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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile:
12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s)
Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1
Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1

I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them

-

Can Necrons replace their -1 AP with -3 on 6s so they become better against vehicles? That trade is just so obvious and fluffy, although it would probably hurt both factions.

That would be mathematically worse.

Depends what they're shooting at.

MEQs take, from 36 hits, 9 wounds at AP-1. Change that to AP0 (-3 on 6s to-wound) you get 9 still.
Against TEQs, 6 wounds now. Changed, 6 still.
GEQs take 20 wounds now, changed would be 18.
Rhinos take 6 now, 7 with the change.
And Leman Russes go from 3 to 5.

So... If by "mathematically worse" you mean solely against GEQs, sure.

So... nebulous general consensus seems to be:

* Shuriken catapults probably shouldn't become mid-ranged weapons. Some people like the idea of bumping them up to 18", but making them 24"+ doesn't seem popular.

* Giving guardians the option to switch to a lasblaster or worse version of a lasblaster (something like an assault 2 lasblaster) would probably be reasonable. Basically, you'd trade raw damage for range.

* There might be something to be said for either lowering the squad size or increasing the number of heavy/special weapons guardians/storm guardians can take per X bodies.

* Shuriken catapults could possibly be changed to flavorful effect but do have their place as-is.

Does that sound about right? Maybe I'm projecting my biases onto my reading of the room.

Personally I would increase range to 18 for no cost, or 24 for 1 point.

They wouldn't require more heavy weapons if Catapults had a 24" range. However I'd be fine if you dropped the Squad minimum to 5. It would mean if you wanted more heavies, you could just take more squads, and I'm fine with that. I like the idea of small, independent pockets of Guardians.

Having an alternate weapon isnt something I'm hot on, but it could be an excuse to upgrade the kit and promote selling for the alternate build.

It's sometimes hard to look at something in isolation.

I'd do more than just give guardian defenders a longer range weapon. I'd rearrange guardian militia units entirely.

Guardians have a presence in every slot except elites -

Autarch (not technically a guardian, but one of the only leaders of the guardian units)
Defenders
Storm
Windriders
Vypers
Support weapon battery
War Walkers
Tanks
Wave serpents

For a milita, they're a pretty complete army, which is good because the black guardians are the main Ulthwe force....

So I would do something like this:

Defenders (5-15)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Lasblaster (24" Assault4)
Shuriken catapult (18" Assaiult2)

Heavy weapon platforms: you may take one per 5 guardians. They shoot independently of the unit (a bit like a tau drone).

Shuriken cannon 30" Assault 4 S5 AP-1 D1 - 6s= AP-3
Scatter Laser 36" Heavy 6 S6 AP0 D1


Storm guardians (5-20)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Shuriken blaster (Assault 12" S3 AP-1 Assault 3)
Shuriken pistol + Aeldari blades/chainblades (+1A, 6 to wound -1AP)

Plasma grenades, Krak grenades

One in every 5 storm guardians may replace their weapons with one of the following:
Fusion gun
Flamer
Star rifle (Assault 2 18" S6 AP-3 D2)

Storm guardians may take melta bombs +x pts each


Dire Avengers:
Special rule: bladestorm - if they don't move at all, their catapults count as Heavy 4

Swooping hawks
Special Rule: Lightstorm - every 6 rolled to hit counts as S6


I am all for adding to the range of weapons the eldar use, rather than keeping them constrained to the same set all the time. They've got millions of years of tech to plunder which means they should have a huge back catalogue of weird weapons to draw on. The DAoT only lasted a few thousand...

I don't think increasing the range of catapults would necessitate a points change. As it stands, guardian defenders and dire avengers are both too expensive. Avengers aren't competitive at all and defenders are primarily useful as a deep striking blob of 20, which requires CP and psychic support. Increasing their range has no impact on that, it only adds to the viability of currently lackluster/overcosted options.

Kind of off topic but next on my wish list would be +1 str for storm guardian aeldari blades. As it is, they are pointless vs chainswords. Or make blades +1 attack and change aeldari chainswords to +1 str for a 1 point upgrade.

I saw a tournament winning list with dire avengers and asurmen. The trouble again is that guardians on their own are just garbage. You have to build an entire strategy for getting them close enough to fire one volley without them getting destroyed on the way in. And then they don’t even last another turn unless you fire and fade and expend more CP and more luck. Just make it 24” and be done

warpedpig wrote:
I saw a tournament winning list with dire avengers and asurmen. The trouble again is that guardians on their own are just garbage. You have to build an entire strategy for getting them close enough to fire one volley without them getting destroyed on the way in. And then they don’t even last another turn unless you fire and fade and expend more CP and more luck. Just make it 24” and be done

The thing about buffing the shuriken catapult for guardians is that it makes them tread on avengers' toes really fast. Currently, avengers' advantages over guardians are: a smaller minimum unit cost, a better armor save, slightly better small arms fire. But if the guardian catapult goes from being a short ranged gun to being a mid-ranged gun like the avengers', then avengers look even less cost-effective than they do now. Plus, 24" + 7" + d6" kind of seems like a big threat range for a better-than-a-bolter gun.Kind of digging the idea of an assault 2 lasblaster. Lets guardians plink away at a distance at the cost of reducing their burst damage.

That said, I'm not opposed to overhauling avengers to reduce this overlap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hellebore wrote:

Dire Avengers:
Special rule: bladestorm - if they don't move at all, their catapults count as Heavy 4

The only thing about this is that it encourages avengers to become static. Currently, avengers actually make pretty good use of bladestorm and the mobility of eldar infantry in general. Forcing them to become static or else give up half their offense feels unfluffy. Maybe something closer to their old bladestorm rule where they could add a shot to their shuriken weapons at the cost of not shooting at all on the following turn? Sort of like a first rank fire second rank fire for shurikens. It lowers their overall number of shots (3 shots on a catapult over the course of 2 turns instead of 4 shots), but it increases your burst damage on the turn that you need it.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the avengers to have the shorter range catapults, if someone has to? They have the better armor and training after all. Let defenders have 18" or 24" range catapults so they can, you know, defend. Then give avengers 12" assault 3 catapults, to fill a niche as short range shock troops. It's kind of odd that when they're handing out the guns and realize that they left half of the rangefinders back in the armory the poorly armored guardians get the short end of the stick. Even in this scenario I think both are over costed. Maybe 7 for defenders and 10 for avengers would be right.

Bharring wrote:


I, too, wish they'd redo Avengers a bit - although a bit differently (lose overwatch-on-5s, gain A2 - less effective crunchwise, but feels more like Asurman's aspect). But whatever happens to Guardians, I'm sure a reasonable, similar change could be made to Avengers.

Upping their attacks would be very fluffy, but I'm not sure it really does them any favors. Even at A2 on normal guys and A3 on a power weapon-equipped exarch, avengers just wouldn't hit hard enough for me to want to throw them into melee. You'd be looking at roughly the same melee output as a bare bones guardsman squad. Plus, you kind of lose the "defensive charge catcher" angle that their 5+ on overwatch represents.

What about letting them fall back and shoot? It plays up their mobility (agile elves darting away, fighting on the run). It makes them a good unit for screening/catching charges because you can just fall back and keep fighting as long as you don't get triangled. Keeping them alive for one fight phase gives you a reason to invest in a shimmer shield. Heck, it maybe even encourages you to take more than a min-sized squad so that you're harder to triangle or wipe out in a single phase.

Yeah. I'm kind of liking the idea of letting them fall back and shoot and then creating a stratagem to do an old school FRSRF blade storm and another stratagem to reduce the enemy's offense ala the old Defend rule. It seems fluffy and useful without being OP. Thoughts?

That's why the change I'd like to see is a 24" A2 S3 AP0 "rifle". The ideal tool for engaging at standoff range. It's not intended to be used in place of a Catapult up close - so Assault instead of RF. And, there's already models for them (although they're OOP).

Having a Guardian pick between a close-range heavy hitter, and a long-range peashooter, would allow to the squad to further specialize, and allow people to take what they consider a "more sensible" weapon. As for balance, the numbers could be tweaked as needed, and points could even vary if necessary.

I'm on board with all of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orbei wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense for the avengers to have the shorter range catapults, if someone has to? They have the better armor and training after all. Let defenders have 18" or 24" range catapults so they can, you know, defend. Then give avengers 12" assault 3 catapults, to fill a niche as short range shock troops. It's kind of odd that when they're handing out the guns and realize that they left half of the rangefinders back in the armory the poorly armored guardians get the short end of the stick. Even in this scenario I think both are over costed. Maybe 7 for defenders and 10 for avengers would be right.

Except that storm guardians (and maybe wind riders) are kind of already the "short ranged shock troopers." And guardians, but that's due to their relatively low cost and large unit size.

Wyldhunt wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
I saw a tournament winning list with dire avengers and asurmen. The trouble again is that guardians on their own are just garbage. You have to build an entire strategy for getting them close enough to fire one volley without them getting destroyed on the way in. And then they don’t even last another turn unless you fire and fade and expend more CP and more luck. Just make it 24” and be done

The thing about buffing the shuriken catapult for guardians is that it makes them tread on avengers' toes really fast. Currently, avengers' advantages over guardians are: a smaller minimum unit cost, a better armor save, slightly better small arms fire. But if the guardian catapult goes from being a short ranged gun to being a mid-ranged gun like the avengers', then avengers look even less cost-effective than they do now. Plus, 24" + 7" + d6" kind of seems like a big threat range for a better-than-a-bolter gun.Kind of digging the idea of an assault 2 lasblaster. Lets guardians plink away at a distance at the cost of reducing their burst damage.

That said, I'm not opposed to overhauling avengers to reduce this overlap.

Something to consider is that GW have spent 6 editions of the game trying to special rule their way out of a stubborn design decision.

Battle focus is entirely unnecessary if they just had longer ranged guns. In fact, IMO, it doesn't even do what what it's trying to do - represent the eldar speed in war. All it does is add an extra physical action of moving units to actually put them in range of the enemy.

Eldar speed at war has never been represented properly since 2nd ed.

You see, back then hit modifiers were applied for how fast something moved. Anything moving 10-20" was -1 to hit, anything 20'+ was at -2. All eldar were at least M5, so they were at -1 to hit if they ran 10".

All eldar tanks moved very fast, so were often at -2 to hit.

Being a core rule meant that it affected everyone equally, so imperial vehicles got harder to hit if they moved fast enough, and Tyranids got harder to hit when they ran because they were very fast as well.


The 'eldar use speed instead of thick armour' shtick has not worked since 2nd ed because they literally removed the rules that reflected it, so the eldar just became fragile.


There are 2 things that you could do to represent this - have a modifier to hit for moving fast, and give the eldar a move in the assault phase - a 'fall back' in any direction. The darting in and out to strike aspect of the eldar was only ever represented in BFG where the eldar ships did exactly this - they got two movement phases so they moved in, shot, then moved out again.

Wyldhunt wrote:
So... nebulous general consensus seems to be:

* Shuriken catapults probably shouldn't become mid-ranged weapons. Some people like the idea of bumping them up to 18", but making them 24"+ doesn't seem popular.

* Giving guardians the option to switch to a lasblaster or worse version of a lasblaster (something like an assault 2 lasblaster) would probably be reasonable. Basically, you'd trade raw damage for range.

* There might be something to be said for either lowering the squad size or increasing the number of heavy/special weapons guardians/storm guardians can take per X bodies.

* Shuriken catapults could possibly be changed to flavorful effect but do have their place as-is.

Does that sound about right? Maybe I'm projecting my biases onto my reading of the room.

Yeah, that sounds about right. And several of my proposals check several of those boxes.
I.E, make Shuricats 18" RF2, but drop to Str3. That extends the range at the cost of punch, unless you get within 9" since 4 shots at Str3 should do equal to more damage then 2 shots at str4. This is also far more flavorful since shurikens shouldn't have the same punch as Bolters, but should have more shots.
Then I'd give Guardians the option to take 2 weapon platforms at their minimum squad size (still 10), and a third at max squad size (20).

I would only entertain the option for taking Lasblasters if it came with a new Gaurdian box set to include those weapons. As it stands, however, I'd prefer a new box just to include Storm Guardian options instead.

-

Eldar should be fast and have very effective armor. And be expensive. Like, you know, a true elder race. One Eldar should be capable of killing multiple marines because that's how advanced tech works.

Do you really think a regular eldar should be 30+ points?

Scientifically speaking, yes. Their weapons would be borderline magic to even a space marine. I'm not in the business of selling plastic, though. I'm in the business of what makes sense. Think of the berserker body from Alita or something like that. That would be the armor for the rank and file Eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar should be fast and have very effective armor. And be expensive. Like, you know, a true elder race. One Eldar should be capable of killing multiple marines because that's how advanced tech works.

You can do that. Just run Jetbikes with Scatter Lasers, except use the Swooping Hawk or Warp Spider models. There you go!

Not advanced enough. There are no rules in the game for the kinds of weapons Eldar should probably have.

Martel732 wrote:
Not advanced enough. There are no rules in the game for the kinds of weapons Eldar should probably have.

Go play another game.

 Galef wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
So... nebulous general consensus seems to be:

* Shuriken catapults probably shouldn't become mid-ranged weapons. Some people like the idea of bumping them up to 18", but making them 24"+ doesn't seem popular.

* Giving guardians the option to switch to a lasblaster or worse version of a lasblaster (something like an assault 2 lasblaster) would probably be reasonable. Basically, you'd trade raw damage for range.

* There might be something to be said for either lowering the squad size or increasing the number of heavy/special weapons guardians/storm guardians can take per X bodies.

* Shuriken catapults could possibly be changed to flavorful effect but do have their place as-is.

Does that sound about right? Maybe I'm projecting my biases onto my reading of the room.

Yeah, that sounds about right. And several of my proposals check several of those boxes.
I.E, make Shuricats 18" RF2, but drop to Str3. That extends the range at the cost of punch, unless you get within 9" since 4 shots at Str3 should do equal to more damage then 2 shots at str4. This is also far more flavorful since shurikens shouldn't have the same punch as Bolters, but should have more shots.
Then I'd give Guardians the option to take 2 weapon platforms at their minimum squad size (still 10), and a third at max squad size (20).

I would only entertain the option for taking Lasblasters if it came with a new Gaurdian box set to include those weapons. As it stands, however, I'd prefer a new box just to include Storm Guardian options instead.

-

Honestly Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely. They're a stupid concept in the first place and have NEVER worked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hellebore wrote:
It's sometimes hard to look at something in isolation.

I'd do more than just give guardian defenders a longer range weapon. I'd rearrange guardian militia units entirely.

Guardians have a presence in every slot except elites -

Autarch (not technically a guardian, but one of the only leaders of the guardian units)
Defenders
Storm
Windriders
Vypers
Support weapon battery
War Walkers
Tanks
Wave serpents

For a milita, they're a pretty complete army, which is good because the black guardians are the main Ulthwe force....

So I would do something like this:

Defenders (5-15)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Lasblaster (24" Assault4)
Shuriken catapult (18" Assaiult2)

Heavy weapon platforms: you may take one per 5 guardians. They shoot independently of the unit (a bit like a tau drone).

Shuriken cannon 30" Assault 4 S5 AP-1 D1 - 6s= AP-3
Scatter Laser 36" Heavy 6 S6 AP0 D1


Storm guardians (5-20)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Shuriken blaster (Assault 12" S3 AP-1 Assault 3)
Shuriken pistol + Aeldari blades/chainblades (+1A, 6 to wound -1AP)

Plasma grenades, Krak grenades

One in every 5 storm guardians may replace their weapons with one of the following:
Fusion gun
Flamer
Star rifle (Assault 2 18" S6 AP-3 D2)

Storm guardians may take melta bombs +x pts each


Dire Avengers:
Special rule: bladestorm - if they don't move at all, their catapults count as Heavy 4

Swooping hawks
Special Rule: Lightstorm - every 6 rolled to hit counts as S6


I am all for adding to the range of weapons the eldar use, rather than keeping them constrained to the same set all the time. They've got millions of years of tech to plunder which means they should have a huge back catalogue of weird weapons to draw on. The DAoT only lasted a few thousand...

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.

Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.

Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad

And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.

I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.

Bharring wrote:
Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.

Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.

Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad

And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.

I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.

Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.

Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.

Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.

Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.

Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad

And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.

I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.

Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.

Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.

Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.

They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.

Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.

Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.

Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.

Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad

And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.

I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.

Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.

Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.

Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.

They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.

Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.

Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.

The army already has a bunch of close range specialists (especially on the Melta end). The dying race sending a militia off to die is just auto bad fluff.
I'm actually curious WHAT in their fluff you would consider "good".

Seriously, nobody will miss them outside 1% of the super hardcore fluffbunnies. Hell I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't care either.

Back on Dire Avengers, though. Having a bad opponent back things away from 18" is a good thing, so I'm not sure that's a negative point for the rule partly doing its job.

Because the Eldar are desperate, and active Aspect Warriors are a minority of the population.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.

Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.

Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad

And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.

I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.

Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.

Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.

Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.

They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.

Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.

Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.

The army already has a bunch of close range specialists (especially on the Melta end).

Like what?
The couple Fire Dragon squads spread across the the entire Craftworld?
The handful of Honored Dead whom risk damnation if you put them in the fray, and whos guns literally damage reality itself when used?
That's like saying Tac Marines shouldn't be allowed to carry heavy weapons because Terminators already can, and there's plenty of them.

The dying race sending a militia off to die is just auto bad fluff.

Yes it is. Which is why the fluff says they're sent off to fight battles where they *won't* die.

I'm actually curious WHAT in their fluff you would consider "good".

The idea that your militia will need to fulfill more than one role.

Seriously, nobody will miss them outside 1% of the super hardcore fluffbunnies.
Hell I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't care either.

I wouldn't call me a hardcore fluffbunny. And Storm Guardians have started showing up in top-tier lists since the drop to 6ppm.

Back on Dire Avengers, though. Having a bad opponent back things away from 18" is a good thing, so I'm not sure that's a negative point for the rule partly doing its job.

Not if the Dire Avengers loses firepower if they had to move, and the unit moving doesn't. Or if the Dire Avengers then need to come out of cover and/or stepping back 6" puts them in cover. Most things in most cases will prefer to close on the DAs, but there are cases where that's not true.

Storm Guardians used to kind of work. Back when you could stick a warlock in the squad, you could kit them out with either 2 flamers and the destructor psychic power (basically a heavy flamer once upon a time), or you could give them 2 fusion guns and a singing spear (which was an okayish anti-tank squad back when vehicles could potentially die to a single shot.)

Now that warlocks aren't tied to guardian units and a couple of flamers or meltaguns isn't enough to seriously threaten most targets, they're somewhat less appealing. Basically, they had a role once, but they haven't changed with the times to keep that role or find a new one.

If you were to lower the squad size to 5 and let them take either 1 or 2 special weapons per 5 bodies, you could take a couple of units in a batallion, stick them in a wave serpent, and use them as a cheap objective clearer (flamers) or moderate vehicle threat (4 fusion guns coming out of a serpent isn't terrible).

I'm not one for using abstract rule mechanics as justification, but as 'troops', Avengers are expected to stand still and defend objectives.

Aside from that, the avengers were the first aspect and I see as close to a 'tactical' aspect as you can get. All the others have more particular niches that aren't always useful.

I don't see a point in creating 'lesser' lasblasters - corsairs use normal lasblasters. Storm guardians use the same fusion gun as the fire dragons, and avengers only started using special different catapults a few editions ago when they had to admit that the design decision to make catapults 12" was a bad one, but still refused to actually change the gun...

IMO it's not the weapon that's special, it's the aspect training.

Aspect warriors are clearly modelled after shaolin temples/schools and methods of fighting. so I see them as kung fu masters that can use any item as a deadly weapon.

The star spoon aspect warriors have built a particular set of skills around using spoons in supernaturally deadly ways, not building uniquely special spoons they can stab with.

Which is why I prefer scorpion swords to just be chainswords and the scorpions all the have 'crushing blow', which gives them +1 strength.

Exarch weapons are the 'green destiny' named weapons with special abilities that are even more awesome in the hands of a master.

Things like bladestorm are the kind of skills that imo show why a dire avenger isn't just a shmuck with a catapult.

There's no real reason a guardian couldn't pick up a deathspinner and pull the psychic trigger, in the same way that they already can pick up a fusion gun.

In fact, I think that those craftworlds relying exclusively on guardians would be more than willing to hand out those weapons in times of crisis.

Hellebore wrote:
I'm not one for using abstract rule mechanics as justification, but as 'troops', Avengers are expected to stand still and defend objectives.

I disagree with you here. What is and isn't a "troop" is pretty arbitrary. Some swarmy, some are elite. Some are shooty, some are choppy. You wouldn't expect a harlequin troupe unit to stand on an objective and stay there, right? Encouraging a (theoretically) common eldar unit to sit still or else give up its offense actively encourages eldar to behave as a static army rather than a mobile one. You're creating a fluff/crunch mismatch.

(As opposed to letting avengers utilize battle focus or fall back and shoot which makes them "feel" mobile.)

Aside from that, the avengers were the first aspect and I see as close to a 'tactical' aspect as you can get. All the others have more particular niches that aren't always useful.

True. That's why the idea of bumping them up to 2 attacks is kind of appealing. It wouldn't do much for them mechanically, but it's a fluffy nod to the "balance" thing avengers and Asurmen have going on.

I don't see a point in creating 'lesser' lasblasters - corsairs use normal lasblasters. Storm guardians use the same fusion gun as the fire dragons, and avengers only started using special different catapults a few editions ago when they had to admit that the design decision to make catapults 12" was a bad one, but still refused to actually change the gun...


IMO it's not the weapon that's special, it's the aspect training.

Aspect warriors are clearly modelled after shaolin temples/schools and methods of fighting. so I see them as kung fu masters that can use any item as a deadly weapon.

The star spoon aspect warriors have built a particular set of skills around using spoons in supernaturally deadly ways, not building uniquely special spoons they can stab with.

Which is why I prefer scorpion swords to just be chainswords and the scorpions all the have 'crushing blow', which gives them +1 strength.

My concerns with giving guardians full on lasblasters are:

A.) Corsairs have them, but they cost 16 points apiece when you do so. 160 points for 10 guardians (or even 80 points for 5 if we lower the minimum squad size) makes them a very expensive troop choice that becomes even less survivable point for point.

B.) I haven't run the numbers, but I feel like giving them swooping hawk levels of shooting is straight up more powerful at all ranges than shuriken catapult shooting. To my mind, swapping a little killing power for 12" of range while keeping the unit price mostly the same is more interesting than choosing between the good gun and the cheap gun.

I actually mostly agree with your take on training vs tech for aspect warriors, but I draw a different conclusion than you do. For almost all aspect gear, slapping the rules on the gear rather than the unit is irrelevant as the only unit that can use most aspect gear without being an aspect warrior is the autarch (who spent time with the relevant aspect shrines and presumably retained some of his training as an autarch). The only exceptions are avengers' shuriken catapults (used all over the place) and dragons' fusion guns (used by storm guardians). The difference between an avengers with a catapult and a guardian with a catapult is 6" of range and overwatching on 5+. I interpret that extra 6" of range as being the result of the avenger's training. Ditto the +1 strength on the scorpion swords. So you could use up extra space typing out a bunch of special rules, or you could just write 18" instead of 12" next to the catapult and User + 1 instead of User next to the chainsword.

The reason I go on that particular tangent is to point out that, if we wanted to give guardians assault 2 lasblasters, it could very well represent the guardian simply being a worse shot than a full time aspect warrior like a swooping hawk. The hawk has the training to make his lasblaster Assault 4 rather than Assault 2.

There's no real reason a guardian couldn't pick up a deathspinner and pull the psychic trigger, in the same way that they already can pick up a fusion gun.

In fact, I think that those craftworlds relying exclusively on guardians would be more than willing to hand out those weapons in times of crisis.

Probably true. If nothing else, guardians should really probably have heavier armor. My headcanon excuse for not giving everyone a death spinner instead of a shuriken catapult is that the spectacular lethal power of such weapons would be too much of a gruesome spectacle for the limited version of the war mask used by many guardians. Sure, a catapult slices a guy to ribbons, but the spinner lets him dice himself in his struggles to escape its monofilament wires. Which is, admittedly, a kind of weak explanation. Eldar are few enough in number and long-lived enough to stockpile as much of any given weapon as they need to. Chalk it up to the same logic that has armies fighting with power swords.

I designed an entire Eldar army around the jetbike profile 10 years ago - except they wore wraithguard style exosuits with the guns underslung.

Those rules on an infantryman, imo, reflected the high-tech Eldar way of war.

They actually looked a lot like the shadow spectres actually, before those existed.


If you could mount one heavy weapon per 5 in the unit that wasn't a cannon or scatter laser, then you can drop the need for foot guardians entirely.

I have no real problem with jetbikes or warwalkers, and those two units are pretty much how I would protect my civilians - heavy vehicle armour and weapons between them and the enemy...

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.

Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.

Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad

And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.

Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.

I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.

Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.

Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.

Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.

They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.

Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.

Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.

The army already has a bunch of close range specialists (especially on the Melta end).

Like what?
The couple Fire Dragon squads spread across the the entire Craftworld?
The handful of Honored Dead whom risk damnation if you put them in the fray, and whos guns literally damage reality itself when used?
That's like saying Tac Marines shouldn't be allowed to carry heavy weapons because Terminators already can, and there's plenty of them.

The dying race sending a militia off to die is just auto bad fluff.

Yes it is. Which is why the fluff says they're sent off to fight battles where they *won't* die.

I'm actually curious WHAT in their fluff you would consider "good".

The idea that your militia will need to fulfill more than one role.

Seriously, nobody will miss them outside 1% of the super hardcore fluffbunnies.
Hell I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't care either.

I wouldn't call me a hardcore fluffbunny. And Storm Guardians have started showing up in top-tier lists since the drop to 6ppm.

Back on Dire Avengers, though. Having a bad opponent back things away from 18" is a good thing, so I'm not sure that's a negative point for the rule partly doing its job.

Not if the Dire Avengers loses firepower if they had to move, and the unit moving doesn't. Or if the Dire Avengers then need to come out of cover and/or stepping back 6" puts them in cover. Most things in most cases will prefer to close on the DAs, but there are cases where that's not true.

1. Yeah, those Fire Dragons and Wraithguard compared to the simple militia.
2. Yeah Tactical Marines don't actually carry Assault Cannons or CMLs or Heavy Flamers. Look at that! Two of those would be bad weapons on Tactical Marines too so that doesn't help your case.
3. Your militia in a dying race doesn't get more than one role because of Aspect Warriors existing.
4. Please show me where the Storm Guardians have been showing up.
5. You're thinking incorrectly. You're not losing firepower if you move, you're granted additional firepower if you don't.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not advanced enough. There are no rules in the game for the kinds of weapons Eldar should probably have.

Go play another game.

Please stop trying to equate fluff and rules, this topic is about discussing Shuriken catapults, not fluff.

On topic, I actually don't mind shuriken catapults as a concept weapon, certainly iconic to guardian squads but honestly it wouldn't be the worse idea to change avenger shuriken catapults to assault 2 24" range to even begin to justify their cost.

Maybe a weapon support platform which increases the range of the guardian squads weapons?