<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Fixing Eldar HQ Conundrum"]]></title>
		<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/69.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the thread "Fixing Eldar HQ Conundrum"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Fixing Eldar HQ Conundrum</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I propose Eldar has something of an <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> conundrum. The Avatar and Phoenix Lords are incredibly improved, but they’re trapped behind an extremely limiting detachment structure that doesn’t allow for much <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> diversity. Whether you’re running a battalion or double patrol, the most <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> you’re going to have access to most of the time is 3-4. Eldar are still structured in such a way where you’re highly incentivized to take farseers and autarchs for all the great psychic, re rolls, and fate dice / command roll manipulation. It really leaves very little room to field the Avatar, or more than maybe one phoenix lord. I don’t think there’s much to be done about moving the avatar around, it is what it is, you’re either going to fit him in or you’re not. However I do have an interesting suggestion for the phoenix lords. What if rather than giving them a detachment designation like <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> or elites choice, you tie them to their respective aspects. On each aspects data slate you provide the option to take the respective phoenix lord (normal points costs of course) as long as you field at least one unit of the corresponding aspect warrior, with the common clause “this model doesn’t take up a force org slot etc”. Now you wouldn’t have to sacrifice your typical <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> choices, but there would also be a slight tax applied in the form of requiring you to field some amount of the corresponding aspect warriors, which feeds the fluff buffs. It would curb hyper competitive tactics like taking Baharroth in every list no matter the composition (the kind of thing <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> hates), while allowing more <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span> diversity and just plain fun. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328310.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328310.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 17 Mar 2022 15:42:20]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ peteralmo]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Fixing Eldar HQ Conundrum</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(40);'>FYI</span> - You might get more feedback if you post this in the "Proposed Rules" forum instead of the "Tactics Forum".<br /> <br /> <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(400);'>AS</span> to your idea - I don't know Craftworlds well enough to offer an opinion, sorry.<br /> <br /> ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328418.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328418.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:11:15]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Mariongodspeed]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Fixing Eldar HQ Conundrum</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Um.. I think <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span>'s are fine in <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(808);'>CWE</span> now, heck Warlocks have even moved to Elites, everyone has slot problems but luckily you can take 2 or even 3 detachments for <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(707);'>CP</span> if you wanted.<br /> <br /> Bat and Patrol gives you 5 <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQ</span>'s, if you want more than that then you just crazy <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(84);'>lol</span>.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328445.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328445.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:57:23]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Amishprn86]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Fixing Eldar HQ Conundrum</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Yeah, <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(56);'>HQs</span> are fine, there should be hard decisions to be made. The fact that so many are viable is what makes this a supposed issue, but it's actually a good thing. I don't like no brainer choices which relegates other choices to the shelf. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328450.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/804133/11328450.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 17 Mar 2022 19:05:15]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ bullyboy]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>