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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Invisibility has been nerfed by ITC which is one thing that could afford great protection against D - is that fair? Ranged D is banned by ITC so something must be done. Fix D, limit WK to 0-1 and I think everyone will be happy. Testimonials by well known eldar players supporting the new codex is laughable - sorry but it's true.

I'm not so sure I would like the D Slangers being invisible.

 Sarigar wrote:

Mavnas wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Thaylen wrote:
Wave Serpents add about 6" to their movement speed. If used as part ofthe wriathhost formation you can add another d6" to their range.

I discounted transport WG, Thaylen. It is ~9 inches (with the formation bonus) of Serpent movement, 6" disembark ... 12" gun. 27 inches is under standard SM movement and range for bolters, and many other trooper guns. Max move gets the same as SM. Without the formation less. Sorry that I don't include this one with the other two.

Are you forgetting the possible 6-9" run? Or do they not have battle focus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:
What nobody seems to be talking about is the Eldar are but the first codex in this fashion. It is rumored another IK codex is already coming with more IK variants. D wpns are in the game and aren't going away. The banning is going to be a slippery slope. Ban one thing and something else rises up to be the new broken. If folks are OK with that, then have at it. Personally, I am not a fan of telling folks they can't use the stuff they bought, painted and are perfectly legal within the rules.

Except IK are way more expensive. And now they might get one-shotted by a <50 point gun or swarmed by D-Scythes. No one in their right mind would bring one to a meta where Eldar armies have 10+ D-weapons ready to shoot them to pieces.

Exactly. If folks aren't bringing masses IK or uber deathstars, D weapons are pretty much overkill and not a good choice to make.

You've heard of tanks and MC right - how about special characters and HQ's?

Doesn't a lot of the D get countered by most Tourny things anyway? especially since it doesn't get the 6 roll?

Looking at you 2++ RErollable invuls. and cover saves.

I have a feeling we are going to see a lot of E/DE combos using WWP. a lot of which will be countered by proper use of transports and cover. only issue i see is the jetbikes :/

Looks like if you dont play horde or MSU then you're out of luck now .

 Sarigar wrote:

Mavnas wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Thaylen wrote:
Wave Serpents add about 6" to their movement speed. If used as part ofthe wriathhost formation you can add another d6" to their range.

I discounted transport WG, Thaylen. It is ~9 inches (with the formation bonus) of Serpent movement, 6" disembark ... 12" gun. 27 inches is under standard SM movement and range for bolters, and many other trooper guns. Max move gets the same as SM. Without the formation less. Sorry that I don't include this one with the other two.

Are you forgetting the possible 6-9" run? Or do they not have battle focus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:
What nobody seems to be talking about is the Eldar are but the first codex in this fashion. It is rumored another IK codex is already coming with more IK variants. D wpns are in the game and aren't going away. The banning is going to be a slippery slope. Ban one thing and something else rises up to be the new broken. If folks are OK with that, then have at it. Personally, I am not a fan of telling folks they can't use the stuff they bought, painted and are perfectly legal within the rules.

Except IK are way more expensive. And now they might get one-shotted by a <50 point gun or swarmed by D-Scythes. No one in their right mind would bring one to a meta where Eldar armies have 10+ D-weapons ready to shoot them to pieces.

Exactly. If folks aren't bringing masses IK or uber deathstars, D weapons are pretty much overkill and not a good choice to make.

The problem is that at many events we are seeing lots of IK's and Deathstars. Furthermore, D weapons are absurdly capable against vehicles and MC's, often taking only one or two shots to do what you might otherwise needs 5-10 melta or plasma guns to do at 2-3x the price.

How many rungs of the ladder down are dreadnoughts and land raiders now? Because they are collateral damage in this as well.

At this rate, the land raider is gonna need to cost barely 100 points to see the table!

niv-mizzet wrote:
How many rungs of the ladder down are dreadnoughts and land raiders now? Because they are collateral damage in this as well.

At this rate, the land raider is gonna need to cost barely 100 points to see the table!

non-skimmer vehicles are so absolutely hammered by the core rules and competitive meta it hurts. Knights get away with it because they've got D attacks and an invul save, but most anything else, Land Raiders, Leman Russ tanks, Dreads, Hellhounds, Predators, Battlewagons, Killa Kanz, etc just have far too many widely available and commonly included hardcounters to really function appropriately most of the time, especially if not spammed mercilessly. The mobility and Jink available to Skimmers (coupled with the fact that JInk has no effect on passengers) is just such a huge boost to their effectiveness in surviving and capturing/contesting objectives and reacting to threats.

Just keep things in cover?

 Xenomancers wrote:
You've heard of tanks and MC right - how about special characters and HQ's?

I did address this eariler. Yeah, Destroyer does hurt all of those far worse than Distort. Expressing my sympathy for 'Nid players.

Otherwise, the majority of what you see are footers, 1 wound footers. Distort to Destroyer has no impact there.

I assert that Wraithguard sucks without Invis. I back this up having played them and having only seen them at big GTs, with the seer council set to guarantee Invis (looking at you mortetvie!, BAO 2014)

And if fielded, with Invis, they're still killing 1 wound models most of the time, the same results with Distort or Destroyer. As you pointed out Xenomancers, the ICs & MCs will cry on a . Which Distort did anyway, Instant Death. The worse now is Eternal Warrior no longer Instant Deaths out, just by sheer weight of 6 + wounds.

Now, are we still pooping our drawers over a 2 shot WraithKnight? 2 Shots! That's it! Not a template nor blast. Two. Shots.

Now, we *can* Chicken Little over how much tougher it became, and how under cost it is compared to the other Tokyo Stompers.
Otherwise, guys, the Destroyer weps have little impact, except for bug and the rapidly fading Mech-meta (due to Drop Pod meltas spam, which was a reaction to Serpent Spam).

And somehere Mat Ward and Phil Kelly are responsible for all.

@Brothererekose, I love Wraith Guard (specifically wraith blades) and I don't think they suck without invisibility but Invisibility does go a long way to improve their survivability. I primarily liked them because they were objective secured and a tough nut to crack with the 4++. Interestingly enough, my Wraith Guard only got invisibility in like 2 out of 6 of my games and getting it never mattered too much =/. Also, I only took 2 Spirit Seers and a Farseer-no counsel (so obviously nothing was guaranteed).

I think the same thing happened in Brawl in the Fall and the only game Invisibility mattered there was against Reece at my final game. Even so, my Wraith Guard were still killed to the man!

All in all, what made my "Wraith Star" tick was the fact that they were objective secured, had an item from the Iyanden codex on my Warlord, some Psychic support and Baron for the 2++ and Hit & Run. Now, to make that same unit work, it will cost more points (will need Baharoth) but be less effective (no objective secured). Anyway, I much preferred having Shrouding for the AOE cover saves-made it so my Serpents could jink for a 2+ cover save (I didn't bother taking Holo Fields).

With all of that said, D-Scythes are going to be my go-to unit for dealing with Centurion Star and other big things, but they generally already killed those things dead with proper support so... I don't think there will be much change there.

Seriously, whenever I took D-Scythes, there wasn't anything that they DIDN'T annihilate when they shot at it so for them to be even MORE killy is like if we dropped a second nuke on Hiroshima-the damage was already done with one...

Also, good interceptor shooting went a long way in minimizing the impact WWP Wraith Guard had in my games that faced Tau and Coteaz.

This only leaves 2 shots a turn per Wraith Knight to worry about and they already either missed horribly or killed stuff dead on that 6 result. If ITC fixes D weapons to just make the 6 result the same as the 2-5 result, I don't see any problems going forward in the tournament meta.

Historically, when GW was releasing a 2-3 codices per year, Individual event organizers could make “reasonable” adjustments to the game as they saw fit. Generally, things had time to settle out and players had time to make adjustments to the changes in meta.

Currently, with Games Workshop’s rapid release schedules players and event organizers have very little time to digest releases before the next release is upon them. Nothing currently points to this trend slowing down anytime soon. As such, I assert that making changes to the game in this
type of environment can only lead to confusion and angst for players. Once a tournament’s rule-set diverges significantly from the main rules of the game it results in a constant state of reassessments, email barrages, endless debates. In the end, this leaves both the event organizers and players very little latitude to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes.

My recommendation remains to play the game as presented, and let it stand or fall on its own. Certainly events can develop multiple formats to appeal to different segments of the community and let attendees determine the formats they want to support. Wholesale changing/banning D, altering core rules, banning codex units outright, may provide some short term comfort but it is not a path for long term support of the game we all love.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:

Mavnas wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Thaylen wrote:
Wave Serpents add about 6" to their movement speed. If used as part ofthe wriathhost formation you can add another d6" to their range.

I discounted transport WG, Thaylen. It is ~9 inches (with the formation bonus) of Serpent movement, 6" disembark ... 12" gun. 27 inches is under standard SM movement and range for bolters, and many other trooper guns. Max move gets the same as SM. Without the formation less. Sorry that I don't include this one with the other two.

Are you forgetting the possible 6-9" run? Or do they not have battle focus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:
What nobody seems to be talking about is the Eldar are but the first codex in this fashion. It is rumored another IK codex is already coming with more IK variants. D wpns are in the game and aren't going away. The banning is going to be a slippery slope. Ban one thing and something else rises up to be the new broken. If folks are OK with that, then have at it. Personally, I am not a fan of telling folks they can't use the stuff they bought, painted and are perfectly legal within the rules.

Except IK are way more expensive. And now they might get one-shotted by a <50 point gun or swarmed by D-Scythes. No one in their right mind would bring one to a meta where Eldar armies have 10+ D-weapons ready to shoot them to pieces.

Exactly. If folks aren't bringing masses IK or uber deathstars, D weapons are pretty much overkill and not a good choice to make.

You've heard of tanks and MC right - how about special characters and HQ's?

Never needed Destroyer to stop any of that in the past. But, if a player thinks he may be facing D-Weapons, he may rethink that 700 point near unkillable deathstar as there is now something on the table that bites back.

I do agree the codex is very strong right now but just wait. Everyone thought the Decurion detachment was OP and it is but Eldar are a good counter to Crons, and I'm sure when the next codex is released they will counter Eldar and so on and so forth.
I personally am gutted as the four biggest tournaments of the the year where i lived recently have passed and I will have to wAit until next year when every army will be loaded with D weapons and superheavies/gargantuan. With the speed of GW releasing codices there won't be long till everyone has had a time to shine.

Cheers,
Ben


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do agree the codex is very strong right now but just wait. Everyone thought the Decurion detachment was OP and it is but Eldar are a good counter to Crons, and I'm sure when the next codex is released they will counter Eldar and so on and so forth.
I personally am gutted as the four biggest tournaments of the the year where i lived recently have passed and I will have to wAit until next year when every army will be loaded with D weapons and superheavies/gargantuan. With the speed of GW releasing codices there won't be long till everyone has had a time to shine.

Cheers,
Ben

 RageQuitRabbit wrote:
Everyone thought the Decurion detachment was OP and it is but Eldar are a good counter to Crons, and I'm sure when the next codex is released they will counter Eldar and so on and so forth.

So whoever has the latest codex wins. Seems like an awesome game you are describing.

Latest codex does not equal win. If that's the case I can wait for my chaos to get redone

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So whoever has the latest codex wins. Seems like an awesome game you are describing.

Welcome to 40k! But for a few exceptions that is the way it always is, hence the term "codex creep".

I cannot help but wonder that if certain major tournament formats, like itc, would finally leave all of 6th edition behind in terms of not only army building but mainly how you determine victory conditions- that the outcry against new armies wouldn'y be so much.

A lot of people bothered by this are more upset because certain tournament formats favor 6th edition win rules like FB and denying FB rather than maelstorm objectives etc which are the actual rules for 7th. The 4-5 GC WK army is powerful but becomes less so when the game is not about FB/FB denial and more about the objectives.

The new codexes coming out are "balanced", whether you agree or not, around the rules of 7th including force selection (there are no limits on detachments/formations, and unbound is something that is not optional in the core rules..) and the 7th edition mechanics for determining the outcome of a game, not some weird hybrid of 6th/7th that still favors the deathstar game from last edition.

I think the amount of nerdrage would be much lower, if the game was played in the current edition, and a WK/IK/whatever list- alibeit powerful, would be on the backfoot to a list that was built to control objectives as it would have a limited amount of units that it can choose to deal with each turn do to its low model count from being high cost powerful models,and would have to risk splitting force etc. A 1850 game with 4 wks is not necessarily fun to some people, but in ITC format is powerful, in normal 7th edition its pretty average. Yeah you probably will not table it, but it is going to have a very hard time scoring maelstorm points versus most TAC armies built for 7th.

stop playing 6.7 and just play 7th edition.

Eldar were most certainly not balanced around 7th. If they were balanced around anything at all, it was balanced around gw's checkbook. Purr brainless pandering and I refuse to believe they spent one hour play testing this garbage.

blaktoof wrote:

The new codexes coming out are "balanced", whether you agree or not,

Maybe internal balance, yes. External? No. Eldar and Necron maybe balanced against each other, but this is a game that also has CSM and DA and they are no where near the power level of these new dexes.

 RageQuitRabbit wrote:

I do agree the codex is very strong right now but just wait. Everyone thought the Decurion detachment was OP and it is but Eldar are a good counter to Crons, and I'm sure when the next codex is released they will counter Eldar and so on and so forth.

Releasing eldar D spam to counter unkillable 4+ necron RP is kind of like trying to treat a feral cat infestation in your neighborhood by releasing grizzly bears.

And hoping for the next codex to be so broken that it effectively counters eldar isn't something that I really want to see - it'll reach a point where the game falls apart.

Yeah, some armies already git their 7e codices and are just worse than Eldar. They cant count on being the new hotness.

Also the problem is Eldar units are criminally undercosted. You can spam bikes, bring a WK, bring WWP scythes, and still have hundreds of points left. Most armies have to choose between their strongest builds.

How can it be argued that WGs with WWPs are killing only one wound models?!

My closely grouped Bully Boyz in 3 trucks benefitting from an escorting BM w KFF on a bike. Moves 12". Flat Outs 12". Turn 2 comes around and they deep strike in before I can get out. They get the D... twice. Open Topped then the truck explodes. 700 pts evaporated. Or how about a 770 stompa (orks only access to the D)? Or a dorkanaut? Or green tide vs illych night spear with rangers. Dead pain boy round 1. Either the codex gets banned or competitive meta from other races is over. Its simply THE WORST CODEX EVER. At least we can shoot down that new Hemlock with Traktor cannons... Oh wait. Its Dblasts are better range than our AA.

blaktoof wrote:
I cannot help but wonder that if certain major tournament formats, like itc, would finally leave all of 6th edition behind in terms of not only army building but mainly how you determine victory conditions- that the outcry against new armies wouldn'y be so much.

A lot of people bothered by this are more upset because certain tournament formats favor 6th edition win rules like FB and denying FB rather than maelstorm objectives etc which are the actual rules for 7th. The 4-5 GC WK army is powerful but becomes less so when the game is not about FB/FB denial and more about the objectives.

The new codexes coming out are "balanced", whether you agree or not, around the rules of 7th including force selection (there are no limits on detachments/formations, and unbound is something that is not optional in the core rules..) and the 7th edition mechanics for determining the outcome of a game, not some weird hybrid of 6th/7th that still favors the deathstar game from last edition.

I think the amount of nerdrage would be much lower, if the game was played in the current edition, and a WK/IK/whatever list- alibeit powerful, would be on the backfoot to a list that was built to control objectives as it would have a limited amount of units that it can choose to deal with each turn do to its low model count from being high cost powerful models,and would have to risk splitting force etc. A 1850 game with 4 wks is not necessarily fun to some people, but in ITC format is powerful, in normal 7th edition its pretty average. Yeah you probably will not table it, but it is going to have a very hard time scoring maelstorm points versus most TAC armies built for 7th.

stop playing 6.7 and just play 7th edition.

First of all, you might want to go to your local GW and get a refund of your rules book as your copy seems to be missing the parts where FB and Eternal War missions are still in.

Secondly, "just play 7th, bro" is not an argument. It's a preference. The argument would be the part where you try to convince people why your preference is better.

Thirdly, what mostly resembles an argument in your post is the part where you say 4 WKs suck in Maelstrom missions. To that I refer you to my first point as well as Wikipedia's entry on 'Straw Man Argument.' Also, "the books are balanced; I'm right, you're wrong!" Seriously? You must try harder.

And, finally, put your money where your mouth is and set up a no-comp, no-holds-barred 7th edition GT and see how many people actually want to come. You might as well argue to you're blue in the face about how everyone should go to baseball matches, but baseball is stupid and the beer's too expensive, so I'd rather do something else instead. Very few people are interested in playing what you call "true 7th edition" so they just don't instead. Sucks for you, deal with it.

Lets not let this thread degenerate into "Eldar are OP, sad times." Yes, we know that not every army is perfectly balanced when compared to other armies... To put it lightly, some armies are very strong and have well written rules/combos while other armies you just look at and wonder why GW even bothered.

Overall, I really do think the Eldar codex is well balanced internally and, as far as the tournament meta goes, externally as well. Overall, I will need more testing to see how I feel about the D weapons (which I never liked in the first place). I wrote an article about Eldar not being OP on my blog for anyone who cares...

Anyway-the issue as I see it, isn't that the Eldar are "so incredibly strong" but that some of the other books are so incredibly bad and poorly written that it makes Eldar appear to be much stronger than they are. How do I determine this? Well, I have this internal sense of how strong things should be and a lot of things (except the prevalence of D weapons- which may or may not be too bad) in the new Eldar codex "feel about right." This is my opinion, as is anyone else's opinion that Eldar are "OP." However, I base my opinion on over 16 years of playing Eldar and having played almost every army against Eldar over that time period over pretty much every edition.

Sadly, armies like CSM, Tyranids generally suck unless you want to spam a few powerful models (of which CSM and many other books don't have any). GW needs to stop making and releasing army books with terrible rules/options and start releasing everything at or around the power level of the new Necrons and Eldar. Some of the olderish books like SM, Tau and Demons can still compete pretty well, however.

Anyway, as was mentioned several times-D weapons on the units that have access to them in the Eldar codex are not going to break the game/meta for the reasons stated and a simply modifying how D weapons work in 40k as well as limiting the number of Lords of War an army can take would very likely eliminate any of the potential problems the Eldar codex poses. Specifically, yes, we know that D weapons are meant to blow really big stuff up really badly so therefore little things should be vaporized at the mere mention of D weapons... However, such a mechanic does not fit in the scale of 40k where there generally are not any really big things to blow up. Therefore, simply making D weapons very good at killing everything but removing any mechanic that makes it auto-kill everything makes sense if you want to preserve any semblance of game balance. Just my thoughts, feel free to tell me why they are wrong =).

 mortetvie wrote:
Overall, I really do think the Eldar codex is well balanced internally and, as far as the tournament meta goes, externally as well.

Surely you're joking right? D on Hemlock. D on Wraith Knight. D on Elites. 4++ on jinking JBs. Psychers can be in almost every troop unit. Daemonology Access with nearly no perils an IC. This isn't even mentionining the Battle Brotherhood of Webway Portals.

Dude.... seriously?

 Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
What about Thaylens suggestion of the Waveserpents and the host formation? Could you field that also as the third or is it points/List prohibitive?

For the formation, I am short one unit of WG. I have the WK, WL and 10 WG.
...




But I'll be buying another box of WG next week.

That wraith knights foot looks vaguely familiar....

Also I think its been away long enough to post this again

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:


The D flamer Wraiths loaded into a raider with a WWP Archon or Haem is a very easy way to get them into range. There are other ways to but require more of an investment.

Is it possible that wraithguard might not be as good as everyone thinks?

#1. They cost a lot of points. Add to this their delivery system and that is a chunk of you army.
#2. They land and kill one unit. Do you know what else kills one unit? Anything else that you spend those points on.
#3. They are slow and have short range. Yes you can mitigate some of that with transports and WWP and then what? So you come out and kill a unit big deal. Then everything else will try to kill them, and if they can't do that, they will just walk away from them and you have an expensive unit that cant kill anything else.
#4. There is a model named Coteaz. That is the thing about a meta is that if one build becomes good, there are ways of countering it. If wraithguard ever become as powerful as some here think, then all of the imperials will start to counter it with Coteaz, and then all of a sudden your killer army build will become useless.

Every new codex and rules edition get theoryhammered to death, and most of the time they are wrong,

Last year when the new Tyranid codex came out everyone was saying how bad they were. So I took them to the LVO and beat 2 Eldar players and ended up winning my first 4 games before losing my last game to the eventual overall winner.

Do you know what theoryhammer players where complaining about and wanted banned with 7th edition? Invisibility and demon summoning. Are they game breaking builds that are dominating tournaments? No, Are they good? Yes, but they are not as good as everyone thought.

So we need to wait and see if things are as bad as people think before raging against something that has not proven to be a problem,

The Tyranid codex IS crap, though. It wins, but there's literally only 3 usable units in there: Flyrants, Mawlocs, and Mucolids (which really are only used for their cheap minimum troop requirement). You can namedrop Lictors if you feel like, but to pretend they have use outside of being expensive Locator Beacons for the Mawlocs is simply foolish.

 doktor_g wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Overall, I really do think the Eldar codex is well balanced internally and, as far as the tournament meta goes, externally as well.

Surely you're joking right? D on Hemlock. D on Wraith Knight. D on Elites. 4++ on jinking JBs. Psychers can be in almost every troop unit. Daemonology Access with nearly no perils an IC. This isn't even mentionining the Battle Brotherhood of Webway Portals.

Dude.... seriously?

Seriously, dude-I really do think Eldar are balanced internally and as far as what you see taken in the top tournament armies, is fine as far as external balance goes. I'd be interested to have you read my blog post and give a detailed response on why you think Eldar are going to break the game in light of what I said.

Blog post at:


Overall, your comments are conclusory so I'd appreciate it if you actually expounded on how and why you think what you do. Also, that will give you an opportunity to further explain what you actually mean because as the information is presented, as written, seems like some of your facts are a bit off (i.e., jetbikes don't get a 4++ but a 4+ cover save which is different).

Also, just as an FYI, since my blog post and previous posts don't address this issue (because I think it is a non-issue), Warlocks were able to be placed in every Guardian based unit before but nobody ever took them as options... Why would that change now and why is that a big deal for you now? Also considered a non-issue by me is the access to Santic Demonology which no Eldar player ever took that I've ever seen.

Anyway, interested in hearing your thoughts on all of that.

 doktor_g wrote:
How can it be argued that WGs with WWPs are killing only one wound models?!

My closely grouped Bully Boyz in 3 trucks benefitting from an escorting BM w KFF on a bike. Moves 12". Flat Outs 12". Turn 2 comes around and they deep strike in before I can get out. They get the D... twice. Open Topped then the truck explodes. 700 pts evaporated. Or how about a 770 stompa (orks only access to the D)? Or a dorkanaut? Or green tide vs illych night spear with rangers. Dead pain boy round 1. Either the codex gets banned or competitive meta from other races is over. Its simply THE WORST CODEX EVER. At least we can shoot down that new Hemlock with Traktor cannons... Oh wait. Its Dblasts are better range than our AA.

The boys still live so only the trucks are killed.

The rule reads - Vehicle or Building - Devastating Hit: The model suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose D6+6 Hull Points instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit.

This only applies to the vehicle model not the units inside just like a normal penetrating hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Overall, I really do think the Eldar codex is well balanced internally and, as far as the tournament meta goes, externally as well.

Surely you're joking right? D on Hemlock. D on Wraith Knight. D on Elites. 4++ on jinking JBs. Psychers can be in almost every troop unit. Daemonology Access with nearly no perils an IC. This isn't even mentionining the Battle Brotherhood of Webway Portals.

Dude.... seriously?

Eldar only have access to sanctic daemonology. All those units you just mentioned already had (fake)D so really the only difference is it affects vehicles more. I'm taking the wait and see approach but I have an open offer of $50 per army for anyone that is rage quitting

He's talking about the BBQ'd alive rule on open topped vehicles I think.