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'm a little annoyed they set the cap at -1 instead of -2. With a limit on modifiers and auto-hit on 6s, plus the redesign of rerolls to rerolling all misses after mods, having the cap at -2 would have been fine.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm a little annoyed they set the cap at -1 instead of -2. With a limit on modifiers and auto-hit on 6s, plus the redesign of rerolls to rerolling all misses after mods, having the cap at -2 would have been fine.

The cap was one of the reasons I started this thread as it was one of last design areas that reflected the speed defence.

But unless they change it after release, we're stuck with it.

So i look at the army list as it sits and think that unless it's rebuilt completely, it's going to keep being a boring, annoyingly gimmicky spam army, reliant on farseers and whatever other units are MEQ

The cap has more problems for the game in general other than Eldar. Other armies have situations or units that are explicitly allowed and expected to get a -2 to hit and in 9th we're going to have a weird interaction where if you're shooting something -1, it's automatically better to advance and shoot assault weapons or move and fire infantry heavy weapons. That interesting tactical choice has now been removed. In fact you're giving your opponent a big advantage if you have lots of -1 to hit units because you are indirectly improving their mobility (which is a fething bizarre interaction)

Rather than listening to 3 years worth of feedback from players that a free -1 to hit across Altaioc, Raven Guard and Alpha Legion armies was just unfun and bad design, GW decided to introduce a cap instead which just breaks a whole load of unrelated units. relics, psychic powers etc.

 Bosskelot wrote:
The cap has more problems for the game in general other than Eldar. Other armies have situations or units that are explicitly allowed and expected to get a -2 to hit and in 9th we're going to have a weird interaction where if you're shooting something -1, it's automatically better to advance and shoot assault weapons or move and fire infantry heavy weapons. That interesting tactical choice has now been removed. In fact you're giving your opponent a big advantage if you have lots of -1 to hit units because you are indirectly improving their mobility (which is a fething bizarre interaction)

Rather than listening to 3 years worth of feedback from players that a free -1 to hit across Altaioc, Raven Guard and Alpha Legion armies was just unfun and bad design, GW decided to introduce a cap instead which just breaks a whole load of unrelated units. relics, psychic powers etc.

-1 was only an issue if you could stack so far that certain armies couldn't hit.
Funnily enough, it was also one of the few defensive buffs, that worked in an overall growingly lethal environment without the need for extra rolling for defensive mechanisms.

Also it shows indeed that GW's claim that PA was written with 9th in mind is bollocks, especially when you look at AL in F&F.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
The cap has more problems for the game in general other than Eldar. Other armies have situations or units that are explicitly allowed and expected to get a -2 to hit and in 9th we're going to have a weird interaction where if you're shooting something -1, it's automatically better to advance and shoot assault weapons or move and fire infantry heavy weapons. That interesting tactical choice has now been removed. In fact you're giving your opponent a big advantage if you have lots of -1 to hit units because you are indirectly improving their mobility (which is a fething bizarre interaction)

Rather than listening to 3 years worth of feedback from players that a free -1 to hit across Altaioc, Raven Guard and Alpha Legion armies was just unfun and bad design, GW decided to introduce a cap instead which just breaks a whole load of unrelated units. relics, psychic powers etc.

-1 was only an issue if you could stack so far that certain armies couldn't hit.
Funnily enough, it was also one of the few defensive buffs, that worked in an overall growingly lethal environment without the need for extra rolling for defensive mechanisms.

Also it shows indeed that GW's claim that PA was written with 9th in mind is bollocks, especially when you look at AL in F&F.

Tao could not hit aeldar and chaos is bad, but drones that take insane amount of damage is fine

Marin wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
The cap has more problems for the game in general other than Eldar. Other armies have situations or units that are explicitly allowed and expected to get a -2 to hit and in 9th we're going to have a weird interaction where if you're shooting something -1, it's automatically better to advance and shoot assault weapons or move and fire infantry heavy weapons. That interesting tactical choice has now been removed. In fact you're giving your opponent a big advantage if you have lots of -1 to hit units because you are indirectly improving their mobility (which is a fething bizarre interaction)

Rather than listening to 3 years worth of feedback from players that a free -1 to hit across Altaioc, Raven Guard and Alpha Legion armies was just unfun and bad design, GW decided to introduce a cap instead which just breaks a whole load of unrelated units. relics, psychic powers etc.

-1 was only an issue if you could stack so far that certain armies couldn't hit.
Funnily enough, it was also one of the few defensive buffs, that worked in an overall growingly lethal environment without the need for extra rolling for defensive mechanisms.

Also it shows indeed that GW's claim that PA was written with 9th in mind is bollocks, especially when you look at AL in F&F.

Tao could not hit aeldar and chaos is bad, but drones that take insane amount of damage is fine

Now i normally like sarcasm and irony but:

As a player with an army about 60-80% BS5+ not hitting WAS a massive issue.
Orkz just ignored it more or less after their dex, but the 6's hit allways should've been a thing from the get go if we add in negative to hit modifiers that are and imo SHOULD'BE stackable.

The issue with Tau is that beyond the drones they don't got much really going for them.

Maybe a better version of the cap would have been "No worse than -1 from enemy sources." That means if you do something (like move) you can make the negative modifier worse than -1.

Iracundus wrote:
Maybe a better version of the cap would have been "No worse than -1 from enemy sources." That means if you do something (like move) you can make the negative modifier worse than -1.

No, the fact remains that, if you want to achieve more then -1 you often have to invest rather heavily into ressources to achieve it, and frankly, -1 to hit or even stacking to it, and frankly i see it as a symptom to the core issue, the massive hike of offense that has been going on, defense get's the catchup hike, and so forth and so forth.

 grouchoben wrote:
That's a weird example. 10 swooping hawks shooting do less damage vs 5 intercessors than 10 Scorpions in CC.

The also can't hope to tangle with them in CC and live, so can't tie up units, and so they fulfil a different role.

Hawks aren't bad, take em if you want.

Yeah, they actually don't though. 2x5 units of Hawks with the 5+ grenade pack exarch ability do exactly the same damage in shooting to 5 intercessors that scorps do in melee. And considering that, like I said, you do not actually decrease the damage output of INtercessors if you "Tie them up" in melee, it seems to me like you'd need to basically take the charge roll out of the equation to make scorps at all worthwhile.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm a little annoyed they set the cap at -1 instead of -2. With a limit on modifiers and auto-hit on 6s, plus the redesign of rerolls to rerolling all misses after mods, having the cap at -2 would have been fine.

A cap of -2 means nothing 95% of the time. I do sympathize with the loss of decision making in some narrow scenarios as a result though I suspect there's more to the picture though.

I expected it, but those eradicators certainly make fire dragons look crappy.

Especially as the exarch's fire pike is supposed to be this highly advanced mythical melta weapon, but hey apparently the imperium can manufacture better versions in the thousands...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm a little annoyed they set the cap at -1 instead of -2. With a limit on modifiers and auto-hit on 6s, plus the redesign of rerolls to rerolling all misses after mods, having the cap at -2 would have been fine.

A cap of -2 means nothing 95% of the time. I do sympathize with the loss of decision making in some narrow scenarios as a result though I suspect there's more to the picture though.

If a cap means nothing 95% of the time, that's good, as it is only hitting the edge cases. The fact that dense cover means there's no downside to moving and firing with heavy weapons, and other combinations, is a problem. If the common complaint is that the game is too lethal, having organic ways to defensively buff is a good thing. Capping at -1 is too limiting.

 Hellebore wrote:
I expected it, but those eradicators certainly make fire dragons look crappy.

Especially as the exarch's fire pike is supposed to be this highly advanced mythical melta weapon, but hey apparently the imperium can manufacture better versions in the thousands...

Geez, I only just saw that. More erosion then of the Eldar "high tech". It's like GW is so desperately averse to giving anything good tech-wise to the Eldar (like that whole 3rd edition thing with S6 fusion guns for Fire Dragons) ...which then is ironic because in each edition they then seem to mess up and end up letting something truly overpowered slip through like star cannons and Wraithknights.

GW releases new flying tanks and troops armed with Haywire (mines).....no, not Aeldari, what would have made you think that?

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I expected it, but those eradicators certainly make fire dragons look crappy.

Especially as the exarch's fire pike is supposed to be this highly advanced mythical melta weapon, but hey apparently the imperium can manufacture better versions in the thousands...

Geez, I only just saw that. More erosion then of the Eldar "high tech". It's like GW is so desperately averse to giving anything good tech-wise to the Eldar (like that whole 3rd edition thing with S6 fusion guns for Fire Dragons) ...which then is ironic because in each edition they then seem to mess up and end up letting something truly overpowered slip through like star cannons and Wraithknights.

it seems very much as though GW only pay lipservice to these things unless they're marines.


Eldar are currently as "technologically advanced" as they are "protected by their speed".


i find this more egregious than I what they were doing 10 years ago - because they are deliberately stripping one army of its uniqueness and rules to give to their posterboys. So long as marines look cool and keep selling they don't seem to care that they're killing the identity of another army to do it.


Maybe we'll get an 'update' where 'dying race' means 'breed like rabbits' and 'have bad memories so forget their tech' and eldar will come in low fi swarms, that way they never have to be a threat to the identity of marines and there's nothing for people to complain about...

I'm hoping Wraith Constructs will become viable with 9th. Great looking models and unique to Eldar. If point values are reasonable and I feel I can reasonably play the missions, it is a direction I'd like to take.

 Sarigar wrote:
I'm hoping Wraith Constructs will become viable with 9th. Great looking models and unique to Eldar. If point values are reasonable and I feel I can reasonably play the missions, it is a direction I'd like to take.

I wouldn't count on it. First I think it is basically then emulating sort of an MEQ, which I think we need less of not more. Second, there has always been complaining whenever the Eldar received anything that was not fragile as tissue paper. For example, in 2nd edition people complained about the Eldar dreadnought (now known as the Wraithlord) then the Falcon when it first came out, even going so far as to claim a main battle tank was not part of the Eldar them (ignoring that Falcons albeit of the old wedge design were present in Epic long before the 40K Falcon). Similarly in BFG, there were people that tried to argue Eldar wouldn't have a battleship since that was not in keeping with Eldar fleet doctrine. Then GW released the Void Stalker battleship. Then the complaining shifted from saying Eldar shouldn't have a battleship to saying the Void Stalker was too good or too tough.

 harlokin wrote:
GW releases new flying tanks and troops armed with Haywire (mines).....no, not Aeldari, what would have made you think that?

GW releases the first Harlequin special character. No, of course it's not for Harlequins! Get your grubby mits off it, you filthy Xeno players!

the_scotsman wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
That's a weird example. 10 swooping hawks shooting do less damage vs 5 intercessors than 10 Scorpions in CC.

The also can't hope to tangle with them in CC and live, so can't tie up units, and so they fulfil a different role.

Hawks aren't bad, take em if you want.

Yeah, they actually don't though. 2x5 units of Hawks with the 5+ grenade pack exarch ability do exactly the same damage in shooting to 5 intercessors that scorps do in melee. And considering that, like I said, you do not actually decrease the damage output of INtercessors if you "Tie them up" in melee, it seems to me like you'd need to basically take the charge roll out of the equation to make scorps at all worthwhile.

Oh blimey. Alright, assuming no buffs of any kind (which counts against the scorps, as the exarch loses the EC rerolls on his blade), with the exception of both exarch powers taken to buff mortal wounds to 5+...

3.33 mortal wounds per squad. It's a wash.
2.67 damage from lasblasters + 0.59 from the Talon, vs 2.04 from the shuripistols. Hawks are 1.27 damage ahead.
1.43 in CC for the hawks vs 3 from chainswords, 1.67 from biting blade, making it:

8.02 for the hawks, killing 4 intercessors.
10.04 for the scorpions, wiping the squad.

The big difference is the Scorps dependence on the charge, as you pointed out. Like I said, Hawks ain't bad, take em if you want; ditto Scorpions.

 Sarigar wrote:
I'm hoping Wraith Constructs will become viable with 9th. Great looking models and unique to Eldar. If point values are reasonable and I feel I can reasonably play the missions, it is a direction I'd like to take.

It came up in the tactics thread but the more I look at the new "in your face" rule set the more I think flamer wraithlords are a go to counter charge unit for us. Can't decide on a heavy weapon loadout, will see what points values look like.

Eh, I don't think you can have unique faction traits in a world where homogenization between factions happens at the behest of the primaris release schedule.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm a little annoyed they set the cap at -1 instead of -2. With a limit on modifiers and auto-hit on 6s, plus the redesign of rerolls to rerolling all misses after mods, having the cap at -2 would have been fine.

A cap of -2 means nothing 95% of the time. I do sympathize with the loss of decision making in some narrow scenarios as a result though I suspect there's more to the picture though.

If a cap means nothing 95% of the time, that's good, as it is only hitting the edge cases. The fact that dense cover means there's no downside to moving and firing with heavy weapons, and other combinations, is a problem. If the common complaint is that the game is too lethal, having organic ways to defensively buff is a good thing. Capping at -1 is too limiting.

Yea, I suspect there is more to the picture including the 'Remain Stationary' rule.

Iracundus wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I'm hoping Wraith Constructs will become viable with 9th. Great looking models and unique to Eldar. If point values are reasonable and I feel I can reasonably play the missions, it is a direction I'd like to take.

I wouldn't count on it. First I think it is basically then emulating sort of an MEQ, which I think we need less of not more. Second, there has always been complaining whenever the Eldar received anything that was not fragile as tissue paper. For example, in 2nd edition people complained about the Eldar dreadnought (now known as the Wraithlord) then the Falcon when it first came out, even going so far as to claim a main battle tank was not part of the Eldar them (ignoring that Falcons albeit of the old wedge design were present in Epic long before the 40K Falcon). Similarly in BFG, there were people that tried to argue Eldar wouldn't have a battleship since that was not in keeping with Eldar fleet doctrine. Then GW released the Void Stalker battleship. Then the complaining shifted from saying Eldar shouldn't have a battleship to saying the Void Stalker was too good or too tough.

Not sure I understand the MEQ reference. Wraithguard/Wraithblades have a 3+ save, but the other stats are different from Marines; with that logic, any infantry unit in the Craftworld codex is MEQ. Also, the Hemlock also has the keyword, Wraith Construct; there are more than just Wraithguard/Wraithblades with the keyword.

People find things to complain against another army. Cherry picking one item from 2nd edition does not make for a strong case. People complained about my Exarchs and not my Wraithlord in 2nd edition; in 3rd, it was Starcannons, Guide,Doom, and Seer Councils; 4th was Falcons and Harlequins; 5th was a bit quiet; 6th was Taudar,, Bike Counsels with Baron Sathonyx; 7th was Wraithknights and Scatbikes. Those are just off the top of my head.

Other than just trying to find the negative, what is your intent with your post? Wraith Constructs probably will not be worth playing because some folks complain?

@ Grouch

remember the hawks being gentleman wont chuck more than 1 grenade per enemy target, suspect it wont shift them numbers too much but might give the melee scorps a slight edge against damaged units, fingers crossed that rule goes away come 9e codex as besides half-baked character sniping its a silly rule

 grouchoben wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
That's a weird example. 10 swooping hawks shooting do less damage vs 5 intercessors than 10 Scorpions in CC.

The also can't hope to tangle with them in CC and live, so can't tie up units, and so they fulfil a different role.

Hawks aren't bad, take em if you want.

Yeah, they actually don't though. 2x5 units of Hawks with the 5+ grenade pack exarch ability do exactly the same damage in shooting to 5 intercessors that scorps do in melee. And considering that, like I said, you do not actually decrease the damage output of INtercessors if you "Tie them up" in melee, it seems to me like you'd need to basically take the charge roll out of the equation to make scorps at all worthwhile.

Oh blimey. Alright, assuming no buffs of any kind (which counts against the scorps, as the exarch loses the EC rerolls on his blade), with the exception of both exarch powers taken to buff mortal wounds to 5+...

3.33 mortal wounds per squad. It's a wash.
2.67 damage from lasblasters + 0.59 from the Talon, vs 2.04 from the shuripistols. Hawks are 1.27 damage ahead.
1.43 in CC for the hawks vs 3 from chainswords, 1.67 from biting blade, making it:

8.02 for the hawks, killing 4 intercessors.
10.04 for the scorpions, wiping the squad.

The big difference is the Scorps dependence on the charge, as you pointed out. Like I said, Hawks ain't bad, take em if you want; ditto Scorpions.

10 Pistol shots
20/3 hit
20/9 at AP 0, 10/9 at AP-3
20/27 plus 25/27 failed saves
1.67 damage from the pistols

Your math is just WRONG.

HBMC with a nice graphic illustrating the point:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Join the Imperium!

Spoiler:

 Hellebore wrote:
HBMC with a nice graphic illustrating the point:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Join the Imperium!

Spoiler:

That's just shameful.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
HBMC with a nice graphic illustrating the point:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Join the Imperium!

Spoiler:

That's just shameful.

I'm not sure what to think about the points values - new ones are supposed to be MORE expensive, so that would imply eradicators would be cheaper in the current paradigm...

"Your math is just WRONG."

Yeah you're right, I'd left some fields filled in 40k.ghostlords for some of my calculations, apologies.

But are you denying that the scorps do more damage overall? And are you willing to chat, or concede the point, without going all lockcaps on me?

Mortal wounds: Hawks MW: 1.66 vs Scorps MW: 3.33
Hawks shooting: 2.67+0.59 vs Scorps shooting: 1.67
Hawks CC: 0.81 vs Scorps CC 2+1.33

Hawks = 5.73
Scorps = 8.33

 grouchoben wrote:
"Your math is just WRONG."

Yeah you're right, I'd left some fields filled in 40k.ghostlords for some of my calculations, apologies.

But are you denying that the scorps do more damage overall? And are you willing to chat, or concede the point, without going all lockcaps on me?

Mortal wounds: Hawks MW: 1.66 vs Scorps MW: 3.33
Hawks shooting: 2.67+0.59 vs Scorps shooting: 1.67
Hawks CC: 0.81 vs Scorps CC 2+1.33

Hawks = 5.73
Scorps = 8.33

I'll freely admit I may have missed some of the discussion. But considering that almost all the scorpion damage comes from cc I'd hope for a better difference than that. It's far easier to harm with shooting than cc.