Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have found in this edition, besides the obvious challenges of an old Codex, that the smaller sized boards have reduced my ability to keep out of reach of fast melee units. The incredible amount of damage that many units can unleash in a single round of shooting is something else that really impacts my units. In previous editions the multiple modifiers to hit would let me survive that maelstrom...if that is off the table, then better armor saves and better ranged Shurikens would help.

My two cents,

CB

Perhaps the ability to react to enemy shooting? Take a LD test after the enemy resolves a unit's shooting and if you pass you can make a move action in any direction that leaves you further away from the enemy. Same with combat. Possibly incurring a to hit buff to yourself next turn to represent them hoofing it as fast as they can. (and balance of course)

The Revenant wrote:
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.

Didn't BFG sort of represent this? Something along the lines of eldar ships being allowed to run away mid-battle? So you could rack up victory points by doing damage in the early turns, then run away to prevent your opponent from gaining VP for destroying your ships? That doesn't translate into 40k very well, but it does seem very thematic.

Here's a probably terrible idea:
Let eldar near board edges go into strategic reserves to pop up anywhere along that same board edge on the following turn. The idea being that they're fast and stealthy enough to break off from the main assault and harass the enemy flanks. Really lean into the idea that they're working the edges trickily rather than diving headlong into the middle of the table. Probably doesn't work in a 5 turn game that puts as much emphasis as 40k does on standing on primary objectives though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

While I'm not opposed to catapults gaining some range, I kind of don't want them to become 30"+ just for the heck of it. Eldar tech is all kinds of nifty, but shuriken catapults are like a more lethal version of those toy guns that shoot foam discs. Even allowing for advanced tech to straighten out the trajectory of a disc-shaped projectile and give it enough force to be dangerous, catapults just don't seem like they should be approaching sniper rifle levels of range. In video game terms, it seems like they should feel closer to a machinegun style weapon than a rifle. Like, I could almost see shurikens behaving more like flamer weapons, filling a nearby cone of space with projectiles to the point that missing is impossible; but that's probably impractical for a basic weapon.

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Revenant wrote:
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.

Didn't BFG sort of represent this? Something along the lines of eldar ships being allowed to run away mid-battle? So you could rack up victory points by doing damage in the early turns, then run away to prevent your opponent from gaining VP for destroying your ships? That doesn't translate into 40k very well, but it does seem very thematic.

All ships in BFG could disengage. Most "historical" engagements actually seem to have ended with one side or the other disengaging rather than fighting to the death/destruction of a capital ship. In terms of VP, capturing a ship > destroying ship but capturing the hulk > destroying a ship > enemy ship disengaging.

What you are thinking of was the Necron VP system which was not very satisfying. The Necron ships were overpowered but attempts at balancing their gameplay were not entirely effective so one final attempt was to make them worth more VP to induce them to disengage before their ships got crippled or destroyed. However this wasn't very satisfying from a psychological perspective if the Necron player did not care about VPs or gamed the system in campaign mode by going for destroying the enemy fleet. The Necron player might then take enough damage to lose by VP but literally wipe out the enemy fleet. For pick up games, it was not very satisfying for the non-Necron player to "win" this way, with their fleet wiped off the board, nor for the Necron player to "lose" despite this. In campaign mode, the Necron player could gain the advantage this way at the price of a few initial "lost" games as destroyed enemy ships would be replaced with fresh ships with low LD, which put the non-Necron player at a disadvantage for the rest of the campaign.

Pretty sure that in BFG your whole fleet had to disengage. Your opponent would then gain half VPs for each Chickenship, so it wasn’t something to be done lightly?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure that in BFG your whole fleet had to disengage. Your opponent would then gain half VPs for each Chickenship, so it wasn’t something to be done lightly?

No, it was individual ships. I am looking at the BFG rulebook right now. Pass LD check subject to some modifiers. If crippled and disengaged, worth 25% of point value in VP to opponent. If not crippled, worth 10%. A destroyed ship was worth 100% of its point value.

The Necron VP table was 10% for disengaging with no damage whatsever, 25% for disengaging, 50% for being crippled, 200% for being destroyed, 300% if destroyed and left as a drifting hulk.

The problem though as I wrote in the previous post was that a Necron player could choose to ignore the VPs, not care about sustaining damage, and wipe the enemy off the table. The enemy might "win" on VPs but it was not psychologically/emotionally satisfying to "win" just because you inflicted some scratches on the Necron ships but got wiped in return. In campaign mode, a few such Pyrrhic "wins" would lead to crippling LD handicap for the non-Necron player as fresh ship replacements for destroyed ships started at a lower LD.

So much for my memory

Thinking further on Shuriken Catapult range.

To me, Guardians need to be there to create danger zones for the enemy, whilst the Aspects and that do the real heavy hitting. Stuff like camping on Objectives, or creating zones of quite horrendous firepower.

12” just….doesn’t do that. At all. Especially in a game where the assault range has increased from 12”.

18” seems a bare minimum in that world. Enough that they’re generally out of charge range, whilst being useful enough to pull back to a longer range and still pour it on.

24” does seem better. Yes, Guardian squads with that range can kick out decent levels of reasonably accurate better than average firepower, but still fold like a cheap suit to any truly determined attack/attempt to deal with them. At least, without support from Warlocks etc.

But hey, how about a 20” range? After all, we’re not restricted to increments of 6”. Whilst comparatively short range still, it’s still a more useful and impactful one, and requires some suitably extra skill on the player to make the most of it,

That should see Guardians able to, well, guard things. Couple up with the much needed “actually rather dangerous” Aspect Warriors, and you end up with a force which requires some finesse and knowledge to get the absolute most out of, without demanding the same.

A well player Eldar army should be mobile enough to redress their line, creating new and interesting danger zones turn to turn. And that begins with giving Guardians range worth a damn,

Eldar Guardians date from when the standard of measurement was intended to be the Imperial Guardsman. Just like in WHFB, where Elves were basically Humans+1, Eldar Guardians were originally Imperial Guard+1, with better characteristics and equipment. However they do poorly in the MEQ environment, and serve little more than ablative wounds for their weapons platform. That's the problem when they are thematically meant to be from an endangered race that tries to avoid losses.

I feel guardians should get 24 so they can trade sufficiently with other infantry of similar type. Outclassed by more specialised infantry, and dire avengers being both faster and more deadly when within the 12 inch range to give them a difference.

Right now I don’t think there is enough battlefield for the whole army to be dynamic like that. And if they get a move shoot move it will mostly just be to move into range, shoot then move back out for guardians at this point.

Better to use that time on more dynamic units that can utilise it more interestingly.

The decrease of the board size is fundamentally wrong. Aforementioned aspects of mobility and outmaneuvering an opponent, a key trait of the Eldar, is not possible. Obviously the intention is to further dumb down the game as it will be even more easier to end a match at turn 3. Sounds like shooting fish in a barrel.

While I agree that the fanatical adherence to the recommended board size is crazy, it’s disingenuous to put that much blame on it. In the days old you could turbo boosting a jet bike squad halfway across the board onto an objective that only scores on the final turn. That wasn’t entertaining to play against. Now the rules require commitment to objectives instead of just running on at the end. The important objectives tend to be in the middle as well forcing you to maneuver there. Eldar mobility is less important because victory doesn’t depend as much on holding the objectives at the end.

I’d like to see some of the redeployment shenanigans that the thousand sons, ultramarines, and alpha legion get. Guardians should get a 4+ save and most aspect armor should get a +1 save across the board. -1 damage for the wraithlord and wraith guard seem reasonable too. I’m hesitant to put it on the wraithknight though. The grey knight ability to recast certain spells at additional cost seems good for an inherently psychic army. Close combat definitely needs a buff. Units like banshees should get the option for sweep and heavy strike attacks to let them chew threw any of the basic infantry. The attacks should be at S4 1D for the sweep and S5 2D for the heavier blows. I don’t think it would be crazy to make aspects obsec either.

With today’s rules though move shoot move should be heavily curtailed. A lot of terrain turns line of sight on and off by touching it. An entire army creating schrodinger’s LOS doesn’t sound like a fun mechanic to play.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
While I agree that the fanatical adherence to the recommended board size is crazy, it’s disingenuous to put that much blame on it. In the days old you could turbo boosting a jet bike squad halfway across the board onto an objective that only scores on the final turn. That wasn’t entertaining to play against.

Yeah but they couldn't charge or shoot after moving such a speed, meaning their turn was spent doing nothing but moving. Also basic weapons (hi Bolt Rifles) couldn't shoot across the table. And those that had extreme range (Pulse Rifles) couldn't shoot twice a turn at that range.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah but they couldn't charge or shoot after moving such a speed, meaning their turn was spent doing nothing but moving.

Last turns of sieze and capture games against Eldar in 5th ed could get hairy with their 36" move skimmers on top of their bikes, though random game length and the relatively low power of the faction at the time prevented them from ever dominating with it.

In an odd way it almost worked as a thematic eldar codex - run circles around the opponent, redeployment shenanigans, a significant psychic presence... and not nearly enough bodies or firepower to trade out against most armies in a head-on exchange. Couldn't hold against the power creep though.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
While I agree that the fanatical adherence to the recommended board size is crazy, it’s disingenuous to put that much blame on it. In the days old you could turbo boosting a jet bike squad halfway across the board onto an objective that only scores on the final turn. That wasn’t entertaining to play against. Now the rules require commitment to objectives instead of just running on at the end. The important objectives tend to be in the middle as well forcing you to maneuver there. Eldar mobility is less important because victory doesn’t depend as much on holding the objectives at the end.

I'm not sure anyone is really pushing for last-minute rushes onto objectives. But as others have pointed out, the current board size combined with primary objectives makes eldar mobility hard to represent in a useful fashion. I kind of miss luring opponents into splitting their forces up into smaller groups so that I could relocate my whole army around one group and focus it down while remaining safely out of threat range of the other groups. Right now, moving far enough away from a group of enemies to be out of their range generally means avoiding the primary objectives and thus losing the game. And that's assuming your opponent doesn't have the speed and range to to prevent you from running away from them in the first place.

I'm a little bit nervous about how they'll handle craftworlders in the next codex. They basically just made drukhari so cost-effective that they could win a straight up firefight with other armies, and I feel drukhari lost a bit of character as a result. I'm hoping they manage to keep the personality of craftworlders intact.

I'm not entirely sure anymore. When I fought against Eldar in 5th ed they felt more like they were in Dawn of War and the various other media I consumed when I was younger.

1) Firstly, I think Aspect Warrior's should have 2 wounds, and weapons should be retooled, off the top of my head I'd want Banshee swords to be akin to a Nemesis or Master Crafted powersword, one direct blow would should be enough to kill a Primaris Marine dead, I also think Fire Dragons should be able to be toe to toe or even surpass Eradicator's.

2) I really -really- liked the flavour of our strategems in 8th. I dunno what I would work there, but mechanics to make the Eldar trickier to hurt rather then just flat out tougher would be implemented.

3) A lot of the units in the current book are either *Must takes* or at best 'meh' at worst 'bad' I'd want to bring everyone up to a competent field.

4) I -really- think Eldar, as a species so concerned with it's population should have some kind of Aspect healer. Maybe something like a Farseer but with regenerative magics like Lore of Life from Oldhammer?

I dunno man. But that's my two cents.

Eldar armies have speed and firepower, but less durability than other armies.
The slogan ''Speed is your armor'' is no longer correct as Serpents, Falcons and Co. do no longer get a bonus on having moved.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Eldar armies have speed and firepower, but less durability than other armies.
The slogan ''Speed is your armor'' is no longer correct as Serpents, Falcons and Co. do no longer get a bonus on having moved.

It doesn't seem to be a far stretch to give them the same "jink" ability that ravenwing and speed freeks got.

Always kind of suspect on "Eldar should have less durability" - "Looks at Wave Serpent in most editions" - "Okay carry on then."

If for example they ended up as a T7/3+/-1 damage with 13 wounds - and lets say a 5++ thrown on top as a "speed dodge bonus" plus some sort of defensive chapter tactic bonus its not really in any sense fragile. With potentially 3 good guns (inevitably going to be buffed) this thing either ends up ludicrously expensive or rather broken.

Not really sure on Guardians. I don't like just making them 24" range - because its not interesting. Unfortunately Dire Avengers are explicitly Guardians+1, so which one you take is almost always just a function of points.

That profile is not too different from a PBC, so there should be a way to make it work if priced properly.

I don't know if it's in this thread or another, but I've mentioned that Guardians really need a warlock sgt to boost the squad in various ways to make them playable. Downside is that the kit doesn't come with this upgrade so will not likely be a path utilized. It would be so easy though to allow Warlocks to give a buff in the command phase which could either be offensive or defensive in nature. Defense would replace Conceal and just give the squad both -1 to hit and count as in light cover. Offensive boost would increase range and ROF of shuricats (18" Assault 3).
Aspects just need to be able to do what they should do really well, and that's it. In 9th, if priced appropriately they should then be able to "trade" well with opponents. banshees wreck power armour, dragons melt armour, etc. can't improve their resilience, that's just not their stick. I could see a JSJ approach with warp spiders though.

 Jidmah wrote:
That profile is not too different from a PBC, so there should be a way to make it work if priced properly.

I guess that is one way of looking at it.

Its probably not impossible to balance. I'm not sure it will feel fragile though - although ymmv on how well PBCs hold up. I used to think it was a really good package, but less sure these days.

Tyel wrote:
Always kind of suspect on "Eldar should have less durability" - "Looks at Wave Serpent in most editions" - "Okay carry on then."

If for example they ended up as a T7/3+/-1 damage with 13 wounds - and lets say a 5++ thrown on top as a "speed dodge bonus" plus some sort of defensive chapter tactic bonus its not really in any sense fragile. With potentially 3 good guns (inevitably going to be buffed) this thing either ends up ludicrously expensive or rather broken.

Not really sure on Guardians. I don't like just making them 24" range - because its not interesting. Unfortunately Dire Avengers are explicitly Guardians+1, so which one you take is almost always just a function of points.

You leave Guardians with that rotten gun and they will behave worse than cavemen (Orks). Ah, what an epitome of a high-tech race. Might as well squat the faction as GW doesn´t know how to handle them just like the Squats in the 90s.

 Strg Alt wrote:
You leave Guardians with that rotten gun and they will behave worse than cavemen (Orks). Ah, what an epitome of a high-tech race. Might as well squat the faction as GW doesn´t know how to handle them just like the Squats in the 90s.

Its not a rotten gun though. Its better than a boltgun.
You can say "not so - my sisters of battle get to plink away from 24" away".
Sure - but they mathematically do essentially nothing if they do.
You want to be in half range for double shots, and now by comparison a good portion of those from the Guardians that wound are at AP-3 rather than -. Especially when you break out say doom. If the humble Shuriken Catapult gets a base -1 AP because GW just like dolling that out for laughs these days, its dramatically better than a bolter.

Maybe up it to 15" because its a 9th edition right that every unit should be able to shoot anything they want unless its behind a block of polystyrene.

been playing ye olde space elves since 5th, my mian army has been orks btu they are my 2nd most played army. The thing that attracted me to the army is what they now lack. There were all kinds of eldar shenanagins to be played in the 4th edition book. Every unit was bordeline broken at oen thing and not necessarily very useful for something else. Dark reapers were the bane of space marines with thier AP3 str 5 shots but against hordes they removed models but not enough. fire dragons deleted whatever vehicle you pointed them at... but due to being so short range you needed to be abel to deal with what was inside elsewhere. So unless you did things in the right order and planned correctly the whole thing fell apart. it was a high skill floor army that rewarded intelligent play. in 6th and 7th it was an overpowered mess, and then now they are paying for it with a weak all over the place kind of generic book.

cody.d. wrote:
Perhaps the ability to react to enemy shooting? Take a LD test after the enemy resolves a unit's shooting and if you pass you can make a move action in any direction that leaves you further away from the enemy. Same with combat. Possibly incurring a to hit buff to yourself next turn to represent them hoofing it as fast as they can. (and balance of course)

Woah, slow down there, we don't actually use LD in 40k anymore.

This is actually a really good idea and i'd like to see it being used more, heck. I'd even be down for Actions to require a LD test to pass (forcing you to commit multiple units to achieve secondaries)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Perhaps the ability to react to enemy shooting? Take a LD test after the enemy resolves a unit's shooting and if you pass you can make a move action in any direction that leaves you further away from the enemy. Same with combat. Possibly incurring a to hit buff to yourself next turn to represent them hoofing it as fast as they can. (and balance of course)

Woah, slow down there, we don't actually use LD in 40k anymore.

This is actually a really good idea and i'd like to see it being used more, heck. I'd even be down for Actions to require a LD test to pass (forcing you to commit multiple units to achieve secondaries)

If there's one thing I've learned from discussions re: target priority tests and other leadership checks in old editions, it's that players tend to view those tests as mechanics where failing a Ld check renders them unable to do something they took for granted, rather than passing a Ld check allowing them to do something special.

I would expect the initial excitement over a Ld-based reaction system to swiftly turn into grumbling about how you fail an arbitrary dice roll and then your unit sits there doing nothing, and wouldn't it be so much better if everyone could just react automatically or complete actions automatically.

(For what it's worth, I personally like the idea of more things tied to Ld, and using Ld to mediate reactions seems like a good compromise on friction- you have full control over your army in your turn, but the ability to instantly react to the enemy on their turn is less guaranteed)

Tyel wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
You leave Guardians with that rotten gun and they will behave worse than cavemen (Orks). Ah, what an epitome of a high-tech race. Might as well squat the faction as GW doesn´t know how to handle them just like the Squats in the 90s.

Its not a rotten gun though. Its better than a boltgun.
You can say "not so - my sisters of battle get to plink away from 24" away".
Sure - but they mathematically do essentially nothing if they do.
You want to be in half range for double shots, and now by comparison a good portion of those from the Guardians that wound are at AP-3 rather than -. Especially when you break out say doom. If the humble Shuriken Catapult gets a base -1 AP because GW just like dolling that out for laughs these days, its dramatically better than a bolter.

Maybe up it to 15" because its a 9th edition right that every unit should be able to shoot anything they want unless its behind a block of polystyrene.

Kind of weird comparing the shuripult to the one faction that uses massed bolters that doesn't get to doubleshoot at long range with them. Also primaris are a thing, the default/benchmark troop bolter-ish gun is now 30" and has an ap value of -1 or even -2. Also you're throwing in your once per turn casting of doom instead of using it on something more important, and assuming it is a succesful cast, and not denied, and not giving the bolter wielders any equivalently limited and expensive buff. I feel like you're overselling the ap3 while underselling the majority of ap0 shots. What am I even supposed to target with a gun that's sometimes ap3 but mostly ap0? You're also calling the shooting sisters do at 12-24" range essentially nothing; you know who truely does nothing at that range? That's right, it's the guardians. This doesn't feel like a fair comparison.

Ignoring all that I'd still prefer a 24" gun without ap to the one guardians get. Why? The extra range allows you to more easily claim cover to shoot from and allows you to shoot who you want instead of who is in range. In my experience getting the squad in 12" means:
- you have to get within 12" of your desired target
- your opponent has to let you get there (esp. true when deep striking)
- you have to get there in one piece

Say you manage to do all three:
- you're now in charge range, likely from more than one unit
- you're now in rapid fire range of said units
- you're unlikely to be both within range and within cover; how many unoccupied pieces of cover are there usually within 12" of your targets? This gets worse when you take a full 20 elf squad
- even getting all your elves in range of your target is not guaranteed, 12" is not that much

These points can be mitigated by spamming strats and/or psychic powers to deep strike and to keep them breathing for an extra turn, but then they're toast anyway. This also limits you in list building as you can only deploy/keep a single squad alive like this each turn. And given what you're investing at this point you have to wonder if there aren't any other units that can do a similar job for less.

Optional bullet point:
- lorewise you feel like the absolute worst eldar commander ever for not giving frikkin lasblasters to your precious citizen militia of a race facing extinction. Hell, from this angle even taking lasguns would be a good trade. It's downright asinine, and I haven't even gotten to their armor yet.

Edit: I apparently am still butthurt about the shuricat vs bolter discussion

leadership tests might be one underutilized mechanic to represent eldar superiority in movement and coordination perhaps via farsighted farseers and so on.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Between the rumor engine pics and the lack of attention from today's points adjustments, I find myself cautiously hoping that craftworlders might be in for a complete overhaul next year. Which got me thinking: how should a craftworld army actually behave on the table?

For years, I've heard people say that they should be glass cannons, but that feels a bit weird for a technologically advanced species that puts a lot of value on the lives of their remaining population. Plus, other space elves are already doing the glass cannon thing, and making them all compete for that same role means that you're likely to make at least one faction basically worse at the job than the others. Some people say they're meant to be a mobile, shooty army, but that's theoretically the tau niche. When I first started playing, they were an elite force equipped with more-powerful-than-normal wargear that made them specialists with an edge over their counterparts... But primaris marines are kind of filling that niche now, and it feels inappropriate to one-up marines at the "individually powerful" game by making eldar tech absurdly strong.

So how, in the abstract, should a craftworld army behave? How should their future playstyle be described?

Personally, I'd be inclined to make them a fast, tanky army that gets defensive bonuses when they move quickly. Aspect warriors should probably have comparable offensive output to primaris marines, but less durability once they stop moving and start shooting/stabbing.

My take on this topic.

They're an army that should be composed of specialists that work together in sequence to accomplish specific tasks and that should need to take a wide variety of units to be successful. Eldar should have lots of utility and abilities that require units to work together, without specific units being insanely outstanding on their own in terms of killing power or resiliency. They should not be an army where taking multiples of the same heavy weapons platform or big beatstick unit armed with generalist weapons are paths to success. They're an army that should rely on speed and positioning over raw resiliency for defense, not to the point of being completely without armor like DE, but they shouldn't be particularly durable or hardy. What they should be is difficult to engage on favorable terms. If they're taking lots of fire that armor would mitigate, it should mean the Eldar player messed up to begin with (all other things being equal and ideal).

Likewise, it should emphasize not only the specialist Aspect cults, but also the citizen-soldier nature of the force, as Guardians crew most vehicles and heavy weapons, and that's something I feel has been somewhat under-represented, especially since the shift to just making all space-elves hit on 3's in 6E removed the primary existing gameplay distinction, but I think finding better ways for them to provide utility through their experience in civilian paths could be neat (e.g. artisans constructing field fortifications).

Unfortunately in the past Eldar have not quite fit this. We've had Hovertanks that were harder to kill and hurt than Russ tanks or Land Raiders, we've had armies composed of massed long range mobile S6 spam, Wraithknight godzilla lists, 2++ rerollable psyker deathstars, etc, and there's been units that have spent several editions or even a couple decades as largely dead weight or grossly underpowered like Vypers and Guardians.

bullyboy wrote: In 9th, if priced appropriately they should then be able to "trade" well with opponents. banshees wreck power armour, dragons melt armour, etc. can't improve their resilience, that's just not their stick. I could see a JSJ approach with warp spiders though.

Kind of seems like resilience should be their shtick though, right? Like, of all the factions in 40k, craftworlders are the ones who define themselves by their dwindling numbers and desire to keep each other alive. Even Tau are more okay with losing some dudes than craftworlders are. Combine that with their canonical speed, holofields, force-fields, banshee masks, etc., and it kind of seems like eldar should be a tanky army; just not an army that is tanky by virtue of their armor saves or toughness stats.

Regarding guardians:
I still think one of the better simpler fixes would be to just lower their minimum squad size to 5 and let them take one heavy weapon per 5 bodies. A lot of our ranged heavy weapon platforms are good for their points but also expensive. Something like a trio of war walkers is a good buy, but they also become a big fire magnet that your opponent probably won't struggle to kill in a single turn. Wave serpents are great but also cost upwards of 200 points so you have to build your list around them. Being able to sprinkle a few bright lances through my army on squads cheap and small enough to be expendable and also unlikely to draw fire would do a lot for my army.

Honestly, 5 guys plus a gun sounds great. 20 guys deepstriking is currently a decent option but something you have to build around. 15 dudes with 3 platforms sounds decent. It's just the default 10 guys with 1 platform that makes them really lacklustre. Too expensive to be a cost-effective source of heavy weapons. Too big and squishy to be comfortable foot slogging. Too many shuriken catapults to not bump up against avengers.

On a sort of related note, I feel like fire dragons themselves aren't terrible right now. I wouldn't turn up my nose at a buff, but the biggest problem I have with dragons is just their delivery system. If you deepstrike them or have them outflank, you end up out of range for their fusion guns' special rule and you die the turn after you arrive. If you put them in a wave serpent, you're driving ~300 points straight at the enemy's big guns. And if you take enough dragons to semi-reliably take out a big target in a single turn, that pricetag goes even higher.

I don't want craftworlders to have a venom/star weaver type transport, but dragons would be pretty solid if they had one. And not just because of the open-topped rule; a transport that costs half as much as a serpent would just make the overall package that much more cost effective.