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.

I like these traits and the psychic trait sounds interesting too. So do the aspect abilities.

I wonder if there are extra stratagems and relics too? That's the special sauce to these new 'supplements' and its the difference between competing at the highest level and not.

I hope there are stratagems and relics and I hope all factions get this treatment, if so things look great for the foreseeable future.

My only concern is the buff to certain units that are mega strong anyways - Crimson Hunter exarches and Venoms hardly needed a boost and will require a points update.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I like these traits and the psychic trait sounds interesting too. So do the aspect abilities.

I wonder if there are extra stratagems and relics too? That's the special sauce to these new 'supplements' and its the difference between competing at the highest level and not.

I hope there are stratagems and relics and I hope all factions get this treatment, if so things look great for the foreseeable future.

My only concern is the buff to certain units that are mega strong anyways - Crimson Hunter exarches and Venoms hardly needed a boost and will require a points update.

Well we've seen one stratagem for Craftworlds already so I think it's a strong bet there's more and for both factions.

CHE may be getting new abilities but they'll have to replace their current ability to reroll 1's to hit, remains to be seen if the new abilities are as good as the current one or not. Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
I think it's Day 1 FAQ material really. Probably should be melee attacks.

Probably which means it's trash. The only poisoned attacks in melee for coven are on wracks and haemis. No way anyone is trading Urien and a +1 to invuln for that.

I honestly only see the Test of skill combined with vehicles of all things to be the strong element. Damage 2 splinter weapons on a 6 to wound isn't awful either, but right now your looking at flayed skull or black heart to dethrone which is not an easy task IMO. I hope they didn't phone in the coven traits either like it appears because prophets of flesh currently has the best relic, WLT, strat and obsession which makes dethroning it daunting to begin with.

You missed the Flesh Gauntlets on Grotesques. Mortal Wounds going off on a 5+, with re-roll wounds fom the strat only costing 1CP can be very useful against a number of units.

I didn't miss it, but definitely didn't express my thoughts correctly to reflect that. In my experience flesh gauntlets are extremely situational and the cleaver is almost always better. The things I generally want to do mortal wounds to tend to be vehicles or have really good armor saves. Verse armor saves the MW output generally just makes up for the lack of any AP.

Should have made that more clear myself, against Daemons, TWC and Custodes the Flesh Gauntlets are amazing and that trait definitely helps buff them in that respect, but yes against the majority of units the Cleaver is better.

Yea I don't usually have much issue verse those armies but can see there use in those situations. I also tend to use mandrakes for mortals.

Also we have only seen a stratagem for banshees. My guess is the only strats are tied to incubi and banshees.

$230? That's way too much for me, even as someone interested in CE/DE who'd use both parts of the box.

If it was closer to Shadowspear, I'd pick it up in a snap since discount would bring it to a reasonable price. As it is now there's no way.

Which is a shame, I'm betting the plastic banshees and incubi will be going for high price on ebay.

 Imateria wrote:
Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).

Venoms seem to do pretty well without relying on Flayed Skull; https://www.40kstats.com/ironhalo

 slave.entity wrote:
All of these buffs seem more fluff-oriented than power-oriented tbh. Nothing particularly meta-worthy yet.

if Marine sucessor tactics are anything to go by they'll be fluffy and a solid option, but they're not going to replace the "featured craft worlds"

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

BrianDavion wrote:
if Marine sucessor tactics are anything to go by they'll be fluffy and a solid option, but they're not going to replace the "featured craft worlds"

I'm dubious about that. Mix and matching 2 traits seems a lot better than current versions of most Craftworld traits. Unless those are also getting replaced, of course.

Voss wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

Dataslates maybe but not old stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).

Venoms seem to do pretty well without relying on Flayed Skull; https://www.40kstats.com/ironhalo

Not sure what that link is supposed to illustrate.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Voss wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

Dataslates maybe but not old stratagems.

Didn't isn't can't. They weren't shy about obliterating or altering stratagems in the new SM codex, regardless of whether they came from the previous codex or Vigilus.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).

Venoms seem to do pretty well without relying on Flayed Skull; https://www.40kstats.com/ironhalo

Not sure what that link is supposed to illustrate.

Seriously? Not sure I could've made it much clearer. Not that it matters, I was addressing someone else.

Voss wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Voss wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

Dataslates maybe but not old stratagems.

Didn't isn't can't. They weren't shy about obliterating or altering stratagems in the new SM codex, regardless of whether they came from the previous codex or Vigilus.

Right, except that was a new codex.... This isn't...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).

Venoms seem to do pretty well without relying on Flayed Skull; https://www.40kstats.com/ironhalo

Not sure what that link is supposed to illustrate.

Seriously? Not sure I could've made it much clearer. Not that it matters, I was addressing someone else.

Yes seriously, its the top 4 results from an event entirely out of context. Not sure why the snark.

Have we heard anything about new Warlord Traits and Relics in this book?

 Red Corsair wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).

Venoms seem to do pretty well without relying on Flayed Skull; https://www.40kstats.com/ironhalo

Not sure what that link is supposed to illustrate.

Seriously? Not sure I could've made it much clearer. Not that it matters, I was addressing someone else.

Yes seriously, its the top 4 results from an event entirely out of context. Not sure why the snark.

Perhaps if you were involved in the proceeding brief discussion you'd understand the context? Genuinely baffled as to how you are struggling to understand my post to be honest Either way, feel free not to comment on posts that are neither directed at you or involve you in any way, unless you have something more constructive to add than "I don't understand this".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Have we heard anything about new Warlord Traits and Relics in this book?

We have not.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Voss wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

Dataslates maybe but not old stratagems.

Didn't isn't can't. They weren't shy about obliterating or altering stratagems in the new SM codex, regardless of whether they came from the previous codex or Vigilus.

Right, except that was a new codex.... This isn't...

Well spotted. Its an overhaul and partial replacement for two. For all their gibber about a 'campaign' (with... no mention of campaign rules so far), this is Eldar and Dark Eldar 8.5.
It seems pretty obvious that GW is setting out to deliberately change things in the two elf books, so the idea that they won't touch certain things seems odd and weird.

It seem more likely to me that they made changes while making updates in the new book, not that they made multiple errors in the preview article.

Maybe I had misread it, but the -1 AP on Shurikens was showcased in the Exarch Powers section of the article, wasn't it? It looked to me like a possible Exarch power for someone like Dire Avengers, meaning it would be solely based around that unit (or several units I suppose). I didn't read it as a Craftworld trait.

Voss wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

BrianDavion wrote:
if Marine sucessor tactics are anything to go by they'll be fluffy and a solid option, but they're not going to replace the "featured craft worlds"

I'm dubious about that. Mix and matching 2 traits seems a lot better than current versions of most Craftworld traits. Unless those are also getting replaced, of course.

to be honest I am too. the Marines worked because GW went back and rejiggered Marine traits to work within a formula (although Iron Hands breaks this formula, getting three traits.. guess whose seen as the most powerful? *exasperated sigh*) eldar don't follow the formula. still it's possiable that GW's long term plan includes a 2.0 eldar codex. put this box out, give it 6 months then release codex: eldar when the plastic banshee kit becomes avaliable.

 Elbows wrote:
Maybe I had misread it, but the -1 AP on Shurikens was showcased in the Exarch Powers section of the article, wasn't it? It looked to me like a possible Exarch power for someone like Dire Avengers, meaning it would be solely based around that unit (or several units I suppose). I didn't read it as a Craftworld trait.

It struck me as obnoxiously unclear formatting, since it is after disarming strike. I think it is, however, since they traits are called 'Craftworld Attributes' and the rule uses 'model with this attribute' to distinguish who gets to use the bonus (SM Codex uses 'this tactic' the same way). Presumably Diviners of Fate(6++) and Wrath of the Dead are also craftworld attributes. The latter certainly isn't an exarch power, and comes before the shift to talking about the new psychic discipline.

Good point. It would make more sense as an Exarch power, but I agree it's all jumbled together. I don't think -1 to shurikens is mega-incredible, but it'd be a solid boost solely depending on army builds.

Unfortunately it would widen the gulf between shuriken cannons vs. other Eldar heavy weapons which is sad, since they're really stuck in a bad place already. I hate that the shuriken cannon is often the best choice...and this wouldn't really help that case.

BrianDavion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
I don't see how TC being +1 to wound can be anything other than a mistake, since this isn't an FAQ or errata so it can't change any of the codex rules, only add new ones.

I don't know where you got that idea. When they updated the daemon kits in Wrath and Ruin, they changed their rules.

BrianDavion wrote:
if Marine sucessor tactics are anything to go by they'll be fluffy and a solid option, but they're not going to replace the "featured craft worlds"

I'm dubious about that. Mix and matching 2 traits seems a lot better than current versions of most Craftworld traits. Unless those are also getting replaced, of course.

to be honest I am too. the Marines worked because GW went back and rejiggered Marine traits to work within a formula (although Iron Hands breaks this formula, getting three traits.. guess whose seen as the most powerful? *exasperated sigh*) eldar don't follow the formula. still it's possiable that GW's long term plan includes a 2.0 eldar codex. put this box out, give it 6 months then release codex: eldar when the plastic banshee kit becomes avaliable.

Funny, how it was deemed necessary for some factions to be locked into the uncustomizable traits with added restrictions whilest other just get to make stuff.

Feels like an open invitation for abuse. Imo

 Elbows wrote:
Good point. It would make more sense as an Exarch power, but I agree it's all jumbled together. I don't think -1 to shurikens is mega-incredible, but it'd be a solid boost solely depending on army builds.

Unfortunately it would widen the gulf between shuriken cannons vs. other Eldar heavy weapons which is sad, since they're really stuck in a bad place already. I hate that the shuriken cannon is often the best choice...and this wouldn't really help that case.

It doesn't massively help the Shuricannon does it? It's only for units within 12" right? Also there might be other, more beneficial tactics for use with other heavy weapons.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Venoms haven't had any direct boost to their profile only the Obsessions, the Drukhari detachment traits, and again it remains to be seen whether they'll get anything better than what Flayed Skull already offers (+3M, re-roll 1's on RF and Ignores Cover, whilst also being confered to a FS unit within the transport).

Venoms seem to do pretty well without relying on Flayed Skull; https://www.40kstats.com/ironhalo

Not sure what that link is supposed to illustrate.

Seriously? Not sure I could've made it much clearer. Not that it matters, I was addressing someone else.

Yes seriously, its the top 4 results from an event entirely out of context. Not sure why the snark.

Perhaps if you were involved in the proceeding brief discussion you'd understand the context? Genuinely baffled as to how you are struggling to understand my post to be honest Either way, feel free not to comment on posts that are neither directed at you or involve you in any way, unless you have something more constructive to add than "I don't understand this".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Have we heard anything about new Warlord Traits and Relics in this book?

We have not.

I am following the discussion fine(if you can call it that since he literally hasn't responded to you lol). His point was flayed skull is the most beneficial to venoms, not that they require it to be a functioning component to a winning list. You then posted the top 4 results to some event with zero context. Good job. Has nothing to do with his initial point. It's also anecdotal at best.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Good point. It would make more sense as an Exarch power, but I agree it's all jumbled together. I don't think -1 to shurikens is mega-incredible, but it'd be a solid boost solely depending on army builds.

Unfortunately it would widen the gulf between shuriken cannons vs. other Eldar heavy weapons which is sad, since they're really stuck in a bad place already. I hate that the shuriken cannon is often the best choice...and this wouldn't really help that case.

It doesn't massively help the Shuricannon does it? It's only for units within 12" right? Also there might be other, more beneficial tactics for use with other heavy weapons.

The shuriken cannon only has a range of 24", so it would help pretty often. The Shuriken Cannon is one of MANY Eldar weapons which have AP0 unless you roll a '6'. The issue is that Eldar heavy weapons are generally expensive and suffer the -1 to hit when moving, whereas the Shuriken Cannon is an Assault weapon - Eldar ignore the penalties for moving and shooting Assault weapons. Add to that it was originally cheaper than even the crappy Scatter Laser, and you end up really struggling to justify the majority of other Eldar heavy weapons. The Scatter Laser was so bad they had to hack its points cost in half to try to justify it.

So any rule which only targets Shuriken weapons just makes the Shuriken Cannon the better choice...but moreso. The 12" limitation is nice, but again the farthest shooting Shuriken weapon is the cannon (I don't know if Maugan Ra's Maugetar counts, it might be longer range?) at 24", so it'll be useful most of the time.

PS: And yes, there could absolutely be other rules changes/buffs to normal heavy weapons. Just generally speaking, they're potentially doubling up on "why take anything else?" for the Shuriken Cannon which is a little meh.

 Red Corsair wrote:


I am following the discussion fine(if you can call it that since he literally hasn't responded to you lol). His point was flayed skull is the most beneficial to venoms, not that they require it to be a functioning component to a winning list. You then posted the top 4 results to some event with zero context. Good job. Has nothing to do with his initial point. It's also anecdotal at best.

I don't think you need to state his point for him. You certainly seem to be missing my original point, since it isn't in your swathe of quotations. My point being - Venoms are incredibly strong as they are and don't need a buff - for reference see the numbers spammed at a recent event that I posted.

I'm not sure you understand what 'anecdotal' means either. Me providing evidence of a player finishing 2nd at a massive event is literally the opposite of anecdotal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Good point. It would make more sense as an Exarch power, but I agree it's all jumbled together. I don't think -1 to shurikens is mega-incredible, but it'd be a solid boost solely depending on army builds.

Unfortunately it would widen the gulf between shuriken cannons vs. other Eldar heavy weapons which is sad, since they're really stuck in a bad place already. I hate that the shuriken cannon is often the best choice...and this wouldn't really help that case.

It doesn't massively help the Shuricannon does it? It's only for units within 12" right? Also there might be other, more beneficial tactics for use with other heavy weapons.

The shuriken cannon only has a range of 24", so it would help pretty often. The Shuriken Cannon is one of MANY Eldar weapons which have AP0 unless you roll a '6'. The issue is that Eldar heavy weapons are generally expensive and suffer the -1 to hit when moving, whereas the Shuriken Cannon is an Assault weapon - Eldar ignore the penalties for moving and shooting Assault weapons. Add to that it was originally cheaper than even the crappy Scatter Laser, and you end up really struggling to justify the majority of other Eldar heavy weapons. The Scatter Laser was so bad they had to hack its points cost in half to try to justify it.

So any rule which only targets Shuriken weapons just makes the Shuriken Cannon the better choice...but moreso. The 12" limitation is nice, but again the farthest shooting Shuriken weapon is the cannon (I don't know if Maugan Ra's Maugetar counts, it might be longer range?) at 24", so it'll be useful most of the time.

PS: And yes, there could absolutely be other rules changes/buffs to normal heavy weapons. Just generally speaking, they're potentially doubling up on "why take anything else?" for the Shuriken Cannon which is a little meh.

I forgot Shuricannon was assault to be fair.

I saw this buff primarily aimed at pistols and cats but I take your point.

The poor part to me is that you'd generally not shoot something within 12" because you're about to charge the thing and you don't want to decrease your odds of making said charge. Rarely are there a lot of options to fire at within 12". Also the opponent can much easier mitigate any risk of using this trait well.

Yeah it just gives a lot of sting to things which need to zip across the board to finish something off. A Wave Serpent could zip somewhere, pop its Serpent Shield (D3 mortal wounds), and fire off 9 Strength 6, AP-1 shots. It's not ideal, but it just gives that gun even more usefulness.

(ideally though I agree, you're not trying to be within 12").

It does give more bite to Aspect Warriors which I think is the true intention. The Shuriken Cannon is just along for the ride, really.

 Elbows wrote:

It does give more bite to Aspect Warriors which I think is the true intention. The Shuriken Cannon is just along for the ride, really.

Yea I think you're right but assuming that's the case, why doesn't the trait just say something like "add -1AP for weapons used by all [ASPECT WARRIOR] [INFANTRY] units with this trait"? Seems like a missed opportunity.

Still, I like these rules, they're thematic and potentially competitive.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:


I am following the discussion fine(if you can call it that since he literally hasn't responded to you lol). His point was flayed skull is the most beneficial to venoms, not that they require it to be a functioning component to a winning list. You then posted the top 4 results to some event with zero context. Good job. Has nothing to do with his initial point. It's also anecdotal at best.

I don't think you need to state his point for him. You certainly seem to be missing my original point, since it isn't in your swathe of quotations. My point being - Venoms are incredibly strong as they are and don't need a buff - for reference see the numbers spammed at a recent event that I posted.

I'm not sure you understand what 'anecdotal' means either. Me providing evidence of a player finishing 2nd at a massive event is literally the opposite of anecdotal.

No I thought I understood your point, but wasn't 100% clear so I thought I'd inquire to be sure rather then assume. At which point you were rude. Implied I couldn't keep up, then told me not to get involved despite the fact your literally using a forum for discussion when the PM button is appropriate if you just wanted to discuss it with one user only.

Sorry, anecdotal is the wrong term. But the fact remains you are using one data point to make a conclusion. That link also only presents 4 lists, no total attendance, number of rounds or format. I have no idea what terrain was like or what the missions were but was interested in discussing that.

 Red Corsair wrote:
No I thought I understood your point, but wasn't 100% clear so I thought I'd inquire to be sure rather then assume. At which point you were rude. Implied I couldn't keep up, then told me not to get involved despite the fact your literally using a forum for discussion when the PM button is appropriate if you just wanted to discuss it with one user only.

Sorry, anecdotal is the wrong term. But the fact remains you are using one data point to make a conclusion. That link also only presents 4 lists, no total attendance, number of rounds or format. I have no idea what terrain was like or what the missions were but was interested in discussing that.

Right then, apologies if you didn't understand my point. Still not sure how I could've made it clearer.

Do you doubt that Venoms are one of the strongest and most spammed of all the units in the DE dex? Like do I really need to provide more evidence? This is common knowledge right? If you're still unsure I'd advise that you take a look at the 40k stats site I linked and check out the Dark Eldar lists. Take a look at how many Venoms are taken and see what you think. E - here's the link to the other tournaments and number of players at Iron Halo; https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
No I thought I understood your point, but wasn't 100% clear so I thought I'd inquire to be sure rather then assume. At which point you were rude. Implied I couldn't keep up, then told me not to get involved despite the fact your literally using a forum for discussion when the PM button is appropriate if you just wanted to discuss it with one user only.

Sorry, anecdotal is the wrong term. But the fact remains you are using one data point to make a conclusion. That link also only presents 4 lists, no total attendance, number of rounds or format. I have no idea what terrain was like or what the missions were but was interested in discussing that.

Right then, apologies if you didn't understand my point. Still not sure how I could've made it clearer.

Do you doubt that Venoms are one of the strongest and most spammed of all the units in the DE dex? Like do I really need to provide more evidence? This is common knowledge right? If you're still unsure I'd advise that you take a look at the 40k stats site I linked and check out the Dark Eldar lists. Take a look at how many Venoms are taken and see what you think. E - here's the link to the other tournaments and number of players at Iron Halo; https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s

You'd probably be surprised by the number of DEldar players that think Venoms are pretty crap (I disagree with them, for what it's worth).

@Burnage - quite surprised, yea.

Either way I'm going off topic here - back to PA.

Tomorrow we get more rules for the Banshees, Incubi and characters huh? Interesting. Might be able to work out if other unit's datasheets are changing from the article.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Funny, how it was deemed necessary for some factions to be locked into the uncustomizable traits with added restrictions whilest other just get to make stuff.

It isn't that. Its just that GW changed the design paradigm in mid-stream. Again.

With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.