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.

Iracundus wrote:
You will find that GW suddenly gets all super conservative when it comes to xenos.
Like 3rd edition's Fire Dragons

Early edition invulnerable saves were few and far between and S8 was instant death for most things and 2+ to wound vs almost everything else. Firedragons were anti-tank, and with 2d6+6 and meltabombs they did it more than well enough.

Like the title of this thread, there is a difference between having the worst of it and just not having the best of it.

Eh. I'm still not convinced that aspect warriors need more flexibility. Dragons are already good against vehicles/monsters as well as heavy infantry and bikes. They're just maybe a bit too costly (or a bit lacking in escape strategies) to be considered efficient. Do we really want them to also be excellent horde-clearers with flamethrowers on top of that? And is paying the extra points for that flexibility going to do the unit any favors.

Plus, from a lore perspective, I worry that a change like that ends up eroding some of the personality of the army. I'm sure that there's an aspect shrine that uses nothing but flamethrowers, but are they really fire dragons at that point? Are howling banshees still howling banshees if you give them all hawk wings or missile launchers or whatever? Plus, I"m not wild about the idea of having to swap out weapons on all my models every couple of years because the new kit came with a more efficient weapon swap option for the whole squad.

I don't mean to yuck anyone's yum. Avengers with energy shields or shuriken cannons sound rad; maybe good concepts for entirely new units. But I don't think suddenly giving every warp spider a power sword and every fire dragon a flamethrower is good for the faction from a hobbying, mechanics, or fluff perspective.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Eh. I'm still not convinced that aspect warriors need more flexibility. Dragons are already good against vehicles/monsters as well as heavy infantry and bikes. They're just maybe a bit too costly (or a bit lacking in escape strategies) to be considered efficient. Do we really want them to also be excellent horde-clearers with flamethrowers on top of that? And is paying the extra points for that flexibility going to do the unit any favors.

Plus, from a lore perspective, I worry that a change like that ends up eroding some of the personality of the army. I'm sure that there's an aspect shrine that uses nothing but flamethrowers, but are they really fire dragons at that point? Are howling banshees still howling banshees if you give them all hawk wings or missile launchers or whatever? Plus, I"m not wild about the idea of having to swap out weapons on all my models every couple of years because the new kit came with a more efficient weapon swap option for the whole squad.

I don't mean to yuck anyone's yum. Avengers with energy shields or shuriken cannons sound rad; maybe good concepts for entirely new units. But I don't think suddenly giving every warp spider a power sword and every fire dragon a flamethrower is good for the faction from a hobbying, mechanics, or fluff perspective.

I would assume that a dragon would breathe fire and could breathe in different amounts? Give a unit utility is not breaking of the lore at all. especially as an eldar lore fan, I don't think their specification ever really made sense a military organization. Especially when we compare it to the lumineth who allow variation in their units especially their Alelementari who can take two options, diamond hammers or stone hammers (one for CC against trash, one against armored targets).

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am more readily taking a storm guardian squad because they can take flamers and/or Melta weapons. Yeah they don't get the exarchs, but they are 10x cheaper and will get popped no matter what I do especially for their low wound count.

2.3 point Storm Guardians, with special weapons equipped? I'm calling shenanigans...

Yes 9pts each... so a squad of 8 is 92 pts for 2 fusion guns and 6 storm guardians... so 23 pts less than a firedragon squad. (With only five models) or 38 points if you take a fire pike. You only get 2 fusion guns, but you get more utility.

Not to mention you can give them storm guardians Celestial shield for 1 CP for a 4++ invuln.. make them ulthwe an you cna also give them black guardianas as well as a 6+++..
Yep. Storm guardians are a better recipients for fusion and they also have ob sec.

 Argive wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am more readily taking a storm guardian squad because they can take flamers and/or Melta weapons. Yeah they don't get the exarchs, but they are 10x cheaper and will get popped no matter what I do especially for their low wound count.

2.3 point Storm Guardians, with special weapons equipped? I'm calling shenanigans...

Yes 9pts each... so a squad of 8 is 92 pts for 2 fusion guns and 6 storm guardians... so 23 pts less than a firedragon squad. (With only five models) or 38 points if you take a fire pike. You only get 2 fusion guns, but you get more utility.

Not to mention you can give them storm guardians Celestial shield for 1 CP for a 4++ invuln.. make them ulthwe an you cna also give them black guardianas as well as a 6+++..
Yep. Storm guardians are a better recipients for fusion and they also have ob sec.

Lol, i completely forgot its been six months since I last played a game. But i completely forgot about that, while also being a troops choice. Fire dragons also lack any real special rules that make them any good. Its just the meltas and thats about it.

I'm with Wyldhunt, if you start giving all of the aspects abilities to deal with a wider variety of targets you'll have them stepping on each others toes pretty quickly, and 1 will turn out to be better against the widest range of targets and become the defacto top choice everyone takes. It will also start taking away from their identity on the table top.

There problem is not, and never has been, overspecialisation (with the exception of Swooping Hawks, the sole role for Lasblasters is anti horde, but Dire Avengers do that well enough while being troops and better against a wider range of infantry anyway) but being left behind in 3rd ed.

Warp Spiders are a good example of this, their Deathspinners are still the 2 S6 shots at 12" range and AP-4 on 6's to wound that they've been since at least 4th edition. The Drukhari equivelant is the Shredder, fluff wise it's pretty much the exact same monofiliment gun as the Deathspinner. From 5th to 7th it was a single S6 Small Blast at 12" (and was really effective at destroying your own units if it scattered back onto you). For 8th it started off having D3 S6 shots at 12", then went to D6 shots, AP-1 and reroll wounds against infantry in the codex and we've already seen that their range is going out to 18" in the new codex. It's gone from being a liability to an increadibly effective anti infantry weapon, but Warp Spiders have not seen that kind of upgrade and are left with their 4th ed guns.

Maybe we need to look closer at what aspect of warfare the Aspect is trying to exemplify. To me the Banshees aspect is about shock warfare.

No need, just play marines.

Primaris Marines are now what Aspect Warriors used to be.

What Imateria said. Also, this:

Tygre wrote:
Maybe we need to look closer at what aspect of warfare the Aspect is trying to exemplify. To me the Banshees aspect is about shock warfare.

Identify one or two jobs for aspects and then giving them the tools to actually do those jobs would help a lot. And that job doesn't necessarily have to be dealing damage. Off the top of my head, I see the aspects' jobs breaking down something like this:

AVENGERS
* Anti-infantry dakka; current bladestorm exarch power does this pretty well.
* The glue that holds the aspects together; give them supporting fire and/or Salamander style pre-emptive charges on the enemy's turn so they can blunt the enemy's offense by forcing the foe to deal with them first.
* Tarpit; similar to the last one, but with less emphasis on blocking charges for friends. Current Defend + Shimmershield build is okay with this, but it would be even better if the exarch could retain Battle Fortune without spending CP.

BANSHEES
* Chop up heavy infantry; currently not great at this, although the ("decapitating blow?") exarch power that requires an executioner helps.
* Shut down the thing that's too tough to kill outright by screaming its ears off; actually pretty okay at this between war shout, disarming strike, shutting down overwatch, etc.

DRAGONS
* Kill tanks; they do this, just not very efficiently. A points reduction, range increase, or the new melta rule could all help with this. I'd also be okay with dragons debuffing tanks for a turn after they hurt them. That way they don't have to be hyper lethal to be useful. Most of their anti-tank rules are also useful against monsters.
* Kill heavy infantry; actually pretty good at this right now.

SCORPIONS
* Steadily saw through hordes; currently terrible at this. Changing mandiblasters to an extra strength 4 attack that auto-hits at the start of the fight phase would help with this and be more consistantly useful against hordes than the mortal wound mandiblasters.
* Strike out of ambush; currently pretty bad at this. They don't have any baked in charge bonuses, and they don't hit all that hard even when they do get into combat.
* Stay hidden, and sit on objectives; currently pretty good at this. Kind of don't want them to be taken just for this.
* Also like the idea of letting them deepstrike at the end of the enemy movement phase, popping up to suddenly block enemy charges towards softer targets.

SWOOPING HAWKS
* Harassment/disruption. Currently not great at this. They used to pull it off with the sunrifle and their haywire grenades. I miss hawks that lacked offense but could debuff multiple units a turn.
* Evasive dakka. Currently not... great at this, but better at it than most. They get more out of fire and fade than the shorter ranged aspects, and Sky Leap is always fun.

WARP SPIDERS
* Evasive dakka. Currently not great at this as their dakka is just so-so, and they can't really escape harm once they commit to shooting something.
* Evasive objective scoring. Actually pretty great at this right now. I have spiders bounce between objectives all game.

SHINING SPEARS
* Zooooom-pewpewpew-freeeem!: Pretty decent at this at the moment, really.
* No other roles really, but they can hurt a wide range of targets thanks to their variety of dakka and quantity of attacks.

DARK REAPERS
* Shoot things to death; pretty good at that as-is. They shoot marines to death, and they shoot vehicles to death. No complaints here.

SHADOW SPECTRES
* Ugh. I mean... their whole thing was their ghost light gimmick, but that's been gone for two editions now. I guess they're the lovechild of warp spiders and hawks now? They're also a pretty good example of how unfocused aspects can start to step on each others' toes.

CRIMSON HUNTERS
* Aren't really what we're discussing right now, but my pedantic nerd cred would be diminished if I didn't point out that they're technically aspect warriors.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No need, just play marines.

Primaris Marines are now what Aspect Warriors used to be.

Surprisingly few really are, given how many primaris units exist. Most are 'guys with mid-strength rifle, but this one might forward deploy'

 Asherian Command wrote:

I would assume that a dragon would breathe fire and could breathe in different amounts? Give a unit utility is not breaking of the lore at all. especially as an eldar lore fan, I don't think their specification ever really made sense a military organization. Especially when we compare it to the lumineth who allow variation in their units especially their Alelementari who can take two options, diamond hammers or stone hammers (one for CC against trash, one against armored targets).

I don't doubt that craftworlders have the tech to figure out how to build a flamethrower mode into a fusion gun. It's just that the whole shtick of aspects is that they're laser-focused on one specific way of doing things. Giving an entire unit meltaguns communicates that concept. Also giving them the ability to barbeque a mob of ork boyz contradicts that concept. There's some wiggle room here. Reapers can kill infantry as well as tanks, but their gimmick is that they're the aspect of death from afar. It would be weird if you opted to give their reaper launchers a power fist mode or something.

Actually, I feel like the Dragon's Bite exarch power is a good execution of the concept I think you're trying to convey. You probably know about it already, but it basically lets you treat your dragons' fusion guns as pistol weapons. This lets them engage enemies with their default weaponry in different ways. If they get charged and somehow survive, they don't necessarily have to fall back to be effective that turn. It can even let them dig their way out of a squad of marines our what have you in a pinch. But it doesn't do this by giving them "melta swords" or what have you. It just tweaks the utility of an existing piece of wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No need, just play marines.

Primaris Marines are now what Aspect Warriors used to be.

Surprisingly few really are, given how many primaris units exist. Most are 'guys with mid-strength rifle, but this one might forward deploy'

Primaris are sort of stepping on our toes by having uniform weaponry spread out across elite, specialized units. But the comparison wouldn't feel as apt if there weren't things like the pteraxii that stole the swooping hawks' shtick so completely and then added on extra benefits for good measure.

The past Exarch powers and Exarch weapon choices for the Aspects were at times this mixed bag of things that did not directly mesh with the squad the Exarch was leading.

I will just use Fire Dragons for example though there are now a few others such as the Dark Reaper Exarch's CC power from Phoenix Rising. Fire Dragons are meant to embody the mythological Eldar Dragon as a force of wanton destruction. Ok, and they do this through wielding fusion guns that (GW illogical technobabble aside) presumably unleash beams of "heat" or fusing plasma, which is in keeping with the heat theme. Yet then the Exarch has a choice for a dragon's breath flamer, which goes against the very thing the rest of the squad is focused on: bringing down the war machines and monsters of the enemy. There is also the old 3rd edition power (and now renewed in Phoenix Rising) Burning Fists which basically has the Exarch being able to punch supernaturally hard. Again seemingly nothing at all to do with the rest of the squad's actual role, and only vaguely in keeping with the "Fire" theme by being called Burning Fists. Then there is the Firepike. In 2nd edition and just as it is now, it is basically a longer range meltagun, which might have been more useful when the Exarch was independent rather than being stuck in their squad. It does no more damage than the squad's weapons and only has 6" more range. The only two instances where you might find some difference are situations where you don't want to be in in the first place: in between 6" and 9" so that the Firepike gets the melta bonus while the fusion guns don't, or between 12" and 18" when the Firepike could still hit, although then the fusion guns then couldn't. Anything else it performs identically to a fusion gun.

Aspect Warriors historically from their very first conception by Jes Goodwin were defined by their ritual wargear while sharing a basically identical statline. The only differences were differences in armor save (which is wargear) and Movement (which was also due to their armor and thus wargear).

The Eldar Aspects are described as matching what is a consensus agreement of what constitutes that Aspect. Arhra and Karandras for example seemed to have different visions for the Scorpion, with Arhra's being the original but then Karandras's ultimately replacing Arhra's vision among Craftworlders. In the beginning right after the Fall, it seems the ideas of the Aspects were a bit more fluid, but since then they seem to have crystallized more with Craftworld society having a more rigid view of what constitutes the "proper" way of doing things.

Why do Fire Dragons wield fusion weapons instead of a squad all wielding flamers? Rather than a purely "rational" decision of battlefield logic it could also be appealed to as due to societal consensus that the Eldar Dragon is best epitomized by being able to annihilate even the toughest enemy vehicles and monsters, rather than burning chaff cannon fodder. I guess one could argue the variable Exarch armaments and powers might be similar variations or different visions, but which have not succeeded in breaking off to become their own Aspect. You could invent your own Aspect though such as "Fire Drakes" all wielding flamers instead I suppose, but maybe those are a minor Aspect. There are many Aspects out there supposedly but the ones in the Codex are meant to be the most common.

Imateria wrote:I'm with Wyldhunt, if you start giving all of the aspects abilities to deal with a wider variety of targets you'll have them stepping on each others toes pretty quickly, and 1 will turn out to be better against the widest range of targets and become the defacto top choice everyone takes. It will also start taking away from their identity on the table top.

That's what happens now though, so it's not really a relevant issue.

Iracundus wrote:The past Exarch powers and Exarch weapon choices for the Aspects were at times this mixed bag of things that did not directly mesh with the squad the Exarch was leading.

I will just use Fire Dragons for example though there are now a few others such as the Dark Reaper Exarch's CC power from Phoenix Rising. Fire Dragons are meant to embody the mythological Eldar Dragon as a force of wanton destruction. Ok, and they do this through wielding fusion guns that (GW illogical technobabble aside) presumably unleash beams of "heat" or fusing plasma, which is in keeping with the heat theme. Yet then the Exarch has a choice for a dragon's breath flamer, which goes against the very thing the rest of the squad is focused on: bringing down the war machines and monsters of the enemy. There is also the old 3rd edition power (and now renewed in Phoenix Rising) Burning Fists which basically has the Exarch being able to punch supernaturally hard. Again seemingly nothing at all to do with the rest of the squad's actual role, and only vaguely in keeping with the "Fire" theme by being called Burning Fists. Then there is the Firepike. In 2nd edition and just as it is now, it is basically a longer range meltagun, which might have been more useful when the Exarch was independent rather than being stuck in their squad. It does no more damage than the squad's weapons and only has 6" more range. The only two instances where you might find some difference are situations where you don't want to be in in the first place: in between 6" and 9" so that the Firepike gets the melta bonus while the fusion guns don't, or between 12" and 18" when the Firepike could still hit, although then the fusion guns then couldn't. Anything else it performs identically to a fusion gun.

Aspect Warriors historically from their very first conception by Jes Goodwin were defined by their ritual wargear while sharing a basically identical statline. The only differences were differences in armor save (which is wargear) and Movement (which was also due to their armor and thus wargear).

The Eldar Aspects are described as matching what is a consensus agreement of what constitutes that Aspect. Arhra and Karandras for example seemed to have different visions for the Scorpion, with Arhra's being the original but then Karandras's ultimately replacing Arhra's vision among Craftworlders. In the beginning right after the Fall, it seems the ideas of the Aspects were a bit more fluid, but since then they seem to have crystallized more with Craftworld society having a more rigid view of what constitutes the "proper" way of doing things.

Why do Fire Dragons wield fusion weapons instead of a squad all wielding flamers? Rather than a purely "rational" decision of battlefield logic it could also be appealed to as due to societal consensus that the Eldar Dragon is best epitomized by being able to annihilate even the toughest enemy vehicles and monsters, rather than burning chaff cannon fodder. I guess one could argue the variable Exarch armaments and powers might be similar variations or different visions, but which have not succeeded in breaking off to become their own Aspect. You could invent your own Aspect though such as "Fire Drakes" all wielding flamers instead I suppose, but maybe those are a minor Aspect. There are many Aspects out there supposedly but the ones in the Codex are meant to be the most common.

They also had different initiative values, ranging from 6 on banshees, hawks, scorpions and avengers, to 5 on spears and 4 on dragons, reapers and spiders.

I think whats been lost is the fact that the aspects are philosophical representations of khaine and as such have no literal physical presence. The eldar developed their aspects around what they thought was the most appropriate representation of destruction, avenging, destroyer, the banshee etc

Hence why they're in a perfect position to have different exarch training styles that lean on one component more than another while still being the same aspect.

Hence my argument for schools of training represented by different special rules and different weapons

Voss wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No need, just play marines.

Primaris Marines are now what Aspect Warriors used to be.

Surprisingly few really are, given how many primaris units exist. Most are 'guys with mid-strength rifle, but this one might forward deploy'

I dont have the codex, but the parallels would appear to be (I cant comment on which performs better in the role)

Jumpy short range warp spiders, interceptors
Jumpy long range swooping hawks, suppressors
Short range anti tank fire dragons, eradicators
Close.combat shock troop banshees, reivers
Heavy close combat scorpions, blade guard
Reapers and devastators have always had a parallel role

So even though there are only a few parallels, this is because marines have so many units that they can cover a wide range of design space.

 Imateria wrote:
I'm with Wyldhunt, if you start giving all of the aspects abilities to deal with a wider variety of targets you'll have them stepping on each others toes pretty quickly, and 1 will turn out to be better against the widest range of targets and become the defacto top choice everyone takes. It will also start taking away from their identity on the table top.

There problem is not, and never has been, overspecialisation (with the exception of Swooping Hawks, the sole role for Lasblasters is anti horde, but Dire Avengers do that well enough while being troops and better against a wider range of infantry anyway) but being left behind in 3rd ed.

Warp Spiders are a good example of this, their Deathspinners are still the 2 S6 shots at 12" range and AP-4 on 6's to wound that they've been since at least 4th edition. The Drukhari equivelant is the Shredder, fluff wise it's pretty much the exact same monofiliment gun as the Deathspinner. From 5th to 7th it was a single S6 Small Blast at 12" (and was really effective at destroying your own units if it scattered back onto you). For 8th it started off having D3 S6 shots at 12", then went to D6 shots, AP-1 and reroll wounds against infantry in the codex and we've already seen that their range is going out to 18" in the new codex. It's gone from being a liability to an increadibly effective anti infantry weapon, but Warp Spiders have not seen that kind of upgrade and are left with their 4th ed guns.

I see where you’re coming from, but with their current “one thing and one thing only” approach, they’re fairly easy to shut down. For example, with my Necrons? I’m going infantry heavy, because my Codex gives me various useful ways to do that. Sure, your Fire Dragons will nuke maybe 4 Warriors a turn, but I’ve ways to get most of those back on their feet. And if you’re in range, I’m in range, and my Gauss Reapers will make a pretty mess.

To stick with Fire Dragons? Realistically, with their range, and nothing special about their Melta Weapons combined with traditional Craftworld squishies? How many tanks can you expect them to take out in a given game? Without being bought a transport, how reliably can they get in range? How often do they get to do their job, and then not got blasted by retaliatory fire in your opponent’s turn?

What options do they have if I choose to swarm them with crappy infantry to preserve my tanks/bigger stuff?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What options do they have if I choose to swarm them with crappy infantry to preserve my tanks/bigger stuff?

The same as any other player with a squad outfitted for anti-tank.

And surely that's a good thing from a game perspective? If you have a short ranged but powerful anti-tank unit closing in you want to be able to counter by blocking them with infantry - without that squad spontaneously transmuting into a powerful anti-infantry unit.

Imateria wrote:Warp Spiders are a good example of this, their Deathspinners are still the 2 S6 shots at 12" range and AP-4 on 6's to wound that they've been since at least 4th edition.

Deathspinners didn't have any additional effect on 6s prior to 6th edition.
It was a sisters of battle rule 'divine guidance' which they could use a few times each game. They lost it in 5th and eldar gained it as an army-wide always-on ability for monofiliment and shuriken weapons, which they still have.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure comparing a 9th Ed Codex to a 3rd one is terribly fair my dude.

I do get where you’re coming from though. Craftworlds in particular have fallen far behind, despite canonically having more sophisticated weapons.

And Tau. And Dark Eldar. And Necrons whoops we didn't fix that lolololol.

All the xenos weapons that are supposed to be "hyper advanced technologically" are just straight up shittier than mass-produced weaponry equipped by the imperial guard. A multimelta that you can buy two of on the main battle tank the imperium has a trillion of wipes the fething floor with every xenos antitank weapon in existence, its not even CLOSE.

When the imperium (Deathwatch) steals a power sword from the necrons, it goes from being a power sword to a power sword that IGNORES INVULNERABLE SAVES. You can take a deathwatch squad against a squad of Lychguard holding the exact same sword, and use their sword to bypass their invulnerable save and kill them.

Doesn't that new Inquisitor have the bestest Shuriken Catapult too?

 harlokin wrote:
Doesn't that new Inquisitor have the bestest Shuriken Catapult too?

Oh yeah, better than the one fething ASURMEN uses.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
I'm with Wyldhunt, if you start giving all of the aspects abilities to deal with a wider variety of targets you'll have them stepping on each others toes pretty quickly, and 1 will turn out to be better against the widest range of targets and become the defacto top choice everyone takes. It will also start taking away from their identity on the table top.

There problem is not, and never has been, overspecialisation (with the exception of Swooping Hawks, the sole role for Lasblasters is anti horde, but Dire Avengers do that well enough while being troops and better against a wider range of infantry anyway) but being left behind in 3rd ed.

Warp Spiders are a good example of this, their Deathspinners are still the 2 S6 shots at 12" range and AP-4 on 6's to wound that they've been since at least 4th edition. The Drukhari equivelant is the Shredder, fluff wise it's pretty much the exact same monofiliment gun as the Deathspinner. From 5th to 7th it was a single S6 Small Blast at 12" (and was really effective at destroying your own units if it scattered back onto you). For 8th it started off having D3 S6 shots at 12", then went to D6 shots, AP-1 and reroll wounds against infantry in the codex and we've already seen that their range is going out to 18" in the new codex. It's gone from being a liability to an increadibly effective anti infantry weapon, but Warp Spiders have not seen that kind of upgrade and are left with their 4th ed guns.

I see where you’re coming from, but with their current “one thing and one thing only” approach, they’re fairly easy to shut down. For example, with my Necrons? I’m going infantry heavy, because my Codex gives me various useful ways to do that. Sure, your Fire Dragons will nuke maybe 4 Warriors a turn, but I’ve ways to get most of those back on their feet. And if you’re in range, I’m in range, and my Gauss Reapers will make a pretty mess.

To stick with Fire Dragons? Realistically, with their range, and nothing special about their Melta Weapons combined with traditional Craftworld squishies? How many tanks can you expect them to take out in a given game? Without being bought a transport, how reliably can they get in range? How often do they get to do their job, and then not got blasted by retaliatory fire in your opponent’s turn?

What options do they have if I choose to swarm them with crappy infantry to preserve my tanks/bigger stuff?

If you're running nothing but Warriors then you have a skew list thats turning the game into rock, paper, scissors. Most armies that rely on Warriors though will have things like the Silent King, Ghost Arks, Reanimators and Catacomb Command Barges in support, all perfect targets for Fire Dragons. A less skewy Necron list that still relys on infantry may have Destroyers, Wraiths, Spiders and Tomb Blades, all of which are decent targets to shoot Fire Dragons at. There's nothing wrong with specialising, if anything it encourages players to take a more varied list so that they've got answers to a wider range of situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:

Voss wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No need, just play marines.

Primaris Marines are now what Aspect Warriors used to be.

Surprisingly few really are, given how many primaris units exist. Most are 'guys with mid-strength rifle, but this one might forward deploy'

I dont have the codex, but the parallels would appear to be (I cant comment on which performs better in the role)

Jumpy short range warp spiders, interceptors
Jumpy long range swooping hawks, suppressors
Short range anti tank fire dragons, eradicators
Close.combat shock troop banshees, reivers
Heavy close combat scorpions, blade guard
Reapers and devastators have always had a parallel role

So even though there are only a few parallels, this is because marines have so many units that they can cover a wide range of design space.

Swap Banshees and Scorpians and pretty much on point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Imateria wrote:I'm with Wyldhunt, if you start giving all of the aspects abilities to deal with a wider variety of targets you'll have them stepping on each others toes pretty quickly, and 1 will turn out to be better against the widest range of targets and become the defacto top choice everyone takes. It will also start taking away from their identity on the table top.

That's what happens now though, so it's not really a relevant issue.

Only because most of the Aspects are rubbish at any tasks so we're left with Spears and Reapers doing everything. And I'd say it's very relevant, I know it's impossible to avoid some overlap as thats the nature of the game system, but I think diluting their specialisations is a terrible way to go with Aspects.

Ignore - wrong thread!

Dark eldar preview for today looks pretty good. Bonus points If eldar get the same treatment.

Yeah list building will be really fun with these new rules

I’m sure the new Craftworld rules will be great.
But it’s models we need. Amazing rules are no use to me if we don’t have some new models!

 warmaster21 wrote:
Dark eldar preview for today looks pretty good. Bonus points If eldar get the same treatment.

The Drukhari version of Webway Strike is ace. I hope Craftworld is changed to read like the Drukhari versiomm.

With the quality of new models coming from GW eldar are perfect for a full refresh of models. It’s an opportunity for GW to really stun us with fantastic new models and the eldar lore and aesthetics should make this easy. I think it would generate a lot of excitement and sales

 Sarigar wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
Dark eldar preview for today looks pretty good. Bonus points If eldar get the same treatment.

The Drukhari version of Webway Strike is ace. I hope Craftworld is changed to read like the Drukhari versiomm.

I assume you mean Insidious Misdirection since Webway Strike wasn't previewed and is identical to the Craftworlds version. Insidious Misdirection is pretty much identical to Phantasm, only updated to 9th ed wording and locked behind Poisoned Tongue rather than being available to any build.

Something else to consider in the lore behind each Aspect. For example, so may people are focusing on the Fire Dragons' Fusion Guns (appropriately since they've started with them default since forever), but let's take a look at a couple blurbs:

Eldar 3e:

The Fire Dragon Aspect is based upon the writhing, sinewy dragon of Eldar myth; an incarnation of destruction and devastation. Fire Dragons are experts at close quarter fighting, where their fusion guns and melta bombs can destroy almost any foe, vehcile or fortification, no matter how well armoured.

Eldar 6e:

The Fire Dragon Aspect styles itself upon the dragon of Eldar myth, the sinuous fire-breathing reptile that represents wanton destruction. All Fire Dragon Aspect Warriors are aggressive and warlike, and seek nothing less than the total annihilation of their chosen foes. They have an unsurpassed mastery of weapons that use heat or flame as their main form of destruction, and take savage delight in the devastation they create. Such is their connection to fire that it is said their Exarchs manifest a burning corona when the murder-lust is upon them.

So the idea that Fire Dragons should be nutcrakers overlooks that fact that they are in truth pyromaniacs, and would welcome all types of Flamers along with Meltaguns. To consider them the same as the Sororitas in this passion would not be far off (though in error in terms of who was passionate first).

This may come across as a crazy idea, but Craftworld equipment is largely made up of wraithbone, right? What if some of the Aspects could alter their weaponry to be more effective based on the situation. In the case of Fire Dragons, they can switch between the "low" power heat of a Flamer or the "high" power heat of Fusion at will (and by at will, I mean per turn)?

This then has me consider the next point:

dan2026 wrote:I’m sure the new Craftworld rules will be great.
But it’s models we need. Amazing rules are no use to me if we don’t have some new models!

Most of the Aspects are still in Finecast and a model reset ala DE and Necron's 5th Ed is in order. With new plastic kits, new options can be provided. Whether it is allowed for the likes of Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers to swap their weapon's focus at will or they are just allowed to have different weapons to switch to as a group, these can be easily represented with the new kits. More importantly, providing for these new weapon set ups actually encourages new purchase (provided they are effective enough to be desired).

 Imateria wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
Dark eldar preview for today looks pretty good. Bonus points If eldar get the same treatment.

The Drukhari version of Webway Strike is ace. I hope Craftworld is changed to read like the Drukhari versiomm.

I assume you mean Insidious Misdirection since Webway Strike wasn't previewed and is identical to the Craftworlds version. Insidious Misdirection is pretty much identical to Phantasm, only updated to 9th ed wording and locked behind Poisoned Tongue rather than being available to any build.

Have there been start leaks apart from the redeploy ?

 Argive wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
Dark eldar preview for today looks pretty good. Bonus points If eldar get the same treatment.

The Drukhari version of Webway Strike is ace. I hope Craftworld is changed to read like the Drukhari versiomm.

I assume you mean Insidious Misdirection since Webway Strike wasn't previewed and is identical to the Craftworlds version. Insidious Misdirection is pretty much identical to Phantasm, only updated to 9th ed wording and locked behind Poisoned Tongue rather than being available to any build.

Have there been start leaks apart from the redeploy ?

No. I listed the wrong stratagem. I meant to state Phantasm, not Webway Strike. Drukhari' Insidious Misdirection is an improved version of Phantasm. I use Phantasm a lot and would love the option Insidious Misdirection has.