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.

 harlokin wrote:
Pessimism aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Heat Lances ended up a winner.

They could get a power buff in line with other 'meltas', and do well on smaller battlefields with fast moving units; Heat Lance Scourge, Reavers, and Taloi might see some action.

Not at str 6. Must be at least str 7 to do their job.

If dark lances go up to D3+3 I would expect it to only be against vehicles, like the rule the C'tan has. It would contrast well with poison weapons that don't do well against vehicles and would reflect back on the old lance rules.

Making lances d6 damage with a minimum damage of 3 would also work. It's just those 1s and 2s that sting.

I'm weirdly excited about kabalites going up to 2 attacks. As a Poisoned Tongue player, I've frequently found myself wishing I had a way to get a bit more use out of the melee half of my chapter tactic. Power sword sybarites with 3 attacks, while not all that impressive, would at least have a shot at contributing a wound or two in melee.

Plus, if the extra attack is meant to represent the superhuman speed of the aeldari, then we might see a similar change for asuryani units. An extra attack would do a lot for my banshees, scorpions, and even the humble storm guardian.

I'm probably okay with the new splinter cannon. It gives it a "kill multi-wound models" role rather than just being a way to squirt out additional generic splinters. It does have, "heavy bolter but worse," vibes. Shooting 12 shots from a venom felt nice even if it just averaged out to 4 AP- saves. The new profile feels very much like a reaction to marines having more wounds. It also feels pretty redundant with the disintegrator unless they've overhauled that profile.

Ice_can wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

To answer tour questions:

Yes
Yes
No
No

In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.

GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.


So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.

Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.

I feel CWE speculation may be straying off topic - but I think the issue is less 20 year old injustices, and more "what do you get for your points".

Defensively, a Guardsman is 5.5 points for T3/5+ and a Sister is 11 points for T3/3+. Leaving aside whether these are "right" (not sure Guardsmen needed the nerf given IG performances) - and recognising that Army synergy makes things a bit murky - it seems at 8-9 points, you probably should be getting a 4+ save. You can then have a debate over BS 4+ lasguns, BS3+ splinter rifles and BS3+ bolt guns.

In any case though, its easier to balance a game if you marry up offense and defence in a single points total without massively leaning one way or the other. Which obviously you have to if Eldar Troops are essentially just GEQ with supposedly better guns.

 Hellebore wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

To answer tour questions:

Yes
Yes
No
No

In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.

GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.


So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.

Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Ice_can wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

To answer tour questions:

Yes
Yes
No
No

In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.

GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.


So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.

Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Because GW changes points at the drop of a hat so the points value is the MOST malleable part of the equation?

What makes you think that the new dark eldar book will have 8pt dudes anyway?

Also the 9point model has a 30" F5 gun and the other one has a 24" F(3) poison weapon. But we are comparing "buffed" kabalite warrior vs unbuffed fire caste warrior.

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D

More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.

4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D

More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.

4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.

Nah, they should have always been 4+, that they were 5+ for 20 years didn't make it a GOOD design decision. Eldar armour was always better than guard armour and ranged to being just as good as power armour.


This is a correction 20 years in the making rather than some weird nonsensical change.

Ice_can wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

To answer tour questions:

Yes
Yes
No
No

In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.

GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.


So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.

Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Easy, give the FW BS3+. once you have that and you have the improved gun and always-on overwatch that makes 9ppm make sense.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D

More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.

4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.

It feels like it. Remember the incubi profile back in november? WS2+, strength bump to the weapons, and D2. Seems specifically aimed at marines, but felt like a decent improvement to a unit that really needed one.
But now the Heavy Splinter Bolter (Snowflake bolter? Not sure which I like better).

Still too early to say for certain, but between these and no models (well, OK, Lelith #3, for what little that's worth), its showings signs of quick way to dump out a meta spoiler army.

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D

More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.

4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.

It feels like it. Remember the incubi profile back in november? WS2+, strength bump to the weapons, and D2. Seems specifically aimed at marines, but felt like a decent improvement to a unit that really needed one.
But now the Heavy Splinter Bolter (Snowflake bolter? Not sure which I like better).

Still too early to say for certain, but between these and no models (well, OK, Lelith #3, for what little that's worth), its showings signs of quick way to dump out a meta spoiler army.

So, having access to D2 weapons with mid level strength and good AP is "meta spoiling"? Isn't that like, every army with a 9th edition codex? Killing loyalists with D2 weapons isn't anything new, even for Dark Eldar, Disintegrator Cannons are a popular option for a reason. If any army is a "meta spoiler", I'd say it's the one that laughs at all those D2 weapons.

Ice_can wrote:

Just yet more evidence that slow rolling codex's for over 18 months is going to leave the last faction to get a codex as ever increasingly unplayable trash.

But wait, the SoB generally come last in an editions life. I thought according to most of the tourney data you all worship that the SoB were really strong atm? You really expect the Sisters to tail off to unplayable trash?

IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

It certainly helped represent them in melee, but they had no speed defence at range, unlike in 2nd ed when they were at -1 to hit while running.


In the current rules, the only way to make it work would be to give them always strike first as they would generally strike before every other army in the game anyway...

From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

Initiative was nice (for us), but all it really did was set the order of operations in the assault phase. I don't feel that taking turns in the fight phase has gutted the aeldari as an army concept, even if our speed has been largely reduced to a slightly-better-than-marines movement stat.

I miss eldar trickery.

 Hellebore wrote:

In the current rules, the only way to make it work would be to give them always strike first as they would generally strike before every other army in the game anyway...

I've wondered about that. We'd be stealing slaaneshi armies' "thing," but giving "Always Strike First" to every model with battle focus, PFP, or rising crescendo would make a lot of sense. If to-hit rolls were determined by comparing WS stats and/or by comparing BS to an Evasion stat, then simply giving us high WS and Evasion would make a lot of sense. The non-stacking nature of to-hit penalties was a good 9th edition change, but we're definitely feeling it.

I suspect that the additional attack on kabalite warriors is a sign of things to come for aeldari in general. I imagine that +1 Attacks will be the new way they try to represent our speed.

Slannesh being created by eldar having similar eldar features isn't a bad thing, but they've spent many editions giving the gods different rules to be their 'thing', so always strike first is unlikely to stay that way forever.

You could have slanneshi speed represented by '6s to hit cause 2 hits' for example.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.

I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.

Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.

I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.

Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.

You're definitely on my wavelength here. Rather than glass cannon armies, because they're as bad for the game as unkillable skew is, I want the fragile armies to have some trick or niche that isn't just 'kill slightly better' or '+1 to movement'.

DE should be terrifying because they just scream at you from any angle and make it impossible to accomplish your objectives.

Eldar should be terrifying because that 'mistake' they made was actually them accomplishing one of their secret tasks that puts them that much closer to victory.

GSC should be terrifying because they pop up from terrain features and have a seemingly endless wave of cheap fodder to protect their leadership and elites with.

And so on until everybody feels unique and plays a style that isn't exactly like anybody else's.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.

I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.

Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.

You're definitely on my wavelength here. Rather than glass cannon armies, because they're as bad for the game as unkillable skew is, I want the fragile armies to have some trick or niche that isn't just 'kill slightly better' or '+1 to movement'.

DE should be terrifying because they just scream at you from any angle and make it impossible to accomplish your objectives.

Eldar should be terrifying because that 'mistake' they made was actually them accomplishing one of their secret tasks that puts them that much closer to victory.

GSC should be terrifying because they pop up from terrain features and have a seemingly endless wave of cheap fodder to protect their leadership and elites with.

And so on until everybody feels unique and plays a style that isn't exactly like anybody else's.

These kinds of things while nice, may feel gimmicky especially if someone loses to them but otherwise seems to have won.

As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.

Iracundus wrote:

Spoiler:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.

I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.

Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.

You're definitely on my wavelength here. Rather than glass cannon armies, because they're as bad for the game as unkillable skew is, I want the fragile armies to have some trick or niche that isn't just 'kill slightly better' or '+1 to movement'.

DE should be terrifying because they just scream at you from any angle and make it impossible to accomplish your objectives.

Eldar should be terrifying because that 'mistake' they made was actually them accomplishing one of their secret tasks that puts them that much closer to victory.

GSC should be terrifying because they pop up from terrain features and have a seemingly endless wave of cheap fodder to protect their leadership and elites with.

And so on until everybody feels unique and plays a style that isn't exactly like anybody else's.

These kinds of things while nice, may feel gimmicky especially if someone loses to them but otherwise seems to have won.

As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.

I don't know, I think it feels exaclty like it is supposed to feel. Like someone fighting dirty! You should've won, your better than him, but he still wins. And while gimmicky it should feel incredibly satisfying for the DE/GSC/Eldar player.

EDIT: by "better than him" I don't mean literally the better player but figuratively

Iracundus wrote:
As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.

I feel like that's a bad example because the issue with Necrons in BFG wasn't that special victory condition but the fact that they were OP as hell.

The goal of my ideas would be to take armies that, by the numbers, aren't strong enough to compete by simply killing the enemy and holding ground a gimmick to play around. They need to have enough power to grab a win from 'behind' but have obvious enough play patterns that their opponent doesn't feel like a win came out of nowhere or that them killing enemy units didn't matter. It's a balancing act and a damned tough one but I think it'd be cool if every codex had its own thing and thus every game you had two armies fighting and aiming for goals that weren't just stand on as many of 4 to 6 objective markers as you can, kill specific unit types, and maybe stand in a table quarter.

Since AOS is often a test bed for many 40k mechanics, I could easily see Aeldari of all flavours getting the Lightning Reactions rule that Lumineth have (you can activate two units at a time to fight, rather than one)

I can totally see that happening.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework

Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.

The two for one activation seems a bit more reasonable to balance than a flat army wide always fights first also avoids the never ending argument of who fights first of all the first fighters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Just yet more evidence that slow rolling codex's for over 18 months is going to leave the last faction to get a codex as ever increasingly unplayable trash.

But wait, the SoB generally come last in an editions life. I thought according to most of the tourney data you all worship that the SoB were really strong atm? You really expect the Sisters to tail off to unplayable trash?

SoB are roumered to be one of the next 3 codex's so hardly last realistically they are going to be in the first half of codex's for 9th.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.

Except worse against vehicles.

And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.

It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.

I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6. This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.

It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness.

Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?

the majority of people who had splinter cannons in their army were taking them to deal with GEQ, and were taking them on kabalite warriors where the Heavy Dark Lance was less efficient, so they took the Rapid Fire splinter cannon instead.

Now they're not an anti-GEQ weapon, and they're now Heavy. That leaves me very slightly irritated (obviously, not knowing what the various special rules actually do) in the same way I was irritated when they decided to change the harlequin weapons around and make the anti-horde harlequin melee weapon into just a third anti-elite choice.

Except Splinter Cannons are really bad as anti-GEQ as they were wounding mostly T3 units(average GEQ) and lower on a 4+. Those extra shots you got at sub-18" range you were at best getting 1 through and that is before a save. Splinter Cannons are utter garbage in 8th. You would have to bring several Splinter Cannons just to get one extra dead 1 wound critter on average and that's a lot of wasted points to kill one guardsman or termagant. For less points you could take an extra Kabalite warrior that gave you 2/3 shots as well as provided an extra wound. Same goes for Scourges. You are always going to be better off getting another body on the floor than taking the current Splinter Cannon.

Last time Splinter Cannons were any good was in 5th edition because they had some AP, were not rapid fire(but had ton of shots at full range), and you could take a couple of them on Trueborns for that extra bang.

Ice_can wrote:

So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?

Good to know you　already know tau codex　changes.

Old codexes are fairly irrelevant for balance comparisons. They are screwed by power creep anyway. You　need to compare to 9e codexes. If you　balance things now vs 8e codexes you　end up with　underpowered codex in the end. You　hate de so much you want them to be rock bottom?