Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Eldar Thoughts

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 6:58:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex. I think GW is having a lot of
trouble deciding what they want to do.

If I were doing things, I'd just make the Eldar more Eldar, more elite,
more expensive. This would automatically prevent hordes and fit better
with the whole Ancient Masters of Technology thing.

I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:
Light Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv4+/6+I, Fleet of Foot.
Heavy Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv3+/6+I.
Individual Aspects might be +1/-1 from the above profile.

Aspect Exarches could easily stand to be more powerful and varied:
Lesser Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1I, +1A, Sv3+/5+I for 10 pts.
Greater Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +2A, Ld10 Sv3+/5+I Fearless for 20
pts.
Ld10 keeps the Eldar under command, while Fearless obviates Man Alone
tests. Only 1 Greater Exarch per Aspect.

Quick & dirty thing would be like:

HQ
Avatar needs to be Greater Daemon, but with Sv2+ Iron Body instead of
summoning. Farseer needs W2 "cheap" version.

Avatar - WS10 BS5 S6 T6 W4 I6 A5 Ld10 Sv2+/4+I - 180pts
+20 ps for Ranged attack, Flamer Template, or Fleet.

Farseer gets A2 Sv3+I; Seer is W2 A2 I6 Sv3+I; neither is Fleet.

Warlock is a Light Aspect Sv4+I.


TROOPS
Troops should be Avenger-based, but with more general tailoring room.
Ulthwe is 2+ Guardians; Alaitoc is 2+ Rangers, Biel-Tan is 2+ Aspect
Troops.

0-2 Guardians: 5-10 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv4+. 5-10 models; all
Lasblaster, Shuricat (Assault 3), or SP&CCW. AGP is BS4 not Fleet,
counts as 5 models in Transport. Sv4+ is like Tau, 5-10 is a more of a
dying race. 10 pts, like a Stormtrooper.

0-2 Rangers are 3-5 Light Sv5+/6+I for a big pile of rules: Infiltate,
Scout, Stealth, Move thru Cover; 3-5 models is more rational.
Disruption is d3: 1 = Pin, 2 = Reserve, 3 = shoot! No randomness,
which is slow.

Dire Avengers are Light Aspects with +1A, which gives them marginal HtH
ability; Exarch can take the Shuricannon (24" S6 AP4 Assault 3 Rending;
not Fleet). 15 pts, like a Space Marine. +1A replaces True Grit.

0-2 Aspect Troops pull from the Elites, but no Greater Exarches (like IG
Grenadiers).


TRANSPORT
Just needs Targeter!

Wave Serpent BS3(4), cut 10 pts.


ELITE
More focused, Wraithguard are like Eldar Termies/Obliterators,
Wraithcannon is simplified. Iyanden makes Wraithguard 2+ Troops.
Wraithlord is fast enough to reach HtH.

Dragons are Light Sv4+/5+I. Fusion Gun is S5 AP1 Assault 1 "Fusion"
(+2d6AP).

Banshees are Light +1I; Executioner is +3S to ID T3 heroes.

Scorpions are Heavy +1S.

Spiders are Heavy; Spinners are S6 AP- Assault 1 Blast.

Wraithguard are 3-5 Heavy +3S +2T +1W I4 +1A Ld10 Fearless;
Wraithcannon is 12" S10 AP1 Assault 1 Rending.

Wraithlords are WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W3 I4 A3(4) Sv3+/6+I, Fleet. DNCCWs
add Fusion Gun option.


FAST
Hawks are a problem. I'm at a loss to fix them. Saim-Hann makes
Guardian Jetbikes 2+ Troops. Guardians vehicle-mounted weapons can be BS4.

Vypers get BS3(4).

0-1 Guardian Jetbikes are 3-10 WS3 BS3(4) S3 T3(4) W1 I4 Ld8 Sv3+.

Shining Spears are Heavy T3(4).


HEAVY
Reapers and Heavy AGP need to semi-mobile, Reapers need to be "heavy"
like fluff. cut 10 pts from the Falcon.

Reapers are 3-5 Heavy I4 Sv3+/5+I Slow & Purposeful.

Falcon cuts 10 pts.

War Walkers get BS3(4).

0-1 Heavy AGP is BS3(4), Slow & Purposeful. Shadow Weaver is Large Blast.


WARGEAR

CTM allows vehicle to ignore the first 6" of movement for firing
purposes (ALL weapons <= 12", 1 Main + all Defensive <= 18", None >19").


Anyhow, that's kind of what I'm thinking. Better stuff, same or more
points. Totally mobile and hard-hitting, somewhat hard to kill.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

More about : eldar thoughts

Anonymous
August 8, 2005 6:58:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
>changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex.

Here we go again...

> I think GW is having a lot of
>trouble deciding what they want to do.

Of course they are. "Fix the problems" is never enough for them, they
invariably want to fiddle. Speaking of which...

>If I were doing things, I'd just make the Eldar more Eldar, more elite,
>more expensive.

If I were doing them, I wouldn't. I wouldn't work to a master plan that
should apply to all units irrespective of need; I'd look at what needs
fixing and fix it, whether that involves reducing the cost in line with
their abilities or upping the abilities in line with the cost. Swooping
Hawks, for example, are never going to get much better and remain true
to their theme, so the appropriate option seems to be a cost reduction.

> This would automatically prevent hordes and fit better
>with the whole Ancient Masters of Technology thing.

Eldar are hardly a horde army at the moment, so this isn't a real
concern if you're working from what already exists.

>I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:
>Light Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv4+/6+I, Fleet of Foot.
>Heavy Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv3+/6+I.
>Individual Aspects might be +1/-1 from the above profile.

Wholly unnecessary. Scorpions, for instance, are perfectly good as they
are, and the issues with Warp Spiders (now largely resolved thanks to
the new rapid fire rules) and Shining Spears were never with their
saving throws. Swooping Hawks, Fire Dragons and Dire Avengers don't
suffer from having implausibly poor saves; they suffer from not having
enough punch. Dark Reapers have the room to go up to a 3+ save if it's
decided that they need it. Given GW's love of using invulnerable saves
to represent athleticism, Banshees could just about get away with a
Dodge save, but given that that's a shoddy mechanic in any event I'd
rather settle on a better solution, especially since fragility is part
of their theme in any case. One Eldar theme I'd insist on sticking to
in a revision is the fragility of the Eldar.

>Aspect Exarches could easily stand to be more powerful and varied:
>Lesser Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1I, +1A, Sv3+/5+I for 10 pts.
>Greater Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +2A, Ld10 Sv3+/5+I Fearless for 20
>pts.

I fully expect to see an Autarch character as an HQ selection. There's
no need at all to make it a squad upgrade, since that goes against the
grain of every other army in the game. What they could always do to
reflect the scarcity of Exarchs and to characterise the Eldar further
is treat Exarchs like Warlock bodyguards - taking the Avatar or an
Autarch allows you to take a 'bodyguard' of up to 5 Exarchs, who can
remain in the bodyguard or be assigned to Aspect squads. This nudges
them a little closer to their character status of bygone days and
allows them to be characterised a little more, as well as allowing
their kit and power options to be moved to the armoury. As for Exarch
armour, it's never been better than good Aspect armour in the past so
drop the invulnerable - but they'd have access to Evade/Battle Fortune
(3+ save becomes 3+ Inv) just like Spear Exarchs do at the moment.

>Quick & dirty thing would be like:

Quick and dirty for me based on the above would be along the lines of:

Autarch: WS5 BS5 S4 T3 W2 (3?) I8 A3 Ld10

Options: The Autarch may take weapons and wargear from the Temple
armoury to a value of 75pts. He may be given up to three Warrior Powers
from the list in the Temple armoury.

Special Rules

Fearless

Autarch Weapons: Autarchs have invariably travelled the Path of the
Warrior for longer than most Exarchs, perfecting the skills of each
Aspect in turn, and consequently have ready access to some of the most
potent artefacts of the Exarch temples. One of the Autarch's weapons of
your choice is treated as being master-crafted. This will always be the
same weapon; if he is armed with two or more, the Autarch can't choose
to reroll attacks from one weapon in one turn and from another in a
subsequent turn.

Exarch Bodyguard: The Autarch may be accompanied by a bodyguard of
between 1 and 5 Exarchs, who may remain in a unit with him or may be
assigned to an Aspect Warrior squad at the start of the game in the
same way as Warlocks. Note that there is no requirement for an Exarch
to accompany the same type of squad his model or armament represents,
so for instance a Dire Avenger Exarch may be assigned to a Fire Dragon
or Howling Banshee squad or vice versa. However, unless stated
otherwise the Exarch does not confer the effects of any wargear on
other squad members; so, for instance, an Exarch with a Warp Spider
jump generator or Swooping Hawk wings does not enable his squad to use
these rules. An Exarch riding a jetbike must, however, be assigned to a
bodyguard or squad in which all members ride jetbikes.

>HQ
>Avatar needs to be Greater Daemon, but with Sv2+ Iron Body instead of
>summoning.

Also access to at least some Warrior Powers.

>Farseer needs W2 "cheap" version.

No he doesn't - 40pts is hardly excessive, and 'levels' of Farseer
don't fit the fluff. What he needs is the option to take cheaper,
effective powers and equipment than he has at present so he doesn't
always end up costing 100pts or more.

>Farseer gets A2 Sv3+I; Seer is W2 A2 I6 Sv3+I; neither is Fleet.

A2 I can see - Farseers are battle-hardened after all, so let's move
away from the fantasy wizards-as-wimps idea; if a Librarian can have
the punch of a Space Marine Commander, it's no stretch for an Eldar
Farseer to be a bit more effective than a Warlock.

>Warlock is a Light Aspect Sv4+I.

What's wrong with the 4+ Inv he has already? Agreed he needs Aspect
Ld9, though - conceptually he is essentially an Aspect Warrior with
psychic powers, so should have stats to match.

>TROOPS
>Troops should be Avenger-based, but with more general tailoring room.
>Ulthwe is 2+ Guardians; Alaitoc is 2+ Rangers, Biel-Tan is 2+ Aspect
>Troops.

Biel-Tan is 2+ Dire Avengers specifically, preventing it being used
just to take hordes of Scorpions or whatever and tying to the fluff
that this shrine is the Craftworld's largest and the core of its
military. Purely in game terms, doing otherwise you're restricting
Alaitoc to 1 compulsory unit type, Ulthwe to 2 and giving Biel-Tan free
choice of up to 8 (or more, if extra Aspects are added). Biasing the
list in favour of one's own preferred army is a GW tradition we would
do well to drop.

>0-2 Guardians: 5-10 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv4+. 5-10 models; all
>Lasblaster, Shuricat (Assault 3), or SP&CCW. AGP is BS4 not Fleet,
>counts as 5 models in Transport. Sv4+ is like Tau, 5-10 is a more of a
>dying race. 10 pts, like a Stormtrooper.

Don't like. 5+ save stays to suit the fragile theme. Shuricat gets
range upgrade at expense of power. No need for a transport option for
the grav platform - simply comparing the platform and transport models
that doesn't work in concept. Though given advanced Eldar targeting
systems to explain it I can see the platform getting a BS upgrade.

>0-2 Rangers are 3-5 Light Sv5+/6+I for a big pile of rules: Infiltate,
>Scout, Stealth, Move thru Cover; 3-5 models is more rational.
>Disruption is d3: 1 = Pin, 2 = Reserve, 3 = shoot! No randomness,
>which is slow.

I'd still like to redo Rangers completely, closer to the old IG Snipers
(or modern Lictors) as an Elite choice of 1-3 models. Disruption could
be per Elite entry or per Ranger depending on cost and how heavily the
Rangers are upgraded.

>Dire Avengers are Light Aspects with +1A, which gives them marginal HtH
>ability;

Which they shouldn't have. +1A is something which would require special
close combat training - although Avengers have a martial arts theme in
their traditional Exarch abilities, this goes against the grain for the
unit. +1A is for Storm Guardians.

Avengers get the option to use shuricats at 18-24" range if this isn't
in the improved profile, plasma grenade options. Exarch removed to
bodyguard, with Temple options (including shuricannon, bright lance and
EML, as these are current Exarch options). Plasma grenades as a unit
option.

>0-2 Aspect Troops pull from the Elites,

For Biel-Tan? Good idea in place of the current mishmash.

>TRANSPORT
>Just needs Targeter!

Should be added as a vehicle upgrade in the armoury rather than as
standard (but standard for the Fire Prism).

>ELITE
>More focused, Wraithguard are like Eldar Termies/Obliterators,
>Wraithcannon is simplified.

Not simplified, improved. Meltagun with 2D6 pen. at all ranges, maybe?
Or with its current ability against vehicles (maybe 6 = ordnance table)
but improved anti-infantry ability. Either way, it has to compare with
the combined power fist/storm bolter combination of a Terminator, and
maybe better it since Wraithguard don't get heavy weapon access.

>Wraithlord is fast enough to reach HtH.

Wraithlord is made less reliant on having to reach HTH. There's no
justification for giving it greater movement when other close combat
Dreadnoughts don't, but it needs firepower to compare with that of an
SM Dread, close enough. It's past time this thing got remodelled -
let's be creative about what we can do to up its shootiness; an option
for replacing one of its fists with an arm weapon, maybe?

>Dragons are Light Sv4+/5+I. Fusion Gun is S5 AP1 Assault 1 "Fusion"
>(+2d6AP).

Agreed on all but the invulnerable. Dragons are useable now; all they
need to make them good is the fusion improvement to their weapons.

>Banshees are Light +1I; Executioner is +3S to ID T3 heroes.

To what heroes? Executioner Exarch as S5 is fine as she is.

>Spiders are Heavy; Spinners are S6 AP- Assault 1 Blast.

Given the current blast rules and the current rapid fire rules, I'd
rather keep them as they are weapon-wise. I'd still like them to get
pinning, though.

>Wraithguard are 3-5 Heavy +3S +2T +1W I4 +1A Ld10 Fearless;
>Wraithcannon is 12" S10 AP1 Assault 1 Rending.

That could work as a weapon effect, sure. Brings it more in line with
the conceptually related D-Cannon as well, so I can live with this. I
don't see the WG need S6 rather than S5, though.

>Wraithlords are WS4 BS4 S6(10) T8 W3 I4 A3(4) Sv3+/6+I, Fleet. DNCCWs
>add Fusion Gun option.

No need at all for an invulnerable save; this is already too tough for
an Eldar model, Still as an Elite I can live with that - it's a loss
less attractive with useful units to take in its place.

>FAST
>Hawks are a problem. I'm at a loss to fix them.

How about this:

Cost: 14-16pts per model.

Weapons: Lasblasters: R24", S3, AP5, Assault 2
Grenade Packs: Ordnance template when first come into
play. S4, AP5, pinning, ignore cover.
Plasma and krak grenades

Special

Disengage: Hawks can disengage from the battle at the end of any turn
after the one in which they entered play as long as they are not
falling back. Remove the models from the table (even if they are in
close combat) - the enemy gains VPs only for any models killed, and the
Hawks will not return during the game. Any time the squad fails a
morale or rally check, you may choose to have the unit disengage rather
than flee - however, they may not otherwise voluntarily leave play
while falling back.

Eagle-eyed: Swooping Hawks have such fine control of their flight
mechanisms that they can hover just above the battlefield, rising above
intervening terrain to select targets for their weapons. Ranged attacks
made by Swooping Hawks therefore ignore the effects of cover.

Diving Charge: Swooping Hawks may charge into close combat in the same
turn they enter play using Deep Strike.

With krak grenades and Diving Charge (the latter should probably be
incorporated into the 'Swooping Hawk Wings' equipment rule) they become
a semi-effective anti-tank unit, at least for a turn, as well as a
serviceable assault unit against infantry (with their plasma grenades).
Eagle-eyed and AP5 lasblasters make them excellent for pouring fire
into dug-in infantry (which also ties in with the plasma grenade
charge, of course), which I think gives them a distinct role - they get
sent in as a rapid strike team to take out pockets of resistance. And
then they go away and do the same somewhere else along the battleline;
I came up with Disengage a while ago and I'm quite attached to the
idea. Effectively, in terms of armament and role, they become flying
Storm Troopers.

> Saim-Hann makes
>Guardian Jetbikes 2+ Troops.

Don't like this. Not only does it make the Craftworlds bland for them
all to have variants of the same restriction, but I don't see Saim-Hann
as having a rigid organised military that would enforce that sort of
restriction. The current list deliberately allows jetbikes to be taken
as effective Troops as an option, not something Saim-Hann armies must
do, and I think Saim-Hann armies are more likely to be highly variable
than other Eldar armies.

> Guardians vehicle-mounted weapons can be BS4.

Bikes aren't vehicles...

>Vypers get BS3(4).

See above - if Tau can take this as a vehicle upgrade so can the Eldar,
and it makes the vehicles themselves cheaper this way.

>0-1 Guardian Jetbikes are 3-10 WS3 BS3(4) S3 T3(4) W1 I4 Ld8 Sv3+.

No need for BS4 with twin-linked weaponry.

>Shining Spears are Heavy T3(4).

They need more than that for a boost.

>Reapers are 3-5 Heavy I4 Sv3+/5+I Slow & Purposeful.

Get rid of the I5+ and I'm happy with this. But then, I did suggest
Slow and Purposeful for this unit myself.

>Falcon cuts 10 pts.

Fine. Certainly as a unit nothing actually needs changing, save perhaps
a fusion gun option to replace the twin-linked shuricats (which I'd
like to see on all Eldar vehicles - War Walkers excepted, obviously).

>0-1 Heavy AGP is BS3(4), Slow & Purposeful. Shadow Weaver is Large Blast.

I'm happy to see this made fully mobile, actually - if the Eldar can
create tanks capable of carrying weapons and still flying, they can do
the same with grav-platforms. Even with the benefits it gains from the
new rules, the vibro-cannon should still have the LOS requirement
removed, if only for fluffy and 'historical' reasons (it never needed
LOS in Epic or v2).

>WARGEAR
>
>CTM allows vehicle to ignore the first 6" of movement for firing
>purposes (ALL weapons <= 12", 1 Main + all Defensive <= 18", None >19").

Just seems like a variant of the Tau multi-tracker designed for faster
vehicles. I'm happy with its current rules; it just needs a price cut.

Well, there's not that much I rabidly disagree with (wearyingly, the
Dire Avengers are still the main exception...), though I think some of
the organisational issues (like the Exarchs) can be tweaked and the
Spears, Fire Prism and War Walkers deserve a bit more attention. Hmm. I
think we might have managed to get a workable Swooping Hawk unit at
long last, though.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 10:01:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote...
> I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
> changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex. I think GW is having a lot of
> trouble deciding what they want to do.

> If I were doing things, I'd just make the Eldar more Eldar, more elite,
> more expensive. This would automatically prevent hordes and fit better
> with the whole Ancient Masters of Technology thing.

Eldar have traditionally been fast and had a pile of firepower. Anything that
gets rid of hordes is a good thing as hordes are so very out of character for a
dying race. My group is always joking that the reason the Eldar are dying off
is that they leave so many dead guardians on every battlefield. Limiting squad
size to 10, even for guardians, would get rid of the horde, but the guardians
will need some serious tweaking to remain useful if that's done.

> I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:

The real Eldar hordes are the guardians, and they die as quickly as Imperial
Guard. T3 and Save 5+ doesn't cut it in a galaxy full of bolters. Giving Eldar
guardians the same 4+ save as a Tau Fire Warrior might be justified because the
Eldar certainly have the tech for it, but that's going to seriously unbalance
the existing list, and then how do you make the Aspects special?

The single biggest tweak that needs to be made is to the shuricat. Obviously,
the new rapid fire rules had a serious impact on this weapon's effectiveness.

Other things that must be fixed are Avengers, Reapers, and to a lesser extent,
Hawks. Avengers need better HtH, and Reapers need better armor - with their
current 4+ save, they're points on a stick. Giving vehicles the option to
upgrade to BS4 would be nice and fits with their mastery of technology, but they
can get by without it...

--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"Did Noah keep his bees in archives?"
Related resources
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 8:03:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote...
>>I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
>>changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex.

>>If I were doing things, I'd just make the Eldar more Eldar, more elite,
>>more expensive. This would automatically prevent hordes and fit better
>>with the whole Ancient Masters of Technology thing.
>
> Eldar have traditionally been fast and had a pile of firepower.
> Anything that gets rid of hordes is a good thing as hordes are
> so very out of character for a dying race. My group is always
> joking that the reason the Eldar are dying off is that they
> leave so many dead guardians on every battlefield.

Yup.

> Limiting squad size to 10, even for guardians, would get rid
> of the horde,

That's why I made them 0-2 units of 5-10 models. It simply won't be
possible in a non-Guardian force to take more than 10 to bulk up on
numbers, unlike the current version which allows for 6 units of 20 models.

> but the guardians will need some serious tweaking to remain
> useful if that's done.

I gave them Sv4+, with full weapon options of SP&CCW, Lasblaster, and
Assault3 Shuricat, along with mix&match for AGP or 2 specials. While
you only get 2 of them, you can do an awful lot of things with them.

>>I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:
>
> The real Eldar hordes are the guardians, and they die as quickly as
> Imperial Guard.

Which would be fine if they were an utterly inexhaustible, easily
totally renewable, and expendable resource available in great masses.
OTOH, for a dying race...

> T3 and Save 5+ doesn't cut it in a galaxy full of bolters. Giving
> Eldar guardians the same 4+ save as a Tau Fire Warrior might be
> justified because the Eldar certainly have the tech for it,
> but that's going to seriously unbalance the existing list,

It's only 2 units...

> and then how do you make the Aspects special?

Aspects get a fallback 6+ Invulernable Save, along with WS4 BS4 I5 of
"professional troops". And each Aspect has a small bonus comparared to
the basic Aspect statline.

> The single biggest tweak that needs to be made is to the shuricat.
> Obviously, the new rapid fire rules had a serious impact on this
> weapon's effectiveness.

If you compare the Lasgun (24" Rapid Fire) and Lasblaster (24" Assault
2), the Lasblaster is improved for long-range and mobility.

As the Shuricat is to be comparable with the Bolter, it needs to be
specialized for short-range and mobility. So the idea of 18+" range
cannot hold. Rending is much too powerful even on S4, and is just
generally out of character for a basic weapon.

As a result, I gave the Shuricat Assault 3. It increases impact by 50%
for short-ranged fire, improving fire density, while retaining the
option to Assault. So, compared with a Bolter it is more specialized to
support close-quarters battle.

> Other things that must be fixed are Avengers, Reapers, and to a
> lesser extent, Hawks.

Agreed.

> Avengers need better HtH,

Exactly my thinking. I went with +1A for A2, along with the fallback
Sv6+I. In an Alpha-strike, Avengers are 12" S4 AP5 Assault 3, then
charge at A2+1 WS4 S3! Granted that these are all basic attacks, but
they're not terrible. And Furious Charge wouldn't be out of place,
either, allowing them to split the difference with Scorpions.

> and Reapers need better armor - with their
> current 4+ save, they're points on a stick.

I went with Sv3+/5+I, dropping them to I4 and Slow & Purposeful. It's a
very good save, but not nearly as good as Obliterators. This way,
Reapers can set up anywhere and be effective. Sure, they'll bump up to
40 pts, but they won't just cough up VPs left and right.

> Giving vehicles the option to upgrade to BS4 would be
> nice and fits with their mastery of technology, but they
> can get by without it...

I made everything that's large enough to fit a Targeter BS4 standard, so
only foot Guardians are BS3. AGPs, Walkers, Jetbikes, Vypers,
Grav-Tanks are all BS4. It's a feel-good thing, and wouldn't greatly
affect the game. For example, Jetbikes and Serpents start twin BS3 (hit
75%) so improving to twin BS4 (hits 88%) isn't a big change (only 13%
better).

The main benefit of all weapon platforms being BS4 is that the "heavy"
weapons costs can hold constant across the board.

What I'm more interested in is making "standard" the ability that all
Vehicles not counting the first 6" move for firing purposes. This way,
Vypers, Falcons, and Serpents lay down full firepower up to 12", 1+D
firepower up to 18". The ability to move 12"-18" and still fire is a
unique demonstration of Eldar technology focused on the two key concepts
of mobility and impact.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 8:17:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
>>changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex.
>
> Here we go again...

Yes.

>>If I were doing things, I'd just make the Eldar more Eldar, more elite,
>>more expensive.
>
> If I were doing them, I wouldn't. I wouldn't work to a master plan that
> should apply to all units irrespective of need; I'd look at what needs
> fixing and fix it, whether that involves reducing the cost in line with
> their abilities or upping the abilities in line with the cost. Swooping
> Hawks, for example, are never going to get much better and remain true
> to their theme, so the appropriate option seems to be a cost reduction.

Yes. You just have a different approach. I am working from a master plan.

>> This would automatically prevent hordes and fit better
>>with the whole Ancient Masters of Technology thing.
>
> Eldar are hardly a horde army at the moment,

120 T3 Sv5+ Guardians is a horde.

>>I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:
>>Light Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv4+/6+I, Fleet of Foot.
>>Heavy Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv3+/6+I.
>>Individual Aspects might be +1/-1 from the above profile.
>
> Wholly unnecessary.

True. A Sv6+I does nothing under cover, nor against poor AP, nor
against basic attacks. Sv6+I is the Eldar expression of technology to
preserve that small chance to survive any odds, no matter how dire.
It's flavorful, not powerful. And it links in with the Eldar I. Saves
for Rune Armour and Conceal, but not as good.

> One Eldar theme I'd insist on sticking to
> in a revision is the fragility of the Eldar.

Fragile doesn't have to equal "easy to kill", and is direct odds with
the other core ideas of Dying Race, First Born, Ancient Experience, and
Masters of Technology.

Thus, I interpret Fragile as loses capability with every lost model &
unit (specialization, no meat). There are just too many good reasons to
get away from a basic Sv5+ for Guardians, not the least being to
distinguish from Guardsmen and Guants, and only Tradition to keep it.

Fragile, as you define it, paints the Eldar into a box, with
easy-to-kill models which therefore need numbers to make up for.
However, Eldar have always had Sv3+ (and better) models in their list,
so the killable kind of Fragile isn't necessary.

>>Aspect Exarches could easily stand to be more powerful and varied:
>>Lesser Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1I, +1A, Sv3+/5+I for 10 pts.
>>Greater Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +2A, Ld10 Sv3+/5+I Fearless for 20
>>pts.
>
> I fully expect to see an Autarch character as an HQ selection.

I disagree. Autarch would only solve the problem from a narrow Aspect
perspective. OTOH, as long as a Farseer / Seer is mandatory, it's OK.

> There's no need at all to make it a squad upgrade, since that
> goes against the grain of every other army in the game.

Incorrect. SM made Terminator Honors a squad upgrade because it cleans
up the rules. You're thinking 40k3 rules, not 40k4. Upgrade is better.

Greater Exarch is only available to Elite, and only one per Aspect Shrine.

>>Quick & dirty thing would be like:

I'll deal with this more, later.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 9:55:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>> Eldar are hardly a horde army at the moment,
>
>120 T3 Sv5+ Guardians is a horde.

Oh, come on. When have you *ever* seen players use maxed out Guardian
squads, let alone the full six? A large army might have 30-40 Guardians
at most.

>>>I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:
>>>Light Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv4+/6+I, Fleet of Foot.
>>>Heavy Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv3+/6+I.
>>>Individual Aspects might be +1/-1 from the above profile.
>>
>> Wholly unnecessary.
>
>True. A Sv6+I does nothing under cover, nor against poor AP, nor
>against basic attacks. Sv6+I is the Eldar expression of technology to
>preserve that small chance to survive any odds, no matter how dire.
>It's flavorful, not powerful.

It's neither - giving them an invulnerable save at all and then making
it so weak emphasises a failure of technology more than anything.

>> One Eldar theme I'd insist on sticking to
>> in a revision is the fragility of the Eldar.
>
>
>Fragile doesn't have to equal "easy to kill",

Um, well that is the essence of the term, actually...

> and is direct odds with
>the other core ideas of Dying Race,

As mentioned, it's the reason they're a dying race. :-)

>First Born,

Most Senile? Not sure why this isn't consistent with fragility anyway.

> Ancient Experience,

Or this.

and
>Masters of Technology.

Masters of weapons technology - since when has GW been wholly
self-consistent? If we were going to going wholesale with the Masters
of Technology thing, the Eldar should be unbeatable on the battlefield.

>Thus, I interpret Fragile as loses capability with every lost model &
>unit (specialization, no meat). There are just too many good reasons to
>get away from a basic Sv5+ for Guardians, not the least being to
>distinguish from Guardsmen and Guants,

So instead they become identical to Tau, Sisters and Storm Troopers?
Not compelling.

>and only Tradition to keep it.

And list playability - unless all Aspects (Avengers) included get a
bonus to their own saves, every other unit in the list becomes
correspondingly less attractive, since Guardians have versatility that
those units lack.

>Fragile, as you define it, paints the Eldar into a box, with
>easy-to-kill models which therefore need numbers to make up for.

Odd; they've managed to be a strong list for three editions with both
low numbers and individual fragility. What Eldar should have is punch
and the ability to coordinate their forces more efficiently than armies
with tougher/more numerous troops. And what of Conceal? 5+ cover save
becomes a bit worthless when Guardians are suddenly getting 4+ saves
against everything bar heavy weaponry. In any case, improving the
Conceal save to 4+ in line with v4 cover rules gives the Guardians the
protection you want without violating their theme and still leaving
them vulnerable in assault etc.

>However, Eldar have always had Sv3+ (and better) models in their list,
>so the killable kind of Fragile isn't necessary.

The Eldar have always had Sv4+ (and better) models in their list, so
don't need Guardians to have that level of protection. You may as well
argue that SM Scouts should have 3+ saves because everything else in
their list does.

>>>Aspect Exarches could easily stand to be more powerful and varied:
>>>Lesser Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1I, +1A, Sv3+/5+I for 10 pts.
>>>Greater Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +2A, Ld10 Sv3+/5+I Fearless for 20
>>>pts.
>>
>> I fully expect to see an Autarch character as an HQ selection.
>
>I disagree. Autarch would only solve the problem from a narrow Aspect
>perspective.

Which 'problem'? This seems to be fiddling to make the unit more elite,
not trying to address a perceived problem with the Aspects.

>> There's no need at all to make it a squad upgrade, since that
>> goes against the grain of every other army in the game.
>
>Incorrect. SM made Terminator Honors a squad upgrade because it cleans
>up the rules.

One upgrade to create a squad leader, not two levels of upgrade. It
isn't the way it's worded that I have a problem with (although Exarch
stats are so far improved over basic Aspect ones that it's more
convenient to treat them as a separate profile - I certainly had a more
difficult time following your description of "Wraithguard Heavy S+3,
T+2 etc." than I would have "Wraithguard: S6, T5 etc."), the point is
that the Eldar have no need for two levels of squad leader in their
squads and it represents a wholly unnecessary exception to rules
conventions to have a multi-wound character as a squad leader upgrade
for a squad that already has a leader upgrade option, rather than
making a separate Aspect-themed character.

> You're thinking 40k3 rules, not 40k4. Upgrade is better.
>
>Greater Exarch is only available to Elite,

So Dire Avengers can't have "Greater Exarchs" while Scorpions etc. can?
The fluff violations go on and on... Aspects are Aspects; what applies
to one must apply to all.

> and only one per Aspect Shrine.

I'd be happy to restrict normal Exarchs to one per Shrine, given their
fluff rarity, but overall I think the Exarch Bodyguard/Court of the
Young King idea is a more elegant approach and in keeping with the
Eldar 'way of doing things'. In any case, it wouldn't be much
restriction for anyone but Biel-Tan.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 11:01:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>> 0-2 Guardians: 5-10 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv4+. 5-10 models; all
>> Lasblaster, Shuricat (Assault 3), or SP&CCW. AGP is BS4 not Fleet, counts
>> as 5 models in Transport. Sv4+ is like Tau, 5-10 is a more of a dying
>> race. 10 pts, like a Stormtrooper.
>
>
>Glad you've seen the light on Assault 3, we just have to convince Phil now
>:-)

I don't have a problem with assault 3 in itself - I have a problem with
assault 3 *in lieu* of the much-needed increased range. 18" Assault 3
would be fine by me...

>I'd like lasblasters to return (although I still think the guardian version
>should be Assault 1), but don't expect it now that the model has been
>dropped.

They could add a sprue, but I think the priority has to be making
Swooping Hawks attractive before we start diluting them by giving their
wargear to other units.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 4:38:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> I don't have a problem with assault 3 in itself - I have a problem with
>> assault 3 *in lieu* of the much-needed increased range. 18" Assault 3
>> would be fine by me...
>
>
>Except that 18" range doesn't drive the point home that the Shuricat is
>a super Bolter at short (Rapid-Fire) range anywhere nearly as well as
>Assault 3 does.

The shuricat isn't a super-bolter at short range, nor has it ever been.
It used to be a super-bolter at long range, to be sure (but even then,
never with any more firepower than the storm bolter, which itself is
assault 2), but it no longer has that range.

>>>I'd like lasblasters to return (although I still think the
>>>guardian version should be Assault 1),
>
>The more the shots, the more the effect of BS4 over BS3.

I went over our old shuricat discussions and had worked out in those
that making shuricats Assault 3 made Avengers comparatively less useful
for the points than Guardians, because a BS4 unit will run out of
targets more quickly - if it can kill everything with 2 shots 3 are
surplus to requirements, while the Guardians with BS3 will often get
full effect of those extra shots. In any case it isn't as effective as
giving the unit an extra firing round with extra range. :-) The
difference between the two units against Marines is minor - 0.5 extra
Marine dead - and against nearly everyone else, assault 2 Avengers
effectively wipe out the unit in a firing round as it is; an extra shot
per model might get them two more casualties, because that's how many
models will still be alive from the target unit to suffer the extra
effects, while the same number of firing Guardians would score an extra
three kills against that target because there would be bodies there to
take the hits.

I would be happy with assault 3 so long as Avengers get either Fighting
Withdrawal or +6" range, though - giving Avengers the extra is the
critical thing. Only problem with that is that Guardians with shuricats
are as useless as ever, but then we went through that in the past and
as I remember you didn't care.

> Assault 1
>would be fine if Lasblasters had some sort of useful effect besides S3
>AP6.

>I keep in mind that a Lasblaster is just an Eldar Lasgun. So there
>isn't much room for improvement beyond Assault 2, which is enough to
>demonstrate Eldar move&fire.

AP6 and assault 1 over rapid fire are advantages enough for a Guardian
lasgun, surely?

>> I think the priority has to be making
>> Swooping Hawks attractive before we start diluting them by giving their
>> wargear to other units.
>
>You realise, of course, that back in RT and 40k2, the default weapon for
>Guardians was Lasblasters, right? So the "diluting" argument is
>nonsense. If you're so pressed to make Hawks distinctive, why not take
>Hawks back to their 40k2 roots with a plain Sv5+?

I said "attractive", not "distinctive". Hawks were useable in RT and
v2; they aren't in v3/4; getting rid of fly high and reducing grenade
packs to one-shot were good rules decisions by GW, but they really
hamper what can be done with this unit to make it effective. Long-range
mobile firepower is one of the things in their favour; giving Guardians
24" range assault weapons removes or weakens even that advantage. As I
said before, fix what's wrong first, then fiddle. Guardians don't need
lasblasters, but Hawks do need to be useable. If we ever reach a point
where Hawks are attractive enough to be taken over a cheaper unit with
the same armament, that's the time to consider giving Guardians
lasblasters. In their current incarnation they're far from that point.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 6:25:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>> Oh, come on. When have you *ever* seen players use maxed out
>> Guardian squads, let alone the full six?
>
>Prior to Codex: Craftworlds, there was interest in, and reports of,
>doing this kind of thing.

I hadn't heard of or seen any such armies, but the correct solution if
Guardians are overused is to make the alternative options genuine
options. If Guardians were so popular in vanilla lists, it suggests
that by and large players didn't have a problem with them ruleswise
(otherwise they'd just have gone for minimum Troops and maxed out on
Aspects etc.)

>> A large army might have 30-40 Guardians at most.
>
>And should have fewer yet again.

Why? Given the scale of the game these days, that seems reasonable
enough.

>>>>
>>>>Wholly unnecessary.
>>>
>>>True. A Sv6+I does nothing under cover, nor against poor AP, nor
>>>against basic attacks. Sv6+I is the Eldar expression of technology to
> >>preserve that small chance to survive any odds, no matter how dire.
>>It's flavorful, not powerful.
>>
>> It's neither - giving them an invulnerable save at all and then
>> making it so weak emphasises a failure of technology more than
>> anything.
>
> don't see the Marines bitching about how poor their 5+ fallback save
>is, and I sorely doubt an Eldar player would complain about a universal
>6+ save.

Firstly, a 5+ save is a lot better than a 6+ one; secondly you claimed
justification for this for flavour reasons - I was pointing out that it
isn't in flavour for the Eldar to make do with shoddy compromises;
either they deliberately equip Guardians with light armour or they give
their troops heavier armour, not some halfway house whose 'fallback'
option is massively unreliable. What's more basic troops don't and
shouldn't get invulnerable saves.

>>>>One Eldar theme I'd insist on sticking to
>>>>in a revision is the fragility of the Eldar.
>>>
>>>Fragile doesn't have to equal "easy to kill",
>>
>> Um, well that is the essence of the term, actually...
>
>
>No, it isn't. And Fragility doesn't have to be enforced at the
>individual model level. Again, going back to 40k2 and RT, this was
>never an issue.

Why not? Guardians had 5+ saves then, and there were a lot more save
modifiers. If anything, it only "wasn't an issue" because no one got a
significant save whether 5+ or 3+.

> Fragility also means a lack of redundancy

Such as, say, no invulnerable saves to fall back on if the initial save
fails...

or
>>flexibility - it can be very strong. I would liken Eldar to a
>>Kevlar/carbon-fibre aramid composite as opposed to the cast iron of Marines.

Carbon-fibre is flexible; cast iron is brittle. I'm not seeing that as
analagous to 'fragile' unless you're describing Marines as fragile.

>>>First Born,
>>
>> Most Senile? Not sure why this isn't consistent with fragility anyway.
>
>If they've lived this long...

....they've got a lot of bodies to throw around? Back to this old
chestnut again - a Craftworld is just that - a world. It's got the
population of a planet; there just aren't many Craftworlds and the
populations of most are in decline. Any given Craftworld certainly has
a sufficiently large military to sustain the loss of a few soldiers -
if it didn't it has no business taking part in skirmish-level
firefights in the first place, however well protected individual
soldiers are.

>>>Ancient Experience,
>>
>> Or this.
>
>Eldar players are smart enough to avoid excessively killable models, why
>aren't the Eldar themselves?

Because they don't have the choice? Guardians are not supposed to be
the primary fighters - they are supposed to be a last resort militia or
a corps of support troops in offensive actions. One presumes that a
Craftworld has a limited number of Bonesingers capable of synthesising
wraithbone, so the majority of the ship's forces will have to make do
with mesh armour. Even the Imperium, with its huge resources, can't
afford to equip most of its Guard armies with carapace armour all
round. When you've got X million/billion civilians to equip and train
on your Craftworld as a militia, you can't give them all state of the
art equipment when your engineers and technology are in decline.

>> If we were going to going wholesale with the Masters
>> of Technology thing, the Eldar should be unbeatable on the
>> battlefield.
>
>It appears you don't get the concept. Masters of Technology means that
>Eldar can extract more utility out of a given whatnot than any other
>race can. A good example of this would be how Lasblasters are 2 shots
>for the full 24" range rather than just the first 12", regardless of how
>far moved.

Lasblasters get two shots because they have two barrels. It's that
simple. Back when Eldar lasguns were modelled with single barrels, they
got one shot. On the other hand the scatter laser has six barrels but
can't reliably get six shots. In any case your concept is in no way
inconsistent with armour as we've got it now - the maximum capability
of mesh armour is to give a 5+ save, and no amount of technical skill
on the part of the wearer is going to make it any more resilient, while
technical skill can improve a weapon's performance.

>>and only Tradition to keep it.
>
> And list playability - unless all Aspects (Avengers) included get a
> bonus to their own saves, every other unit in the list becomes
> correspondingly less attractive, since Guardians have versatility
> that those units lack.
>
>
>My Guardians are versatile, but they lack impact due to their low
>numbers and low skills.

Your Avengers are 0-2 with a squad maximum of 10 as well, so there is
no lack of numbers compared with the Avengers. The effect of skill is
negligible - with a 3-shot shuricat, it amounts to about 0.05 more
kills against Marines and 0.1 against Guard per firing model - and more
than outweighed by a BS4 (or even a BS3) heavy weapon and two special
weapons - a Guardian-crewed shuriken cannon (current rules) with BS3,
for instance, kills 0.36 Marines or 1.2 Guardsmen all by itself,
completely nullifying any BS bonus the Avengers get and with the
ability to engage at greater range to boot. And that's the weakest
option (and taking no account of the flamers or fusion guns you want to
allow your Guardians in addition).

>>>Fragile, as you define it, paints the Eldar into a box, with
>>>easy-to-kill models which therefore need numbers to make up for.
>>
>> Odd; they've managed to be a strong list for three editions with
>> both low numbers and individual fragility.
>
>Baloney.

Which are you denying - that Eldar have been a strong list for three
editions, that they've traditionally had low numbers or that they've
traditionally been fragile?

>The "fragile" units that you champion just didn't cut it based on my
>early experimentation. Banshees, Avengers, Dragons, and Hawks were just
>VP on a stick.

No Wave Serpents or Falcons for the Dragons?

>In 40k2, Eldar were strong because they had easily exploitable Special
>Rules. All Spiders? Sure! Massed 24" Sv-2 Shuricats?

Carried by pretty fragile models...

>> and the ability to coordinate their forces more efficiently than
>> armies with tougher/more numerous troops.
>
>And how do you propose to do this in the rules?

With the combined arms unit selection they have at the moment. Not
everything has to be reflected by giving all the models in the army
special rules.

>> And what of Conceal?
>
>
>I'd rather see Executioner return as a preferred power.
>
>Personally, I never took it after the first few games. You need to soak
>a lot of points into a Warlock to babysit the unit, which still dies 2/3
>of the time.

Yet the option was there - if you're talking flavour rather than
playability as you claimed for your Guardian invulnerable save, you
have to concede thar in flavour terms the Eldar have the ability to
protect their lightly-armoured troops.

>Plus, it's a rules mess.

In what way? Giving the unit a cover save is a pretty straightforward
rule - it's not like the old Space Wolf power that treated a unit as
being in cover (with striking first in combat, grenade effects and
everything). It's just an invulnerable save that doesn't apply in close
combat and is negated by "ignore cover" weapons. I don't recall the
exact wording, but I'm pretty sure it's along the lines of "gives the
unit a 5+ cover save" rather than "treats the unit as being in cover".

>>>>Aspect Exarches could easily stand to be more powerful and
varied:
>>>>Lesser Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1I, +1A, Sv3+/5+I for 10 pts.
>>>>Greater Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +2A, Ld10 Sv3+/5+I Fearless
for 20
>>>>pts.
>>>
>>>>I fully expect to see an Autarch character as an HQ selection.
>>>
>>>I disagree. Autarch would only solve the problem from a narrow Aspect
>>>perspective.
>>
>> Which 'problem'?
>
>The strategic in-game Fluff problem. I can't see a Fire Dragon Exarch
>effectively commanding Guardians, much less Scorpions and Spiders,
>because he no longer things with breadth.

As explained in the Biel-Tan fluff Autarchs don't belong to a
particular Aspect - they're Aspect Warriors who have trained in the
fighting styles of multiple Aspects, making them conceptually different
from 'normal' Exarchs and giving them that breadth of focus.

>> This seems to be fiddling to make the unit more elite,
>> not trying to address a perceived problem with the Aspects.
>
>the Eldar are characterized by the Exarchs. Two versions emphasize the
>flavor of newer/older Exarchs,

What flavour? An Exarch is an Exarch; an Autarch is an Autarch. Once
they're Trapped that's it - they've reached the pinnacle of their
achievement and don't get any better. You seem to want to turn them
into the Eldar equivalents of Chaplains and Librarians respectively,
which costs them distinctiveness rather than enhancing it.

>>>>There's no need at all to make it a squad upgrade, since that
>>>>goes against the grain of every other army in the game.
>>>
>>>Incorrect. SM made Terminator Honors a squad upgrade because it cleans
>>>up the rules.
>>
>> One upgrade to create a squad leader, not two levels of upgrade.
>
>So the specific wording is "one model may be upgraed to a Lesser Exarch
>or Greater Exarch". Or the Exarch has the option to be upgraded to
>"Greater". What's the problem?

Same as before. Whatever the wording you're giving the Eldar units
flexibility other races lack without any need in either fluff or rules
to do so. Tinkering for the sake of tinkering; it's the GW way, but
it's also the reason their rules are such a mess.

> the point is that the Eldar have no need for two levels of squad
> leader in their squads and it represents a wholly unnecessary
> exception to rules conventions to have a multi-wound character
> as a squad leader upgrade for a squad that already has a leader
> upgrade option, rather than making a separate Aspect-themed
character.


>I don't see the problem here, either. IIRC, previously, Exarchs were
>W2,

They were previously *all* W2 - at no time in their history have
Exarchs come in different levels, meaning there's no good reason for
them to do so now since they fit happily into the fluff that way and
there's certainly no rules need for Exarchs to be better than they are
at present. They were also originally not squad leaders but independent
characters, and if you're going to invest in individual character
models you don't want them to curl up and die the moment they get hit
by a stub gun.

>> given their fluff rarity,
>
>...which has nothing to do with their activity levels, and therefore,
>playability.

Yet your whole argument on the invulnerable saves was based on fluff,
not playability. Why is this different? Because limiting Exarchs is a
restriction and giving invulnerable saves is a bonus (however minor)?

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 6:30:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>>0-2 Guardians: 5-10 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv4+. 5-10 models; all
>>>Lasblaster, Shuricat (Assault 3), or SP&CCW. AGP is BS4 not Fleet, counts
>>>as 5 models in Transport. Sv4+ is like Tau, 5-10 is a more of a dying
>>>race. 10 pts, like a Stormtrooper.
>>
>>Glad you've seen the light on Assault 3, we just have to convince Phil now
>>:-)

You can lead a horse to water... ;) 

> I don't have a problem with assault 3 in itself - I have a problem with
> assault 3 *in lieu* of the much-needed increased range. 18" Assault 3
> would be fine by me...

Except that 18" range doesn't drive the point home that the Shuricat is
a super Bolter at short (Rapid-Fire) range anywhere nearly as well as
Assault 3 does.

>>I'd like lasblasters to return (although I still think the
>>guardian version should be Assault 1),

The more the shots, the more the effect of BS4 over BS3. Assault 1
would be fine if Lasblasters had some sort of useful effect besides S3
AP6.

I keep in mind that a Lasblaster is just an Eldar Lasgun. So there
isn't much room for improvement beyond Assault 2, which is enough to
demonstrate Eldar move&fire.

>> but don't expect it now that the model has been
>> dropped.

One could reasonably expect Guardians to be redone into something with a
*lot* fewer parts (legs&torso, arm&gun, arm, head) instead of the 8+
part thing GW currently produces.

> I think the priority has to be making
> Swooping Hawks attractive before we start diluting them by giving their
> wargear to other units.

You realise, of course, that back in RT and 40k2, the default weapon for
Guardians was Lasblasters, right? So the "diluting" argument is
nonsense. If you're so pressed to make Hawks distinctive, why not take
Hawks back to their 40k2 roots with a plain Sv5+?

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 7:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>>Eldar are hardly a horde army at the moment,
>>
>>120 T3 Sv5+ Guardians is a horde.
>
> Oh, come on. When have you *ever* seen players use maxed out
> Guardian squads, let alone the full six?

Prior to Codex: Craftworlds, there was interest in, and reports of,
doing this kind of thing. Once the Eldar got the *correct* army
structures in Biel-Tan, the nonsense of Guardians disappeared.

> A large army might have 30-40 Guardians at most.

And should have fewer yet again.

>>>>I'd want to bump up Saves across the board, and charge more for it:
>>>>Light Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv4+/6+I, Fleet of Foot.
>>>>Heavy Aspect: WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv3+/6+I.
>>>>Individual Aspects might be +1/-1 from the above profile.
>>>
>>>Wholly unnecessary.
>>
>>True. A Sv6+I does nothing under cover, nor against poor AP, nor
>>against basic attacks. Sv6+I is the Eldar expression of technology to
>>preserve that small chance to survive any odds, no matter how dire.
>>It's flavorful, not powerful.
>
> It's neither - giving them an invulnerable save at all and then
> making it so weak emphasises a failure of technology more than
> anything.

I don't see the Marines bitching about how poor their 5+ fallback save
is, and I sorely doubt an Eldar player would complain about a universal
6+ save.

>>>One Eldar theme I'd insist on sticking to
>>>in a revision is the fragility of the Eldar.
>>
>>Fragile doesn't have to equal "easy to kill",
>
> Um, well that is the essence of the term, actually...

No, it isn't. And Fragility doesn't have to be enforced at the
individual model level. Again, going back to 40k2 and RT, this was
never an issue. Fragility also means a lack of redundancy or
flexibility - it can be very strong. I would liken Eldar to a
Kevlar/carbon-fibre aramid composite as opposed to the cast iron of Marines.

>>and is direct odds with
>>the other core ideas of Dying Race,
>
> As mentioned, it's the reason they're a dying race. :-)
>
>>First Born,
>
> Most Senile? Not sure why this isn't consistent with fragility anyway.

If they've lived this long...

>>Ancient Experience,
>
> Or this.

Eldar players are smart enough to avoid excessively killable models, why
aren't the Eldar themselves?

>>Masters of Technology.
>
> Masters of weapons technology - since when has GW been wholly
> self-consistent?

As I'm writing it, I can do what I like and be more consistent.

> If we were going to going wholesale with the Masters
> of Technology thing, the Eldar should be unbeatable on the
> battlefield.

It appears you don't get the concept. Masters of Technology means that
Eldar can extract more utility out of a given whatnot than any other
race can. A good example of this would be how Lasblasters are 2 shots
for the full 24" range rather than just the first 12", regardless of how
far moved.

>>Thus, I interpret Fragile as loses capability with every lost model &
>>unit (specialization, no meat). There are just too many good reasons to
>>get away from a basic Sv5+ for Guardians, not the least being to
>>distinguish from Guardsmen and Guants,
>
> So instead they become identical to Tau, Sisters and Storm Troopers?
> Not compelling.

Fine. Guardians go to Sv5+/6+I, which works just about as well. The
only critical design points is that they need to get saves against AP5
weapons so they don't just evaporate in the face of any fire.

>>and only Tradition to keep it.
>
> And list playability - unless all Aspects (Avengers) included get a
> bonus to their own saves, every other unit in the list becomes
> correspondingly less attractive, since Guardians have versatility
> that those units lack.

My Guardians are versatile, but they lack impact due to their low
numbers and low skills.

>>Fragile, as you define it, paints the Eldar into a box, with
>>easy-to-kill models which therefore need numbers to make up for.
>
> Odd; they've managed to be a strong list for three editions with
> both low numbers and individual fragility.

Baloney.

In 40k3, I only played the Sv3+ models redundantly in largish units,
totally end-running around your preferences. My model count was
generally on par with any Marine I played against. My default was to
have 2 units of 8 Scorpions screen with their Fortuned Sv3+. Those
Scorpions were practically unkillable, forcing the opponent to choose to
fire AP3 weapons that would otherwise have gone into T8 Sv3+ Wraithlords.

The "fragile" units that you champion just didn't cut it based on my
early experimentation. Banshees, Avengers, Dragons, and Hawks were just
VP on a stick.

In 40k2, Eldar were strong because they had easily exploitable Special
Rules. All Spiders? Sure! Massed 24" Sv-2 Shuricats? Sure! When
you've got a hugely redundant firebase of cheap models sporting awesome
guns that shred anything...

> What Eldar should have is punch

Yes. I think of it as decisiveness and impact.

> and the ability to coordinate their forces more efficiently than
> armies with tougher/more numerous troops.

And how do you propose to do this in the rules? Eldar always get the
first turn? Eldar get +1 to stats for each other Eldar unit within 12"

IMO, this is inherent in the design of the army with Aspect specialists,
full effectiveness on the move, and Guardians to fill gaps.

> And what of Conceal?

I'd rather see Executioner return as a preferred power.

Personally, I never took it after the first few games. You need to soak
a lot of points into a Warlock to babysit the unit, which still dies 2/3
of the time.

Plus, it's a rules mess.

>>However, Eldar have always had Sv3+ (and better) models in
>>their list, so the killable kind of Fragile isn't necessary.
>
> The Eldar have always had Sv4+ (and better) models in their
> list, so don't need Guardians to have that level of protection.

Fine. Sv5+/6+I.

>>>>Aspect Exarches could easily stand to be more powerful and varied:
>>>>Lesser Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1I, +1A, Sv3+/5+I for 10 pts.
>>>>Greater Exarch +1WS, +1BS, +1W, +1I, +2A, Ld10 Sv3+/5+I Fearless for 20
>>>>pts.
>>>
>>>I fully expect to see an Autarch character as an HQ selection.
>>
>>I disagree. Autarch would only solve the problem from a narrow Aspect
>>perspective.
>
> Which 'problem'?

The strategic in-game Fluff problem. I can't see a Fire Dragon Exarch
effectively commanding Guardians, much less Scorpions and Spiders,
because he no longer things with breadth.

> This seems to be fiddling to make the unit more elite,
> not trying to address a perceived problem with the Aspects.

The Eldar are characterized by the Exarchs. Two versions emphasize the
flavor of newer/older Exarchs, just as two versions of Farseers give
more options for their "key" character.

>>>There's no need at all to make it a squad upgrade, since that
>>>goes against the grain of every other army in the game.
>>
>>Incorrect. SM made Terminator Honors a squad upgrade because it cleans
>>up the rules.
>
> One upgrade to create a squad leader, not two levels of upgrade.

So the specific wording is "one model may be upgraed to a Lesser Exarch
or Greater Exarch". Or the Exarch has the option to be upgraded to
"Greater". What's the problem?

>It isn't the way it's worded that I have a problem with (although Exarch
> stats are so far improved over basic Aspect ones that it's more
> convenient to treat them as a separate profile - I certainly had a more
> difficult time following your description of "Wraithguard Heavy S+3,
> T+2 etc." than I would have "Wraithguard: S6, T5 etc."),

Sorry. It was quick & dirty.

> the point is that the Eldar have no need for two levels of squad
> leader in their squads and it represents a wholly unnecessary
> exception to rules conventions to have a multi-wound character
> as a squad leader upgrade for a squad that already has a leader
> upgrade option, rather than making a separate Aspect-themed character.

I don't see the problem here, either. IIRC, previously, Exarchs were
W2, and this is no more problematic than the 0-1 IG HSO upgrade.

>> You're thinking 40k3 rules, not 40k4. Upgrade is better.
>>
>>Greater Exarch is only available to Elite,
>
> So Dire Avengers can't have "Greater Exarchs" while Scorpions etc. can?

-sigh-

Not available to "Aspect Troops" which would normally be Elite but
currently taken as Troops.

> The fluff violations go on and on... Aspects are Aspects; what applies
> to one must apply to all.

.... except when Aspects which wouldn't normally be Troops are taken as
Troops.

>>and only one per Aspect Shrine.
>
> I'd be happy to restrict normal Exarchs to one per Shrine,

No. Only the Greater version needs to be restricted.

> given their fluff rarity,

....which has nothing to do with their activity levels, and therefore,
playability.

> but overall I think the Exarch Bodyguard/Court of the
> Young King idea is a more elegant approach and in keeping with the
> Eldar 'way of doing things'. In any case, it wouldn't be much
> restriction for anyone but Biel-Tan.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:00:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>>I don't have a problem with assault 3 in itself - I have a problem
>>>with assault 3 *in lieu* of the much-needed increased range.
>>>18" Assault 3 would be fine by me...
>>
>>Except that 18" range doesn't drive the point home that the
>>Shuricat is a super Bolter at short (Rapid-Fire) range
>>anywhere nearly as well as Assault 3 does.
>
> The shuricat isn't a super-bolter at short range, nor has it ever been.

It is, now. ;) 

> It used to be a super-bolter at long range, to be sure (but
> even then, never with any more firepower than the storm
> bolter, which itself is assault 2), but it no longer has
> that range.

The Storm Bolter and Lasgun are precisely why I don't want Avengers
armed with long-range 24" Assault 2+ guns.

>>>>I'd like lasblasters to return (although I still think the
>>>>guardian version should be Assault 1),
>>
>>The more the shots, the more the effect of BS4 over BS3.
>
> making shuricats Assault 3 made Avengers comparatively less
> useful for the points than Guardians, because a BS4 unit will
> run out of targets more quickly - if it can kill everything
> with 2 shots 3 are surplus to requirements,

Actually, what it does it allows the Avengers to get the job done with a
smaller unit, margin for a few casualties, or against slightly bad luck.

> I would be happy with assault 3 so long as Avengers get either
> Fighting Withdrawal

Done.

> Only problem with that is that Guardians with shuricats are
> as useless as ever, but then we went through that in the past and
> as I remember you didn't care.

I like Guardians with both. 24" Lasblasters help in a harassing mode,
while S4 Assault 3 Shuricats would be great against AV10 Fast Skimmers...

>>I keep in mind that a Lasblaster is just an Eldar Lasgun. So there
>>isn't much room for improvement beyond Assault 2, which is enough to
>>demonstrate Eldar move&fire.
>
> AP6 and assault 1 over rapid fire are advantages enough for a Guardian
> lasgun, surely?

No, because Rapid Fire is 2 shots moving 6", which is better than 1 shot
moving 6".

>>>I think the priority has to be making
>>>Swooping Hawks attractive before we start diluting them by giving their
>>>wargear to other units.
>>
>>You realise, of course, that back in RT and 40k2, the default weapon
>>for Guardians was Lasblasters, right? So the "diluting" argument is
>>nonsense. If you're so pressed to make Hawks distinctive, why not
>>take Hawks back to their 40k2 roots with a plain Sv5+?
>
> I said "attractive", not "distinctive".

:) 

> Hawks were useable in RT and v2; they aren't in v3/4; getting rid of
> fly high and reducing grenade packs to one-shot were good rules
> decisions by GW, but they really hamper what can be done with this
> unit to make it effective.

Precisely so. The 40k2 flyover mechanic was terrible.

> Long-range mobile firepower is one of the things in their favour;
> giving Guardians 24" range assault weapons removes or weakens even

Unlike 18" S4 Assault 2+ weapons?

> that advantage. As I said before, fix what's wrong first,

Right. Guardians should get their Lasguns back, as taking them away was
wrong. Lasguns are a good fit for AGPs.

> then fiddle. Guardians don't need lasblasters, but Hawks do need to
> be useable.

Yes. But I won't put that entirely on the Lasblaster. Their problem
lies deeper than that.

> If we ever reach a point where Hawks are attractive enough to
> be taken over a cheaper unit with the same armament, that's
> the time to consider giving Guardians lasblasters. In their
> current incarnation they're far from that point.

While I understand the thought, why not fix Guardians first, as they're
more easily fixable. If the rest of the army falls together, then the
any omissions or gaps may illuminate what to do with problem units like
the Hawks and Spears.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:04:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>Your new Guardian version is still way better than your new DA version for
>>>>the points.
>>>
>>>If we reset the Guardian at Sv5+/6+I at 8 pts, and the Avenger at 12
>>>pts, do you still think so?
>>
>>
>> Of course - you're proposing enhancing the Guardians, doing nothing to
>> enhance the Avengers (aside from the enhanced shuricat that both have
>> access to) and setting the points at the current level. There's still
>> the same issue that Avengers are just up-armoured Guardians without
>> heavy weapon access, and enhancing the Guardian heavy weapon to BS4
>> just increases the imbalance in the Guardians' favour.
>
>
>I don't see it that way. BS4 is nice, but it's not nearly as shooty as
>a War Walker, mobile as a Vyper, or tough like a WL.

The Guardians aren't competing with these units. They're competing with
your shoddy-compromise Avengers, and outcompeting them at that.

>My Avengers have become the "perfect" Eldar specialist generalists.
>They can take on any role, from fire support to assault support.

There's no good reason they can't do that now (well aside from the 12"
range severely curtailing their use as fire support, but you aren't
doing anything about that), yet no one takes them. Why? Because the
Eldar army isn't a Space Marine one and doesn't need the equivalent of
Tac Marines with bolters. It needs a basic shooty unit that can shoot,
not a jack-of-all-trades that's not only a master of none but not
terribly good at any of them. Guardian Storms with Enhance and special
weapons are better in close combat; Guardian Defenders are better at
range, and the Eldar player has no incentive to take a short-range
shooty unit just because it might tie up the enemy in combat a bit
longer when used as a speed bump.

The essential point is that you don't appear to understand what is
actually wrong with this unit. It isn't its quality - making them the
same, only better will *not* fix the problem. Ever. The problem is that
as they stand they don't have a role the army wants or needs, and until
that changes they'll be on the back burner in favour of units that do
things better. I remember running the figures against Marines last
time, and Avengers are well-costed for what they do. But what they do
is not useful.

>> Which they shouldn't be able to do, because they aren't trained or
>> equipped for close combat. If the Eldar wanted them as assault troops
>> they'd give them two close combat weapons to achieve the same effect.
>
>But they're not dedicated assault troops.

Quite. In your version they're only shooty troops who are
better-trained in close combat than dedicated assault troops...

> What the Avengers do is fill
>the progression from Guardian to the rest of the Aspects.

There isn't a 'progression'. There is no evolutionary progression from
Guardian militia to Aspect specialists - Asurmen was the first Phoenix
Lord, but all the Aspects were created at the same time after he
trained his first warriors (the other Asurya). The Dire Avengers are
not fundamentally different from any other Aspect - they aren't a
prototype, or a halfway-houes. They are Aspect Warriors with a
particular specialty, who just happen to be common enough to be
employed as Troops in the average Eldar army. As an Aspect toting
fast-firing, short-ranged, two-handed anti-infantry weapons, their
specialty is firefighting. Guardians are there to add versatility -
despite the impression the models may give, Avengers are *not* just
better-trained, better-armoured Guardians - their role is different and
more restricted, which is why they don't get the various weapon options
Guardians do.

> Please recall
>that Avengers are the prototype for ALL Aspects, so they should be
>balanced between both.

No they aren't; see above.

> The fact that the "good" gun (Shuricat) was
>overly shooty is why the Exarch has always been fighty, for balance.

He's always been fighty because GW leader types have always been fighty
- even the Reaper Exarch used to be armed with close combat weaponry
(web of skulls as modelled, power blades thematically).

>Taking the opportunity to rebalance the entire unit is a good change.
>As the Banshees were among the first to split off, it makes perfect
>sense for the Avengers to be close in function, but without the chrome
>of power weapons and Banshee masks.

Banshees are not a derivative of Dire Avengers. They are the Aspect
Asurmen's pupil Jain Zar taught in the fighting style he'd taught her -
the Avengers are the Aspect he taught in a different fighting style.
They have no more in common with Banshees than they do with Shining
Spears.

>I think your approach is strongly mistaken, and that you are grossly
>overenamored of trying to overspecialize.

Allowing a shooty unit to use its guns and not making it an assault
unit is hardly 'overspecialised'. You might as well argue that Orks
should have BS4 because giving them BS2 'overspecialises' them towards
assault.

>The point is that Eldar are specialized, but not extreme.

Giving Dire Avengers, a unit armed with ranged weaponry, A1, is no more
extreme than giving Fire Dragons, Dark Reapers or Tau Fire Warriors A1
rather than A2.

>< Besides which it restores them to semi-assault troops, something rapid
>> fire was designed to keep them away from.
>
>Given that there are Jetbikes, Spears, and Hawks, it is *good* for the
>Spiders (and Spears) to be semi-assault to distinguish from the shootier
>Jetbikes & Hawks.

So, making a unit that can shoot but not assault in the same turn
(Spiders) able to shoot and assault in the same turn distinguishes it
from other units that can shoot and assault in the same turn (Hawks,
Spears) how, exactly? I agree there needs to be more of a distinction
between Hawks and Spiders re assault, and let's consider what we have.
We have one unit that deep strikes into play, has plasma grenades as
standard kit, is armed with a particularly potent assault weapon and
two powers designed to enhance his ability in close combat. We have
another that has no grenades, can't deep strike, is armed with
rapid-fire weaponry, has an Exarch whose primary armament is always a
gun (whether or not he straps on power blades as well) and who gives
the unit a power that allows them to get out of close combat when
engaged. Which strikes you as the better archetype for the assault
unit? Keep Spiders shooty, dump Surprise Assault; give Hawks Diving
Charge. That helps to distiinguish the units.

>>>>Make them powerfists.
>>>
>>>PFs would make them I1 when fighting. DNCCWs keep them at I4.
>>
>>
>> Sounds wholly suitable, actually - they are supposed to be slow to
>> respond to the real world.
>
>"Slow" from an Eldar Aspect POV

Slow from an Eldar point of view generally (including that of I4
Guardians), and indeed the fluff implies slow from the perspective of
the living in general.

>>>The point here is to emphasize that WLs are HtH-oriented, not generic
>>>shooty Marine Dreads, as Phil seems to want.
>>
>> As opposed to a generic close combat Ork Dread?
>
>Besides, if you want to make the WL shooty with 2 guns, what's the point
>of the 2-gun (only) War Walker?

If the SM Dreadnought can take two guns, what's the point of Land
Speeder Tornados? If the Land Raider can take three guns, what's the
point of a Predator? And when did you last see a Wraithlord squadron?

> Stop homogenizing everything together!
> You're destroying every ounce of character in the list!

This from someone who wants to reduce Guardians to a single entry and
turn units from Avengers to Spiders into variations on the
'ever-versatile' Tac Marine theme? The way you'll treat the Avengers in
particular completely eradicates their character.

>> Eldar should be less combat-orientated across the board,
>
>No, they shouldn't. They should be right smack dab in the middle,
>perfectly balanced between shooting and fighting.

Exactly; the current close combat bias doesn't suit them and will only
be exacerbated with what you want to do to Spiders and Avengers. At the
moment pretty much all the favoured Eldar units are combat specialists,
including the Wraithlord.

>> and its reactions are slow, so
>> while it's got a greater stride it's going to be making fewer strides
>> than a human in the same period.
>
>
>Do you know anything about walking and running? Longer legs with longer
>strides cover more ground. Short legs are agile, due to the shorter
>pendulum. Or are you going to say that long-legged horses are somehow
>slower than short-legged pigs?

Shoddy analogy - horses not only have a longer stride, they have a more
rapid gait. The Wraithlord will have a very slow gait - moving 6" for
it may represent one, maybe two strides, compared with however many it
takes a man or Eldar to cover the same ground.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 9:12:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>>The Storm Bolter and Lasgun are precisely why I don't want Avengers
>>>armed with long-range 24" Assault 2+ guns.
>>
>> I'm happy with 18" range.
>
>And 12" is more distinctive. Players will see a clear difference. This
>point is closed.

It is, but it's still nonsense to say that giving the weapon 18" range,
which is rare in 40k, is less distinctive than giving it assault 3,
which by and large is not although admittedly it's uncommon for a basic
weapon. And as mentioned, there's no consistency in complaining that
the shuricat 'isn't distinctive' anyway when plenty of Eldar weapons
are minor variants of or identical to other races' weapons (shuriken
cannon/assault cannon - which you want to make even more similar with
rending - shuriken pistol/bolt pistol, scatter laser/multilaser,
EML/ML, bright lance/dark lance, flamer/flamer, fusion gun/meltagun...)

>>>>AP6 and assault 1 over rapid fire are advantages enough for a Guardian
>>>>lasgun, surely?
>>
>>>No, because Rapid Fire is 2 shots moving 6", which is better than 1 shot
>>>moving 6".
>>
>> It's a tradeoff
>
>Except the Lasblaster should be categorically superior, to drive home
>the point of superior Eldar technology.

Your point was that assault 2 emphasised the ability of the Eldar to
move and fire, which assault 1 does.

> Not equivalent, but
>unquestionably *superior*. The Eldar don't need to make any tradeoffs.

The Eldar are up against all the lesser races against whom they need to
be balanced - AP6 and the ability to move and fire at up to 24"
emphasises the fluff point that Eldar tech is superior while remaining
balanced against other races' equivalents. If we're going to go down
the 'everything better than everyone else', then the Necrons should
have a far better gauss rifle than they have and the particle whip
should be far better than a short-ranged direct fire battlecannon.

>Apples to oranges, aside from Range.

Which is what was being compared...

>If you want to compare with a 36"
>Heavy Stubber, OTOH...
>
>In any case, the argument shows a 6" move 12" Assault is even *more*
>distinctive.

As above, distinctive isn't and never was the point - the shuriken
pistol is a serviceable weapon but is in no way distinctive. The point
is to make it different in application.

>> the range difference between Fire Warriors and
>> Space Marines isn't hugely significant, for instance.
>
>Then why bother with the +6" range?

Going from 24" to 30", there's no particular reason to. Going from 12"
to 18" changes a lot more because it removes the unit from the range at
which it only gets one shot before dying - at least at 18" the enemy is
forced to actually engage in a firefight with them.

> I think the Tau players might disagree.

I doubt it. The S5 of the pulse rifles is their attractive feature; the
6" range is a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing. Nice to have, but Tau
players wouldn't be moaning unduly if the weapon were 24" S5 AP5 rapid
fire (and they might be if the revision made it 30" S4 AP5 rapid fire).

>>>then fiddle. Guardians don't need lasblasters, but Hawks do need to
>>>be useable.

>>>Yes. But I won't put that entirely on the Lasblaster. Their problem
>>>lies deeper than that.
>>
>> Still, at the moment the lasblaster is basically all they have going
>> for them.
>
>And it shouldn't be.

Of course not. But that's no reason to take the weapon advantage away
before the rest of their problems are solved.

>>>If we ever reach a point where Hawks are attractive enough to
>>>be taken over a cheaper unit with the same armament, that's
>>>the time to consider giving Guardians lasblasters. In their
>>>current incarnation they're far from that point.

>>>While I understand the thought, why not fix Guardians first, as
>>>they're more easily fixable.
>>
>> this unit is just not a priority for revision.
>
>For GW, perhaps.

For anyone whose first priority is making all the units in the list
useable. Guardians are used.

>> - the v4 changes
>> to the deathspinner make them an attractive unit,
>
>An adequate unit, but not a fully-playable one. And one that forces
>stupid choices upon the player.

In other words, it encourages the use of tactics instead of getting
everything in one package.

>Do you even play 40k4? With Warp Spiders? With heavy kit Exarch? I'm
>guessing a solid "NO" for all 3 questions, which is why you're totally
>off your rocker when you say that the unit works with Rapid-Fire in
>40k4.

Why would it be any different from the situation in 40k3? They couldn't
fire and assault then either.

>An Eldar Aspect unit should be able to operate at FULL effectiveness on
>the move. It is incredibly STUPID to have ONLY the Exarch fire his
>Assault 2 Spinner, and command his men NOT to fire, so that they can
>Assault and he can use his Powerblades.

You might as well say that it's stupid for the Hawk Exarch to be armed
for close combat but not his men, so all Hawks should be armed for
close combat. The problem lies with the individual model, not the unit,
which is why in the past I've proposed making the Spider Exarch rapid
fire x2 rather than assault 4.

>The correct fix is for the Spiders to be able to hammer in and do both
>shooting *and* mop up survivors in HtH. For that, they need Assault
>weapons. And as the Eldar have plenty of Assault 2 guns, and no Assault
> Blast guns (which aren't that powerful anymore) Assault 1 Blast works
>perfectly.

They don't have any other rapid fire guns either, so according to this
logic they should have a rapid fire gun. Assault 1 blast may work, but
it weakens the unit at range and isn't actually necessary since the
weapon doesn't need changing. Why do you insist on wanting to change
things that work before addressing the actual problems? You really
should apply for a job with the GW Design Studio.

>> I do like the suggestion
>> that came up in the last revision thread about giving them
>> M9"/9" rather than 12"/6", but sadly GW has moved away from
>> non-standard movement rates so it's unlikely we'll see that.
>
>It's a good change.

But it makes units like Raveners less distinctive!

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:50:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote...
> W. B. wrote:
> > "John Hwang" wrote...
> >>I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
> >>changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex.

> > The real Eldar hordes are the guardians, and they die as quickly as
> > Imperial Guard.
>
> Which would be fine if they were an utterly inexhaustible, easily
> totally renewable, and expendable resource available in great masses.
> OTOH, for a dying race...

Yes, that would be the problem.

> Aspects get a fallback 6+ Invulernable Save, along with WS4 BS4 I5 of
> "professional troops". And each Aspect has a small bonus comparared to
> the basic Aspect statline.

Adding a unique across the board mechanic like that doesn't seem right somehow.
Admittedly, Guardians need to be tougher, but making Guardians as hard to kill
as most Aspects by increasing Guardians' save to 4+, and not increasing the
Aspect save doesn't seem right either. Perhaps the Aspects need to go to a 3+
save? Heck, if the Ecclesiarchy can put all its SoB's in power armor, why can't
the Masters of Technology Eldar do the same for their elite troops?

> > The single biggest tweak that needs to be made is to the shuricat.
> If you compare the Lasgun (24" Rapid Fire) and Lasblaster (24" Assault
> 2), the Lasblaster is improved for long-range and mobility.

Just played a game that had the Daemonhunters listening to the Emperor's
Children perform the symphony of pain. All sonic weapons, all the time, facing
off against a heap of storm bolters. This gave me a very great deal of respect
for 24" Assault 2 weapons - so much so that I think that combination is too good
to be balanced. An assault weapon with that kind of reach can shred
conventional troops, because you can run away and still inflict massive damage.
It is impossible to close with that kind of force if they don't want you to.

> As the Shuricat is to be comparable with the Bolter, it needs to be
> specialized for short-range and mobility. So the idea of 18+" range
> cannot hold. Rending is much too powerful even on S4, and is just
> generally out of character for a basic weapon.

Unfortunately, it isn't our decision. I will not be at all surprised if GW
decides to make the Shuricat 18" assault 2. Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.

> As a result, I gave the Shuricat Assault 3. It increases impact by 50%
> for short-ranged fire, improving fire density, while retaining the
> option to Assault. So, compared with a Bolter it is more specialized to
> support close-quarters battle.

Ouch. Even with the reduced size of Guardian squads, that's gonna hurt.

> > Avengers need better HtH,
>
> Exactly my thinking. I went with +1A for A2, along with the fallback
> Sv6+I. In an Alpha-strike, Avengers are 12" S4 AP5 Assault 3, then
> charge at A2+1 WS4 S3! Granted that these are all basic attacks, but
> they're not terrible. And Furious Charge wouldn't be out of place,
> either, allowing them to split the difference with Scorpions.

Hmmm, I was going to suggest giving Avengers True Grit - usable with shuricats,
of course.

> I went with Sv3+/5+I, dropping them to I4 and Slow & Purposeful. It's a
> very good save, but not nearly as good as Obliterators. This way,
> Reapers can set up anywhere and be effective. Sure, they'll bump up to
> 40 pts, but they won't just cough up VPs left and right.

Dude, Obliterators are 70 points each. For that kind of expense, they'd better
be damned good!

--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"Did Noah keep his bees in archives?"
August 11, 2005 2:22:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Having watched this discussion with interest the conclusion I have come to
is that there is a viable Codex for the Eldar. One that covers the ethos of
small tough units who make up for numbers with skill and technology, the
trouble is, its called Codex:Space Marine.

Before you all laugh, do a couple of quick substituitions.

Tactical Marines = Guardians in units of 6 in a Falcon or 10 in a Wraith
Serpent or 10 max with AGP's.
Aspects would be Devastators and assult Marines, with the special weapon
numbers tweaked. The heavy aspects would be the Terminator substitution.
Some of the Eldar would need more tweaking than others, but the core of the
army would be right, as would there stat lines, with just an odd points
tweak or or + or - as appropriate. As well as creative renaming to make
them more flavourful and again the odd tweak to weapons stats etc.

I really should get out more.

--
estarriol
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:22:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote...

>>>The real Eldar hordes are the guardians, and they die as quickly as
>>>Imperial Guard.
>>
>>Which would be fine if they were an utterly inexhaustible, easily
>>totally renewable, and expendable resource available in great masses.
>>OTOH, for a dying race...
>
> Yes, that would be the problem.
>
>>Aspects get a fallback 6+ Invulernable Save, along with WS4 BS4 I5 of
>>"professional troops". And each Aspect has a small bonus comparared to
>>the basic Aspect statline.
>
> Adding a unique across the board mechanic like that doesn't seem
> right somehow.

It was a trial balloon that crashed. I'd reset Guardians should back to
Sv5+/6+I.

> Admittedly, Guardians need to be tougher, but making Guardians as
> hard to kill as most Aspects by increasing Guardians' save to 4+,
> and not increasing the Aspect save doesn't seem right either.
> Perhaps the Aspects need to go to a 3+ save?

I think the mixed Sv3+ and Sv4+ are OK. One possibility is to add a
rule such that Eldar Aspect armour is only negated by AP3 or better.

Alternately, basic Eldar Armour saves are only negated by AP ratings
that are exceed than the Save, so Sv5+ would require AP4 or better to
negate, but still grants saves against AP5 or worse.

> Heck, if the Ecclesiarchy can put all its SoB's in power armor,
> why can't the Masters of Technology Eldar do the same for
> their elite troops?

The easy argument is that the Imperium has inexhaustible resources
available. Fluff-wise, Eldar have been armoured in 4+ for a long time.

Restoring Reapers to Sv3+ and then promoting Dragons to Sv3+ would be a
definite possibility. This would give heavy and light versions of all
core Aspect roles: Heavy close Dragons & Light close Avengers; Heavy
HtH Scorpions & Light HtH Banshees; Heavy Jump Spiders & Light Jump Hawks.

>>If you compare the Lasgun (24" Rapid Fire) and Lasblaster (24"
>>Assault 2), the Lasblaster is improved for long-range and mobility.
>
> Just played a game that had the Daemonhunters listening to the
> Emperor's Children perform the symphony of pain. All sonic
> weapons, all the time, facing off against a heap of storm bolters.

Wow, that is cool. Storm Bolters against Chaos uber-Storm Bolters.

> This gave me a very great deal of respect for 24" Assault 2
> weapons - so much so that I think that combination is too good
> to be balanced.

Depends on who's carrying it, among other things. 24" BS3 S3 AP6
Assault 2 isn't all that impressive.

> An assault weapon with that kind of reach can shred
> conventional troops, because you can run away and still
> inflict massive damage.

If the Shuricat were returned to prominence as a 24" S4 AP5 Assault 2
Storm Bolter, it would be quite impressive.

> It is impossible to close with that kind of force if they
> don't want you to.

Nah, because the board isn't unlimited and eventually you hit the edge.
Transports or massed Fleet of Foot *will* get in.

The all SB Eldar is really more of an attacking force.

>>As the Shuricat is to be comparable with the Bolter, it needs
>>to be specialized for short-range and mobility. So the idea
>>of 18+" range cannot hold. Rending is much too powerful even
>>on S4, and is just generally out of character for a basic weapon.
>
> Unfortunately, it isn't our decision. I will not be at all
> surprised if GW decides to make the Shuricat 18" assault 2.
> Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.

Same. Pity, really. Tho that really obsoletes Hawks and their
Lasblasters in a big way. Same save with +1S and +1AP on cheaper Troops
that don't compete with Vypers, Jetbikes, or Spears? Yes, please! The
only way that Hawks could then keep up would be to bump Lasblasters to
30" and maybe even Assault 3...

>>As a result, I gave the Shuricat Assault 3. It increases impact by 50%
>>for short-ranged fire, improving fire density, while retaining the
>>option to Assault. So, compared with a Bolter it is more specialized to
>>support close-quarters battle.
>
> Ouch. Even with the reduced size of Guardian squads, that's gonna hurt.

30 shots is 15 hits, killing 10 Guardsmen or 2.5 Marines. It's a good
attack.

>>>Avengers need better HtH,
>>
>>Exactly my thinking. I went with +1A for A2, along with the fallback
>>Sv6+I. In an Alpha-strike, Avengers are 12" S4 AP5 Assault 3, then
>>charge at A2+1 WS4 S3! Granted that these are all basic attacks, but
>>they're not terrible. And Furious Charge wouldn't be out of place,
>>either, allowing them to split the difference with Scorpions.
>
> Hmmm, I was going to suggest giving Avengers True Grit - usable with
> shuricats, of course.

That was basically the idea behind A2. :) 

>>I went with Sv3+/5+I, dropping them to I4 and Slow & Purposeful. It's a
>>very good save, but not nearly as good as Obliterators. This way,
>>Reapers can set up anywhere and be effective. Sure, they'll bump up to
>>40 pts, but they won't just cough up VPs left and right.
>
> Dude, Obliterators are 70 points each. For that kind of expense, they'd
> better be damned good!

I'd push Reapers up to around 40 pts each. They don't have the 2+ base,
nor the versatility, nor the HtH, nor the extra wound...

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:27:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

estarriol wrote:
> Having watched this discussion with interest the conclusion I have come to
> is that there is a viable Codex for the Eldar. One that covers the ethos of
> small tough units who make up for numbers with skill and technology, the
> trouble is, its called Codex:Space Marine.

Actually, I'm internally modeling more after Chaos Marines/LatD, as I
consider that to be more apt with the various specializations.

> Before you all laugh, do a couple of quick substituitions.
>
> Tactical Marines = Guardians in units of 6 in a Falcon or 10 in a Wraith
> Serpent or 10 max with AGP's.

I see Guardians like LatD Men. Avengers are basic Chaos Marines.

> Aspects would be Devastators and assult Marines,

Aspects are Cult Marines.

> The heavy aspects would be the Terminator substitution.

Wraithguard are Chaos Termies; Wraithlord is like the Dreadnought, but
fightier.

> Some of the Eldar would need more tweaking than others, but the
> core of the army would be right, as would there stat lines,

How do you deal with the Eldar S3 T3 standard?

> with just an odd points tweak or or + or - as appropriate.
> As well as creative renaming to make them more flavourful
> and again the odd tweak to weapons stats etc.
>
> I really should get out more.

Heh. :) 

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:11:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>>The Storm Bolter and Lasgun are precisely why I don't want Avengers
>>>>armed with long-range 24" Assault 2+ guns.
>>>
>>>I'm happy with 18" range.
>>
>>And 12" is more distinctive. Players will see a clear difference. This
>>point is closed.
>
>

I'm in the 18" A2 camp. As I don't think a Shuricat should be stronger
than a storm bolter at any range.

> It is, but it's still nonsense to say that giving the weapon 18" range,
> which is rare in 40k, is less distinctive than giving it assault 3,
> which by and large is not although admittedly it's uncommon for a basic
> weapon. And as mentioned, there's no consistency in complaining that
> the shuricat 'isn't distinctive' anyway when plenty of Eldar weapons
> are minor variants of or identical to other races' weapons (shuriken
> cannon/assault cannon - which you want to make even more similar with
> rending - shuriken pistol/bolt pistol, scatter laser/multilaser,
> EML/ML, bright lance/dark lance, flamer/flamer, fusion gun/meltagun...)
>

>>>>>AP6 and assault 1 over rapid fire are advantages enough for a Guardian
>>>>>lasgun, surely?
>>>
>>>>No, because Rapid Fire is 2 shots moving 6", which is better than 1 shot
>>>>moving 6".
>>>
>>>It's a tradeoff
>>
>>Except the Lasblaster should be categorically superior, to drive home
>>the point of superior Eldar technology.
>
>
> Your point was that assault 2 emphasised the ability of the Eldar to
> move and fire, which assault 1 does.
>

Just make las blasters same as pulse cannons and be done with it. Or
Ass.2 24" Str3 AP-

>>Not equivalent, but
>>unquestionably *superior*. The Eldar don't need to make any tradeoffs.
>
>
<snip>
>
>>Do you even play 40k4?

No. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. From what I've read on
here, spiders seem fine. At least as fine as anything in the list.

>
>
> Why would it be any different from the situation in 40k3? They couldn't
> fire and assault then either.
>
>
>>An Eldar Aspect unit should be able to operate at FULL effectiveness on
>>the move. It is incredibly STUPID to have ONLY the Exarch fire his
>>Assault 2 Spinner, and command his men NOT to fire, so that they can
>>Assault and he can use his Powerblades.
>

Doesen't this happen with tooled up Marine Sgts. all the time?

> You might as well say that it's stupid for the Hawk Exarch to be armed
> for close combat but not his men, so all Hawks should be armed for
> close combat. The problem lies with the individual model, not the unit,
> which is why in the past I've proposed making the Spider Exarch rapid
> fire x2 rather than assault 4.
>
>>The correct fix is for the Spiders to be able to hammer in and do both
>>shooting *and* mop up survivors in HtH. For that, they need Assault
>>weapons. And as the Eldar have plenty of Assault 2 guns, and no Assault
>> Blast guns (which aren't that powerful anymore) Assault 1 Blast works
>>perfectly.
>
>
> They don't have any other rapid fire guns either, so according to this
> logic they should have a rapid fire gun. Assault 1 blast may work, but
> it weakens the unit at range and isn't actually necessary since the
> weapon doesn't need changing. Why do you insist on wanting to change
> things that work before addressing the actual problems? You really
> should apply for a job with the GW Design Studio.
>

Hehe.

>>>I do like the suggestion
>>>that came up in the last revision thread about giving them
>>>M9"/9" rather than 12"/6", but sadly GW has moved away from
>>>non-standard movement rates so it's unlikely we'll see that.
>>
>>It's a good change.
>
>
> But it makes units like Raveners less distinctive!

But by reducing the amount of special movemnt rules you have more room
for lots of other special rules. Like 6+I saves for everyone.

-Joe "leaping in to the fray" Boster
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 2:58:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>Your new Guardian version is still way better than your new DA version for
>>>>>the points.
>>>>
>>>>If we reset the Guardian at Sv5+/6+I at 8 pts, and the Avenger at 12
>>>>pts, do you still think so?
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course - you're proposing enhancing the Guardians, doing nothing to
>>>enhance the Avengers (aside from the enhanced shuricat that both have
>>>access to) and setting the points at the current level. There's still
>>>the same issue that Avengers are just up-armoured Guardians without
>>>heavy weapon access, and enhancing the Guardian heavy weapon to BS4
>>>just increases the imbalance in the Guardians' favour.
>>
>>
>>I don't see it that way. BS4 is nice, but it's not nearly as shooty as
>>a War Walker, mobile as a Vyper, or tough like a WL.
>
>
> The Guardians aren't competing with these units. They're competing with
> your shoddy-compromise Avengers, and outcompeting them at that.
>
>
>>My Avengers have become the "perfect" Eldar specialist generalists.
>>They can take on any role, from fire support to assault support.
>
>
> There's no good reason they can't do that now (well aside from the 12"
> range severely curtailing their use as fire support, but you aren't
> doing anything about that), yet no one takes them. Why? Because the
> Eldar army isn't a Space Marine one and doesn't need the equivalent of
> Tac Marines with bolters. It needs a basic shooty unit that can shoot,
> not a jack-of-all-trades that's not only a master of none but not
> terribly good at any of them. Guardian Storms with Enhance and special
> weapons are better in close combat; Guardian Defenders are better at
> range, and the Eldar player has no incentive to take a short-range
> shooty unit just because it might tie up the enemy in combat a bit
> longer when used as a speed bump.
>
> The essential point is that you don't appear to understand what is
> actually wrong with this unit. It isn't its quality - making them the
> same, only better will *not* fix the problem. Ever. The problem is that
> as they stand they don't have a role the army wants or needs, and until
> that changes they'll be on the back burner in favour of units that do
> things better. I remember running the figures against Marines last
> time, and Avengers are well-costed for what they do. But what they do
> is not useful.
>
>
>>>Which they shouldn't be able to do, because they aren't trained or
>>>equipped for close combat. If the Eldar wanted them as assault troops
>>>they'd give them two close combat weapons to achieve the same effect.
>>
>>But they're not dedicated assault troops.
>
>
> Quite. In your version they're only shooty troops who are
> better-trained in close combat than dedicated assault troops...
>
>
>> What the Avengers do is fill
>>the progression from Guardian to the rest of the Aspects.
>
>
> There isn't a 'progression'. There is no evolutionary progression from
> Guardian militia to Aspect specialists - Asurmen was the first Phoenix
> Lord, but all the Aspects were created at the same time after he
> trained his first warriors (the other Asurya). The Dire Avengers are
> not fundamentally different from any other Aspect - they aren't a
> prototype, or a halfway-houes. They are Aspect Warriors with a
> particular specialty, who just happen to be common enough to be
> employed as Troops in the average Eldar army. As an Aspect toting
> fast-firing, short-ranged, two-handed anti-infantry weapons, their
> specialty is firefighting. Guardians are there to add versatility -
> despite the impression the models may give, Avengers are *not* just
> better-trained, better-armoured Guardians - their role is different and
> more restricted, which is why they don't get the various weapon options
> Guardians do.
>
>
>>Please recall
>>that Avengers are the prototype for ALL Aspects, so they should be
>>balanced between both.
>
>
> No they aren't; see above.
>
>
>>The fact that the "good" gun (Shuricat) was
>>overly shooty is why the Exarch has always been fighty, for balance.
>
>
> He's always been fighty because GW leader types have always been fighty
> - even the Reaper Exarch used to be armed with close combat weaponry
> (web of skulls as modelled, power blades thematically).
>
>
>>Taking the opportunity to rebalance the entire unit is a good change.
>>As the Banshees were among the first to split off, it makes perfect
>>sense for the Avengers to be close in function, but without the chrome
>>of power weapons and Banshee masks.
>
>
> Banshees are not a derivative of Dire Avengers. They are the Aspect
> Asurmen's pupil Jain Zar taught in the fighting style he'd taught her -
> the Avengers are the Aspect he taught in a different fighting style.
> They have no more in common with Banshees than they do with Shining
> Spears.
>
>
>>I think your approach is strongly mistaken, and that you are grossly
>>overenamored of trying to overspecialize.
>
>
> Allowing a shooty unit to use its guns and not making it an assault
> unit is hardly 'overspecialised'. You might as well argue that Orks
> should have BS4 because giving them BS2 'overspecialises' them towards
> assault.
>
>
>>The point is that Eldar are specialized, but not extreme.
>
>
> Giving Dire Avengers, a unit armed with ranged weaponry, A1, is no more
> extreme than giving Fire Dragons, Dark Reapers or Tau Fire Warriors A1
> rather than A2.
>
>
>>< Besides which it restores them to semi-assault troops, something rapid
>>
>>>fire was designed to keep them away from.
>>
>>Given that there are Jetbikes, Spears, and Hawks, it is *good* for the
>>Spiders (and Spears) to be semi-assault to distinguish from the shootier
>>Jetbikes & Hawks.
>
>
> So, making a unit that can shoot but not assault in the same turn
> (Spiders) able to shoot and assault in the same turn distinguishes it
> from other units that can shoot and assault in the same turn (Hawks,
> Spears) how, exactly? I agree there needs to be more of a distinction
> between Hawks and Spiders re assault, and let's consider what we have.
> We have one unit that deep strikes into play, has plasma grenades as
> standard kit, is armed with a particularly potent assault weapon and
> two powers designed to enhance his ability in close combat. We have
> another that has no grenades, can't deep strike, is armed with
> rapid-fire weaponry, has an Exarch whose primary armament is always a
> gun (whether or not he straps on power blades as well) and who gives
> the unit a power that allows them to get out of close combat when
> engaged. Which strikes you as the better archetype for the assault
> unit? Keep Spiders shooty, dump Surprise Assault; give Hawks Diving
> Charge. That helps to distiinguish the units.
>
>
>>>>>Make them powerfists.
>>>>
>>>>PFs would make them I1 when fighting. DNCCWs keep them at I4.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds wholly suitable, actually - they are supposed to be slow to
>>>respond to the real world.
>>
>>"Slow" from an Eldar Aspect POV
>
>
> Slow from an Eldar point of view generally (including that of I4
> Guardians), and indeed the fluff implies slow from the perspective of
> the living in general.
>
>
>>>>The point here is to emphasize that WLs are HtH-oriented, not generic
>>>>shooty Marine Dreads, as Phil seems to want.
>>>
>>>As opposed to a generic close combat Ork Dread?
>>
>>Besides, if you want to make the WL shooty with 2 guns, what's the point
>>of the 2-gun (only) War Walker?
>
>
> If the SM Dreadnought can take two guns, what's the point of Land
> Speeder Tornados? If the Land Raider can take three guns, what's the
> point of a Predator? And when did you last see a Wraithlord squadron?
>
> > Stop homogenizing everything together!
> > You're destroying every ounce of character in the list!
>
> This from someone who wants to reduce Guardians to a single entry and
> turn units from Avengers to Spiders into variations on the
> 'ever-versatile' Tac Marine theme? The way you'll treat the Avengers in
> particular completely eradicates their character.
>
>
>>>Eldar should be less combat-orientated across the board,
>>
>>No, they shouldn't. They should be right smack dab in the middle,
>>perfectly balanced between shooting and fighting.
>
>
> Exactly; the current close combat bias doesn't suit them and will only
> be exacerbated with what you want to do to Spiders and Avengers. At the
> moment pretty much all the favoured Eldar units are combat specialists,
> including the Wraithlord.
>
>
>>>and its reactions are slow, so
>>>while it's got a greater stride it's going to be making fewer strides
>>>than a human in the same period.
>>
>>
>>Do you know anything about walking and running? Longer legs with longer
>>strides cover more ground. Short legs are agile, due to the shorter
>>pendulum. Or are you going to say that long-legged horses are somehow
>>slower than short-legged pigs?
>
>
> Shoddy analogy - horses not only have a longer stride, they have a more
> rapid gait. The Wraithlord will have a very slow gait - moving 6" for
> it may represent one, maybe two strides, compared with however many it
> takes a man or Eldar to cover the same ground.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
I'm seeing Phil's Eldar re: Avengers and Wraithlords more in charchter
of the stuff I've read about eldar over the last 15+ years. What is the
point of the war walker? It is a fair amount cheaper isn't it? I would
see it more likely to be faster then the WL as well. If not then just
drop it. Not everything has to stay.

-Joe (I stepped in it again) Boster
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 4:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

<pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123550024.964731.115810@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> 0-2 Guardians: 5-10 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv4+. 5-10 models; all
>>> Lasblaster, Shuricat (Assault 3), or SP&CCW. AGP is BS4 not Fleet,
>>> counts
>>> as 5 models in Transport. Sv4+ is like Tau, 5-10 is a more of a dying
>>> race. 10 pts, like a Stormtrooper.
>>
>>
>>Glad you've seen the light on Assault 3, we just have to convince Phil now
>>:-)
>
> I don't have a problem with assault 3 in itself - I have a problem with
> assault 3 *in lieu* of the much-needed increased range. 18" Assault 3
> would be fine by me...

18" Assault 3 would be *horrific*. And to think I felt the 2nd Ed shuricat
was bad....

Anyway, I like the 12" range on the shuricat - like I said in the last
incarnation of this argument, :-) Assault3 12" gives the Eldar a Mac-10 type
'idiot gun' that spews out enough metal to be usable by semi-trained militia
troops at short range, as opposed to the more restrained but better ranged
24" Rapid Fire assault rifles of other races. The problem now is that
shuricat troops only hit as hard as rapid fire weapons once they do get into
range.

Aside from that, I'd personally prefer the shuricat to be S3 AP4, too.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 9:59:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <lTzJe.10737$WQ.634@trnddc03>,
John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

> I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
> changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex. I think GW is having a lot of
> trouble deciding what they want to do.

And I think your ideas blow. "Game balance" and "John Hwang" are two
things that have never met. I don't even play 40K any more, yet I'm
happy knowing that your ideas won't ever see print.

See you on Saturday.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:35:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <5BMLe.3720$H_4.3000@trnddc07>,
John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

> Qrab wrote:
> > John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
> >>I just got done playing my litttle-used Eldar and was wondering what
> >>changes might be good for the 40k4 Codex. I think GW is having a lot of
> >>trouble deciding what they want to do.
> >
> > And I think your ideas blow.
>
> That's OK. I think your non-constructive criticism suxx.

That's just it, your ideas are so badly skewed that the most
constructive thing that can be said is: stop trying.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:14:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Qrab wrote:
> John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

>>That's OK. I think your non-constructive criticism suxx.
>
> That's just it, your ideas are so badly skewed that the most
> constructive thing that can be said is: stop trying.

LOL!

I think the following are pretty obvious "fixes":

- the Avatar will improve to match other Greater Daemons.
- the Farseer will have a W2 counterpart
- the Shuricat will be improved to A3 or 18+"
- the Reapers will return to Sv3+
- Vehicles and AGPs will improve to BS4
- Saves will either gain minimum Sv6+ or require AP > Sv.
- Eldar will be fully move&fire
- Eldar Skimmers will have superior move&fire
- Warrior powers will return

Given how the various Codices and Fluff shake out, tech-wise, the Eldar
will slot above the Tau. And from C:SM, even things that don't really
"need" fixing will get bonuses and options.

The only question is to what extent and what specific mechanics will be
employed.



--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:24:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Helicon_One wrote:
> <pbowles@aol.com> wrote ...

>>>>Shuricat (Assault 3)

>>>Glad you've seen the light on Assault 3, we just have to convince Phil
>>>now :-)
>>
>>I don't have a problem with assault 3 in itself - I have a problem with
>>assault 3 *in lieu* of the much-needed increased range. 18" Assault 3
>>would be fine by me...
>
> 18" Assault 3 would be *horrific*.

I believe that is Phil's intent. :o 

> And to think I felt the 2nd Ed
> shuricat was bad....

If we go back to 40k2 Shuricat as "inspriation", it'd be a 24" S4 AP5
Assault 2, limiting enemy to Sv4+.

I would guess that GW will go with 18" A2 over 12" A3 because it's easier.

> Assault3 12" gives the Eldar a Mac-10 type 'idiot gun' that spews
> out enough metal

Monomolecular crystal, IIRC. :) 

> to be usable by semi-trained militia troops at short range,
> as opposed to the more restrained but better ranged 24" Rapid
> Fire assault rifles of other races. The problem now is that
> shuricat troops only hit as hard as rapid fire weapons once they
> do get into range.

It's worse than that. Right now, Rapid Fire gets at least 1 extra round
of fire at 12-24", and can play equal range games on the move. Sure, in
theory, the Assault 2 Shuricat can Assault, but that's after it drives
the enemy to the edge. This won't happen because the Shuricat is down
models from the first round of enemy fire.

Assault 3 becomes highly viable when disembarked from a Transport, due
to the sheer volume and density of fire. In a range game, Assault 3
wins every round after the long-range one, so the Assault 3 makes up for
the lost models, and brings the balance back.

> Aside from that, I'd personally prefer the shuricat to be S3 AP4, too.

But then you intrude further on the S3 Lasblaster. :( 


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 5:22:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Helicon_One" <shiny*blue*thing@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D dqebr$j5o$3@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message

>> No different than splitting Force Commander / Commander, or
>> the different flavors of Librarian / Chaplain.
>
> Do Chaplains and Librarians have 'ranks' again now? Not looked
> at the new SM dex properly.

Yep. Commanders, chaplains, and librarians each have two stat
lines. One with W2 Ld9 and one with W3 Ld10.

>>> Hmm. A 'senior' Farseer should be a better psyker too, I'd
>>> have thought. What about giving the Farseer a W2 base and 1
>>> power only, but allowing an armoury item which grants an
>>> extra wound and the ability to take/cast more than one
>>> psychic power (a representative item to signify seniority,
>>> rather like a SW Wolf Tooth Necklace or IG Medallion
>>> Crimson)? That way your senior and normal Farseers will be
>>> integrated into a single character type, and the improved
>>> psychic ability is tied to the improved profile (both of
>>> which should be part of the Farseer's aging).
>>
>> That's fine, too. Like SM Terminator Honours, it makes no
>> real difference, as the net effect is the same.
>
> Ok. I just didn't like the thought of a 2W "junior" Farseer
> loaded up on psychic ability, or the 3W "senior" guy getting an
> attack of senility and forgetting all his powers, so I'd prefer
> the wounds and psychic ability to be linked.

They could do it similar to the way it's done in the SM codex:
the more leet librarian will do better with his power(s) since Ld
is tied to psychic powers. He can also take a second power if he
wants. But he also pays 3x as much for each power.


--

-smithdoerr
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 8:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:FoQLe.4093$%K4.1695@trnddc09...
> Helicon_One wrote:

>> And to think I felt the 2nd Ed shuricat was bad....
>
> If we go back to 40k2 Shuricat as "inspriation", it'd be a 24" S4 AP5
> Assault 2, limiting enemy to Sv4+.

If we're using 2nd Ed as inspiration, we may as well sell up all our other
armies bar Eldar right now ;-)

> I would guess that GW will go with 18" A2 over 12" A3 because it's easier.

Sadly, you might be right there. But if they keep losing design studio staff
as they appear to be, maybe they'll outsource writing the codex to RGMW...
:-)

>> Assault3 12" gives the Eldar a Mac-10 type 'idiot gun' that spews out
>> enough metal
>
> Monomolecular crystal, IIRC. :) 

Some plasti-crystal material, sayeth the 3rd Ed Codex.

>> to be usable by semi-trained militia troops at short range, as opposed to
>> the more restrained but better ranged 24" Rapid Fire assault rifles of
>> other races. The problem now is that shuricat troops only hit as hard as
>> rapid fire weapons once they do get into range.
>
> It's worse than that. Right now, Rapid Fire gets at least 1 extra round
> of fire at 12-24",

Assuming the rapid fire unit is stationary, that is.

> Sure, in theory, the Assault 2 Shuricat can Assault, but that's after it
> drives the enemy to the edge. This won't happen because the Shuricat is
> down models from the first round of enemy fire.

And also, because the Eldar with shuricats don't make for great hth troops
(and neither should they).

> Assault 3 becomes highly viable when disembarked from a Transport, due to
> the sheer volume and density of fire. In a range game, Assault 3 wins
> every round after the long-range one, so the Assault 3 makes up for the
> lost models, and brings the balance back.

I prefer it because it helps keep the balance between Assault 2 and Rapid
Fire from 3rd Ed - Rapid Fire weapons now practically get an extra shot up
close (getting to rapid fire from stationary wasn't too common in 3rd Ed),
so doing the same for the Shuricat means it can keep up. But as you say, 10
guardians jumping from a Serpent and unleashing 30 shots into the enemy is a
nice image, being able to 'do more with less' is very eldar.

>> Aside from that, I'd personally prefer the shuricat to be S3 AP4, too.
>
> But then you intrude further on the S3 Lasblaster. :( 

Ok, make the lasblaster S4 AP- then :-) - incidentally, that makes Hawks a
little better too. Wanting S3 AP4 on the shuricat is part of my
interpretation of weapon statlines - in very VERY loose terms S is related
to the size of the bullet, AP is how fast its going when it hits you.
Shuricats are a hail of small projectiles going really fast. They should be
able to smash through alot of armour, especially being monomolecular edged,
but if a shot gets through your armour you're more likely to survive it than
say, a bolter round. Moving the statline away from S4 AP5 also helps to
seperate the shuriken weapons from those of other races (the bolter
especially).

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.

Currently listening to: 'Bottle Of Smoke' - The Pogues
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 11:22:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Helicon_One" wrote

> > Assuming he lives that long, being easily singled out as an IC, hence the
> > minor bump to Sv3+I or Sv3+/4+I.
>
> 3+Inv for Wraith armour I can live with (Fortune has been FAQ'd to not work
> with Inv saves, correct?).
>
"Fortune DOES work with invulnerable saves" according to the 4.0.1 FAQ. Given
that, a save /3+I seems a little too good. On the other hand, there are a
couple of items which will really ruin the Eldar player's day - anything that
ignores invulnerable saves will cut right through those psychically charged
bathrobes the Farseer is wearing. :-)
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"Did Noah keep his bees in archives?"
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 1:33:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

John Hwang wrote:
> W. B. wrote:
> > "John Hwang" wrote...
>
..> The easy argument is that the Imperium has inexhaustible resources
> available. Fluff-wise, Eldar have been armoured in 4+ for a long time.
>
> Restoring Reapers to Sv3+ and then promoting Dragons to Sv3+ would be a
> definite possibility.

"Promoting"? Dragons had 3+ saves in v2 and RT, just like Reapers and
Scorpions. I don't think they need them these days, however - I'd
rather have them as they are than require a points increase.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 1:35:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>estarriol wrote:
>> Having watched this discussion with interest the conclusion I have come to
>> is that there is a viable Codex for the Eldar. One that covers the ethos of
>> small tough units who make up for numbers with skill and technology, the
>> trouble is, its called Codex:Space Marine.
>
>Actually, I'm internally modeling more after Chaos Marines/LatD, as I
>consider that to be more apt with the various specializations.

Ah, that would be the core difference between our approaches - you see,
I'm "internally modelling" the Eldar after the Eldar rather than Space
Marines of any flavour...

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 1:43:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>I'm seeing Phil's Eldar re: Avengers and Wraithlords more in charchter
>of the stuff I've read about eldar over the last 15+ years.

Thanks. Me too. :-)

> What is the
>point of the war walker?

Supposedly it's a recon walker analagous to the Sentinel. In Epic it is
faster than the WL and benefits from the Scouts special rule, so how
about making it more similar to the Sentinel? We can't change the speed
for a walker-class vehicle, but how about 1-3 squadron, Fast Attack,
Scouts? It basically becomes what it used to be - a Sentinel with twice
the firepower. It's not competing with the HS/Elite Wraithlord so
there's no more a question of "why take WWs when you can take WLs?"
than there is "Why take Predators when you can take Dreadnoughts?" and
it boasts more firepower than the other FA choices.

> It is a fair amount cheaper isn't it?

Actually its compulsory weapon fits make it roughly the same price as a
current WL with gun.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 1:58:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>Qrab wrote:
>> John Hwang <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
>>>That's OK. I think your non-constructive criticism suxx.
>>
>> That's just it, your ideas are so badly skewed that the most
>> constructive thing that can be said is: stop trying.
>
>LOL!
>
>I think the following are pretty obvious "fixes":
>
>- the Avatar will improve to match other Greater Daemons.

Yes.

>- the Farseer will have a W2 counterpart

Obvious by analogy with Space Marines, certainly. Necessary or
desirable from a fluff PoV, no.

>- the Shuricat will be improved to A3 or 18+"

Yes. Preferably the latter as it's more effective and makes the weapon
more versatile. :-)

>- the Reapers will return to Sv3+

Probably.

>- Vehicles and AGPs will improve to BS4

Unlikely, at least as default. I imagine a targeter vehicle upgrade is
likely, but I don't see BS4 weapons platforms as being a likely
direction for a revision, especially if flying weapons platforms like
the Vyper do go to (potential) BS4. Having run the figures now I'm not
convinced it's desirable either, as it badly overshadows shorter-ranged
Aspects.

>- Saves will either gain minimum Sv6+ or require AP > Sv.

Neither is either especially obvious or remotely necessary.

>- Eldar will be fully move&fire

We can certainly hope. Let's just hope this is obvious enough for GW.

>- Eldar Skimmers will have superior move&fire

Probably not - simply by virtue of the fact that all Eldar skimmers are
fast, they have superior move and fire to other races' vehicles bar the
occasional flying gun unit.

>- Warrior powers will return

? We already have Warrior Powers.

>Given how the various Codices and Fluff shake out, tech-wise, the Eldar
>will slot above the Tau.

They do now; Tau have very restricted long-range fire beyond pulse
rifles, very few high-AP or S6+ weapons, few multi-shot weapons and
only one (ion cannon) with the combination of all three. The Eldar
better them on all counts save basic weapons, and that's a difference
in emphasis - Eldar deploy heavy weapons support with Guardian squads,
equip Aspects wholly with special weapons and exhibit superior
training. No reason to suppose any of this will change. The only 'tech
fix' that's arguably needed is for the Eldar to gain vehicle upgrades
as good as those available to the Tau.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:54:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>> Helicon_One wrote:
>>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>> Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The unit
>> size should be 5-16 IMO.
>
>
>Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of 8,
>(or 3 of 5 plus a spare).

Ties in with the 8-strong box size of Storms and Avengers, too. Given
that Guardians have access to extra models through weapon crews and
Warlocks, 5-10 squad size makes sense and improves Avengers by
comparison, since the Eldar player can't just throw 15 Guardians in the
squad to compensate for the BS3. 0-2 seems unnecessarily restrictive,
however.

>>>>>>I think the big difference is that the WS4 A2 Avengers can stand HtH
>>>>>>much better than the WS3 Guardians.
>>>>>To be honest, I don't like the extra attack either, really.
>>>>If True Grit were worded universally, I'd have used that.
>>> How about neither? :-p
>> I'd go for that. Echoing Phil's Avengers in H2H = BAD
>
>WS4 and I5 isn't 'bad', really, but DAs really shouldn't get more basic
>attacks than a dedicated HTH Aspect like a Scorp or Banshee.

We shouldn't even be at the point of comparing Scorps and Banshees with
Avengers in hth. The pertinent point is surely that Avengers have no
reason to be better than Dragons in hth, and Dragons too have to deal
with using 12" range weaponry.

>>>>The WL's BS is high enough that separate guns works better, and he may
>>>>want 1+ Flamers.
>>> 2 flamers = heavy flamer. No problem. If the WL has one flamer, one
>>> catapult, let it shoot both arm mounted weapons and only count it as 1.
>>> But not one arm weapon and the heavy.
>> count mixed arms like combi-weapon? Why not 1 arm and heavy. Dreds,
>> 'Fex's, etc get to fire all thier weapons.
>
>A Wraithlord isn't actually a Dreadnought though,

Nor is the Carnifex if you want to be pedantic.

if it was it would have an
>armour value. As John seems to want WLs to lean towards HTH, getting rid of
>the silly Thorpeisms that let it shoot like a vehicle kills two birds with
>one stone.

Is there actually any pressing reason not to do away with the "silly
Thorpeism" of making it an infantry unit and just giving it a walker
vehicle statline if this is such a problem? Personally I'm fine with
the multiple weapons thing, as it is functionally a Dreadnought - it
should just get the options other races' Dreadnoughts enjoy. It should
still have I1 in close combat (i.e. power fists) though.

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"W. B." <wardcb@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wugMe.7404$RS.6928@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Helicon_One" wrote
>
>> > Assuming he lives that long, being easily singled out as an IC, hence
>> > the
>> > minor bump to Sv3+I or Sv3+/4+I.
>>
>> 3+Inv for Wraith armour I can live with (Fortune has been FAQ'd to not
>> work
>> with Inv saves, correct?).
>>
> "Fortune DOES work with invulnerable saves" according to the 4.0.1 FAQ.
> Given
> that, a save /3+I seems a little too good.

OK, then I'm opposed to Rune armour (not sure where I got "Wraith armour"
from, although it does sound kinda kewl....) going to 3+ Inv. Fortune makes
it too hard.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:35:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
news:xMpMe.254473$x96.93470@attbi_s72...
> Helicon_One wrote:
>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>> news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

> Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The unit
> size should be 5-16 IMO.

Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of 8,
(or 3 of 5 plus a spare). It would be nice if GW split the box set in half
and sold them in 8s (halving the price to match, of course), but that seems
unlikely. Guardians shouldn't really be a horde.

>>>>>I think the big difference is that the WS4 A2 Avengers can stand HtH
>>>>>much better than the WS3 Guardians.

>>>>To be honest, I don't like the extra attack either, really.

>>>If True Grit were worded universally, I'd have used that.

>> How about neither? :-p

> I'd go for that. Echoing Phil's Avengers in H2H = BAD

WS4 and I5 isn't 'bad', really, but DAs really shouldn't get more basic
attacks than a dedicated HTH Aspect like a Scorp or Banshee.

>>>>as far as the look and feel of the thing goes, those huge Death Spinners
>>>>are a bit bulky for Assault weapons.
>>>
>>>True. :) 
>
> What about Template? too storng? Fits the web Idea OK I'd think.

A squad full of template weapons, with warp generator mobility, would be
just horrific. It certainly was in 2nd Ed. Drop the max squad size to 4, the
weapon strength to 3, and boost the points to something like 30 per model,
and they might just get away with it, but even that would be pretty evil.

>>>>They can have the move and fire heavy, and twin link the fist-
>>>>mounted guns to make that option viable.

>>>The WL's BS is high enough that separate guns works better, and he may
>>>want 1+ Flamers.

>> 2 flamers = heavy flamer. No problem. If the WL has one flamer, one
>> catapult, let it shoot both arm mounted weapons and only count it as 1.
>> But not one arm weapon and the heavy.

> count mixed arms like combi-weapon? Why not 1 arm and heavy. Dreds,
> 'Fex's, etc get to fire all thier weapons.

A Wraithlord isn't actually a Dreadnought though, if it was it would have an
armour value. As John seems to want WLs to lean towards HTH, getting rid of
the silly Thorpeisms that let it shoot like a vehicle kills two birds with
one stone.

>>>That said, S8 (to ID T4) Monstrous would be just fine, if you really want
>>>to emphasize the organic nature of the WL.

>> Its only a natural S5 on the profile now, you know.... I'd say either
>> Strength 5 doubled for powerfists, or Init 3 Strength 5 Monstrous
>> Creature, or Init 3 Strength 6 power weapons would be fair. Only problem
>> I have with Monstrous is that it encroaches on the Avatar's job a little.
>> If you want to emphasise a HTH role, make it 3 Attacks base.

> Init 3 Strength 6 power weapons sounds interesting. Or up the points for
> the DredCCW.

Just upping the points by 15 or 20 probably works purely on game balance,
but I'm trying to get rid of the WLs inconsistancy - its not a Dreadnought,
so shouldn't have Dreadnought CCWs.

>>>>Fluff suggests that the spirits controlling WLs and WG are only dimly
>>>>aware of the battle around them. To my mind they should move almost like
>>>>sleepwalkers, or the classic Frankenstein's Monster shuffle.

>>>That's why they're only I4, like Guardians. Relative to Exarches and
>>>Avatars and Aspects, they *are* slow.

>> They should be slow relative to Guardians.

> I1 Power Fists would take care of that nicely

Yeah, as would I3 with either power weapons or Monstrous. I lean towards
power fists based on the model, personally, but if there were a resculpt
(Phil said he'd want them more Titan-esque, and that could be nice) then
that can change.

>>>>>>>0-1 Guardian Jetbikes are 3-10 WS3 BS3(4) S3 T3(4) W1 I4 Ld8 Sv3+.

>>>Jetbikes are currently grossly overcosted at 35 pts. I see them updated
>>>to about 8 pts base +15 pts for the bike (+1T, Sv3+), +2 pts for
>>>twin-linking.
>>>
>>>So how is 25 pts, holding at +20 pts for 1/3 Shuricannons?

>> Around 25pts base is good. Rending 3-shot Shuricannons.... well, Rending
>> Shurricannons bleahh, as above, but 20pts would probably cover it. 4
>> shots but no Rending, I'd say should cost 10-15.

> I know that would make me want to get some more bikes. What size Unit 1-6?

I'd stick with 3-10, actually, that seems flexible enough for most players
liking.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.

Currently listening to: 'Act Your Age' - Capdown
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 2:07:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>pbow...@aol.com wrote:

<snip>

>>That said, you can give Hawks or Lasblasters Pinning for any unit they
>>*hit* (not necessarily wound).
>
> All pinning effects should play off hits rather than wounds - if you're
> under heavy fire, are you really going to wait until the guy next to
> you gets a hole in his chest before taking cover? Are you going to wait
> to see who the Earthshaker shell killed before deciding it might be a
> good idea to hunker down for the next one?

On the other hand, are Terminators going to start diving for cover under
sniper fire, or just carry on wandering around with things plinking off
them? I'd leave pinning working on wounding hits, but look for more
scope to impose negative Ld modifiers. -1 per casualty would be a bit
excessive, methinks, so what formula to use?

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 2:14:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Helicon_One wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:iRgKe.9987$0d.9627@trnddc04...
>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

<snip>

>>>>Dire Avengers are Light Aspects with +1A, which gives them marginal HtH
>>>>ability; Exarch can take the Shuricannon (24" S6 AP4 Assault 3 Rending;
>>>>not Fleet). 15 pts, like a Space Marine. +1A replaces True Grit.
>>>
>>>Guns with Rending are just stupid, IMO, see how hated the Assault Cannon
>>>is now. Just give 4 shots and we're away.
>>
>>That's why it's only Assault 3. With BS5, that's 2.5 hits, which is just
>>about as good as BS4 Assault 4. I suppose Fast Shot would be OK, for
>>those who really wanted to push it.
>
> The Shuricannon needs something better than what it can do now, its just
> that Rending is a stupid rule to give to a gun.

More precisely, Rending is stupid on a gun which is either
a)common/cheap/easy to use, or b)fires a lot of shots. Now, adding
Rending to sniper rifles would be musch less over-nasty (tweaking the
points a touch perhaps)

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:51:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Helicon_One wrote:
> "Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
> news:xMpMe.254473$x96.93470@attbi_s72...
>
>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>
>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>
>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>
>
>>Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The unit
>>size should be 5-16 IMO.
>
>
> Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of 8,
> (or 3 of 5 plus a spare). It would be nice if GW split the box set in half
> and sold them in 8s (halving the price to match, of course), but that seems
> unlikely. Guardians shouldn't really be a horde.
>

GW cutting any price seems unlikely. They like $35 for basic troops.
That's why everything is moving to plastic. Hence $20 for 5 man Marine
sqd. I think it's currently up to 20 so 16 would be a signifigant drop.
and if you *want* 2 squads of 8 you can do that too. Maybe instead of
0-2 you do 2 per Avengers squad.

>>>>>>I think the big difference is that the WS4 A2 Avengers can stand HtH
>>>>>>much better than the WS3 Guardians.
>
>
>>>>>To be honest, I don't like the extra attack either, really.
>
>
>>>>If True Grit were worded universally, I'd have used that.
>
>
>>>How about neither? :-p
>
>
>>I'd go for that. Echoing Phil's Avengers in H2H = BAD
>
>
> WS4 and I5 isn't 'bad', really, but DAs really shouldn't get more basic
> attacks than a dedicated HTH Aspect like a Scorp or Banshee.
>

Very True. They should have no stat better then SS or Banshee. So if
they are BS3 they should move up to BS4.

>>>>>as far as the look and feel of the thing goes, those huge Death Spinners
>>>>>are a bit bulky for Assault weapons.
>>>>
>>>>True. :) 
>>
>>What about Template? too storng? Fits the web Idea OK I'd think.
>
>
> A squad full of template weapons, with warp generator mobility, would be
> just horrific. It certainly was in 2nd Ed. Drop the max squad size to 4, the
> weapon strength to 3, and boost the points to something like 30 per model,
> and they might just get away with it, but even that would be pretty evil.
>

Bummer. Assult 2 seems best then. Pinning?

>>>>>They can have the move and fire heavy, and twin link the fist-
>>>>>mounted guns to make that option viable.
>
>
>>>>The WL's BS is high enough that separate guns works better, and he may
>>>>want 1+ Flamers.
>
>
>>>2 flamers = heavy flamer. No problem. If the WL has one flamer, one
>>>catapult, let it shoot both arm mounted weapons and only count it as 1.
>>>But not one arm weapon and the heavy.
>
>
>>count mixed arms like combi-weapon? Why not 1 arm and heavy. Dreds,
>>'Fex's, etc get to fire all thier weapons.
>
>
> A Wraithlord isn't actually a Dreadnought though, if it was it would have an
> armour value. As John seems to want WLs to lean towards HTH, getting rid of
> the silly Thorpeisms that let it shoot like a vehicle kills two birds with
> one stone.
>

>>>>That said, S8 (to ID T4) Monstrous would be just fine, if you really want
>>>>to emphasize the organic nature of the WL.
>
>
>>>Its only a natural S5 on the profile now, you know.... I'd say either
>>>Strength 5 doubled for powerfists, or Init 3 Strength 5 Monstrous
>>>Creature, or Init 3 Strength 6 power weapons would be fair. Only problem
>>>I have with Monstrous is that it encroaches on the Avatar's job a little.
>>>If you want to emphasise a HTH role, make it 3 Attacks base.
>
>
>>Init 3 Strength 6 power weapons sounds interesting. Or up the points for
>>the DredCCW.
>
>
> Just upping the points by 15 or 20 probably works purely on game balance,
> but I'm trying to get rid of the WLs inconsistancy - its not a Dreadnought,
> so shouldn't have Dreadnought CCWs.

Right Give it carnifex CCW. and shoot all it weapons.

>
>
>>>>>Fluff suggests that the spirits controlling WLs and WG are only dimly
>>>>>aware of the battle around them. To my mind they should move almost like
>>>>>sleepwalkers, or the classic Frankenstein's Monster shuffle.
>
>
>>>>That's why they're only I4, like Guardians. Relative to Exarches and
>>>>Avatars and Aspects, they *are* slow.
>
>
>>>They should be slow relative to Guardians.
>
>
>> I1 Power Fists would take care of that nicely
>
>
> Yeah, as would I3 with either power weapons or Monstrous. I lean towards
> power fists based on the model, personally, but if there were a resculpt
> (Phil said he'd want them more Titan-esque, and that could be nice) then
> that can change.
>

That new(ish) FW revenant titain would make a wonderful WL.

>>>>>>>>0-1 Guardian Jetbikes are 3-10 WS3 BS3(4) S3 T3(4) W1 I4 Ld8 Sv3+.
>
>
>>>>Jetbikes are currently grossly overcosted at 35 pts. I see them updated
>>>>to about 8 pts base +15 pts for the bike (+1T, Sv3+), +2 pts for
>>>>twin-linking.
>>>>
>>>>So how is 25 pts, holding at +20 pts for 1/3 Shuricannons?
>
>
>>>Around 25pts base is good. Rending 3-shot Shuricannons.... well, Rending
>>>Shurricannons bleahh, as above, but 20pts would probably cover it. 4
>>>shots but no Rending, I'd say should cost 10-15.
>
>
>>I know that would make me want to get some more bikes. What size Unit 1-6?
>
>
> I'd stick with 3-10, actually, that seems flexible enough for most players
> liking.

Ah, yes. I'd missed that above

-Joe
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:53:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Lt. Cmdr. Jim wrote:
> pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> That said, you can give Hawks or Lasblasters Pinning for any unit they
>>> *hit* (not necessarily wound).
>>
>>
>> All pinning effects should play off hits rather than wounds - if you're
>> under heavy fire, are you really going to wait until the guy next to
>> you gets a hole in his chest before taking cover? Are you going to wait
>> to see who the Earthshaker shell killed before deciding it might be a
>> good idea to hunker down for the next one?
>
>
> On the other hand, are Terminators going to start diving for cover under
> sniper fire, or just carry on wandering around with things plinking off
> them? I'd leave pinning working on wounding hits, but look for more
> scope to impose negative Ld modifiers. -1 per casualty would be a bit
> excessive, methinks, so what formula to use?
>
-1 per 2 wounds?
-Joe
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 4:02:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>>
>>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The unit
>>>size should be 5-16 IMO.
>>
>>
>>Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of 8,
>>(or 3 of 5 plus a spare).
>
>
> Ties in with the 8-strong box size of Storms and Avengers, too. Given
> that Guardians have access to extra models through weapon crews and
> Warlocks, 5-10 squad size makes sense and improves Avengers by
> comparison, since the Eldar player can't just throw 15 Guardians in the
> squad to compensate for the BS3. 0-2 seems unnecessarily restrictive,
> however.
>
The biggest problem that I had with Eldar is they were incredibly
expensive to buy. Waayy too much Metal. They need a head sprue for
avengers. and a real CC sprue. then make an aspect sprue that you can
add metal bits to to make the proper aspect (banshees exluded). This
makes Avnegers similar in price to Gaurdingas and the aspects similar in
price to the old avengers.
-Joe
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 4:28:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

<pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124258055.168664.111940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> Helicon_One wrote:
>>>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>> Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The
>>> unit
>>> size should be 5-16 IMO.
>>
>>
>>Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of
>>8,
>>(or 3 of 5 plus a spare).
>
> Ties in with the 8-strong box size of Storms and Avengers, too. Given
> that Guardians have access to extra models through weapon crews and
> Warlocks, 5-10 squad size makes sense and improves Avengers by
> comparison, since the Eldar player can't just throw 15 Guardians in the
> squad to compensate for the BS3. 0-2 seems unnecessarily restrictive,
> however.

0-2 I can take or leave, not too bothered either way. Integrating Storm (and
lasblaster?) model options onto the Guardian sprue would be very welcome
too, and it would make the 5-10 restriction easier to deal with if the 16
strong box set could provide bitz for all the configurations.

>>>>>The WL's BS is high enough that separate guns works better, and he may
>>>>>want 1+ Flamers.
>>>> 2 flamers = heavy flamer. No problem. If the WL has one flamer, one
>>>> catapult, let it shoot both arm mounted weapons and only count it as 1.
>>>> But not one arm weapon and the heavy.
>>> count mixed arms like combi-weapon? Why not 1 arm and heavy. Dreds,
>>> 'Fex's, etc get to fire all thier weapons.
>>
>>A Wraithlord isn't actually a Dreadnought though,
>
> Nor is the Carnifex if you want to be pedantic.

But it's a monstrous creature, and gets its improved shooting abilities
through that. The WL relies on its own special rule which gives it identical
shooting abilities to a vehicle walker. It just doesn't feel right, its
either a vehicle or it isn't.

>>if it was it would have an
>>armour value. As John seems to want WLs to lean towards HTH, getting rid
>>of
>>the silly Thorpeisms that let it shoot like a vehicle kills two birds with
>>one stone.
>
> Is there actually any pressing reason not to do away with the "silly
> Thorpeism" of making it an infantry unit and just giving it a walker
> vehicle statline if this is such a problem?

That's also an option, I guess.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 6:20:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
news:94QMe.258102$x96.96060@attbi_s72...
> Helicon_One wrote:
>> "Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
>> news:xMpMe.254473$x96.93470@attbi_s72...
>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

>>>Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The
>>>unit size should be 5-16 IMO.

>> Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of
>> 8, (or 3 of 5 plus a spare). It would be nice if GW split the box set in
>> half and sold them in 8s (halving the price to match, of course), but
>> that seems unlikely. Guardians shouldn't really be a horde.

> GW cutting any price seems unlikely. They like $35 for basic troops.

True, although IIRC the 8-man CSM box and the Storm Guardians are cheaper
than the standard $35 / £18. But, if lasblaster and storm options were
thrown in the box, a 16 strong $35 / £18 box would be ok, as it would give
you 2 or 3 squad to configure a number of ways.

> That's why everything is moving to plastic. Hence $20 for 5 man Marine
> sqd. I think it's currently up to 20 so 16 would be a signifigant drop.
> and if you *want* 2 squads of 8 you can do that too.

Guardians come 16 to the box, the DE box has 20 in I think.

>>>>>>as far as the look and feel of the thing goes, those huge Death
>>>>>>Spinners are a bit bulky for Assault weapons.

>>>>>True. :) 

>>>What about Template? too storng? Fits the web Idea OK I'd think.

>> A squad full of template weapons, with warp generator mobility, would be
>> just horrific. It certainly was in 2nd Ed. Drop the max squad size to 4,
>> the weapon strength to 3, and boost the points to something like 30 per
>> model, and they might just get away with it, but even that would be
>> pretty evil.

> Bummer. Assult 2 seems best then. Pinning?

Rapid Fire is fine, and Pinning would be good.

>> Just upping the points by 15 or 20 probably works purely on game balance,
>> but I'm trying to get rid of the WLs inconsistancy - its not a
>> Dreadnought, so shouldn't have Dreadnought CCWs.
>
> Right Give it carnifex CCW. and shoot all it weapons.

Making it a Monstrous Creature more or less does this, and would be
acceptable if the Initiative went down by a point of two.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.

Currently listening to: 'Witchcraft' - Frank Sinatra
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 7:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Helicon_One wrote:
> "Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
> news:94QMe.258102$x96.96060@attbi_s72...
>
>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>
>>>"Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
>>>news:xMpMe.254473$x96.93470@attbi_s72...
>>>
>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>
>
>>>>Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The
>>>>unit size should be 5-16 IMO.
>
>
>>>Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of
>>>8, (or 3 of 5 plus a spare). It would be nice if GW split the box set in
>>>half and sold them in 8s (halving the price to match, of course), but
>>>that seems unlikely. Guardians shouldn't really be a horde.
>
>
>>GW cutting any price seems unlikely. They like $35 for basic troops.
>
>
> True, although IIRC the 8-man CSM box and the Storm Guardians are cheaper
> than the standard $35 / £18. But, if lasblaster and storm options were
> thrown in the box, a 16 strong $35 / £18 box would be ok, as it would give
> you 2 or 3 squad to configure a number of ways.

Stomries are 8 for $30, metal heads and arms. same for avengers (metal
heads, loin coth, pistol and sword for the exacrh)

No way they'll take a $30 box and absorb it into the $35 box. Maybe if
they did 12 and a lasblaster sprue... Nope never happen. This *is* GW. I
can't think of any box that is more than one type of unit. Well Ork boyz
I suppose. They have gone a long way so if you want a unit you buy that
units box. And more boxes less blisters. A Las blaster blister would be
wonderful but it won't happen.

>
>
>>That's why everything is moving to plastic. Hence $20 for 5 man Marine
>>sqd. I think it's currently up to 20 so 16 would be a signifigant drop.
>>and if you *want* 2 squads of 8 you can do that too.
>
>
> Guardians come 16 to the box, the DE box has 20 in I think.

Nope. DE are 16 as well.

>>>>>>>as far as the look and feel of the thing goes, those huge Death
>>>>>>>Spinners are a bit bulky for Assault weapons.
>
>
>>>>>>True. :) 
>
>
>>>>What about Template? too storng? Fits the web Idea OK I'd think.
>
>
>>>A squad full of template weapons, with warp generator mobility, would be
>>>just horrific. It certainly was in 2nd Ed. Drop the max squad size to 4,
>>>the weapon strength to 3, and boost the points to something like 30 per
>>>model, and they might just get away with it, but even that would be
>>>pretty evil.
>
>
>>Bummer. Assult 2 seems best then. Pinning?
>
>
> Rapid Fire is fine, and Pinning would be good.
>

Seems Reasonable

>>>Just upping the points by 15 or 20 probably works purely on game balance,
>>>but I'm trying to get rid of the WLs inconsistancy - its not a
>>>Dreadnought, so shouldn't have Dreadnought CCWs.
>>
>>Right Give it carnifex CCW. and shoot all it weapons.
>
>
> Making it a Monstrous Creature more or less does this, and would be
> acceptable if the Initiative went down by a point of two.
>
OK MC or a vehicle. sounds good to me.
Powerfists I1. Problem solved. if hit twice then rending/pry? or is that
just silly?

-Joe
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:57:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

<pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124359235.240107.141830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >How about 24" on the starcannon instead of Heavy 2? For some reason I
> >lean
>>more towards the feel of that, but either works IMO.
>
> Hmm...24" Heavy 3 reminds me of something, somewhere... Unless they get
> a role swap (i.e. shuricannon R36") this won't solve the problem that
> one of these two will be redundant (and given the starcannon's power,
> this will necessarily be the shuricannon).

In a reply to John a couple of days ago I suggested the starcannon dropping
to 24" range, and the shuricannon going to S5 AP4 Heavy4 30". S5 shuricannon
is more in line with my argument about the catapult going to S3, although
I'm not hugely bothered if it sticks at S6. 30" is the very maximum I could
see on its range though.

> 24" Assault/Heavy 2 I could
> live with, but I'm not convinced it's necessary to weaken the
> starcannon that far - though it might make the EML more appealing and
> persuade the Eldar to get into close range.

It doesn't need neutering that badly, I agree, although with a serious
enough points crash Heavy2 24" could work, as well as the bonus side effects
of promoting the underused EML, as you say, and also really annoying all the
powergamers with starcannon armies :-). Dropping to 24" means moving
guardian squads away from hanging around at the back twiddling their thumbs
and catching the odd bullet while their squad's platform does all the work
though, which I think is why it appeals to me. Taking it to Heavy2 36" would
just mean it had the same task as now, just 1/3 less effectively (and less
expensive, of course). Ok, thinking about it, either Heavy3 24" S6, or
Heavy2 24" S7 suits me fine.

Whilst we're mentioning the EML, any ideas on moving away from
Imperial-grade krak missiles in favour of something a little more
distinctly Eldar? Its just something that occurs to me, although its not a
huge issue, and nothing better comes to mind right now (unless...how about
some sort of fusion warhead with low strength but 2d6 armour
penetration..?).

>>If catapults were to go to 3 shots, then I'd have thought the
>>cannon could do with 4 to maintain the gap between the weapons.
>
> Another argument against three shot catapults. :-) That skews all the
> heavy weapons, not just the shuricannon (though upping the scatter
> laser to Heavy 6 will accommodate this for that weapon).

Hmmm, if the starcannon did go to Heavy2 24" S7 as above, then a 4-shot
shuricannon (whether at 24" or 30", S5 or S6) would slot in between that and
a Heavy6 S4 scatter laser reasonably well. The problem is that a Heavy6 36"
S6 scatter laser blows away the shuricannon (and arguably the EML) on sheer
firepower, and giving the shuricannon AP4 simply isn't enough to compensate.
Essentially, you're making the scatter laser into the new starcannon as the
no-brainer platform choice with an ungodly weight of fire to compensate for
the poor AP. Dropping the strength on the scatter laser diversifies the
options and gives it a specific role as a good range light infantry
shredder.

>>> Scatter laser: R36" S6 AP6 Heavy 6
>>> 20pts
>>
>>The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of dropping the
>>scatter
>>laser to Heavy 6 S4 AP-. Of course, it would be cheaper than the S6 AP6
>>version.
>
> I don't see a reason to reduce its power - it should the formidable
> weapon it used to be, and since its S6 has never been regarded as a
> problem there's no compelling need to change

S6 in itself isn't a problem, 6 guaranteed shots at S6 is. It eats the
shuricannon and EML's plasma alive, beats the EML's krak against everything
except heavy vehicles, and the weight of fire makes even an unchanged 3rd Ed
starcannon a questionable purchase, unless you're facing a Deathwing. Its
too much of an all round monster. 6 shots is cool, I agree, but the S6 with
it is horrific.

> - I also like the Eldar
> tradition of having no heavy weaponry weaker than S6, which
> distinguishes them nicely from other races with their plethora of S5
> heavy weaponry.

Plasma missiles! Reaper launchers! [/pedant mode] :-p

I don't really see S6 or greater heavies as being much of a tradition for
Eldar - until 3rd Ed they were using standardised lascannons and heavy
plasma guns rather than their own weapon types anyway, and I'd rather
diversify the platform weapons than stick with the plethora of conflicting
mid-strength heavies we have now. Besides, if you go down the tradition path
I'm going to mention that shuriken catapults have *always* had more maximum
shots than the basic weapons of other races, even as far back as Rogue
Trader when they had Following-Fire.

>>> 10pts per shuricannon; they lose twin-linked and gain no benefit from
>>> assault, and my shuricannon would lack rending.

>>How much its worth depends alot on the catapult, though - a shuricannon is
>>more valuable relative to a 12" range shuricat than to an 18" range
>>shuricat.
>
> Actually, it's not, at least compared with the current 12" A2 shuricat.
> With the current shuricat you don't actually want to be close enough to
> the enemy to use it, so you don't give your squads a close-range heavy
> weapon.

True. Although, with a jetbike a 12" shuricat is not such a disadvantage, as
you can move-shoot-move to get out of sight and/or charge range, and have T4
and a 3+ save against any return fire. Besides, a 3 shot, twin linked
shuricat would leave less standing :-). Still, +10 points for the upgrade is
probably reasonable enough regardless.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.

Currently listening to: 'When The Lights Go Down' - Armand Van Helden
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:57:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
news:nd2Ne.37908$084.30376@attbi_s22...
> Helicon_One wrote:
>> "Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
>> news:94QMe.258102$x96.96060@attbi_s72...
>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>"Desert Joe" <jboster@ridgnet.barf> wrote in message
>>>>news:xMpMe.254473$x96.93470@attbi_s72...
>>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:NeQLe.4092$%K4.3558@trnddc09...
>>>>>>>Helicon_One wrote:
>>>>>>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

>>>>>Eldar Guardians boxed set contains sixteen (16) plastic Eldar so The
>>>>>unit size should be 5-16 IMO.

>>>>Or, we can just drop squad size to 5-10, and call the box set 2 units of
>>>>8, (or 3 of 5 plus a spare). It would be nice if GW split the box set in
>>>>half and sold them in 8s (halving the price to match, of course), but
>>>>that seems unlikely. Guardians shouldn't really be a horde.

>>>GW cutting any price seems unlikely. They like $35 for basic troops.

>> True, although IIRC the 8-man CSM box and the Storm Guardians are cheaper
>> than the standard $35 / £18. But, if lasblaster and storm options were
>> thrown in the box, a 16 strong $35 / £18 box would be ok, as it would
>> give you 2 or 3 squad to configure a number of ways.

> No way they'll take a $30 box and absorb it into the $35 box. Maybe if
> they did 12 and a lasblaster sprue... Nope never happen. This *is* GW. I
> can't think of any box that is more than one type of unit. Well Ork boyz I
> suppose.

Aren't Hormagaunts and Termagants split in the same box? They used to be,
anyway.

They have gone a long way so if you want a unit you buy that
> units box. And more boxes less blisters. A Las blaster blister would be
> wonderful but it won't happen.

A small sprue with 8 lasblasters and 8 sets of combat weapons would be
doable though, I think. At a push, they could drop the contents to 12
Guardians and throw in the weapon options, that way we'd move away from the
Guardian Horde a little (maybe I shouldn't give them ideas like that).

>> Guardians come 16 to the box, the DE box has 20 in I think.
>
> Nope. DE are 16 as well.

Sure they used to be 20.... or maybe I'm getting confused because there were
20 in the 3rd Ed boxed game.

>>>>Just upping the points by 15 or 20 probably works purely on game
>>>>balance, but I'm trying to get rid of the WLs inconsistancy - its not a
>>>>Dreadnought, so shouldn't have Dreadnought CCWs.

>>>Right Give it carnifex CCW. and shoot all it weapons.

>> Making it a Monstrous Creature more or less does this, and would be
>> acceptable if the Initiative went down by a point of two.

> OK MC or a vehicle. sounds good to me.
> Powerfists I1. Problem solved. if hit twice then rending/pry? or is that
> just silly?

KISS. Just Monstrous is enough. Actually, just looking at the MC rules in
the 4th Ed rulebook it specificly mentions the WL, which suggests it'll be
redesignated as Monstrous and equipped with powerfists in the next list, but
does state that MCs with strength boosting weapons don't get the bonus dice
against vehicles. That works for me.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:43:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>> Since it can get 6 S6 shots these days, why is it such a problem?
>> Removing the randomness just necessitates a cost increase - it doesn't
>> alter the weapon's power level substantially over what it does now.
>
>While Heavy D6 can fire 6 shots per turn it can also fire one single
>shot. The average number of shots for Heavy D6 is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +
>6) / 6 = 3.5. This means that on average the volume of fire from Heavy
>6 is almost twice that of Heavy D6. I'd call that a substantial
>difference in power level.

When did you last roll 0.5 on a D6? Die rolls in any given 40k game
don't even out to a statistical average - the scatter laser can fire
six S6 shots and in some games will consistently fire more than 3.5. In
any case 3.5 rounds up to 4, so we're only considering adding two more
shots to the weapon - which justifies increasing its cost by a third if
we assume it's well-costed at the moment, but doesn't justify altering
what it can do. If it's balanced firing 6 S6 shots for 15pts (or
whatever) with a drawback, it's balanced firing 6 S6 shots for 25pts
with no drawback.

>> It's just that the randomness is stupid and must go, and since the
>> scatter laser has six barrels it can't have fewer than six shots when
>> revised.
>
>I agree that the randomness in the number of shots should be removed,
>but I'm not so sure about equating the number of barrels with the
>number of shots. I haven't counted the number of barrels on the
>assault cannon, but I'm quite certain it's more than 4...

The assault cannon isn't an Eldar laser weapon - it's an inaccurate
slug thrower that puts out a lot more fire than will ever actually hit.
The scatter laser has always been a six-shot weapon, albeit only
potentially one in its current incarnation, the three-barrelled Hawk's
Talon/old lasblaster has always had three shots and the lasblaster was
specifically remodelled with two barrels to reflect the fact that it
has two shots. This should be kept consistent across the army - only
the pulse laser is an exception because its background specifies that
it fires shots one after the other (and should be given the BFG/Epic
pulse rule in place of its current randomness for that reason).

Philip Bowles
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:04:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <1124409748.991468.145640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, pbowles@aol.com wrote:

<snip>

>>S6 in itself isn't a problem, 6 guaranteed shots at S6 is.
>
> Since it can get 6 S6 shots these days, why is it such a problem?
> Removing the randomness just necessitates a cost increase - it doesn't
> alter the weapon's power level substantially over what it does now.

While Heavy D6 can fire 6 shots per turn it can also fire one single
shot. The average number of shots for Heavy D6 is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +
6) / 6 = 3.5. This means that on average the volume of fire from Heavy
6 is almost twice that of Heavy D6. I'd call that a substantial
difference in power level.

> It's just that the randomness is stupid and must go, and since the
> scatter laser has six barrels it can't have fewer than six shots when
> revised.

I agree that the randomness in the number of shots should be removed,
but I'm not so sure about equating the number of barrels with the
number of shots. I haven't counted the number of barrels on the
assault cannon, but I'm quite certain it's more than 4...

--
Joakim
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>>Since it can get 6 S6 shots these days, why is it such a problem?
>>>Removing the randomness just necessitates a cost increase - it doesn't
>>>alter the weapon's power level substantially over what it does now.
>>
>>While Heavy D6 can fire 6 shots per turn it can also fire one single
>>shot. The average number of shots for Heavy D6 is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +
>>6) / 6 = 3.5. This means that on average the volume of fire from Heavy
>>6 is almost twice that of Heavy D6. I'd call that a substantial
>>difference in power level.
>
> When did you last roll 0.5 on a D6? Die rolls in any given 40k game
> don't even out to a statistical average - the scatter laser can fire
> six S6 shots and in some games will consistently fire more than 3.5. In
> any case 3.5 rounds up to 4,

Only if you round it, which there's no particular reason to do.

> so we're only considering adding two more
> shots to the weapon - which justifies increasing its cost by a third if
> we assume it's well-costed at the moment,

There's some very dubious logic there. After all, take a weapon in epic
with Slow Firing (fire every other turn). That fires 0.5 shots/turn on
average, which you round to 1 (because you appear to like rounding
things), which makes it worth the same as the same weapon without Slow
Firing, which is silly. Leaving aside the rounding issue, I'd say a
weapon with a ranom number of shots is worth a bit less than one with a
fixed number of shots equal to the average, because you can't count on them.


--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:19:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <1124441036.429117.285160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>> Since it can get 6 S6 shots these days, why is it such a problem?
>>> Removing the randomness just necessitates a cost increase - it doesn't
>>> alter the weapon's power level substantially over what it does now.
>>
>>While Heavy D6 can fire 6 shots per turn it can also fire one single
>>shot. The average number of shots for Heavy D6 is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +
>>6) / 6 = 3.5. This means that on average the volume of fire from Heavy
>>6 is almost twice that of Heavy D6. I'd call that a substantial
>>difference in power level.
>
> When did you last roll 0.5 on a D6?

Every time I roll my averaged dice which has '3.5' printed on all six
sides.
;-)

> Die rolls in any given 40k game
> don't even out to a statistical average - the scatter laser can fire
> six S6 shots and in some games will consistently fire more than 3.5.

Even a single scatter laser in a single game will in a majority of
games get an average close to 3.5 shots fired per turn. Assume that
the game lasts for 6 turns and the scatter laser fires every turn. In
almost 60% of those games the number of shots fired will fall in the
interval 18-24 shots fired, corresponding to an average of between 3
and 4 shots per turn. Outcomes further and further from the average
becomes more and more unlikely. For example, the probability of
getting 36 shots with Heavy D6 in 6 attempts is 1 in 46656, whereas
Heavy 6 will always get 36 shots in 6 attempts. If even more D6 (more
scatter lasers, more games or longer games) are rolled the
distribution around the average becomes even thinner when compared to
number of shots fired.

> In
> any case 3.5 rounds up to 4, so we're only considering adding two more
> shots to the weapon

"Only" two more shots up from 4 is a 50% increase. The actual increase
is even larger when the rounding (3.5 -> 4) in the middle the
calculation is avoided.

> - which justifies increasing its cost by a third if
> we assume it's well-costed at the moment, but doesn't justify altering
> what it can do. If it's balanced firing 6 S6 shots for 15pts (or
> whatever) with a drawback, it's balanced firing 6 S6 shots for 25pts
> with no drawback.

I don't think "firing 6 shots with a drawback" is a very good analogy
of Heavy D6, but nevermind. The increase in power can be compensated
for by increasing the cost, but I still think Heavy 6 is too extreme.

>>> It's just that the randomness is stupid and must go, and since the
>>> scatter laser has six barrels it can't have fewer than six shots when
>>> revised.
>>
>>I agree that the randomness in the number of shots should be removed,
>>but I'm not so sure about equating the number of barrels with the
>>number of shots. I haven't counted the number of barrels on the
>>assault cannon, but I'm quite certain it's more than 4...
>
> The assault cannon isn't an Eldar laser weapon - it's an inaccurate
> slug thrower that puts out a lot more fire than will ever actually hit.

I wasn't entirely serious when did that comparison.

> The scatter laser has always been a six-shot weapon,

I wasn't aware of that.

> albeit only potentially one in its current incarnation,the
> three-barrelled Hawk's
> Talon/old lasblaster has always had three shots and the lasblaster was
> specifically remodelled with two barrels to reflect the fact that it
> has two shots. This should be kept consistent across the army - only
> the pulse laser is an exception because its background specifies that
> it fires shots one after the other (and should be given the BFG/Epic
> pulse rule in place of its current randomness for that reason).

How does the pulse rule work?

--
Joakim
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:47:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Desert Joe wrote:
> Lt. Cmdr. Jim wrote:
>> pbowles@aol.com wrote:
>>>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> That said, you can give Hawks or Lasblasters Pinning for any unit they
>>>> *hit* (not necessarily wound).
>>>
>>> All pinning effects should play off hits rather than wounds - if you're
>>> under heavy fire, are you really going to wait until the guy next to
>>> you gets a hole in his chest before taking cover? Are you going to wait
>>> to see who the Earthshaker shell killed before deciding it might be a
>>> good idea to hunker down for the next one?
>>
>> On the other hand, are Terminators going to start diving for cover
>> under sniper fire, or just carry on wandering around with things
>> plinking off them? I'd leave pinning working on wounding hits, but
>> look for more scope to impose negative Ld modifiers. -1 per casualty
>> would be a bit excessive, methinks, so what formula to use?
>>
> -1 per 2 wounds?

Might still be a little strong, plus I'm not sure about basing it on
absolute casualties, rather than proportionate to unit strength.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.
!