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.

 Strg Alt wrote:

The above listed traits were watered down to some degree with the arrival of Tau and Dark Eldar which made zero sense gamewise but a lot of sense considering the sales driven ruleset of 40K. So now the game is burdened with three high-tech races which needlessly add to the faction bloat.

Necrons are not only also high tech, but they are the highest tech army in the galaxy.

Tau being high tech is also arguable. They certainly have more reliable tech than the Imperium but are not even in the same ballpark in certain areas, like teleportation. Even their plasma is less more powerful and more has maximum output throttled for safety.

Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?

And yeah, Tau aren't high-tech. They're efficient tech. They're what the Imperium could be if they studied their guns rather than praying to them.

Rihgu wrote:
"Craftworld armies can allot up to 20 PL as Premonition Power. In step X of the pre-game sequence, they can pick up to the alloted Premonition Power value of ASPECT units to add to their army. In Combat Patrol games a Craftworld army can allot only 10 PL, in Incursion games a Craftworld army can allot up to 30 PL, and in Onslaught games a Craftworld army can allot up to 50 PL.

Designer's notes: In Matched Play games a Craftworld player must pay reinforcement points for any units added to their army list in this way."

That's a whole lot'a rules for a play mechanic that most people don't use outside of Crusade (PL), and then a completely different system for standard points-based games that doesn't achieve the same effect.

I like the "Assassin Swap" idea for Aspects. Making it works means making the cost of Aspects all the same so that swapping one for the other si seamless. No, that doesn't mean that 10 Dark Reapers have the same cost as 10 Dire Avengers, but it means that units should have comparable points costs.

You could even factor this into the Strat itself - as this kind of rule is exactly what Stratagems should be (ie. the expenditure of an abstracted strategic resource to change the nature of your army, rather than dumb 'gotcha' strats like Transhuman or 'fight again' ones) - so it could be X CP to swap one unit for another, but if the unit is +X more expensive, then it costs X+Y CP, and so on.

Also "Reinforcement Points" are awful...

PL is used in Matched Play as well, for Strategic Reserves and other little things, like Daemonic Summoning. It's not just for Crusade. Using it like this fits the design of the game that GW makes rather than an idealized version, anyways.

The stratagem idea also works well within the paradigm, I just think it's bad form to have this mechanic which is supposed to compensate for the Eldar Aspect Warrior thing not really functioning in the game in any meaningful way have a "high" price to it. If it costs too much CP to swap the Aspects in your list, it's not going to be worth it and you'll just bring the most generally useful Aspect (bad, imho).

In my opinion, the Eldar gameplay should be focused on three prongs.

The first one is heavily specialized and highly performant elite light and medium infantry in the form of Aspect Warriors. They should be extremely competent at their specific role, but each role should be highly defined with the sole exception of Dire Avengers who must be more multi-purpose. in short:

Dire Avengers: good against light infantry, but still capable against medium infantry thanks the their shuriken weapons. Just as good in close combat than in range.

Banshee: elite close combat unit specialized in de-buffing and fighting against other close combat specialists, extremely fast, fragile to shooting, but not extremely deadly on their own.

Scorpions: elite close combat unit specialized in killing swaths of chaff, but that can flex unto harder units though not against other dedicated close combat units. Well armored and benefits highly from fighting in cover.

Fire Dragons: anti-tank and super-heavy elite infantry. Very short range, relatively fast and reasonably armored.

Swooping Hawk: harassment unit that de-buffs enemy units (or buff allies via their shooting) that can inflict some damage against infantry, fastest of all Aspect Warriors. Can place some plink damage against vehicles with grenades.

Warp Spider: counter attack and counter charge short range units with massive deployment and redeployment abilities and a weapon that is good against all targets, but not great; mostly efficient against medium infantry and light vehicles. Well armored.

Shinning Spear: close combat specialist with powerful speed and charge designed to kill elite heavy infantry and light vehicles on the charge, but vulnerable to being immobilized or other similar units.

Dark Reaper: long range "hammer" unit designed to kill elite infantry and tanks at long range. reasonably armored, but slow by Eldar standards.

Eldar tanks should be fast, moderately armored and moderately armed, but precise and versatile unlike their infantry. They should be reasonably numerous. Transports are costly, but highly performant thanks to speed, good weapons, good defense and good transport capacity.

Eldar HQ should be focused mostly on buffing other units either via aura's and shenanigans or via psychic powers. They should not specialize as beatstick except Phoenix Lords and the Avatar of Khaine.

Guardians offer cheap support units of relatively poor quality made to hold objective and secure positions (or bodyguard HQ units in the case of Storm Guardians) while Wraith units offer slow, powerful Terminator equivalent to Eldars.

In the "wish list" section, I would call for a redesign of Swooping Hawk and Howling Banshees to make them proper de-buffers/harasser and counter-elite respectively. I would extand the range of shuriken catapult to 18 inches, give the option for shield dome to Guardian Defender. I would raise all Aspect Warriors to 3 attack base. I would improve Scorpion Chainswords ( 1 extra strength, attack and AP) and give Dire Avengers eldar swords (for an extra AP in close combat) and improve the AP of their shuriken catapult by 1. Bring melta weapons in line with others as well as the Bright Lance. Give all Exarch a close combat specialized equipment (fire swords/axe for Fire Dragons, blinding sword/spear for the Swooping Hawk, mini-maugetar for Dark Reapers) and keep their options for powers. Maybe even move the Wraithseer from ForgeWorld to regular GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?

I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"

At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.

Rihgu wrote:
PL is used in Matched Play as well, for Strategic Reserves and other little things, like Daemonic Summoning. It's not just for Crusade. Using it like this fits the design of the game that GW makes rather than an idealized version, anyways.

The stratagem idea also works well within the paradigm, I just think it's bad form to have this mechanic which is supposed to compensate for the Eldar Aspect Warrior thing not really functioning in the game in any meaningful way have a "high" price to it. If it costs too much CP to swap the Aspects in your list, it's not going to be worth it and you'll just bring the most generally useful Aspect (bad, imho).

Just use reinforcement points instead of PL and all is well.

I've been working on my "own version" of the 40K universe for a while as a roleplaying setting and also for my wargames.

And when I was considering Eldar, I eventually made the decision to make Dark Eldar the faction I would add. That was because I already had Tau and Necrons as High Tech Xenos. Necrons fill a different role as robotic vs organic, so for the organic I think Tau models are cooler and the federation of aliens concept is better for an optimistic high tech alien culture. Gameplay wise, Tau are also very shooting orientated. The Eldar then work better as a decadent, old alien culture that is focused on cruelty and personal gratification, and in game terms is melee focused, for cultural reasons. Eldar as decadent, fallen corsairs just works better I think.

That said, the Craftworld Eldar concepts are really cool, and I love the visual design and the thought that went into them. But when I had to make a cut to the setting, they ended up being what I cut out.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"

At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?

I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"

At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.

So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.

There is apparently an unspoken commandment of 40K which needs to be removed:

"Thou shall not have a basic weapon in your wargear list that is more useful than that of the thrice-blessed, holy, imperial bolter/bolt rifle."

Afaik only the Tau have a vastly better basic gun than the Imperial bolter. Other factions may have a slight advantage over the bolter (e.g. Necron basic gun) but it pales in comparison to the Tau grunt rifle.

And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:

1. Eldar
2. Imperium
3.Orks
4. Tyranids

 Strg Alt wrote:


And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:

1. Eldar
2. Imperium
3.Orks
4. Tyranids

You forgot chaos, among other stuff. Is chaos tech better than orks one? I'd argue it isn't.

A lot of ork technology is way beyond imperial understanding, even before it reaches large scale Waaagh! levels. For example tellyporta technology or big zzap-style weapons are a complete mystery to tech priests, even when they have acquired prototypes. On the flip side, orks have looted and repurposed or imitated pretty much everything the imperium has to offer.

It's also worth noting that while the imperium has a lot of technology that they don't understand anymore, so I'd firmly put them in the same catergory as orks.

It also seems like cawl's marine tech and admech should not be considered to be on the same level as IG or sisters.

The biggest problem is GW's misunderstanding of "synergy". Synergy should mean if you combine the units or interactions you get effects greater than merely the sum of their individual parts (that is the whole dictionary definition of synergy). Basically you get rewarded for taking the additional effort and the risk of things not working out and falling apart. Extra effort should equate to extra reward. 2+2 = 5

However historically often it seems GW has used that term to instead mean Craftworld Eldar units require babysitting to even do their intended role to a mediocre level. That's not synergy. That's an underpowered unit that is a liability if it requires the attention of another unit just to achieve average performance, since there is the cost of the other unit and also the opportunity cost of that other unit being unable to aid other units or do other things if it is babysitting. For example, Banshees shouldn't have to require a Farseer constantly Dooming their target in order to stand a chance of doing merely decent damage (if even that). 2+2 = 3 or 2+2+2 = 4

Historically the Craftworld Eldar lists over the editions have been plagued by the problem of overpowered units each edition combined with the other choices being underperforming. Why bother with a unit that requires much attention and everything fitting together right when instead you could spam the overpowered unit?

The issue with the 2+2=5 equation is that some nifty player will find out a way to make it 2+2+2+2+2+2 = 20, which is so much better than the baseline that it will just totally overpower the other side without much care for what happens if the synergy falls apart.

At this point I feel like so much of the eldar codex is just outright non-functional that simply lifting each datasheet to a level that would make it playable by itself should already create a great codex. That inherent synergy that is already there should take care of the rest.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
@OP:

A couple of months ago I started a thread about the traits of the most prominent 40K factions. According to that Eldar should play like this:

- Most mobile of all factions. This doesn´t only include fast vehicles but the ability to use warp tunnels and psi-powers to quickly relocate units on the table.

- Long range firepower. This suits a high-tech faction very well and was a trait for them in 2nd and in Epic. However GW trashed the Eldar since 3rd when they reduced shuriken catapults to 12´´ range.

- Emphasis on force shields rather than thick armour for protection.

- General aspect: Highly specialized army. They have aspect warriors for every combat role. Downside would be that Eldar can´t improvise. So if you don´t bring scorpions or banshees you will suck in cc.

- Small unit sizes. Goes well with the fluff of a dying race and the need to pay a lot of points for their exotic tech.


The above listed traits were watered down to some degree with the arrival of Tau and Dark Eldar which made zero sense gamewise but a lot of sense considering the sales driven ruleset of 40K. So now the game is burdened with three high-tech races which needlessly add to the faction bloat.

TBH i think "long range firepower" as an army trait will never, ever work on the new tiny board. "outranging" an enemy is meaningless. Space Marines and IG have range = board on basically all their stuff, you could make shuricats 48" range and it'd be a meaningless distinction.

Instead, I think the only way to achieve the "mobile, finesse-based" fantasy of eldar/harlequins is via some kind of post-attack movement paradigm. If you just hand them invulns but call them "dodgey-dodges" then you end up with the current frustratingly tanky setup harlequins have. The ONLY way to increase your defenses naturally using movement in 9e is to move yourself behind Obscuring or Dense cover, and even Dense is...basically meaningless.

So, that leaves us with move-shoot-move or move-attack-move as our option, and the obvious drawback is to stick with the limited range weaponry paradigm theyre currently on.

It could work. Probably would work even better if yu also allow eldar units to embark with their second move, so a wave serpent could facilitate one squad swapping out of the serpent and another squad swapping in.

Since when can GW force me on which type of board I play?

And another thing. A unit from the Scourge of DFC emits a specific force field which subtracts range to incoming shots which may then fall harmlessly to the ground. This kind of thing could be implemented for the Eldar as well to give one of their force fields a new function. Outgunning the enemy would then be possible without changing the opponent´s wargear.

It doesn't matter on which sort of board you play, because most likely the majority of players aren't playing on that same type of board. Tailoring an army to function on an 8x4 cityfight board is going to put them at a severe disadvantage in the reality of the game.

The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).

The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).

It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?

I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"

At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.

So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.

There is apparently an unspoken commandment of 40K which needs to be removed:

"Thou shall not have a basic weapon in your wargear list that is more useful than that of the thrice-blessed, holy, imperial bolter/bolt rifle."

Afaik only the Tau have a vastly better basic gun than the Imperial bolter. Other factions may have a slight advantage over the bolter (e.g. Necron basic gun) but it pales in comparison to the Tau grunt rifle.

And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:

1. Eldar
2. Imperium
3.Orks
4. Tyranids

Agreed on most points, although I'd say firing twice at 24" and being an Assault weapon would be fine for Shuricats, and they wouldn't need to go up to 30".

The issue with Space Marines on the "basic weapon" front is their Docrines and Super Doctrines. Which, I don't really know how to address. The fact that UM Intercessors can move and fire twice at 30" AP -2 is just stupid. . . But I wouldn't really balance Shuricats in relation to that specifically.

I'll briefly give a mention to Deathspitters as an excellent basic weapon. Assault 3, 24", S5 AP-1. I think it's still the king of basic weapons.

 Strg Alt wrote:
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable.

It's an enduring legacy of 3rd edition where marines had just the bolter (no pistol) and set restrictions on when and how it could be used, whereas the Eldar had two shots in every situation but only at 12".

I was a little surprised they didn't change it in 6th when they buffed everything else, by that point the slower strategic movement of the game was mostly gone and the concept of things like the old daemonhunters 'shooting from 13" away with a fixed 12" charge distance' was a thing of the past, as were things like the the run movement being exclusively an eldar trait.


'Balancing' based on interpretation of fluff alone is never a good idea though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).

The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).

It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.

It wouldn´t be useless. Quite the opposite. Depending on how much range of the opposing guns is reduced mostly their heavy weapons could bring harm to the Eldar from turn one. In contrast to that the Eldar can unleash their whole firepower from a safe distance without endangering a single soldier. This would represent the Eldar´s superior firepower and force the opponent to reduce distance to them.

 Strg Alt wrote:


So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.

One of the issues with things like "X faction is high tech so their stats should be better" is that it can sometimes outright misrepresent to folks how the things work.

Eldar's technology being "high tech" doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be the best.

Though I will agree that the Shuriken Catapult could use some more range. At least to 20 inches would be aces.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?

I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"

At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.

So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.

There is apparently an unspoken commandment of 40K which needs to be removed:

"Thou shall not have a basic weapon in your wargear list that is more useful than that of the thrice-blessed, holy, imperial bolter/bolt rifle."

Afaik only the Tau have a vastly better basic gun than the Imperial bolter. Other factions may have a slight advantage over the bolter (e.g. Necron basic gun) but it pales in comparison to the Tau grunt rifle.

And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:

1. Eldar
2. Imperium
3.Orks
4. Tyranids

Agreed on most points, although I'd say firing twice at 24" and being an Assault weapon would be fine for Shuricats, and they wouldn't need to go up to 30".

The issue with Space Marines on the "basic weapon" front is their Docrines and Super Doctrines. Which, I don't really know how to address. The fact that UM Intercessors can move and fire twice at 30" AP -2 is just stupid. . . But I wouldn't really balance Shuricats in relation to that specifically.

I'll briefly give a mention to Deathspitters as an excellent basic weapon. Assault 3, 24", S5 AP-1. I think it's still the king of basic weapons.

I meant basic gun in the sense of being wielded by Core troops such as Imps, Boyz and Tacticals. Deathspitters are wielded by Tyranid Warriors which are an Elite choice.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).

The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).

It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.

It wouldn´t be useless. Quite the opposite. Depending on how much range of the opposing guns is reduced mostly their heavy weapons could bring harm to the Eldar from turn one. In contrast to that the Eldar can unleash their whole firepower from a safe distance without endangering a single soldier. This would represent the Eldar´s superior firepower and force the opponent to reduce distance to them.

I didn't say it would be useless (well, I did, but only as half my post and in the process of explaining the actual point that you missed); I said it inevitably results in a feelbad moment for one player either way.

Either it's useless against the majority of the enemy weapons and the eldar crumple like wet paper for their cost (Eldar player feels bad) or it hard counters the majority of the enemy army and they might as well not show up for all the efficacy of the weapons they've brought (other player feels bad).

It's also totally useless against Slaanesh Daemons, which I find hilariously ironic.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.

One of the issues with things like "X faction is high tech so their stats should be better" is that it can sometimes outright misrepresent to folks how the things work.

Eldar's technology being "high tech" doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be the best.

Though I will agree that the Shuriken Catapult could use some more range. At least to 20 inches would be aces.

Being high-tech/elite has drawbacks and it doesn mean that your army will have an easy victory. Stalin´s famous quote comes to mind: "Quantity is a quality of it´s own." Therefore you will be often outnumbered because of costly wargear. This means suffering unnecessary casualties in the first turns will be the first step on the way of defeat whereas your run-of-the-mill Ork and Tyranid army would just shrug their shoulders and carry on. GW never stopped claiming that Eldar were the scalpel and most other factions operated more like sledgehammers. Suffice to say it´s a pretty blunt scalpel.

 Strg Alt wrote:


I meant basic gun in the sense of being wielded by Core troops such as Imps, Boyz and Tacticals. Deathspitters are wielded by Tyranid Warriors which are an Elite choice.

Tyranid Warriors are Troops. I know they used to be Elites, but they haven't been for some time now. As a bit of a lark I fielded an army of 80 or so of the things during 8th. Like an army of 80 Heavy Bolters, roughly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).

The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).

It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.

It wouldn´t be useless. Quite the opposite. Depending on how much range of the opposing guns is reduced mostly their heavy weapons could bring harm to the Eldar from turn one. In contrast to that the Eldar can unleash their whole firepower from a safe distance without endangering a single soldier. This would represent the Eldar´s superior firepower and force the opponent to reduce distance to them.

I didn't say it would be useless (well, I did, but only as half my post and in the process of explaining the actual point that you missed); I said it inevitably results in a feelbad moment for one player either way.

Either it's useless against the majority of the enemy weapons and the eldar crumple like wet paper for their cost (Eldar player feels bad) or it hard counters the majority of the enemy army and they might as well not show up for all the efficacy of the weapons they've brought (other player feels bad).

It's also totally useless against Slaanesh Daemons, which I find hilariously ironic.

Why should a force field which protects against projectiles have an effect against clawed bull monsters? It´s just one tool of the Eldar´s arsenal.

About the Eldar crumpling due to high cost:
I played Epic in the 90s with Eldar. They had long range firepower and most units had less models than the opposing factions. You could perform very well with them, if you gave a thought or two what you were doing. That was their unique playstyle which rewarded careful thinking. Why wouldn´t this work in 40K? Maybe because of all the bad design decisions with which the Eldar were burdened since 3rd. Now they truly are a dying race.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


I meant basic gun in the sense of being wielded by Core troops such as Imps, Boyz and Tacticals. Deathspitters are wielded by Tyranid Warriors which are an Elite choice.

Tyranid Warriors are Troops. I know they used to be Elites, but they haven't been for some time now. As a bit of a lark I fielded an army of 80 or so of the things during 8th. Like an army of 80 Heavy Bolters, roughly.

Eighty heavy bolters?!
What fielded your opponent? 300 grots?

 Strg Alt wrote:


Eighty heavy bolters?!
What fielded your opponent? 300 grots?

Brought it against just normal armies to see what would happen. It did reasonably well, lol.

I don't think it was actually 80, but it was something like that. All Warriors and min HQ.

Just a bit of history on the whole 12" catapult:

It actually started with Epic 40K when they threw out the old Epic 2nd edition rule system (bad idea). Most infantry had Firepower 1 and the equivalent of bolter range. They decided to give Eldar Firepower 2 and half the range, in the thought that this would make Eldar better at close range firefights but force them to use their mobility to get into range. At the time I think the comparison was made to the catapult being like a SMG. It didn't really work in Epic 40K, but they carried over the idea to 3rd edition 40K by halving the previously 24" catapult but giving them Assault 2.

Now maybe if the standard of measurement had been GEQ instead of MEQ, maybe it might have worked a bit better. However in 3rd edition's all or nothing AP system, one additional bolter equivalent S4 AP5 shot accomplished very little, and then with the increasing assault ranges the ludicrous situation came about of the enemy being able to charge further than the catapult could shoot.

GW tacitly admitted the range was an issue when they bumped the Avenger catapult to 18" but they have stubbornly still resisted truly admitting their mistake and adjusting the standard catapult.

I didn't read all the answer but I think they should not be looked at somewhat superior species.

They were, but considering their fall they are now just very outsider of the galaxy, who go to war only if absolutely necessary.
And once they do so, it's anxiety necessary (due to their few numbers) to do it in the right way.

So as well as harlequins and especially dark eldars should be, it's still a prerogative that the eldar player is better then his opponent. Kinda going in hard mode in a videogame.

Concretly, I think whatever have been said is right, fast, kinda tanky but not at marines level units that must be played for their porpouses.
And the point investment goes a lot more in movement/special rules that make them versatile then pure durability or damage.
A balanced codex thatoffers more the possibility to surprise yuor oppent then overpower units who break him. Like something that can be good versus two very different armies depending on the special rules it had.

I remember like 4 or 5 yers ago they were destroyng the game with their overpowered codex. That was so bad ahah.

Iracundus wrote:
Just a bit of history on the whole 12" catapult:

It actually started with Epic 40K when they threw out the old Epic 2nd edition rule system (bad idea). Most infantry had Firepower 1 and the equivalent of bolter range. They decided to give Eldar Firepower 2 and half the range, in the thought that this would make Eldar better at close range firefights but force them to use their mobility to get into range. At the time I think the comparison was made to the catapult being like a SMG. It didn't really work in Epic 40K, but they carried over the idea to 3rd edition 40K by halving the previously 24" catapult but giving them Assault 2.

Now maybe if the standard of measurement had been GEQ instead of MEQ, maybe it might have worked a bit better. However in 3rd edition's all or nothing AP system, one additional bolter equivalent S4 AP5 shot accomplished very little, and then with the increasing assault ranges the ludicrous situation came about of the enemy being able to charge further than the catapult could shoot.

GW tacitly admitted the range was an issue when they bumped the Avenger catapult to 18" but they have stubbornly still resisted truly admitting their mistake and adjusting the standard catapult.

I'd say that the 12" Catapult was okaay in 3rd when Bolters could only fire twice when standing still, and couldn't Assault. Guardians being able to Move, Shoot and the Assault made for a pretty dynamic difference between the two.

Now, the fact that stupid Blood Angels could make a 30" charge in 3rd is it's own horrible problem.

But yes, I love going back to 2nd ed and having Guardians and Dire Avengers actually trade shots meaningfully with Marines at 24". It feels like an actual firefight at times.

If you go by lore, an eldar force should, if it sees success is impossible at a certain point, immediately withdraw since there is no gain for any additional deaths among a dwindling population.

of course in 40k that's generally not considered good sportsmanship.