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.

 vipoid wrote:

Maybe I'm in the minority but one of the things that originally drew me to 40k was the emphasis on 'your dudes'. Also just from a pragmatic standpoint we're already severely options - so I don't want to see yet more HQs with 0 options.

If I'm running a Mandrake army, I want Kheradruakh to be an option - not the only Mandrake HQ in the codex.
If I want a mobile HQ for whatever reason, I want Baron Sathonyx to be an option - not the only Skyboard HQ in the codex.
etc.

Out of interest, how do Eldar players feel about this sort of thing? For example, would you want to be able to make Autarchs effectively HQ-Exarchs for Aspect Warriors, or would you just want to take a Phoenix Lord for that role?

Good questions with kind of complicated answers (at least for me). Generally, I prefer for special characters to NOT just be better versions of generic characters. Special characters should be rarities whose abilities don't really have a generic counterpart. So Eldrad is kind of poorly designed in my opinion because he's basically just a better version of the foot farseer. Asurmen is a pretty "good" special character in that his mechanics kind of change how your army plays in a way that taking a farseer or autarch doesn't. Illic is a "good" special character in that he fills a sniper niche that other characters kind of can't (except maybe for an index autarch with reaper launcher and Mark of the Incomparable Hunter).

I'm fine with the idea of character exarchs as a new HQ option and should therefor theoretically see phoenix lords as special characters who are just better versions of exarchs, but...
A.) I just... really like the Phoenix Lords for some reason. They have just enough fluff to sound cool but little enough for me to have projected entertaining details onto.
B.) Exarchs kind of work really well as sergeants. Having a sergeant with more wounds than his squad is pretty unique, and the exarch accounts for pretty much all of the unit customization in an aspect warrior squad. So I wouldn't want to give up "squadxarchs," but then it would feel awkward to have an hq character who's basically just a sergeant. (I don't like the idea of "super exarchs" with better stats than squadxarchs just because they're in the HQ slot. Plus it's a little weird to make an exarch an army leader from a fluff perspective.)

So phoenix lords specifically kind of get a pass from me. If we ever saw the return of Kheradruakh, I'd want him to be a variant option that comes in the "shadow king" kit and focuses on assassinations rather than bolstering other mandrakes or being a conventional beatstick. If we ever get Malys back, I'd want them to emphasize her genius rather than just making her a sligihtly stabbier archon or whatever.

Special characters should not feel superior to generic characters; they should feel unique. My homebrewed chapter master from the Emperor's Porcupines chapter (a chapter full of melee specialists) shouldn't be worse at stabbing things than Ragnar or Dante just because he doesn't have a unique named model.

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

maybe on the other hand you have people who love an army for it's lore, run a list without any of those units, do absolutely horriably, but all they hear is how OP their army is.

THOSE people have my sympathy.

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

Ohh I just loved dealing with salty players that had never even seen one of my Eldar jet bikes, all from 3rd edition that seemed to make quick judgments and where so rude about it. Was soo much fun…

That was not great time for Eldar players.
Was the only Eldar player as well. >.<

I just want to see what they're gonna do with Eldar and IG in 40k already.

How they are treated will decide if I bother to continue down the path of current era GW, because right now nothing of interest is happening and I want them to be done with orcs/AOS.

Indomitus kinda suckered me in and it's like... now what?

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

maybe on the other hand you have people who love an army for it's lore, run a list without any of those units, do absolutely horriably, but all they hear is how OP their army is.

THOSE people have my sympathy.

Playing an army that is generally OP in a non-OP way can be rough.

My Eldar are Saim Hann. Everybody on a bike or in a transport. Getting mud on your boots is for lesser races. Grav tanks and bikes are what drew me to the army, and what I want to field. So putting a list together for friendly play can be rough. I had to lean hard on the breaks to keep things from getting out of control in 6-7th. Kept my bikes with one cannon per 3, and not scatter lasers. Used Falcons instead of Wave Serpents. I was able to get a number of fun games in. But at the start of each game was “that look” from my opponent. I helps that I’ve got some old stuff in my collection, and have been building them up as a secondary army since 2nd. So I was able to make clear that I was not just some WAAC TFG jumping to the FOTM to table people.

Some armies have to build around broken units. You’ve got one gem in a field of chaff, so you need to spam it for a chance to win. Riptides, Flyrants, others. Eldar are not so different then other armies in that regard. One thing that makes ups stand out is the fact that we have a diverse army, with a lof of specialists and a few generalist units. So the odds of one of our things lining up with what breaks the game in a current edition is pretty good.

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

maybe on the other hand you have people who love an army for it's lore, run a list without any of those units, do absolutely horriably, but all they hear is how OP their army is.

THOSE people have my sympathy.

People play for different reasons my man. Some like fluffy lore lists, some like the crunch. Each are valid ways to enjoy the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

Ohh I just loved dealing with salty players that had never even seen one of my Eldar jet bikes, all from 3rd edition that seemed to make quick judgments and where so rude about it. Was soo much fun…

That was not great time for Eldar players.
Was the only Eldar player as well. >.<

I have never once been salty to a scat bike spammer. Not once. I did however imagine ways of burning their minis in a furnace. I kid, mostly.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Special characters should not feel superior to generic characters; they should feel unique. My homebrewed chapter master from the Emperor's Porcupines chapter (a chapter full of melee specialists) shouldn't be worse at stabbing things than Ragnar or Dante just because he doesn't have a unique named model.

I'm 100% with you, Special Characters should be a unique model but shouldn't necessarily be strictly better than a generic HQ. By Special Characters I mean named variants of a standard HQ choice. On the flip side it sucks when the special character you like from the lore is strictly worse than a generic option since they get saddled with a terrible Warlord trait. Speaking of Phoenix Lords..

I really love Phoenix Lords, my first two blister packs were Ragnar Blackmane and Asurmen. The concept of a Phoenix Lord and warrior lord constantly reborn sounded really cool to me and it's why I started collecting that army. Their rules have always been underwhelming compared to the concept but it's a cool looking model with a great backstory so I've stuck with him through thick and thin. I've always felt that Phoenix Lords should be an expensive HQ, somewhere in cost between a Chapter Master and a Primarch but ruleswise I'd place them below a Captain or a Farseer half the time.

As for Exarch Characters, I think that's great for Kill Team but I prefer them being a sergeant role in 40k. I can't think of any stories where an Aspect Warrior is leading the fight and other Aspects and Guardians are following their directions except for when the usual C2 node (warlock, farseer or Autarch) has been wiped out.

Edit: Forgot to mention the Emperor's Porcupines is a really fun army name.

TBH in general generic characters with warlord trait and relic are superior than special characters at their designed role.

Depends on the army really.

For Wyldhunt's point Ragnar is generally a better pick over a generic footslogging Wolf Captain in a close combat role since he has unique rules that make him very good at what he does. His abilities can't be replicated with a generic. I don't mind though since Space Wolves is THE chapter for having sagas with named characters.

On the other hand you can make a better generic Wolf Priest than Ulric. So I agree with you that trait+relic is often better than a fair number of special characters (like the entire CWE range minus Eldrad) just not always.

Honestly, named characters shouldn't be better *or* worse than non-named characters. They should be unique enough for it to feel like an apples and oranges comparison. If a named character fills the same niche as a generic character and they both try to do the same job in roughly the same way, then the named character should probably just use the generic datasheet instead of getting their own.

Again, Eldrad is a pretty good example of this. If you were already planning on fielding a footseer, then you may as well take Eldrad instead. Being faction locked is about the only thing keeping him from rendering the footseer redundant (like he kind of did in several earlier editions.)

The phoenix lords, on the other hand, largely manage to avoid this problem. You can sort of approximate a PL by giving an autarch the right gear (especially if you're using index autarch rules), and you might even be able to get better unit buffs than those PLs offer, but the PLs still end up feeling very different from the autarch. An autarch with wings, a powersword, and a gun just doesn't play quite the same as Baharroth with his mortal wound shenanigans and shiny sword. A fusion gun autarch just isn't as meaty as Fuegan. A banshee mask autarch doesn't have Jain's weird aura, funky Attacks modifier rule, or unique wargear.

Lelith is an interesting case in that on paper she's trying to do the same job as a succubus and overlaps in both methods and aesthetics quite a bit. However, I'm tempted to give her a pass because her gimmicky special rules kind of give her a different playstyle from other succubae. Regardless of whether Lelith is better or worse than a generic succubus build, I think she manages to feel reasonably "different."

It's been a long time since I've read it but I'm pretty sure read something along the lines of "if you want your Farseer to be just as powerful as Eldrad go for it". So if I were Iyanden and I wanted my Farseer Taec Silvereye to be as strong as Eldrad you'd be encouraged to just use their rules.

That's my preferred solution, although I may be misremembering the intent.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
It's been a long time since I've read it but I'm pretty sure read something along the lines of "if you want your Farseer to be just as powerful as Eldrad go for it". So if I were Iyanden and I wanted my Farseer Taec Silvereye to be as strong as Eldrad you'd be encouraged to just use their rules.

That's my preferred solution, although I may be misremembering the intent.

In prior editions, before chapter tactics/cratfworld attributes/regiment rules etc. were locked into specific sub factions this was encouraged. Take a named character, file the serial numbers off, maybe kitbash your own, give em a new name and away you go! These days that’s not allowed. You can’t use Iyanden rules with an Ulthway named character.

Prevents some potential abuse, at the harm of making the army more about Your Guys. and stifling modeling projects.

Table wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

maybe on the other hand you have people who love an army for it's lore, run a list without any of those units, do absolutely horriably, but all they hear is how OP their army is.

THOSE people have my sympathy.

People play for different reasons my man. Some like fluffy lore lists, some like the crunch. Each are valid ways to enjoy the hobby.


.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. what I said was that everytime a "OP codex drops" you have people who absolutely chase the meta. people who run eldar Scatbikes or whatever. tthen you have the person who plays the faction because they like it, run what they think is a "fun and fluffy list" havenb't won a game in ages because their list isn't optimized at all. I have a lot of sympathhy for them when despite this they show up to a game and despite their list sucking balls all they hear is their opponent repeating internet claims of his faction being OP.
It can really kill your enthusiasim for an army

BrianDavion wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. what I said was that everytime a "OP codex drops" you have people who absolutely chase the meta. people who run eldar Scatbikes or whatever. tthen you have the person who plays the faction because they like it, run what they think is a "fun and fluffy list" havenb't won a game in ages because their list isn't optimized at all. I have a lot of sympathhy for them when despite this they show up to a game and despite their list sucking balls all they hear is their opponent repeating internet claims of his faction being OP.
It can really kill your enthusiasim for an army

Yeah. It's a thing. Especially for eldar. Had a random stranger in the store (jokingly) root against my drukhari during my game today. Have had my craftworlders, often fielding not a single meta unit, get ragged on by people who heard craftworlders were cheesy on the internet without actually knowing a thing about them. Had a guy in 8th edition running a marines 2.0 army complain about how overpowered my howling banshees were. That's someone complaining about pre-power-sword-buff banshees. Isha preserve us.

Although, like tau hate, eldar-directed hate seems to persevere throughout editions even when our armies aren't actually doing very well. So maybe whether or not we're OP at the moment doesn't actually have a meaningful impact on how we're perceived. XD

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

maybe on the other hand you have people who love an army for it's lore, run a list without any of those units, do absolutely horriably, but all they hear is how OP their army is.

THOSE people have my sympathy.

People play for different reasons my man. Some like fluffy lore lists, some like the crunch. Each are valid ways to enjoy the hobby.


.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. what I said was that everytime a "OP codex drops" you have people who absolutely chase the meta. people who run eldar Scatbikes or whatever. tthen you have the person who plays the faction because they like it, run what they think is a "fun and fluffy list" havenb't won a game in ages because their list isn't optimized at all. I have a lot of sympathhy for them when despite this they show up to a game and despite their list sucking balls all they hear is their opponent repeating internet claims of his faction being OP.
It can really kill your enthusiasim for an army

Looks like I did. Sorry :(

Table wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Table wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Table wrote:
Are we talking about models or ingame rules? From a modeling perspective, yes, the Eldar are not done justice. But on the tabletop they have over performed across multiple editions. I cant have sympathy in that regard.

Rules-wise, they usually had 2-3 units that you had to spam to had any chance of victory because everything else was poorly thought out Swooping Hawks level of utility. That's not the same as having a well-written codex. If anything, it shows lack of care.

A a victim of many Scatter bikes, I have no sympathy . But seriously, most factions would love to even have ONE unit on the level of those Eldar ones you speak of.

maybe on the other hand you have people who love an army for it's lore, run a list without any of those units, do absolutely horriably, but all they hear is how OP their army is.

THOSE people have my sympathy.

People play for different reasons my man. Some like fluffy lore lists, some like the crunch. Each are valid ways to enjoy the hobby.


.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. what I said was that everytime a "OP codex drops" you have people who absolutely chase the meta. people who run eldar Scatbikes or whatever. tthen you have the person who plays the faction because they like it, run what they think is a "fun and fluffy list" havenb't won a game in ages because their list isn't optimized at all. I have a lot of sympathhy for them when despite this they show up to a game and despite their list sucking balls all they hear is their opponent repeating internet claims of his faction being OP.
It can really kill your enthusiasim for an army

Looks like I did. Sorry :(

No worries, text'll do that

There also those in between.

I’ll use myself as an example. I’m not opposed to competitive gaming, and once we’re properly allowed out, I’d like to attend some.

Whilst I’m mainly going to get gaming again and against a variety of opponents, I wouldn’t mind putting in a good showing.

With the current Necron Codex, I can do just that with more or less anything I choose to field. As noted in previous posts, some builds will be more effective than others, but none will effectively hobble my efforts.

Previous Eldar Codexes? Not so much. If I don’t take The Good Stuff, I’m more likely to get roflstomped. I’ve no problem with losing, so long as the game was at least fun for me. Roflstomping isn’t fun. At least, not repeated roflstomping where I’ve paid good money for the privilege.

Previous Eldar Codexes took too much out of the hands of players.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There also those in between.

I’ll use myself as an example. I’m not opposed to competitive gaming, and once we’re properly allowed out, I’d like to attend some.

Whilst I’m mainly going to get gaming again and against a variety of opponents, I wouldn’t mind putting in a good showing.

With the current Necron Codex, I can do just that with more or less anything I choose to field. As noted in previous posts, some builds will be more effective than others, but none will effectively hobble my efforts.

Previous Eldar Codexes? Not so much. If I don’t take The Good Stuff, I’m more likely to get roflstomped. I’ve no problem with losing, so long as the game was at least fun for me. Roflstomping isn’t fun. At least, not repeated roflstomping where I’ve paid good money for the privilege.

Previous Eldar Codexes took too much out of the hands of players.

yeah pre-9th edition codices where like that unless you took a specific cookie cutter build with a few noticable exceptions you sucked. 9th edition seems to at the very least have better INTERNAL Balance. there are few units that are straight up bad, and generally speaking even when there are they're not something you're likely to build your army around if you're trying to be fluffy, heck I bet the basic "space marine dei-company" of 3 tac squads 1 devestator sqaud and an assault squad would be a solid core for an army these days.

I assume it's difficult to internally balance an Eldar codex. Most codexes have a vague theme, and most units are a variation on that. CWE though, there's a every colour going.There's jumpers, runners, teleporters, heavies; big, small and medium bikes and tanks. And then there's wraiths.
Not that I'm apologising for it, but Eldar would make anyone's head hurt, trying to balance that lot.

I usually take the same lists no matter what edition I'm playing. One version they're OP, the next, rubbish.

 Skinnereal wrote:
I assume it's difficult to internally balance an Eldar codex. Most codexes have a vague theme, and most units are a variation on that. CWE though, there's a every colour going.There's jumpers, runners, teleporters, heavies; big, small and medium bikes and tanks. And then there's wraiths.
Not that I'm apologising for it, but Eldar would make anyone's head hurt, trying to balance that lot.

I usually take the same lists no matter what edition I'm playing. One version they're OP, the next, rubbish.

To be fair you could say the same thing about Space Marines they've got one of everything. Then you've got Primaris aping the Aspect Warriors role.

My simple suggestion when it comes to balancing an Eldar codex is to just make them good. Make the units good (but brittle) and then raise the points. Make it feel like you're playing a highly skilled, highly effective, dying race where the loss of every unit hurts. Right now we are told Aspect Warriors and Phoenix Lords are supremely skilled but instead of being a worthy adversary on the tabletop they flop about like a wet noodle you're trying to clean off a plate. Aside from the wombo-combo or please nerf-units that rotate each edition all the classic iconic units are both bad and brittle. Which is a shame. It's not fun running iconic Eldar units only to get roflstomped as Mad Doc Grotsnik metioned.

Stepping away from gameplay crunch: To me, Eldar ought to be the army that presents a combination of force, coordination, and strategic agility, with an extra layer of 'dirty tricks', but cannot withstand an attritional battle and need to bug out in a hurry if they start taking casualties.

The one mechanic that keeps coming back to me as a way to represent that is magnifying enemy VP rewards for killing them. It's something GW has dabbled with before, but never really implemented in a holistic manner.

I mean, imagine a scenario where an Eldar strike force attacks an Imperial outpost. If the Eldar suffer 20% casualties, that's reason for mourning, even if they accomplish their objective of retrieving an ancient relic or whatever. If the Imperial commander suffers 90% casualties, he still gets a medal, because he accomplished his objective and life is cheap in the Imperium.

I just don't think that sort of background translates well into gameplay if 50% casualties to Eldar mean exactly the same thing, in terms of victory points, as 50% casualties to Imperials. With this sort of weighting they could be made very powerful but still need to play cautiously to avoid sustaining enough casualties to compromise a victory on objectives.

But I'm not sure how that squares with 9th Ed mission design. Giving the enemy a bespoke secondary objective to simply kill Eldar seems like the wrong way to do it. Having Eldar lose VP for taking casualties seems like a kludge (although if every faction were given innate secondaries, that could be interesting).

And just in general, these systems where an army is de facto overpowered but given an objective-based Achilles' heel can be un-fun to play against. See: Necrons in 3rd Ed having a Phase Out mechanic, which despite being very fluffy and interesting from a design perspective meant that generally they either tabled you or you tabled them earlier than anticipated, with the narrowly-fought phase-out victories being a very rare thing that I'm not sure were worth it.

So... Long story short, I think trying to portray a dying race on the tabletop is a bit of a lost cause; and that means Eldar basically are a glass-hammer version of Primaris. Same monorole small units, but lean harder into mobility and power at the cost of durability. The problem right now is that they don't live up to even that, as Red Hobbit points out.

That's an excellent point. Eldar as a highly lethal force whose gameplay mechanic means they cannot suffer attrition is a very interesting concept.

Completely agree that trying to translate dying race into Victory Points is rather difficult in the current system. Also having it be faction specific also gets a bit weird.

One way I could see it working out would be if attrition VP were given based on points cost. So units like Space Marines, Custodes and other elites suffer greatly when they lose an expensive unit. If Eldar infantry improve in effectiveness and also points they'd fit in right here. While cheap chaff like Guardsmen, Boyz, Gaunts, etc. aren't affected.

Perhaps something like 1VP given for any Infantry unit that is wiped out and the base PPM is greater than XX. If TacMarines and Dire Avenger are 13ppm then make XX 12 for instance.

I admit it's not a very elegant solution but it's an example of trying to make the "any loss is tragedy" work for a few of the elite faction. It would also need to be tested to see how it stacks up against the chaff equivalents like thin their ranks.

Honestly I like how GW is playing with stats like with the orks and T5 and havign custodes released (admittedly a while back) with 2+ across the board.

I would love Eldar to get some better armor in the mix. I dont' think it would make sense for them to be rocking T4 in most cases (maybe a few aspects like scorpions as part of the bulkier armor but few if any) I would love to see their 4+ armors become 3+ and 5+ on guardians become a 4+. it seems you would actually put some amazing armor on your last few members of a dying race. I might even go so so far in some aspects as giving them a 3+ with a additional +1 save vs ap0 weapons. so something like a ap-1 if a 4+ save and a ap0 gun is a 2+. somehow this might show that the armor is light thin and extrmely durable up until it gets hit with too much

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Honestly I like how GW is playing with stats like with the orks and T5 and havign custodes released (admittedly a while back) with 2+ across the board.

I would love Eldar to get some better armor in the mix. I dont' think it would make sense for them to be rocking T4 in most cases (maybe a few aspects like scorpions as part of the bulkier armor but few if any) I would love to see their 4+ armors become 3+ and 5+ on guardians become a 4+. it seems you would actually put some amazing armor on your last few members of a dying race. I might even go so so far in some aspects as giving them a 3+ with a additional +1 save vs ap0 weapons. so something like a ap-1 if a 4+ save and a ap0 gun is a 2+. somehow this might show that the armor is light thin and extrmely durable up until it gets hit with too much

They have already given Kabalites warriors a slightly better save so boosting CW saves isn't entirely out of order.

Boosting Toughness is a tricky one. For the longest time better armor meant better armor save. But then Gravis Armor comes along and it gives better Toughness. Not a bad concept by any means but it gets a little weird when Terminator Armor doesn't also get that +1T.

Gravis seemed like GW testing the waters on having higher toughness based on Armor so I suppose it's possible that certain aspects like Scoprions, Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers getting +1T. Eldar are one of those iconic T3 factions though so it's probably more likely they'll bump up Armor Saves if they continue on the same trend the DE established as Eldarsif notes.

The tricky part is I couldn't really justify Dire Avengers having a 3+. So if DA are stuck at a 4+ does it make sense for Guardians also being a 4+. Well sure we can say it's better than Flak but as good as DA armor? Hard to say.

Another option for a defensive improvement could be a 5++ Invul due to lightning fast reflexes. The same invul save you see on a Death Cult Assassin currently.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
The tricky part is I couldn't really justify Dire Avengers having a 3+. So if DA are stuck at a 4+ does it make sense for Guardians also being a 4+. Well sure we can say it's better than Flak but as good as DA armor? Hard to say.

Just an idea to chew on: Improve all their saves by 1. Guardians become 4+, DA become 3+, and the really heavy armor becomes 2+.

They'd still be glassy compared to Marines, but on account of Toughness and Wounds (depending on unit), rather than their armor being worse.

Or add -1 to hit modifiers to everything Aspect.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Or add -1 to hit modifiers to everything Aspect.

And change the rules on modifiers so it would be one per source. So -1 innately, -1 for moving heavy, -1 for shooting through dense cover. Make positioning important again

A thought. And only a thought.

Striking Scorpions, being stealthy by nature, should have Cameloline armour. A native -1 to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, adapt the Lictors insertion rules.

I can’t remember which unit I’m thinking of (it may even be an old WHFB), but you could pick three terrain features, and place a “possible location” marker in each.

When you were ready to reveal the location, you picked one of the three, discarding the other two tokens.