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.

mmimzie wrote:
You 100% have to pay for the spirit stone because thier is FAQ presadent. In imperium one the company commander gas a co bat shield that is not listed in his war gear. In an FAQ the question was asked if thus had to be paid for and the answer was yes. As such you probably also have to pay for the autarch force shield., but as karhedron says this is a sort of boon to the skyrunner autarch.

100% wrong.

Well, you're 100% right if you play a Space Marine army, as the FAQ relates to Space Marines. Not just Vanilla marines, but all the chapters in Index: Imperium1. Wierdly, they then didn't correct the issue with the Space Marine codex - the shield is still listed as an ability not wargear, and the new SM codex FAQ doesn't correct it or specify that you pay for it, so they're back to where they started on that. But there is Index Errata precedent, so people can at least refer to that.

However, this is the Eldar Tactica, and so we only need to follow rules written in the BRB, the Eldar Codex, and any Eldar FAQ/Errata. We do NOT need to follow rules written in some other random codex release that we have no business even looking at. So we don't pay for abilities, until GW specifically says otherwise. They had a chance to correct this with the Codex, and they've had a couple of Errata releases to correct it, and they haven't. So until they do, we save 10 points on the Hemlock.

Will this change when they release the Codex Errata? Probably, if they even think about it. Until then, enjoy your free spirit stones.

I still find it ridiculous that people say this like it's true, as if an Eldar player should turn up to a game with FAQ printouts from armies they don't even play. It's no different than saying "oh, in order to play as Tau, you need to also bring the Necron, Eldar, IG and Tyranid codices with you, otherwise you might not know all the rules relevant to your units!"

If tournaments make a different ruling (which so far most haven't, as far as I've noticed) then that is their business, as they can make up any rules they want, it's their tournament. Tournaments set all sorts of rule changes and limitations, doesn't make any of them the official rules, just the rules for that tournament.

Hunter vs Hemlock is really target-dependent. Assuming a 200 point Hemlock, the 6+ FNP makes the two more-or-less equally durable per point except insofar as the Hemlock's shorter range makes it more vulnerable. This can be a big deal. The Hemlock is far more vulnerable to CC (Hive Tyrants, big Daemons, etc.) even if its overwatch is pretty scary, and it's going to take a lot of opportunistic fire from small arms. On the other hand, the Hemlock doesn't degrade noticeably as it takes damage.

Offensively, the Hemlock is as good or better against almost everything if it can stay away from enemy psykers. Smite puts it over the top. It's far better against things with invulnerable saves or with only a small number of wounds per model.

So for example against a big T7 3+ model, Hemlocks are paying about 28 ppw with Smite, while Hunters are paying 30 ppw (22.5 ppw if it has Fly but not Hard to Hit). If an enemy psyker is around to attempt to deny Smite, then the Hemlock is paying 30.6. It's really only when there are psychic bonuses or penalties involved that the Hemlock falls behind. Shadow in the Warp plus a deny attempt cuts the usefulness of Smite in half, so that the Hemlock is paying 32.2 ppw against T7 3+. Magnus with +2 to his deny rolls is slightly more effective than that, even. Of course, Crimson Hunters also have problems vs Hive Tyrants and Magnus, since they've got good invulnerable saves, but they do significantly better than Hemlocks as long as the Tyrants have wings. On the other hand, Hemlocks don't have to cast Smite, and Jinx on a Tyrant or Magnus is a huge deal if you have other units in place to take advantage of it.

I feel like Hunters have a place at least for the Tyranid matchup, but that Hemlocks are going to be overall better in an army which otherwise is getting right up in the enemy's face. Even against Tyranids, Hemlocks are often going to be able to usefully pick off non-psykers from outside deny range. Plus Hemlocks are just far better against an opponent who doesn't bring big models, especially with their -2 Ld bubble.

Niiru wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
You 100% have to pay for the spirit stone because thier is FAQ presadent. In imperium one the company commander gas a co bat shield that is not listed in his war gear. In an FAQ the question was asked if thus had to be paid for and the answer was yes. As such you probably also have to pay for the autarch force shield., but as karhedron says this is a sort of boon to the skyrunner autarch.

100% wrong.

Well, you're 100% right if you play a Space Marine army, as the FAQ relates to Space Marines. Not just Vanilla marines, but all the chapters in Index: Imperium1. Wierdly, they then didn't correct the issue with the Space Marine codex - the shield is still listed as an ability not wargear, and the new SM codex FAQ doesn't correct it or specify that you pay for it, so they're back to where they started on that. But there is Index Errata precedent, so people can at least refer to that.

However, this is the Eldar Tactica, and so we only need to follow rules written in the BRB, the Eldar Codex, and any Eldar FAQ/Errata. We do NOT need to follow rules written in some other random codex release that we have no business even looking at. So we don't pay for abilities, until GW specifically says otherwise. They had a chance to correct this with the Codex, and they've had a couple of Errata releases to correct it, and they haven't. So until they do, we save 10 points on the Hemlock.

Will this change when they release the Codex Errata? Probably, if they even think about it. Until then, enjoy your free spirit stones.

I still find it ridiculous that people say this like it's true, as if an Eldar player should turn up to a game with FAQ printouts from armies they don't even play. It's no different than saying "oh, in order to play as Tau, you need to also bring the Necron, Eldar, IG and Tyranid codices with you, otherwise you might not know all the rules relevant to your units!"

If tournaments make a different ruling (which so far most haven't, as far as I've noticed) then that is their business, as they can make up any rules they want, it's their tournament. Tournaments set all sorts of rule changes and limitations, doesn't make any of them the official rules, just the rules for that tournament.

I don't think it's fair to call him wrong. He found an identical situation and GW ruled in his favor on that. It's perfectly logical to assume they would rule the same way in an identical case.

 Xenomancers wrote:

sadhvikv wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yes. So at T7 - even if you roll 6 hits every time - only 4 will wound and then he will pass 2 invo saves - this leaves you with 4 average damage which doesn't even diminish a hive tyrant. In reality though you only average 3-4 hits and your damage will be 2.

He can even repair D3 with a 1 point stratagem every turn. Hate to say it - but the hemlock craze is all hype. The main reason hemlocks were good was they could cast a conceal bubble and had reliable damage + could get up and smite things in the face late game. Without conceal and with the rise of tyranids - The crimson hunter is taking over. It can play at safe range - has higher damage potential and costs less. Hemlocks aren't even competitive within the craftworld codex I am afraid.

I find this opinion very interesting. What is everyone else's thoughts/experiences on the hemlock vs crimson hunter? I've played two games with the new codex, first with 3 hemlocks and second with 2 hemlocks and a crimson hunter. In that second game my opponent ran three Crimson hunters. The hemlocks outperformed the Crimson hunters considerably, the auto-hits regardless of a degrading profile, combined with -2 with alaitoc, makes them insanely reliable through long portions of the game and require a lot of effort to deal with.

Their average damage is pretty equal statistically - the hunter is better against t7 vehicals too - considering it costs less and utilizes the 12" -1 to hit rule a lot better with 36 inch range weapons. It's a clear winner. Having powers is nice and all but keeping your flyer alive is more important than that.

If your opponent is shooting your flier. GREAT!!! you want them to kill that thing to be honest. Why?? Well let me ask what reason does your opponent have to kill your flier?? For the points the fliers do less damage to whatever they shoot, but are super durable. So if your opponent wants to remove anti vehicle threats they'd be better served shooting literally anything else.... THen when we look at winning the game... fliers can't claim objectives and they don't count toward seeing if you've been tabled or not. As such if your opponent is trying to win or objectives or tabling, or in other words if your opponent is trying to win the game they should ignore your flier. As such durability is the last aspect you want in your flier, and also for that reason i think you only want one or two at most for fliers in your list.

Damage wise i think both fliers do something that we have an embarrassment of riches in, and that's anti-armor damage. Bright lances can be slapped on everything, and are a pretty good anti armor option, and are fair priced. Some can take more for the points like war walkers, and others less.

From thier we have other exception anti armor options such as: Fire prisms which do the same or more than a hunter or hemlock against all toughness values, and can be raised to bonkers levels with the stratagem.

Shining spears that i think we all know are amazing despite the terrible models (kit bash them they look great that way <.<.

Repears are also quite great in the anti armor role, and other untis can be made passable.

So why take either flier??? If we were looking for mazing anti armor <.< honestly i wouldn't really take either I'd take a multie fire prism, multie shining spear units, and mayeb reapers (the repears aren't as durable though). As they more durable than the hunter?? debatable.... but as i said before that does matter.

The reason you take the hemlock specifically is pretty clear. IT has possible anti armor damage, andabout even at T6 and T8, and if you count in smite it wins against all targets. The reason you bring the hemlock is specifically the -2LD aura, and the negative runes of battle. You take the cost of one warlock off your army (really a spirit seer, but since you can't also do the positive side we'll be nice and take the warlock price off) even with the spirit stone points counted you get the same prices as a crimson hunter exarch. Then even more importantly the -2LD bubble.
|
Eldar compared to other armies simply don't deal with hordes. They can't do it. They don't have a leg to stand on. THe -2LD bubble allows you to deal with these hordes as it force multiplies your hole army by picking up wounds accross multiple units via leader ship. Even nerfed eldar can't deal with concript blocks well, and infantry squads which were featured in a few of the recent tournament winning list we don't take down efficiently with anything we have. When compared to other armies that put out more anti horde level damage, and still struggle.

In summary:

The hemlock is like taking a cirson hunter exarch that does more damage and a warlock (who can still cast smite, but no positive buffs) and putting them together.

Flier durability doesn't really matter because it's already super high, and it doesn't directly help your opponent win either through tabling or objective control.

The -2LD bubble is borderline mandatory for eldar armies who lack the nessary anti horde damage other armies that still struggle against horde armies pack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
You 100% have to pay for the spirit stone because thier is FAQ presadent. In imperium one the company commander gas a co bat shield that is not listed in his war gear. In an FAQ the question was asked if thus had to be paid for and the answer was yes. As such you probably also have to pay for the autarch force shield., but as karhedron says this is a sort of boon to the skyrunner autarch.

100% wrong.

Well, you're 100% right if you play a Space Marine army, as the FAQ relates to Space Marines. Not just Vanilla marines, but all the chapters in Index: Imperium1. Wierdly, they then didn't correct the issue with the Space Marine codex - the shield is still listed as an ability not wargear, and the new SM codex FAQ doesn't correct it or specify that you pay for it, so they're back to where they started on that. But there is Index Errata precedent, so people can at least refer to that.

However, this is the Eldar Tactica, and so we only need to follow rules written in the BRB, the Eldar Codex, and any Eldar FAQ/Errata. We do NOT need to follow rules written in some other random codex release that we have no business even looking at. So we don't pay for abilities, until GW specifically says otherwise. They had a chance to correct this with the Codex, and they've had a couple of Errata releases to correct it, and they haven't. So until they do, we save 10 points on the Hemlock.

Will this change when they release the Codex Errata? Probably, if they even think about it. Until then, enjoy your free spirit stones.

I still find it ridiculous that people say this like it's true, as if an Eldar player should turn up to a game with FAQ printouts from armies they don't even play. It's no different than saying "oh, in order to play as Tau, you need to also bring the Necron, Eldar, IG and Tyranid codices with you, otherwise you might not know all the rules relevant to your units!"

If tournaments make a different ruling (which so far most haven't, as far as I've noticed) then that is their business, as they can make up any rules they want, it's their tournament. Tournaments set all sorts of rule changes and limitations, doesn't make any of them the official rules, just the rules for that tournament.

you say they didn't correct the issue... but what if to GW it isn't an issue and it should be obvious you ahve to pay.... so then thier is nothing to correct, and no mistake was made...

Edit: similar rules situations were present in AoS where they said that if the issue is the same in other armies it will apply. This was the case with the ring of immortality and pheonixs coming back to life. If you are familiar with that issue.

Also in 7th the techmarine rules and FAQs for repairing models were also said to apply to the techpriest in mechanius. The FAQ is organized to help you sort for relavent information, but they aren't restricted to only apply thier. No where is it stated otherwise

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think it's fair to call him wrong. He found an identical situation and GW ruled in his favor on that. It's perfectly logical to assume they would rule the same way in an identical case.

Oh, I agree with that, it's perfectly logical to assume that GW would rule in that way. The whole point though is that they haven't ruled it in either direction yet.

It also wouldn't be the first time that one army has a rule that goes one way, and another army gets a rule that goes the total opposite way.

Just look at traits/attributes. Going by that logic, Craftworld Attributes should only affect infantry, bikers and wraithlords, as that is the precedent set by the space marine codex. But GW defied that logic, and gave attributes to all craftworld units.

So yeh, while there's precedent to believe that GW *might* rule in favour of spirit stones costing points, there's also equal precedent to assume that they will rule the complete opposite.

So until there is a ruling one way or another (which so far, there isn't), you do not pay for Hemlock spirit stones.

Hopefully GW clear it up in the Errata for the codex in the next couple weeks, but I wouldn't count on it.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Hunter vs Hemlock is really target-dependent. Assuming a 200 point Hemlock, the 6+ FNP makes the two more-or-less equally durable per point except insofar as the Hemlock's shorter range makes it more vulnerable. This can be a big deal. The Hemlock is far more vulnerable to CC (Hive Tyrants, big Daemons, etc.) even if its overwatch is pretty scary, and it's going to take a lot of opportunistic fire from small arms. On the other hand, the Hemlock doesn't degrade noticeably as it takes damage.

Offensively, the Hemlock is as good or better against almost everything if it can stay away from enemy psykers. Smite puts it over the top. It's far better against things with invulnerable saves or with only a small number of wounds per model.

So for example against a big T7 3+ model, Hemlocks are paying about 28 ppw with Smite, while Hunters are paying 30 ppw (22.5 ppw if it has Fly but not Hard to Hit). If an enemy psyker is around to attempt to deny Smite, then the Hemlock is paying 30.6. It's really only when there are psychic bonuses or penalties involved that the Hemlock falls behind. Shadow in the Warp plus a deny attempt cuts the usefulness of Smite in half, so that the Hemlock is paying 32.2 ppw against T7 3+. Magnus with +2 to his deny rolls is slightly more effective than that, even. Of course, Crimson Hunters also have problems vs Hive Tyrants and Magnus, since they've got good invulnerable saves, but they do significantly better than Hemlocks as long as the Tyrants have wings. On the other hand, Hemlocks don't have to cast Smite, and Jinx on a Tyrant or Magnus is a huge deal if you have other units in place to take advantage of it.

I feel like Hunters have a place at least for the Tyranid matchup, but that Hemlocks are going to be overall better in an army which otherwise is getting right up in the enemy's face. Even against Tyranids, Hemlocks are often going to be able to usefully pick off non-psykers from outside deny range. Plus Hemlocks are just far better against an opponent who doesn't bring big models, especially with their -2 Ld bubble.

Crimson can also take 2 star cannons - which makes it a great anti infantry/light vehicle specialist too. The ability to specialize within your list is another bonus for the hunter. Typically though - my elder forces are looking for anti tank - shurikens seems to handle things with low wound counts no problem.

Niiru wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think it's fair to call him wrong. He found an identical situation and GW ruled in his favor on that. It's perfectly logical to assume they would rule the same way in an identical case.

Oh, I agree with that, it's perfectly logical to assume that GW would rule in that way. The whole point though is that they haven't ruled it in either direction yet.

It also wouldn't be the first time that one army has a rule that goes one way, and another army gets a rule that goes the total opposite way.

Just look at traits/attributes. Going by that logic, Craftworld Attributes should only affect infantry, bikers and wraithlords, as that is the precedent set by the space marine codex. But GW defied that logic, and gave attributes to all craftworld units.

So yeh, while there's precedent to believe that GW *might* rule in favour of spirit stones costing points, there's also equal precedent to assume that they will rule the complete opposite.

So until there is a ruling one way or another (which so far, there isn't), you do not pay for Hemlock spirit stones.

Hopefully GW clear it up in the Errata for the codex in the next couple weeks, but I wouldn't count on it.

Honestly the fact that it's an FAQ means the way they wrote the rule isn't an error. GW doesn't think they did anything wrong, or thier is a mistake. IF they thought they messed up in how your supposed to point your stuff they would have errata'd the marine combat shield into the the wargear.

As as i can see, wargear that is none weapon related doesn't appear in the wargear section. SO it seems none weapon wargear that isn't optional appears in the ability section as a rule of thumb.

So until they FAQ otherwise you do infact pay for the hemlock spirit stone and autarch shield.

mmimzie wrote:

If your opponent is shooting your flier. GREAT!!! you want them to kill that thing to be honest. Why?? Well let me ask what reason does your opponent have to kill your flier?? For the points the fliers do less damage to whatever they shoot, but are super durable. So if your opponent wants to remove anti vehicle threats they'd be better served shooting literally anything else.... THen when we look at winning the game... fliers can't claim objectives and they don't count toward seeing if you've been tabled or not. As such if your opponent is trying to win or objectives or tabling, or in other words if your opponent is trying to win the game they should ignore your flier. As such durability is the last aspect you want in your flier, and also for that reason i think you only want one or two at most for fliers in your list.

This isn't true at all. Eldar flyers are actually very efficient damage-dealers. A Hunter costs about the same as the perfectly-respectable Ravager, but has almost 33% more firepower. It has far more anti-tank firepower than a single (stationary!) Fire Prism; I have no idea why you say a Prism does better. A Hunter has almost as much firepower as a 190 point (again, stationary) quad-las Predator. And as I noted in my last post, a Hemlock with Smite matches or beats it against almost every target. Hemlocks do as well or better than standard Dark Reapers against pretty much everything you'd actually want to shoot at with Dark Reapers, absent Yvraine. You need to go to Fire Dragons or Shining Spears to find something that delivers the pain more efficiently, and flyers can reliably do it every single turn until they get destroyed, which is hard to do because they're actually pretty durable.

Edit: Outside of one match vs Brimstone Horror spam, I don't think I've ever played a game where it would have made sense for my opponent to just ignore my Hemlocks in favor of trying to table the rest of my army, and I typically play with 3 flyers. 3 Hemlocks often threaten to more-or-less table the non-GEQ components of many lists by themselves.

mmimzie wrote:

you say they didn't correct the issue... but what if to GW it isn't an issue and it should be obvious you ahve to pay.... so then thier is nothing to correct, and no mistake was made...

I mean, this would be stupid even for them. No reasonable person can think that it's obvious that Autarchs have to pay an extra 6 points because they have an ability called force shield. Like, most players probably do not even realize that there's a wargear entry of the same name, period. It appears as an option on a single, not-very-popular unit, and, even if they could provide that information if asked, they have to be conscious of it at the same time as they're reading the Autarch entry so that they can put two and two together. Most people aren't even going to get to the point where they have to ask whether the absence of force shield as explicit wargear means that it's free (which RAW it clearly would be, absent the Imperium 1 FAQ which very few Eldar players will ever read). I would honestly be pretty surprised if this isn't addressed in the upcoming FAQ, but if it's not addressed I'm going to feel like GW is comfortable with the way that almost every Eldar player is actually going to end up playing it.

I'm just going to wait for the Errata and see what it says, one way or another. It's 10 points anyway so it's hardly the worst thing in the world.

Heres the math against a rhino.

Hemlock 4hitsx(2/3)wounds = 5.32
Smite assuming no denial or screens = 1.85

7.17 average damage.

Crimson 2x bright lance 1.55 hits w reroll 1's (2/3) Wounds x 3.5damage = 3.61
pulse lase 1.55 hits w reroll 1'sx (2/3) wounds x3 damage =3.09 damage x (5/6) 6+ save= 2.6

6.21 average damage.

Fixed numbers - crimson still beats hemlock without smite.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres the math against a rhino.

Hemlock 3.5hitsx(2/3)wounds = 2.33
Smite assuming no denial or screens = 1.95

4.3 average damage.

Crimson 2x bright lance 1.65 hits +reroll 1's +.222 x (2/3) Wounds x 3.5damage = 4.36
pulse lase 1.65 hits x +.222 x (2/3) wounds x3 damage = 3.75damage x (5/6) 6+ save= 3.14

7.5 average damage.

Again - hemlocks don't deal more damage against a rhino than a hunter even when you factor smite. Plus smite is easily denied or screening by chaff...So really - a hunter is close to being twice as effective against t7 armor as a hemlock.

Hemlocks average 4 shots, not 3.5, and those shots do 2 damage each. Smite also averages only ~1.8 wounds (you may have mistakenly had it do d6 wounds on a 10+ rather than an 11+). They average 7.13 wounds on a Rhino.

Crimson Hunters hit on a 3+ when they move, not a 2+, so they expect 1.33 hits with each kind of weapon, not 1.67. Regular Hunters don't re-roll anything unless the target has Fly. They average 5.33 wounds on a Rhino.

I did some numbers in an earlier post today about how denying affects this. Regular denies only cut Smite to 1.2 average wounds. It's only when you start bringing in SitW or Magnus that it becomes a big problem.

So... with our ability to use webways, I'm thinking of giving Footdar a run again. Tentative build I'm looking at. Assume the exarch is in all the units.

Craftworld Ulthwe
Eldrad
Asurman
Autarch

10x Dire Avengers
10x Dire Avengers
10x Dire Avengers
5x Rangers

8x Fire Dragons

10x Warp Spiders
1 Vyper w/ 2 ShuriCannons

10 Dark Reapers
10 Dark Reapers
3 War Walkers w/ Scatters

The idea if the DA and Reapers with HQ hold a solid firebase down in my zone, and use the High Speed/Deep Strike for the rest of the army to surround/annoy the opponent, and hopefully keeping him distracted from the real threats. I'm going to be unable to test anything out until March unfortunately, given the vagaries of military life...

Fireprism does respectable damage to all kinds of targets - that's why they are valuable. Their anti tank isn't better than a crimson. It does under 7 average damage to a t7 tank. Fire prisms really shine when shooting at terminators and meq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Heres the math against a rhino.

Hemlock 3.5hitsx(2/3)wounds = 2.33
Smite assuming no denial or screens = 1.95

4.3 average damage.

Crimson 2x bright lance 1.65 hits +reroll 1's +.222 x (2/3) Wounds x 3.5damage = 4.36
pulse lase 1.65 hits x +.222 x (2/3) wounds x3 damage = 3.75damage x (5/6) 6+ save= 3.14

7.5 average damage.

Again - hemlocks don't deal more damage against a rhino than a hunter even when you factor smite. Plus smite is easily denied or screening by chaff...So really - a hunter is close to being twice as effective against t7 armor as a hemlock.

Hemlocks average 4 shots, not 3.5, and those shots do 2 damage each. Smite also averages only ~1.8 wounds (you may have mistakenly had it do d6 wounds on a 10+ rather than an 11+). They average 7.13 wounds on a Rhino.

Crimson Hunters hit on a 3+ when they move, not a 2+, so they expect 1.33 hits with each kind of weapon, not 1.67. Regular Hunters don't re-roll anything unless the target has Fly. They average 5.33 wounds on a Rhino.

I did some numbers in an earlier post today about how denying affects this. Regular denies only cut Smite to 1.2 average wounds. It's only when you start bringing in SitW or Magnus that it becomes a big problem.

You are right I did make some mistakes on the math. Crimson hunter exarchs reroll 1's to hit though. I will fix my errors.

Dark Reapers using Fire and Fade is brutal!

Had a game earlier today with some LOS terrain I was able to deploy Reapers behind. Towards corner of board. Enemy could DS near them and had forewarned to discourage it anyway. Had a decent size unit of them just cripple or destroy a tank each turn with no return fire thank to moving back begins the los blocking terrain after their move.

With 13CPs I felt I had freedom to burn them on things like this each turn. Between the Reapers and the Hemlocks, wipes out all the armoured targets on the board in 2 turns.

I will try 2 Hemlocks and 1 CHE next time instead of 3 Hemlocks..

Doing the Hemlock Conga line also came in handy to keep the resulting foot sloggers at bay from objectives I was holding.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fireprism does respectable damage to all kinds of targets - that's why they are valuable. Their anti tank isn't better than a crimson. It does under 7 average damage to a t7 tank. Fire prisms really shine when shooting at terminators and meq.

What about 2 Fire Prisms plus the 1CP stratagem? How much better than a single Fire Prism, not just in terms of firepower but survivability?

Just wondering as you brought the unit up and I haven’t fielded two Fire Prisms simultaneously yet.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fireprism does respectable damage to all kinds of targets - that's why they are valuable. Their anti tank isn't better than a crimson. It does under 7 average damage to a t7 tank. Fire prisms really shine when shooting at terminators and meq.

What about 2 Fire Prisms plus the 1CP stratagem? How much better than a single Fire Prism, not just in terms of firepower but survivability?

Just wondering as you brought the unit up and I haven’t fielded two Fire Prisms simultaneously yet.

For typical anti-tank shooting, the stratagem is a 78% increase in expected damage. Which is really good. Against a Rhino you go from expecting 3.56 wounds to expecting 6.32 wounds, per Prism. So that's respectable. 2 Prisms and a CP expect to kill a 10-12W vehicle. Though note that even with the stratagem this is only about the same as a Crimson Hunter Exarch (or regular Hunter near an Autarch). Prisms are paying a lot for S9 and access to the dispersed mode. The stratagem also has a major drawback in that the Prisms have to shoot the same target, so you're likely to overkill it.

I don't understand the question about survivability. I guess the stratagem allows you to keep one Prism out of LoS, but the other will just get shot instead unless you use Fire and Fade too, and I doubt that all this work will generally be worth it. The main thing to keep in mind when you have multiple Prisms is that your opponent has a lot of reason to try to kill all but one of them, so you're painting targets on them. Killing 1 of your 2 Prisms cuts your anti-tank firepower by 70%.

What about Alaitoc & -1 to hit stratagem on top of it to make enemy shooting less effective? How about target priority? (prisms working together with serpents carrying something on the level of Yvraine & WG)

The prisms sorta having "weak link" is understandable, but they're very pleasing aesthetically and it's first edition when they can do *something*, since one where they would lose their main gun turn 1 and then score you objectives rolling Holo-Fields. I finally want to melt something with them. They also have that 2d6 anti-infantry option.

Problem is, 2 is not that survivable, while 3 is an overkill. And you can't bring 2x2 and make it work with the deathstar card.

Am I reading Forewarned correctly?

If you have a unit of say, for example, 10 reapers sitting within 6” of a farseer, they can light up *anything* they can see deepstriking within the 48” range of their weapons for 2 CP? And this happens during the opponents movement phase, like for example, if the opponent with tempestus command squads likes to drop them first turn? And there’s no penalty on the to-hit rolls, like with auspex scan, and they presumably benefit from nearby autarchs and phoenix lord rerolls? And you can do this over and over again until your CPs run out?

Screening against turn one alphastrikes now obsolete?

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
Am I reading Forewarned correctly?

If you have a unit of say, for example, 10 reapers sitting within 6” of a farseer, they can light up *anything* they can see deepstriking within the 48” range of their weapons for 2 CP? And this happens during the opponents movement phase, like for example, if the opponent with tempestus command squads likes to drop them first turn? And there’s no penalty on the to-hit rolls, like with auspex scan, and they presumably benefit from nearby autarchs and phoenix lord rerolls? And you can do this over and over again until your CPs run out?

Screening against turn one alphastrikes now obsolete?

yeah....kinda makes the auspex scanner from the space marines codex look like crap. that has to be at -1 and only within 12 inches lol.

Well, Reapers would ignore that -1 regardless.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
Am I reading Forewarned correctly?

If you have a unit of say, for example, 10 reapers sitting within 6” of a farseer, they can light up *anything* they can see deepstriking within the 48” range of their weapons for 2 CP? And this happens during the opponents movement phase, like for example, if the opponent with tempestus command squads likes to drop them first turn? And there’s no penalty on the to-hit rolls, like with auspex scan, and they presumably benefit from nearby autarchs and phoenix lord rerolls? And you can do this over and over again until your CPs run out?

Screening against turn one alphastrikes now obsolete?

Well I mean, for a start it's 2CP, so you won't be able to do it very much, or if you do you won't be able to use any other stratagems. It's hardly cheap.

And you can only do it once per turn, so if your opponent is doing a Turn 1 Alpha Strike, you can only shoot at one of their incoming units.

So depending on the unit thats incoming, the Dark Reapers may be able to take out 3 or 4 models from a single incoming alpha strike unit. For 2CP.

Hardly all that overpowered. The only part of it that stands out is the range - the Reapers can shoot at a deep striking unit up to 48" away. Might make the enemy have to think twice before picking model placement.

With Fire and Fade, keep your transports near your FireDragons and if they get los blocking from the WS ....you will usually get a 2nd turn drop then 3rd turn shoot again and jump in the WS. Usually after a WS drops off the cargo.... the opponent will rarely shoot at the WS.


One thing about Forwarned is that most armies have 1 to 3 deep striking units so it is very effective unless the opponent is trying to overload on Deep strike and with half their units deployed....only a few army builds will actually have too many for you to be overwhelmed with....so its a 2 cp use once per game.

Oh right, forgot about strategic discipline rule. I was thinking it could be done repeatedly until CPs ran out.

That’s smart with the wave serpent + fire and fade, though.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
What about 2 Fire Prisms plus the 1CP stratagem? How much better than a single Fire Prism, not just in terms of firepower but survivability?

Well in terms of firepower it gives both Prisms the equivalent of Guide and Doom which is pretty handy, it also means one can hide outside LOS.

Survivability is harder to measure, especially when you start stacking to-Hit modifiers. Are the FPs Alaitoc? Are the aircraft? I have often found the FPs greatest defense is its range. You can sit in a corner and not much will be able to touch it. You do need to bubble wrap though if you are relying purely on range for defense otherwise Deep Strikers will have a field day.

Also bear in mind the mind games being played with Forewarned. Imagine your opponent has 3 units to DS with 1 of them being what you want to shoot at. They can deploy the first 2, you don’t shoot at them, then they choose not to DS the third unit.

You have lost the opportunity to shoot at either of the prior 2 units. If you were to shoot at them, opponent could safely deploy their biggest DS threat without fear. They now have a turn of shooting and Melee to deal with your Reapers before they have the next opportunity to DS their main unit.

Yes they have not DS’d their unit that turn which is still helpful so the Stratagem has had an indirect impact, but may lead to all their units DS without being shot at.

 Sarigar wrote:
I'm participating in a 3 round local event. I've gotten one game in previously with a variation of the army, so this is a bit of a learning experience. Not sure what I will be facing today. Here is what I'm bringing:

Alaitoc Craftworld

Vanguard Detachment
Farseer, Singing Spear (Shiftshroud, Puritanical Leader)
2 x 5 Wraithguard with D-Scythes
1 x 5 Wraithguard with Wraithcannon
2 x 1 Wave Serpent with Twin Scatter and Shuriken Cannon

Outrider Detachment
Spirit Seer
1 x 6 Shining Spears with Laser Lance and 1 Star Lance
1 x 5 Swooping Hawks with Lasblaster
1 x 5 Warp Spiders with 6 Deathspinners, Powerblades

Airwing Detachment
2 x 1 Hemlock Wraithfigthers
1 x 1 Crimson Hunter Exarch, 2 Brightlances, Pulse Laser

Not overly optimized. Needs to be WYSIWYG and painted, so there are some limitations in my list as a result. Ran out of time to swap out Twin Scatterlasers for Twin Shuriken Cannons.

I'll write up how things went and (hopefully) have some pics.

We had 13 players: 4 Eldar, 4 Imperial Guard, 4 Chaos, 1 Genestealer Cult. We played ATC missions except we use the +1 to initiative roll if you finish deploying first. No Marines?

I had first round bye as we had several folks who were from out of town and made easy. I get 10 points.

Round 2 vs a Magnus/Brimstone Chaos army. The huge takeaways was my opponent's deployment. With Cultists and Brimstones, he blocked me out so I had to drop in front of his army. Also, Slaanesh Obliterators are very strong. He had a lot of psychic nullifying abilities. He stole the initiative which gave his Nurglings the ability to get and keep the Relic (Primary Objective). I took a 10-9 loss.

Round 3 vs IG. 12 Leman Russ Tanks with Pask! I was not sure I had enough firepower to go through that many hulls. I got first turn, Played the army aggressive and dropped 2 tanks turn 1 and continued to weather the shooting. Alaitoc Trait came into play here quite a bit. I lost one Hemlock, but afterwards, never lost another wound as they were too difficult to target and the Wraithguard were too much of a threat. I tabled him on turn 6 for max points.

Missed 3rd by one point; not bad for not playing game one.

Units
-: Hemlocks are fantastic but I think nearly all Eldar players agree. My biggest challenge is do I take swap out the Crimson Hunter Exarch for a third Hemlock?
- Crimson Hunter Exarch. Getting reroll '1' to hit rolls was clutch, especially in the game against IG. Definitely worth the extra 15 points. For me, it is competing against a 3rd Hemlock in an Airwing. I could look into taking a fourth flier, but points would definitely get tight.
- Warp Spiders. Poor unit to be honest. They did very little against Chaos and just held my home objective against IG. Dropping them.
- Hawks. They did exactly what I use them for: hold an objective that my opponent can't shoot at. For 65 points, they do an admirable job at this. I shot once with them and out of 20 shots, killed 2 Brimstones. Yeah, not overly impressive for shooting.
- Spiritseer: Against Chaos, Quicken got denied twice! Against IG, he worked exactly as intended by getting Shining Spears into the heart of IG tanks to blow one up and force another to get out of assault the following turn.
- Shining Spears: They hit really hard! They dropped a Rhino, Bezerker Squad and Chaos character who was the Warlord in one turn. Very impressed with this unit. I'd like to develop ways to play them better as they got crushed in both games after their initial punch.
- Wraithguard: D-Scythes forced my Chaos player to not be as aggressive as he could not get the assaults lined up quite right. Against the IG, they were the primary target as they had to get within 12", so I lost my Alaitoc bonus. Extremely good, but using the Webway portal for a squad is very situational. Against Chaos, I was completely boxed out and my Wraithguard/Wraithcannon were wasted. Against IG, they were rock stars.


Alaitoc Craftworld: It has merit and I definitely need to play it more to get a better feel. It really hindered IG, but they have things like reroll '1' to hit (Cadia doctrine) and Leman Russ firing twice really helps mitigate the -1. Hemlocks and Wraithguard get in so close so fast, I'm not quite sure I need this trait. It did help get my two Wave Serpents into position, but I don't think that was game breaking. I'm wondering if Ulthwe' would be more useful for my army; and then look at taking Eldrad.

Psychics: I cast Smite, Executioner, Doom, and Quicken. Until GW neuters Smite, it is just that good of an ability for me. If it hinders my army, it also hinders other army builds, so I won't be too upset if I have to change things up a bit.

Stratagems: I used Webway Assault to great effect against IG, but wasted it against Chaos with their deployment strategy. I planned on Fire and Fade to land on the relic, shoot and Fire and Fade move away with it. But, being seized changed that plan. I mainly used Command Points for rerolls. I was judicious with them against Chaos, but burned 5 out of 6 on turn 1 against IG on turn 1 (I was going for the alpha strike). I'd like to get more Command Points, but need to explore building a Battalion.

Overall, the list hit pretty hard, but needs a few tweaks. Going up against an army with good psychic defenses can really put a damper on my list. This is a key where I think running Ynnari makes an even greater case for better efficiency. I really did not utilize Battle Focus and the Alaitoc may not be the best fit for my style of army.


Out of the Eldar armies, all four were VERY different.

Alaitoc Craftworld: Bikes, Rangers, 3 Crimson Hunters, and a smattering of Aspect Warriors (took 2nd place overall)
Alaitoc Craftworld: 12(?...a lot) Vypers and 3 Fire Prisms: Crazy list, but lost his last game against a Chaos army and gained no points from it which crushed his score. I think he was 8th or 9th.
Ulthwe Footdar: Avatar, Eldrad, 5 squads of Reapers and Maugan Ra, Banshees, Guardians. Won two, but didn't garner many points and he got 0 points on his loss putting him at 10th place. But, the Reapers definitely convinced me I need some. It's the one unit I know is points efficient, but don't currently own. That will be rectified.

Looking forward to getting more games in as I really like all the options this codex affords us.

Niiru wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:


I just double checked in case I did something wrong or missed something and in the codex and there is nothing in there for warwalkers that states they act independent of each other after deployment, so they are a single unit of 3 that must keep squad coherency, so when the power fortune targets a unit all 3 get the bonus.

You are totally correct. How strange. This actually increases my opinion of war walkers as it means they can take buffs from psychic abilities the same as Vypers can. Vypers get the benefit of craftworld attributes though, but even so I think war walkers pull ahead (if you have a psyker near them).

Might even be good to have a warlock nearby, conceal would give the war walkers the equivalent of the Alaitoc -1 to hit, or protect/jinx could improve your invulnerable to a 4++ or drop the enemy unit's saves if they get close enough.

You are talking as if War Walkers don't benefit from craftworld attributes, you know they can right?

I am not a fan of the new war walkers scout ability. I love the Phantasm stratagem. That and the old WW index ability was a nice way to mess with deployment and goad your opponent to setting up incorrectly.

Quick Question:

I think Phantasm doesn't work this way....but since you already fulfilled normal deployment and have your 50% of your units on the table. Then the first battle round begins and you use Phantasm......

1} Did you already determine who goes first?
2| Can you now take those Phantasm units and put them in reserves and make it so you have less than 50% on the table?

It does say in the Strategem that you follow normal deployment. So devil's advocate would sell it as you need to fulfil the 50% quota.

Just hoping there is a loophole there. Would help in every game that you lost first turn if you could do this.

As I understand it, you essentially pick up to 3 units and remove them from the table then redeploy them as you choose.

Deployment includes any use of Reserves or Stratagems like Cloud Strike (especially in the mirror match against opposing Hemlocks).

You would still need to have atleast 50% of your units on the board after the use of Phantasm as per the deployment requirements.

What Strategems do you plan to use in your games?

In my list I plan on these

1 or 2 uses of Fire And Fade {2 cp}
1 use of Forwarned {2cp}
1 to 3 uses of Command ReRoll {3 cp}
1 WebWay Strike {1cp}
1 Celestial Shield {1cp}

Maybes:
1 Black Guardians {1cp}
1 Concordance of Power {1cp}[casting Quicken 36" away]
1 Phantasm {2cp}
1 use of Supreme Disdain {1cp}{24 Storm Guardians with Chainswords jumping out of webway for 48 dice + about 8 more]
1 use of Treasures {1cp}

So that is a minimum of 6 CPs

My question is this: If I use Webway and jump 24 Ulthwe Storm Guardians out with Black Guardian Defenders in the Fight phase and Supreme Disdain. Does the +1 from Black Guardians make Supreme Disdain work or rolls of 5 and 6? If so 48 Dice would become +16 instead of +8 on average.
That is a lot of slapping. Throw in some warlord/psychic shenanigans and the odds could make Storm Guardians almost worthwhile lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drake003 wrote:
As I understand it, ...

You would still need to have atleast 50% of your units on the board after the use of Phantasm as per the deployment requirements.

Even though the Deployment Phase is now over and you made the mandatory requirments. Next phase you use Phantasm shenanigans?

I think you are right, but I wanted to see what the rules gurus thought?