armor units.

Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.

OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.

To be fair, Tactical Marines are pretty lousy. You always end up buying Bikers or Scouts instead for a reason. I'd rather pay for a minimum squad with two Meltas to cheaply suicide into a vehicle while the Bikers do cleanup.

Then again, Tempestus does that better, so there ya go. The specific niche for Sisters has been lost. And the sisters players that read this won't have a sense of humor about it.

The specific niche for the Sisters isn't lost because they can still bring something the Tempestus can't: a scouting squad of 4 meltas that can get ignores cover.

Seriously though, despite differences in fluff, Sisters have long been a slightly harder version of the Marine codex to try and win with. I won't pretend otherwise, especially when that's how GW keeps designing their rules. The closest thing they function like is Marines, they use the same wargear as Marines, and the Exorcist is basically just a quirky Predator when you get down to it. I love the flavor, but damn does the faction need an overhaul to feel more unique.

Now I'm not saying we need sniper flamethrowers...



..but some toys you don't see elsewhere would be nice.

As for Tacticals I really don't find them lousy. They are the perfect middle of the road unit in the game, being able to do a little of everything, without being over specialized. Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly.

"Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."

The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.

In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

MC's are about the only thing you can put on the board that's actually difficult to kill, I don't see that as a problem...Personally I think all MC are fine as long as they don't have FNP and I think toe in cover should be removed as a rule, you should have to be obstructed to gain a save. Tanks could probably do with an armor save too - then there really wouldn't be much advantage ether way between MC and tanks - and there shouldn't be.

On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.

Martel732 wrote:
"Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."

The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.

In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.

What 7pt model goes at I4 with WS/S/T4? What 5pt model comes with Krak Grenades that they can use at WS/I4? The shooting is the only one I'll give you, but the only models I know who are BS4 with Bolters are Sisters and CSM. And between Marines and Sisters, Marines are the sturdier troop choice. The only unit I know that matches Marines in stats are CSM and they're only 1pt cheaper losing both Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.

Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.

Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.

As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?

And snipers of all varieties.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.

Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.

Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.

As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?

For the most part it is with the shooting weapons. Daemonettes and genestealers have the problem of having to footslog their way into combat while being very squishy so its more a matter of being able to immediately deliver pseudo rending attacks with little risk involved in delivering them. I can't say anything on the matter of Raptors though since I am unfamiliar with them.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.

Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.

Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.

As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?

I'm not a fan of rending on daemonetts ether, it's fine on genestealers because they are expensive, raptors have rending? wha?

They could still put a hurting on some terminators at about the same rate - correct, though they would lose the ability to drop entire squads of them with small standard deviations - which is my problem with them currently. I'm fine with guardians dropping 1-2 terms in a round of shooting. I'm not fine with them rolling 6 rends on 20 dice and rolling a whole squad (this isn't that unlikely) the potential power of rending is too high for weapons with this volume of fire. This would also hurt them vs MC - which they are far too effective at removing even without the help of pseudo rending.