Aeldari rumours

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.

**Tyranid Horde**

Wasn't there the errata that stated all fortifications have to be outside 3" unless otherwise stated? This doesn't say anything so surely the fortification ruling will still apply as it doesn't explicitly state otherwise?

**Daedalus81**

Tyranid Horde wrote:
Wasn't there the errata that stated all fortifications have to be outside 3" unless otherwise stated? This doesn't say anything so surely the fortification ruling will still apply as it doesn't explicitly state otherwise?

WWG does state otherwise. The previewed rule dictates how it is allowed to deploy.

**Galef**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Tyranid Horde wrote:
Wasn't there the errata that stated all fortifications have to be outside 3" unless otherwise stated? This doesn't say anything so surely the fortification ruling will still apply as it doesn't explicitly state otherwise?

WWG does state otherwise. The previewed rule dictates how it is allowed to deploy.

Yeah I think you are right. The main rules dictate how you deploy a Fort (ie just like other units in your list) so the CA ruling applies to all Forts that use the "standard" deployment rules.
But as the WWG has it's own deploy rules, the CA ruling shouldn't apply. But that also means you wouldn't ever get to remove a piece of terrain either.

However, that begs 2 questions:
A) how long is it going to last as I could see this getting FAQd real quick and
B) if the WWG rules do override the standard deploy rules (including the CA rule) then why didn't the old WWG rules override them since the old/current WWG rules also have a special deploy rule?

-

**Bosskelot**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
Bosskelot wrote:
Nevelon wrote:
l0k1 wrote:
Hmmm Howling Banshees, Fire Dragons, Dire Avengers, Wraithguard, and Wraithblades all seem like great elite choices this edition. I also wonder what the Dire Avenger Exarch's Shimmershield will do now that the unit already gets a 5++ .

Hopefully if will boost the squad’s invuln, but I suspect it might just give him a 4++ instead. That’s just a guess though.

What will Eldar players do if we get a codex that has decent internal balance? Would we be able to figure out how to build lists? Has it ever happened before?

How many “trap” choice have we seen so far? Most things seem pretty good, although points can make/break a lot of things.

I dunno about trap choices but it feels like they might have overcorrected Shining Spears and especially Dark Reapers going by some of the leaks. Apparently Reapers are losing Inescapable Accuracy and can only ignore the Heavy penalty through an Exarch power (which cost points now) and they're also still quite expensive for a T3 1W model. Added to this F&F doesn't allow you to re-embark onto transports and I look at them and the rest of the improved codex and wonder why even bother with the unit?

Spears are losing charging after Quicken and the 2++ (perfectly reasonable changes don't get me wrong!) and are getting a damage boost through extra attacks and improved shuriken. But they're also losing their 4++, are on big 60mm flying bases and might still be pushing the mid-30's for points. The mobility and fly is nice of course, but they sound like a really tough sell for those rules, at that cost. Harder to hide and much less durable for a little damage boost. They aren't lighting my world on fire at the moment.

That would certainly be a new trend for GW, usually the new model has appealing rules and capabilities to drive sales. I think Shining Spears will still see their place on the tabletop (and the new models are gorgeous!) but I agree with you the Dark Reapers leak seemed underwhelming.

lol no they don't

How many useless units did Marines and Necrons get in 2020? Remember how terrible every Primaris unit was for most of 8th? Those new Sisters tanks and warsuits really lit the meta on fire. etc etc

For every instance of some new sculpt being busted good there are about 2 instances of the opposite being the case.

If GW were actually savvy about these things they would try and co-ordinate these things a little better and at least make sure new units/sculpts were at the very least "decent". But they don't, and we have these bizarre instances where GW hypes up a new battlebox and yet one of the factions in it is using terrible old rules so it provides less incentives for people to pick it up.

**blaktoof**

Galef wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Tyranid Horde wrote:
Wasn't there the errata that stated all fortifications have to be outside 3" unless otherwise stated? This doesn't say anything so surely the fortification ruling will still apply as it doesn't explicitly state otherwise?

WWG does state otherwise. The previewed rule dictates how it is allowed to deploy.
Yeah I think you are right. The main rules dictate how you deploy a Fort (ie just like other units in your list) so the CA ruling applies to all Forts that use the "standard" deployment rules.
But as the WWG has it's own deploy rules, the CA ruling shouldn't apply. But that also means you wouldn't ever get to remove a piece of terrain either.

However, that begs 2 questions:
A) how long is it going to last as I could see this getting FAQd real quick and
B) if the WWG rules do override the standard deploy rules (including the CA rule) then why didn't the old WWG rules override them since the old/current WWG rules also have a special deploy rule?

-

The rules for WWG indicate it is terrain once placed. Implies it is not terrain for placing it.

**vipoid**

By the way, remember when GW was extolling about the new Autarch kit being compatible with other ones?

Apparently they've since changed the article so that it no longer mentions using the Dragon Fusion Gun with Swooping Hawk Wings.

Just for anyone who was hoping the Codex autarch would have different rules to the one in the box set.

**Nevelon**

vipoid wrote:
By the way, remember when GW was extolling about the new Autarch kit being compatible with other ones?

Apparently they've since changed the article so that it no longer mentions using the Dragon Fusion Gun with Swooping Hawk Wings.

Just for anyone who was hoping the Codex autarch would have different rules to the one in the box set.

Grrrr.

How hard would it be to just say “take a shooty toy and a stabby toy, with an optional movement toy”. Go crazy with freedom.

From a game play POV does it mater if you have wings or a jump pack when moving close enout to fusion blast something? They do the same job, just with different flavor.

**Wha-Mu-077**

vipoid wrote:
By the way, remember when GW was extolling about the new Autarch kit being compatible with other ones?

Apparently they've since changed the article so that it no longer mentions using the Dragon Fusion Gun with Swooping Hawk Wings.

Just for anyone who was hoping the Codex autarch would have different rules to the one in the box set.

Weird, because when i look at the old version of the article, through the medium of Kirioth's video from over a month ago, it doesn't seem to have been there in the first place
https://youtu.be/rBR4zUTyldM

**Rihgu**

The fire dragon article mentioned, and still mentions pairing the dragon fusion gun with swooping hawk wings on the autarch model.

It’s not just Fire Dragons who can access this new cooking equipment – the new Autarch can ‘borrow’ one when they don’t feel like lugging around a Dark Reaper’s missile launcher. Dragon fusion guns are an even deadlier prospect in an Autarch’s hands, and pair very well with the extra mobility of Swooping Hawk wings or a Warp Spider jump generator.

**Galef**

Nevelon wrote:
vipoid wrote:
By the way, remember when GW was extolling about the new Autarch kit being compatible with other ones?

Apparently they've since changed the article so that it no longer mentions using the Dragon Fusion Gun with Swooping Hawk Wings.

Just for anyone who was hoping the Codex autarch would have different rules to the one in the box set.

Grrrr.

How hard would it be to just say “take a shooty toy and a stabby toy, with an optional movement toy”. Go crazy with freedom.

From a game play POV does it mater if you have wings or a jump pack when moving close enout to fusion blast something? They do the same job, just with different flavor.

Yeah I'm really annoyed at the Autarchs lack of customization especially since now there is existing plastic to mix-n-max. Heck, you can even use a Shining Spear Exarch and both the Plastic Autarch to mix-and-match a Skyrunner.

To think GW is missing out on an opportunity to make us buy 2-3 lots just for 1 model.

It gets worse when you realize that Marine Captains and Chaos Lords (the equivalents to Autarchs) still get all their toys.
And it's yet still worse when you notice all the newer HQs being released have very few options (meaning it's less likely Autarchs will get there flexibility back)

-

**Nevelon**

Galef wrote:
Nevelon wrote:
vipoid wrote:
By the way, remember when GW was extolling about the new Autarch kit being compatible with other ones?

Apparently they've since changed the article so that it no longer mentions using the Dragon Fusion Gun with Swooping Hawk Wings.

Just for anyone who was hoping the Codex autarch would have different rules to the one in the box set.

Grrrr.

How hard would it be to just say “take a shooty toy and a stabby toy, with an optional movement toy”. Go crazy with freedom.

From a game play POV does it mater if you have wings or a jump pack when moving close enout to fusion blast something? They do the same job, just with different flavor.
Yeah I'm really annoyed at the Autarchs lack of customization especially since now there is existing plastic to mix-n-max. Heck, you can even use a Shining Spear Exarch and both the Plastic Autarch to mix-and-match a Skyrunner.

To think GW is missing out on an opportunity to make us buy 2-3 lots just for 1 model.

It gets worse when you realize that Marine Captains and Chaos Lords (the equivalents to Autarchs) still get all their toys.
And it's yet still worse when you notice all the newer HQs being released have very few options (meaning it's less likely Autarchs will get there flexibility back)

-

Yes and no on the marine captains. They have their own no model no rules issues for the primaris ones, although the firstborn get all the options grandfathered in.

I was planning on getting the winged guy to mix and match, he fits my army theme better. One less sale from me there. I’ll make do with the spider autarch. At least until I get the shining spear box to kitbash one on a bike. Assuming we keep that option.

**Galef**

Nevelon wrote:
.... Assuming we keep that option.

"Don't you put that evil on me Ricky Bobby!"
In all seriousness that would be a crushing blow to my army fluff if the Skyrunner Autarch is no longer available.
Sure I could continue using the Legends entry or do a head swap to be 2nd jetbike Farseer, but it's not the same.
I've played my Jetbike Autarch in just about every list since the end of 4th ed. Not having him as a option would make my army not feel like MY army.

-

**Nevelon**

Galef wrote:
Nevelon wrote:
.... Assuming we keep that option.
"Don't you put that evil on me Ricky Bobby!"
In all seriousness that would be a crushing blow to my army fluff if the Skyrunner Autarch is no longer available.
Sure I could continue using the Legends entry or do a head swap to be 2nd jetbike Farseer, but it's not the same.
I've played my Jetbike Autarch in just about every list since the end of 4th ed. Not having him as a option would make my army not feel like MY army.

-

Right there with you. The theme of my army is “getting mud on your boots is for lesser races”. Everyone on a bike, in a transport, or on the wing. Bike autarch is the way I field mine.

a spider guy works well enough, and is how I’m going to build the one I got from the Omens box. But I’d much rather have wings or a bike.

**Khahandran**

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/02/18/put-the-fear-of-death-into-your-opponents-with-the-stronger-faster-yncarne

Bit of info on Yncarne. Interestingly, it seems like both Avatars can be taken at the same time now.

**GaroRobe**

Are the Ynnari Trio being sold in other countries? They're not on a few country's sites that I've checked. It's unlikely, but I hope maybe they'll be reboxed separately somehow.

**Radium**

They're all on separate sprues, and I think they're the last box from gathering storm that hasn't been split up yet. So I think getting separate boxes is exactly what will happen now.

**Daedalus81**

Critical info:

**Nevelon**

So playing peekaboo in terrain is going to be real hard.

**JohnnyHell**

This pleases me.

**Sasori**

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/02/18/put-the-fear-of-death-into-your-opponents-with-the-stronger-faster-yncarne/

Yncarne. Matches the leaks.

**Gene St. Ealer**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Critical info:

Spoiler:

I hate to pile on with excessive "GW bad", but it amazes me that war-com writes articles on this sort of thing and leaves this incredibly crucial clause out. Do you folks think the authors of those posts play the game? I mean, maybe they got incomplete info from the rules writers so it's not their fault, but then, shame on the rules writers for giving an incomplete picture...

ETA: to be clear, this is probably a good thing; I don't want Battle Focus to be the degenerate, salt-inducing rule it was in older editions.

**Galef**

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Critical info:

Spoiler:

I hate to pile on with excessive "GW bad", but it amazes me that war-com writes articles on this sort of thing and leaves this incredibly crucial clause out. Do you folks think the authors of those posts play the game? I mean, maybe they got incomplete info from the rules writers so it's not their fault, but then, shame on the rules writers for giving an incomplete picture...

ETA: to be clear, this is probably a good thing; I don't want Battle Focus to be the degenerate, salt-inducing rule it was in older editions.

No I think the WarCom articles SPECIFICALLY leave out crucial info sometimes. Maybe not always intentional but it's very clear that the articles are written to generate hype and sales for new products. You will sell far more units if something seems OP

Overall I think it's a good thing to limit Battle Focus to not be allowed from Reinforcements and to handicap moving into terrain. Although there is still room for shenanigans, like moving BEHIND the terrain instead of through it

-

**vipoid**

I'm curious as to how that Battle Focus area terrain rule will interact with Harlequins. Don't they ignore terrain when moving?

**Daedalus81**

vipoid wrote:
I'm curious as to how that Battle Focus area terrain rule will interact with Harlequins. Don't they ignore terrain when moving?

They do, but the rule takes precedence for determining the value rolls for battle focus.

**Galef**

Daedalus81 wrote:
vipoid wrote:
I'm curious as to how that Battle Focus area terrain rule will interact with Harlequins. Don't they ignore terrain when moving?

They do, but the rule takes precedence for determining the value rolls for battle focus.

Won't even be relevant since Harlies have never had Battle Focus, nor are they likely to get it in the new codex. Battle Focus has always been a CWE thing, part of their Path structured society, which Harlies do not follow.
Just because they are now sharing a Codex doesn't mean they use all the same rules.

-

**Leo_the_Rat**

I'm wondering what happens if the unit is already in terrain. RAW the penalty still stands but I have to wonder if it should apply when you're already in the terrain.

**Arschbombe**

So my first thought was that Strands of Fate might help with these Battle Focus move in terrain rolls, but after checking the 6 categories of rolls, I don't think it can.

**Doohicky**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm wondering what happens if the unit is already in terrain. RAW the penalty still stands but I have to wonder if it should apply when you're already in the terrain.

That is the exact scenario when you need it to apply. It's to stop the player moving into terrain, shooting and then using battle focus to move out of the terrain to make themselves be out of line of sight.
Yes they can still risk it with the rule, but it's 50/50 that they may be left in the terrain and targettable.

**Daedalus81**

Doohicky wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm wondering what happens if the unit is already in terrain. RAW the penalty still stands but I have to wonder if it should apply when you're already in the terrain.

That is the exact scenario when you need it to apply. It's to stop the player moving into terrain, shooting and then using battle focus to move out of the terrain to make themselves be out of line of sight.
Yes they can still risk it with the rule, but it's 50/50 that they may be left in the terrain and targettable.

Right. The model is intending to move over terrain in some fashion and the penalty kicks in so any unit intending to battle focus needs to make sure they don't have a toe in on any cover.

**tneva82**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm wondering what happens if the unit is already in terrain. RAW the penalty still stands but I have to wonder if it should apply when you're already in the terrain.

For sake of balance? Yes. Or obscuring needs to be　changed so you can't touch it, shoot at will, move 1mm back and be immune to return fire.

Want this restriction or change core　terrain rules?