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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The stock Eldar vehicle armament has pseudo-Rending, but I wouldn't call Rending an 'Eldar thing'.

I would. Bladestorm is a defining trait of Eldar weaponry at this juncture.

Similarly the stock Tau vehicle armament is AP5, that doesn't make AP5 a 'Tau thing' (that said S5/AP5 might as well be).

Ehh...the "stock" Tau vehicle armament is Gun Drones with Pulse Carbines and Burst Cannons if we want to get technical...

I thought I was pointing out the silliness of Martel's initial statement that AP4 is 'an Imperial thing', but we've actually come across a deeper point here, that Imperial stock vehicle armament has better AP than its xeno equivalents. Take that, 'Xeno shooting beats Imperial shooting' thesis!

Imperial vehicles basically have no survival thanks to lacking Jink.

In any regards, I would consider AP4 more of an Imperial thing than I would a Tau thing by the metrics you attempted to get snarky with. Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, etc are so widely spread across the various Imperial factions(Guard, Marines of all flavor, Skitarii, and Cult Mechanicus) that it's hard to make an Imperial list that doesn't somehow have AP4 present.

Look, I was just wanting to make sure that 4+ windriders didn't somehow favor the IoM more than anyone else. Seems like people don't feel that way.

Martel732 wrote:
But said AP is largely worthless because of cover and the low quality of armor being negated...

(deep sigh)

I'm sorry that your guns being 1.5-2x as effective as the competition isn't good enough for you. I'm sorry that the circular problem (namely that 4+ armour is 'low quality' exactly because there are so many AP4 weapons) hasn't sunk in yet. And I'm sorry that your play environment is one where all vehicles are exactly AV11 (also known as the only target against which S5 to S6 is a massive jump instead of a sort of meh one).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The stock Eldar vehicle armament has pseudo-Rending, but I wouldn't call Rending an 'Eldar thing'.

I would. Bladestorm is a defining trait of Eldar weaponry at this juncture.

Similarly the stock Tau vehicle armament is AP5, that doesn't make AP5 a 'Tau thing' (that said S5/AP5 might as well be).

Ehh...the "stock" Tau vehicle armament is Gun Drones with Pulse Carbines and Burst Cannons if we want to get technical...

I thought I was pointing out the silliness of Martel's initial statement that AP4 is 'an Imperial thing', but we've actually come across a deeper point here, that Imperial stock vehicle armament has better AP than its xeno equivalents. Take that, 'Xeno shooting beats Imperial shooting' thesis!

Imperial vehicles basically have no survival thanks to lacking Jink.

In any regards, I would consider AP4 more of an Imperial thing than I would a Tau thing by the metrics you attempted to get snarky with. Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, etc are so widely spread across the various Imperial factions(Guard, Marines of all flavor, Skitarii, and Cult Mechanicus) that it's hard to make an Imperial list that doesn't somehow have AP4 present.

It'd be much easier for me to build a viable Eldar list with no Bladestorm (...almost no, I think I am still stuck with shuriken pistols on my HQs) than a viable Tau list with no AP4.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But said AP is largely worthless because of cover and the low quality of armor being negated...

(deep sigh)

I'm sorry that your guns being 1.5-2x as effective as the competition isn't good enough for you. I'm sorry that the circular problem (namely that 4+ armour is 'low quality' exactly because there are so many AP4 weapons) hasn't sunk in yet. And I'm sorry that your play environment is one where all vehicles are exactly AV11 (also known as the only target against which S5 to S6 is a massive jump instead of a sort of meh one).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The stock Eldar vehicle armament has pseudo-Rending, but I wouldn't call Rending an 'Eldar thing'.

I would. Bladestorm is a defining trait of Eldar weaponry at this juncture.

Similarly the stock Tau vehicle armament is AP5, that doesn't make AP5 a 'Tau thing' (that said S5/AP5 might as well be).

Ehh...the "stock" Tau vehicle armament is Gun Drones with Pulse Carbines and Burst Cannons if we want to get technical...

I thought I was pointing out the silliness of Martel's initial statement that AP4 is 'an Imperial thing', but we've actually come across a deeper point here, that Imperial stock vehicle armament has better AP than its xeno equivalents. Take that, 'Xeno shooting beats Imperial shooting' thesis!

Imperial vehicles basically have no survival thanks to lacking Jink.

In any regards, I would consider AP4 more of an Imperial thing than I would a Tau thing by the metrics you attempted to get snarky with. Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, etc are so widely spread across the various Imperial factions(Guard, Marines of all flavor, Skitarii, and Cult Mechanicus) that it's hard to make an Imperial list that doesn't somehow have AP4 present.

It'd be much easier for me to build a viable Eldar list with no Bladestorm (...almost no, I think I am still stuck with shuriken pistols on my HQs) than a viable Tau list with no AP4.

That's not why it's low quality. It only works half the time. Or less, for armor worse than 4+. AP4 is negating stuff that can be brute-forced through very easily. It doesn't help that 3+ armor is by far the most common armor.

Did you mean AV 12? Or did you intentionally leave that out. Because 16% chance to 0% chance is pretty huge.

Bladestorm should be AP3 on a '6'. Otherwise it's just Rending without the bonus to AV. Eldar do not hurt for other AP2 options, so making Bladestorm only AP3 on a 6 will not hurt them too much.
And that leads me to point out a key factor in this thread: the nerfs need to be "reasonable". Several minor nerfs would keep the spirit of what Eldar are without over doing it.

For example, making Windriders a Fast only choice with a 4+ armour that pays 20pts per Scatter laser and only 1 per 3. That is a gross over nerf, yet some of those together would be reasonable.
Windriders will always be Troops as they should be, there are enough of them on each craftworld to merit Troop status. And the ship has sailed on them getting only 1 per 3 special weapon, The kit includes 1 Shuricat, 1 Shurcannon & 1 Scatter laser PER BIKE.

But a 4+ only armour is reasonable. As is 20pts per Scatter laser (on the bikes only). But I would hesitate to do both. A 20pt weapon that is snap-firing most of the game is not appealing. 15ppm might be best if we are doing a 4+ armour

As for Warp Spiders, Flicker jump needs to go way. They are 3+ armoured Jet-pack infantry with Battlefocus and a Psuedo-Rending gun. They are special enough
The same needs to happen with all Aspect warriors.
Players choose Dire Avengers over Guardians because they have a better amour save and a longer ranged gun. NOT because of the counter-attack/BS2 overwatch special snowflake rule.
Aspect Warriors are unique enough with their special wargear & weapon options. They don't need other special rules just for "reasons".

-

Martel732 wrote:
That's not why it's low quality. It only works half the time. Or less, for armor worse than 4+. AP4 is negating stuff that can be brute-forced through very easily.

Did you mean AV 12? Or did you intentionally leave that out. Because 16% chance to 0% chance is pretty huge.

If you're shooting S6 weapons at an AV12 target something's gone horribly wrong in the first place. Or you're playing Harlequins, and therefore boned. (I'm operating under the assumption that if I want to hull-point out a vehicle I'm not going to be shooting weapons that only do damage on a 6 unless I have no other choice. So I'd shoot a S5 weapon and a S6 weapon at an AV10 target, a S6 weapon but not a S5 weapon at an AV11 target, and neither at an AV12 target (preferring instead to seek a better angle or use better-suited weapons).)

As for AP4 negating stuff that can be easily brute-forced through I'd suggest you consider your standards for a moment. The jump from AP5 to AP4 makes your weapon 1.17x as effective against a Sv4+ target in 5+ cover. But the jump from S5 to S6 makes your weapon 1.17x as effective against T4 targets. Or 1x as effective against T3 targets. Yet one is massive, and one is irrelevant?

"As is 20pts per Scatter laser (on the bikes only)"

No, on every platform. The scatterlaser is an incredibly high-performing weapon in 7th. It's easily as good as an assault cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not why it's low quality. It only works half the time. Or less, for armor worse than 4+. AP4 is negating stuff that can be brute-forced through very easily.

Did you mean AV 12? Or did you intentionally leave that out. Because 16% chance to 0% chance is pretty huge.

If you're shooting S6 weapons at an AV12 target something's gone horribly wrong in the first place. Or you're playing Harlequins, and therefore boned. (I'm operating under the assumption that if I want to hull-point out a vehicle I'm not going to be shooting weapons that only do damage on a 6 unless I have no other choice. So I'd shoot a S5 weapon and a S6 weapon at an AV10 target, a S6 weapon but not a S5 weapon at an AV11 target, and neither at an AV12 target (preferring instead to seek a better angle or use better-suited weapons).)

As for AP4 negating stuff that can be easily brute-forced through I'd suggest you consider your standards for a moment. The jump from AP5 to AP4 makes your weapon 1.17x as effective against a Sv4+ target in 5+ cover. But the jump from S5 to S6 makes your weapon 1.17x as effective against T4 targets. Or 1x as effective against T3 targets. Yet one is massive, and one is irrelevant?

I've seen a lot of AV 12 stuff die to scatterlasers because they only need 3 "6"s to kill it. It's purely a function of vehicles having no saves.

" Yet one is massive, and one is irrelevant?"

It's the one-two punch of an extra shot and an extra strength. A marine heavy bolter kills 0.44 marines, whereas an Eldar scatterlaser kills 0.74 marines. Scatterlasers hull point out IKs, dreadnoughts, Falcons, waveserpents, Chimera fronts. Heavy bolters can't touch any of those.

Martel732 wrote:
"As is 20pts per Scatter laser (on the bikes only)"

No, on every platform. The scatterlaser is an incredibly high-performing weapon in 7th. It's easily as good as an assault cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not why it's low quality. It only works half the time. Or less, for armor worse than 4+. AP4 is negating stuff that can be brute-forced through very easily.

Did you mean AV 12? Or did you intentionally leave that out. Because 16% chance to 0% chance is pretty huge.

If you're shooting S6 weapons at an AV12 target something's gone horribly wrong in the first place. Or you're playing Harlequins, and therefore boned. (I'm operating under the assumption that if I want to hull-point out a vehicle I'm not going to be shooting weapons that only do damage on a 6 unless I have no other choice. So I'd shoot a S5 weapon and a S6 weapon at an AV10 target, a S6 weapon but not a S5 weapon at an AV11 target, and neither at an AV12 target (preferring instead to seek a better angle or use better-suited weapons).)

As for AP4 negating stuff that can be easily brute-forced through I'd suggest you consider your standards for a moment. The jump from AP5 to AP4 makes your weapon 1.17x as effective against a Sv4+ target in 5+ cover. But the jump from S5 to S6 makes your weapon 1.17x as effective against T4 targets. Or 1x as effective against T3 targets. Yet one is massive, and one is irrelevant?

I've seen a lot of AV 12 stuff die to scatterlasers because they only need 3 "6"s to kill it. It's purely a function of vehicles having no saves.

" Yet one is massive, and one is irrelevant?"

It's the one-two punch of an extra shot and an extra strength. A marine heavy bolter kills 0.44 marines, whereas an Eldar scatterlaser kills 0.74 marines. Scatterlasers hull point out IKs, dreadnoughts, Falcons, waveserpents, Chimera fronts. Heavy bolters can't touch any of those.

I've seen a Stormtrooper run down a Terminator squad. We can anecdote up whatever we want. It isn't going to change the facts of the median-case 'most games' state the rules ought to be written for.

(Also for the record you've given quite a few vehicles with saves in your list of things the scatter laser can kill easily because vehicles have no saves.)

Okay, well, I'll continue to avoid AP4 as much as I can, due to it not being very efficacious and I guess you can load up on it and see how that goes for you. I'll also continue to prefer the scatterlaser going away from any Imperial heavy weapon other than a grav cannon.

Changing the scatbike to 4+ armor would provide an actual meaningful unit with 4+ armor other than Wulfen. Which would make your claims more true.

And I'll change my statement to non-anecdotes: scatterlasers MASSACRE AV 12 and less in a general sense. You and I don't need to see it. Each scatterlaser removes 0.44 hps. Seven scatterlasers equals dead vehicle.

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, well, I'll continue to avoid AP4 as much as I can, due to it not being very efficacious and I guess you can load up on it and see how that goes for you. I'll also continue to prefer the scatterlaser going away from any Imperial heavy weapon other than a grav cannon.

Changing the scatbike to 4+ armor would provide an actual meaningful unit with 4+ armor other than Wulfen. Which would make your claims more true.

And I'll change my statement to non-anecdotes: scatterlasers MASSACRE AV 12 and less in a general sense. You and I don't need to see it. Each scatterlaser removes 0.44 hps. Seven scatterlasers equals dead vehicle.

So Fire Warriors, half the Aspects, Carapace-armoured Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, and Scouts just don't exist?

Seven Scatter Lasers kill an AV12 vehicle. Oh my god. OP, pls nerf. A hundred and eighty nine points of scatterbikes can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

What other heavy weapons do you suppose can one-round a Chimera if you point seven of them at it?

(Scatterbikes are powerful, but they're really not anti-armour tools.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So Fire Warriors, half the Aspects, Carapace-armoured Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, and Scouts just don't exist?

Seven Scatter Lasers kill an AV12 vehicle. Oh my god. OP, pls nerf. A hundred and eighty nine points of scatterbikes can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

A hundred and eighty nine points of Jetbikes with what is supposed to be an anti-infantry weapon can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

What other heavy weapons do you suppose can one-round a Chimera if you point seven of them at it?

(Scatterbikes are powerful, but they're really not anti-armour tools.)

Whether they are anti-armour or not, they can function as such in the current rules setting.

It's ridiculous that a weapon with AP6 can harm a vehicle, much less destroy it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So Fire Warriors, half the Aspects, Carapace-armoured Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, and Scouts just don't exist?

Seven Scatter Lasers kill an AV12 vehicle. Oh my god. OP, pls nerf. A hundred and eighty nine points of scatterbikes can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

A hundred and eighty nine points of Jetbikes with what is supposed to be an anti-infantry weapon can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

What other heavy weapons do you suppose can one-round a Chimera if you point seven of them at it?

(Scatterbikes are powerful, but they're really not anti-armour tools.)

Whether they are anti-armour or not, they can function as such in the current rules setting.

It's ridiculous that a weapon with AP6 can harm a vehicle, much less destroy it.

Back up a step. I'm trying to assert that the S5-6 jump isn't much bigger than any other +1S jump unless you happen to be in an environment that only contains things where it's a massive deal. You and Martel seem convinced that an S6 weapon is an effective primary anti-armour tool despite the fact that you need seven Scatterbikes to kill a vehicle.

Let's imagine for the moment that the one gun in three rule was applied. Those 189pts of scatterbikes are now spread across a minimum of two squads, containing 21 jetbikes between them and costing 438pts.

Is this hypothetical 21-model 438pt investment still a significant, or even a relevant primary anti-armour tool? It was already mediocre at it. It's now about 2.3x the cost. Is the fact that Scatter Lasers existed in the first place the problem, or is the fact that they were available on every model in the squad the problem?

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's ridiculous that a weapon with AP6 can harm a vehicle, much less destroy it.

I wouldn't say that. Armour penetration isn't the only thing to consider.
A shotgun blast isn't going to penetrate modern body armour. It's just going to make the front of the vest meet the back.
That kinetic energy has to go somewhere (assuming for the sake of argument that these Eldar 'lasers' impart kinetic energy. Hell maybe they just boil off the hull).
Hit something hard enough, enough times, and it doesn't matter that none of the shots penetrated it. It's going to be too beat up to function.

The only army that really worries about the jump from S5 to S6 is Dark Eldar as thats where it negates our FnP.

Sure, Scatter Lasers can glance out AV12, but if your dedicating that much firepower to do so then either you or your opponent are doing something very wrong.

 Galef wrote:
Bladestorm should be AP3 on a '6'. Otherwise it's just Rending without the bonus to AV. Eldar do not hurt for other AP2 options, so making Bladestorm only AP3 on a 6 will not hurt them too much.
And that leads me to point out a key factor in this thread: the nerfs need to be "reasonable". Several minor nerfs would keep the spirit of what Eldar are without over doing it.

For example, making Windriders a Fast only choice with a 4+ armour that pays 20pts per Scatter laser and only 1 per 3. That is a gross over nerf, yet some of those together would be reasonable.
Windriders will always be Troops as they should be, there are enough of them on each craftworld to merit Troop status. And the ship has sailed on them getting only 1 per 3 special weapon, The kit includes 1 Shuricat, 1 Shurcannon & 1 Scatter laser PER BIKE.

But a 4+ only armour is reasonable. As is 20pts per Scatter laser (on the bikes only). But I would hesitate to do both. A 20pt weapon that is snap-firing most of the game is not appealing. 15ppm might be best if we are doing a 4+ armour

As for Warp Spiders, Flicker jump needs to go way. They are 3+ armoured Jet-pack infantry with Battlefocus and a Psuedo-Rending gun. They are special enough
The same needs to happen with all Aspect warriors.
Players choose Dire Avengers over Guardians because they have a better amour save and a longer ranged gun. NOT because of the counter-attack/BS2 overwatch special snowflake rule.
Aspect Warriors are unique enough with their special wargear & weapon options. They don't need other special rules just for "reasons".

-

Bladestorm: I'd be fine with this. I know bladestorm gets a lot of hate, but I've always seen it as a nice bonus rather than some super duper game winner. I'd be happy to drop it down to Ap3 on 6s for the sake of helping out units like terminators that are hit a bit too hard by it.

Jetbikes: Mostly agree. You're right that we need to avoid over-nerfing them, and I agree that they shouldn't be restricted to FA. After all, they're a key part of Saim-Hann's identity. The only point I really disagree with you on is that including weapons on a sprue somehow makes it mandatory that every model in the box be able to take a heavy weapon. Personally, I really kind of like how 1 per 3 heavy weapons on jetbikes play. You have to actually use your speed and mobility to stay safe while getting closer to the enemy, and you're sometimes encouraged to actually move in and take advantage of your twin-linked catapults and hammer of wrath in a pinch. I largely agree with you on this point though. Also, some other jetbike ideas:

* Restrict them to 1 per 3 on heavy weapons, but allow them to field 1 vyper per 6(?) jetbikes. Obviously you'd need to give vyper a toughness value and make them a "jetbike," but I like that this option allows you to add a little extra variety of heavy weapon support to this hypothetical jetbike squad. 6 bikes with two shuricannons joined by a vyper with a star cannon or lance sounds like a fun unit to scoot around. It also prevents the vyper from competing directly with hornets.

* Split jetbikes up into troop bikes that are the "classic" 1 per 3 jetbikes that only have access to shurikens and then FA jetbikes that have a wide variety of heavy weapons available (similar to corsairs) but at a higher price per gun. So you can spam scatbikes at a higher cost, but you have to do so using FA slots, or you can field relatively tame "classic" bikes as troops. Or as members of a windrider host.

Aspect Warrior Snowflakes:
I really like the aspect warrior snowflakes. The dire avenger's armor and range does make him a viable alternative to guardians, but that's not all there is to it. Competitively, I'd be better off taking a bunch of cheap guardians for 20+ bladestorming shots rather than a squad of avengers (assuming I"m not going bare-bones troops to save points). The 4+ armor is nice, but not enough to really make them stand out. The special rules that show off superior technology and training are what I really enjoy about them. My avengers exarch has an invul save because he's a space elf samurai pulling off defensive Matrix-style moves. Banshee masks deny overwatch because of cool technology that echoes their lore. Scorpions can go into "stealth" mode until they're ready to strike. Spiders can nightcrawler out of harm's way. Swooping hawks can sky leap and move 18" because they're lightning-quick space elves equipped with graceful alien technology instead of clunky space marines with rockets strapped to their backs.

Eldar, and aspect warriors especially, feel unique and alien. Whatever balance issues our book might have, I really enjoy how well our units capture the feel of their fluff (for the most part). Some rules need to be toned down, and some units could stand to go up a few points, but I'd rather look for solutions that don't sacrifice the army's flavor or unique feel. Plus, I'm a sucker for special rules. I know some people would rather see 90% of the special rules out there scrapped for the sake of simplifying things, but I kind of love mechanics that reward you for playing X instead of Y.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imateria wrote:
The only army that really worries about the jump from S5 to S6 is Dark Eldar as thats where it negates our FnP.

Sure, Scatter Lasers can glance out AV12, but if your dedicating that much firepower to do so then either you or your opponent are doing something very wrong.

This. Sure, S5 can't touch AV12 while S6 can, but I'll only ever shoot S6 at AV 12 if it's the only option I have available. Especially when you consider how many AV12 targets have jink. That said, I like the idea of scatter lasers going down to S5. It fits the "machinegun" niche they're going for better, and it scales nicely with shuriken cannons and star cannons. Number of shots versus quality of shots.

S6 is good in general, but it's only really a problem when you can spam the snot out of it. Thus why no one complains about multilasers on chimeras.

Here are my current list of houserules for eldar (including options from apocalypse book)

Wyldhunt wrote:

Bladestorm: I'd be fine with this. I know bladestorm gets a lot of hate, but I've always seen it as a nice bonus rather than some super duper game winner. I'd be happy to drop it down to Ap3 on 6s for the sake of helping out units like terminators that are hit a bit too hard by it.

Yeah I'd be happy with this. Also helps give Starcannons their AP2 niche back, while keeping up the deadliness vs MEQ.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Jetbikes: Mostly agree. You're right that we need to avoid over-nerfing them, and I agree that they shouldn't be restricted to FA. After all, they're a key part of Saim-Hann's identity. The only point I really disagree with you on is that including weapons on a sprue somehow makes it mandatory that every model in the box be able to take a heavy weapon. Personally, I really kind of like how 1 per 3 heavy weapons on jetbikes play. You have to actually use your speed and mobility to stay safe while getting closer to the enemy, and you're sometimes encouraged to actually move in and take advantage of your twin-linked catapults and hammer of wrath in a pinch. I largely agree with you on this point though. Also, some other jetbike ideas:

* Restrict them to 1 per 3 on heavy weapons, but allow them to field 1 vyper per 6(?) jetbikes. Obviously you'd need to give vyper a toughness value and make them a "jetbike," but I like that this option allows you to add a little extra variety of heavy weapon support to this hypothetical jetbike squad. 6 bikes with two shuricannons joined by a vyper with a star cannon or lance sounds like a fun unit to scoot around. It also prevents the vyper from competing directly with hornets.

* Split jetbikes up into troop bikes that are the "classic" 1 per 3 jetbikes that only have access to shurikens and then FA jetbikes that have a wide variety of heavy weapons available (similar to corsairs) but at a higher price per gun. So you can spam scatbikes at a higher cost, but you have to do so using FA slots, or you can field relatively tame "classic" bikes as troops. Or as members of a windrider host.

Agreed on the over-nerfing, and they definitely need to stay as troops. It's a core part of Saim-Hann.

Love the idea of Troops Jetbikes with 1-in-3 Heavy Weapons (or even no special weapons), with a 2W T4/5 Vyper as a heavy weapons platform. Then you can have the same squad of Vypers in FA as a heavy weapons squad.

Not certain there's a call for a FA heavy weapons jetbike squad if you've got Vyper squadrons with wounds/toughness in FA as well.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Aspect Warrior Snowflakes:
I really like the aspect warrior snowflakes. The dire avenger's armor and range does make him a viable alternative to guardians, but that's not all there is to it. Competitively, I'd be better off taking a bunch of cheap guardians for 20+ bladestorming shots rather than a squad of avengers (assuming I"m not going bare-bones troops to save points). The 4+ armor is nice, but not enough to really make them stand out. The special rules that show off superior technology and training are what I really enjoy about them. My avengers exarch has an invul save because he's a space elf samurai pulling off defensive Matrix-style moves. Banshee masks deny overwatch because of cool technology that echoes their lore. Scorpions can go into "stealth" mode until they're ready to strike. Spiders can nightcrawler out of harm's way. Swooping hawks can sky leap and move 18" because they're lightning-quick space elves equipped with graceful alien technology instead of clunky space marines with rockets strapped to their backs.

Eldar, and aspect warriors especially, feel unique and alien. Whatever balance issues our book might have, I really enjoy how well our units capture the feel of their fluff (for the most part). Some rules need to be toned down, and some units could stand to go up a few points, but I'd rather look for solutions that don't sacrifice the army's flavor or unique feel. Plus, I'm a sucker for special rules. I know some people would rather see 90% of the special rules out there scrapped for the sake of simplifying things, but I kind of love mechanics that reward you for playing X instead of Y.

You and me both. They're fluffy. They're useful. For the most part they're not overpowered. Just a little bit of balancing would be infinitely preferable to just cutting them entirely.

I'll also agree with the keeping of special rules to make the world more varied. Having the bare rules on free-to-download dataslates would cut the main requirement for simplification (needing to buy half a dozen books to get the rules to play your army).

Keep the fun, fluffy special rules. More of them if anything, to give each army its own unique feel just make them easier to get hold of, and searchable

Wyldhunt wrote:

This. Sure, S5 can't touch AV12 while S6 can, but I'll only ever shoot S6 at AV 12 if it's the only option I have available. Especially when you consider how many AV12 targets have jink. That said, I like the idea of scatter lasers going down to S5. It fits the "machinegun" niche they're going for better, and it scales nicely with shuriken cannons and star cannons. Number of shots versus quality of shots.

S6 is good in general, but it's only really a problem when you can spam the snot out of it. Thus why no one complains about multilasers on chimeras.

Yeah I'd support a nerf to S5. It's already got a range bonus over Shuricannons. That and the rate of fire is enough to balance it against S6 and bladestorm for the same points. Then , with Starcannons as S7 and AP2 but only 2 shots that's a nice little balancing act between the 3 main eldar big guns.

I like the Vyper as an "attack bike" type of upgrade, actually.

How about this:

Vyper Jetbike
WS4 BS4 S3 T5 I5 W2 A2 Ld 8 Sv 3+, Eldar Jetbike

Then give the Vyper all the current weapon options. The only other wargear option that would remain is the Holo-Field. While that's usually a vehicle option, there's no reason - fluff or crunch - why it can't be used on something with T instead of AV. And it's not like 15 points for a 5+ invulnerable save on something with 3+ armor and Jink is unbalancing. (If anything it's mildly overcosted.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, well, I'll continue to avoid AP4 as much as I can, due to it not being very efficacious and I guess you can load up on it and see how that goes for you. I'll also continue to prefer the scatterlaser going away from any Imperial heavy weapon other than a grav cannon.

Changing the scatbike to 4+ armor would provide an actual meaningful unit with 4+ armor other than Wulfen. Which would make your claims more true.

And I'll change my statement to non-anecdotes: scatterlasers MASSACRE AV 12 and less in a general sense. You and I don't need to see it. Each scatterlaser removes 0.44 hps. Seven scatterlasers equals dead vehicle.

So Fire Warriors, half the Aspects, Carapace-armoured Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, and Scouts just don't exist?

Seven Scatter Lasers kill an AV12 vehicle. Oh my god. OP, pls nerf. A hundred and eighty nine points of scatterbikes can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

What other heavy weapons do you suppose can one-round a Chimera if you point seven of them at it?

(Scatterbikes are powerful, but they're really not anti-armour tools.)

Twice that many bikes can also one round an ik. The fact that they go both ways means they always have a target. That should cost 20 pts, imo.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, well, I'll continue to avoid AP4 as much as I can, due to it not being very efficacious and I guess you can load up on it and see how that goes for you. I'll also continue to prefer the scatterlaser going away from any Imperial heavy weapon other than a grav cannon.

Changing the scatbike to 4+ armor would provide an actual meaningful unit with 4+ armor other than Wulfen. Which would make your claims more true.

And I'll change my statement to non-anecdotes: scatterlasers MASSACRE AV 12 and less in a general sense. You and I don't need to see it. Each scatterlaser removes 0.44 hps. Seven scatterlasers equals dead vehicle.

So Fire Warriors, half the Aspects, Carapace-armoured Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, and Scouts just don't exist?

Seven Scatter Lasers kill an AV12 vehicle. Oh my god. OP, pls nerf. A hundred and eighty nine points of scatterbikes can one-round a sixty-five point Chimera outside of cover.

What other heavy weapons do you suppose can one-round a Chimera if you point seven of them at it?

(Scatterbikes are powerful, but they're really not anti-armour tools.)

Twice that many bikes can also one round an ik. The fact that they go both ways means they always have a target. That should cost 20 pts, imo.

...Try 4x as many (in the rear arc only). Scatterbikes don't ignore Invulnerable saves yet. Is 756 too many to be able to one-round an IK from the back? Is the 1708pts worth of jetbikes (and eight hundred dollars) you'd need to one-round an IK if upgrade guns were dropped to one per three too cheap?

Seriously, people. Scatterbikes are powerful. They're not a *bleep*ing instant-death-laser that hard-counters all possible targets.

"...Try 4x as many (in the rear arc only)"

You're not inspiring confidence here. Knights have AV 12 sides as well, and the ion shield is usually on the front trying to fend off the incoming D weapons. Or lances. Or some other Eldar nastiness.

Obviously AV 13 is safe, but AV 13 is relatively rare, and cost effective AV 13 is almost non-existent.

Scatter lasers at str5 is probably the best compromise that limits its anti-AV potential (it can no longer touch Knight or kill a Dread from the front/side). It also helps make the Shuricannon a bit more appealing and allows the Scatter laser to not need a points increase as its about as effective as the Shuricannon.

Combine this with Bladestorm only having AP3 on a '6' and the Scatter laser, Shuricannon and Star cannon are nicely balanced between each other and all seem to fill a purpose.

If you also make the Spiders' Deathspinner only Str5, suddenly the Shuricannon really becomes more appealing as the only Str6 weapon that can be taken en mass (since Star cannons are still pretty limited).



and BTW, making Scatter lasers Str5 is also the easiest to Errata since points cost is varied from platform to platform (hint, hint, GW!). Eldar Players would be fine with it and it would make the haters hate less.

-

 Galef wrote:
Scatter lasers at str5 is probably the best compromise that limits its anti-AV potential (it can no longer touch Knight or kill a Dread from the front/side). It also helps make the Shuricannon a bit more appealing and allows the Scatter laser to not need a points increase as its about as effective as the Shuricannon.

Combine this with Bladestorm only having AP3 on a '6' and the Scatter laser, Shuricannon and Star cannon are nicely balanced between each other and all seem to fill a purpose.

If you also make the Spiders' Deathspinner only Str5, suddenly the Shuricannon really becomes more appealing as the only Str6 weapon that can be taken en mass (since Star cannons are still pretty limited).



and BTW, making Scatter lasers Str5 is also the easiest to Errata since points cost is varied from platform to platform (hint, hint, GW!). Eldar Players would be fine with it and it would make the haters hate less.

-

I'd be fine with this. Especially given my opinion on St 5 vs St 6, which I stand by.

Martel732 wrote:
"...Try 4x as many (in the rear arc only)"

You're not inspiring confidence here. Knights have AV 12 sides as well, and the ion shield is usually on the front trying to fend off the incoming D weapons. Or lances. Or some other Eldar nastiness.

Obviously AV 13 is safe, but AV 13 is relatively rare, and cost effective AV 13 is almost non-existent.

Cool. So is 854pts (14 scatterbikes with 28 more to fill out the minimum squad sizes, in an imaginary world where scatter lasers are one gun per three) and an extra 300+pts for the D-weapon to draw out the ion shield in another arc still too cheap for enough guns to one-round a Knight? Should you be paying 994pts plus the D-weapon instead of 854pts plus the D-weapon to one-round a four hundred point model?

Cutting guns to one-per-three is a 34pt price hike to each scatterbike. Making it a 44pt price hike instead is unnecessary and irrelevant.

(That said if three scatterbikes with one gun were 61pts Harlequin jetbikes (50pts for one shuriken cannon with two wounds) start to look a bit less grotesquely overpriced.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Point of comparison: 291pts of Sternguard or Deathwatch with combi-meltas in a pod will kill an Imperial Knight in one round. According to Martel 1,154pts is too cheap for a generalist unit that'd to the same thing.)

I'm not talking about the 1 gun per 3 paradigm. You are. If only the Eldar paid 1,154 to kill anything.

I'm also not sure where you are getting the 291 for sternguard, but there is a big difference between suiciding sternguard against an ideal target and having scatbikes nuke it down from 36" away and live to keep nuking more units.

I tihnk the thing about scatbikes is less their raw damage potential, more their massive flexibility that's unbalancing.

They can move 12" normally, shoot 4 S6 shots at 36", have a 3+ save, can Jink, have Battle Focus, can turbo-boost, are obsec and can be taken in units of 3 with no mandatory sarge.

All for a relatively hefty points cost per model, but evidently it's not quite balanced enough as it's pretty iffy to choose something that's not scatbikes/cannonbikes in competitive play.

Rather than recosting, just knock those attributes down a peg. Even if they're significantly less killy with 1 S/L per 3, they've still got all the rest of the things they can do.

Of course, I'm assuming all these little nerfs will be applied equally to the other top tier armies (and the lowest tier ones buffed) so they all meet in the middle somewhere. Just swapping one top codex for a different one isn't really getting anywhere.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
I tihnk the thing about scatbikes is less their raw damage potential, more their massive flexibility that's unbalancing.

They can move 12" normally, shoot 4 S6 shots at 36", have a 3+ save, can Jink, have Battle Focus, can turbo-boost, are obsec and can be taken in units of 3 with no mandatory sarge.

All for a relatively hefty points cost per model, but evidently it's not quite balanced enough as it's pretty iffy to choose something that's not scatbikes/cannonbikes in competitive play.

Rather than recosting, just knock those attributes down a peg. Even if they're significantly less killy with 1 S/L per 3, they've still got all the rest of the things they can do.

Of course, I'm assuming all these little nerfs will be applied equally to the other top tier armies (and the lowest tier ones buffed) so they all meet in the middle somewhere. Just swapping one top codex for a different one isn't really getting anywhere.

You start with the most aggregious units/weapons.

If the scatbikes don't table me in three turns, I deal with jink, turbo boost, etc.

Yep.

Often I see reasonable changes (be they nerfs or buffs) rejected because $OTHER_FACTION still has problems. It's a cold day in hell that I ever see a change proposed as "this is the one change that will make the entire system perfect, no others are required". The demand for a Grand Unified Fix or nothing at all seems a bit unreasonable to me.

I don't like the hacksaw approach, either. Too many changes at once is bad. I prefer to appropriately cost the scatterlaser for 7th ed, but 4+ armor might do the trick.

The WK just needs a points boost. Done.

Warp spiders need a hefty points hike or to lose some kind of battlefield efficacy.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not talking about the 1 gun per 3 paradigm. You are. If only the Eldar paid 1,154 to kill anything.

I'm also not sure where you are getting the 291 for sternguard, but there is a big difference between suiciding sternguard against an ideal target and having scatbikes nuke it down from 36" away and live to keep nuking more units.

You're trying to put forth a change that makes less sense and leaves Scatterbikes much more powerful, on the basis that the cost of the gun in a vacuum is somehow relevant to the actual problem. I'm trying to point out that one-gun-in-three is enough to take them from a mediocre anti-armour weapon to an incredibly bad anti-armour weapon. You're trying to claim that they were a good anti-armour weapon in the first place, which is patently absurd.