PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the supplement for Craftworld Eldar should still be viable?



The Samaritan
13-02-2009, 22:51
I have the craftworld eldar book, and really want to do a real Biel_tan army, but apparently, I CANT :cries:
do you think the craftworld eldar rules should still be useable?
for example, Biel-Tan gets aspect warriors as troops, saim hann... umm they get something something :p
alaitoc, etc etc. I know Iyanden is useable because the wraithguard CAN be troops if you have enough, but I would still like to use Biel_tan's special rules.

Aegius
13-02-2009, 22:54
you can represent all of the craftworlds using the current codex. There is no need to use that old horrid supplement anymore.

loveless
13-02-2009, 23:00
Biel-Tan:
Troops - Dire Avengers (Aspect Warriors)
Elites - Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Fire Dragons (Aspect Warriors)
Fast Attack - Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shining Spears (Aspect Warriors)
Heavy Support - Dark Reapers (Aspect Warriors)
HQ - Autarch (Super Aspect Warrior), Phoenix Lord (Super Duper Aspect Warrior), Avatar (Sacrificed Aspect Warrior)

...so you're missing, what, exactly?

Saim Hann had Jetbikes as troops, as well as mounted HQ. They can still do that.

Alaitoc had Rangers/Pathfinders as troops. They also had a relatively broken and annoying thing called a Disruption Table. Regardless, they can still take Rangers/Pathfinders as troops.

Iyanden had Wraithguard troops, which is still possible, as you said.

Ulthwe had the Seer Council, which is still available, just not as massive as before. You can take 2 Farseers and a unit of Warlocks and put them all together. Bam. Seer Council.

The Ulthwe Strike Force had Black Guardians - effectively Guardians with BS4. Well...you'll have to use Counts-as for this, using Dire Avengers in their place. I think they may have had a Webway Gate of some sort as well, which is gone.

Effectively, you can very easily represent all the major Craftworlds with the current Codex.

Or were you really looking forward to something like...5 units of Howling Banshees? 6 units of Fire Dragons? What exactly can't you do anymore?

Misfratz
13-02-2009, 23:49
As loveless says, the current Eldar codex incorporates much of what the old Craftworld Codex had. In that sense it is much to be admired.

However, I might also point out that if you can find a willing opponent, all things are possible, and we will never know - unless you tell us about it.

Draxas
14-02-2009, 04:10
Biel-Tan:
Troops - Dire Avengers (Aspect Warriors)
Elites - Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Fire Dragons (Aspect Warriors)
Fast Attack - Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shining Spears (Aspect Warriors)
Heavy Support - Dark Reapers (Aspect Warriors)
HQ - Autarch (Super Aspect Warrior), Phoenix Lord (Super Duper Aspect Warrior), Avatar (Sacrificed Aspect Warrior)

...so you're missing, what, exactly?

Saim Hann had Jetbikes as troops, as well as mounted HQ. They can still do that.

Alaitoc had Rangers/Pathfinders as troops. They also had a relatively broken and annoying thing called a Disruption Table. Regardless, they can still take Rangers/Pathfinders as troops.

Iyanden had Wraithguard troops, which is still possible, as you said.

Ulthwe had the Seer Council, which is still available, just not as massive as before. You can take 2 Farseers and a unit of Warlocks and put them all together. Bam. Seer Council.

The Ulthwe Strike Force had Black Guardians - effectively Guardians with BS4. Well...you'll have to use Counts-as for this, using Dire Avengers in their place. I think they may have had a Webway Gate of some sort as well, which is gone.

Effectively, you can very easily represent all the major Craftworlds with the current Codex.

Or were you really looking forward to something like...5 units of Howling Banshees? 6 units of Fire Dragons? What exactly can't you do anymore?

The Black Guardians of Ulthwe are an interesting concept, what model would you use on the tabletop to represent these with the minimum of fuss? They would use the Dire Avengers rules so I figure that you could either use the Dire Avengers bodies and put a Guardian head on top, or use Guardians and then stick an Avenger shuriken catapult on them. Or some other combination of the two.

loveless
14-02-2009, 04:32
The Black Guardians of Ulthwe are an interesting concept, what model would you use on the tabletop to represent these with the minimum of fuss? They would use the Dire Avengers rules so I figure that you could either use the Dire Avengers bodies and put a Guardian head on top, or use Guardians and then stick an Avenger shuriken catapult on them. Or some other combination of the two.

I'd lean towards Dire Avenger bodies just so that you get the right sort of armour for the rules you're representing. Guardian heads are fine, or even just Dire Avengers painted black. It's really up to you - you could theoretically just use the Guardian models as long as you didn't use any "normal" Guardians in your list.

Draxas
14-02-2009, 04:40
I'd lean towards Dire Avenger bodies just so that you get the right sort of armour for the rules you're representing. Guardian heads are fine, or even just Dire Avengers painted black. It's really up to you - you could theoretically just use the Guardian models as long as you didn't use any "normal" Guardians in your list.

Yeah, probably best to use the Dire Avenger bodies for purposes of WYSIWYG. Interestingly, the drawing of a Guardian on page 39 has the same symbol dangling off its weapon as the Dire Avenger models have on theirs. Coincidence or creative license put into the drawing?

I'm definitely going to use the Guardian heads, the Dire Avenger helms are my least favorite part about them, personally. They just look a bit outrageous, but that's my opinion. The heads are easy to find at bitz shops, as are the "fins" that Guardians wear on their backs, could add some of those on for good measure.

carlisimo
14-02-2009, 06:25
The Black Guardians of Ulthwé were an abomination upon the spirits that lie in the infinity circuits of all the craftworlds. Well no, I'm exaggerating, but the increased skill point sure was. Sure, they get a bit of a special mention in the 2nd edition codex, but it just says they're "hardened" by the battles against Chaos and they wear black.

Are we to believe that Eldar civilians in a craftworld that lost most of its people to Tyranids are "softer" than them? Or that being called to battle more frequently (once every few years instead of a few times in your whole life) makes you as good a fighter as someone on the Path of the Warrior?

Just take more smaller-sized squads to get more Warlock squad leaders, weapons platforms, or special weapons

Draxas
14-02-2009, 09:44
The Black Guardians of Ulthwé were an abomination upon the spirits that lie in the infinity circuits of all the craftworlds. Well no, I'm exaggerating, but the increased skill point sure was. Sure, they get a bit of a special mention in the 2nd edition codex, but it just says they're "hardened" by the battles against Chaos and they wear black.

Are we to believe that Eldar civilians in a craftworld that lost most of its people to Tyranids are "softer" than them? Or that being called to battle more frequently (once every few years instead of a few times in your whole life) makes you as good a fighter as someone on the Path of the Warrior?

Just take more smaller-sized squads to get more Warlock squad leaders, weapons platforms, or special weapons

Well, the difference is that Iyanden got attacked by the tyranids just once. It was losing for that matter until Yriel showed up and bailed them out. Ulthwe has been in the orbit of the Eye of Terror for thousands of years IIRC, that means constant attacks by Chaos all the time. They have a disproportionate amount of Warlocks and Farseers, and those are paths that presumably take a very long time to master, thus leaving them with a shortage of Aspect Warriors.

It only makes sense that they would equip and train the large part of their army more thoroughly than most other Craftworlds who can for the most part rely on their Aspect Warriors to get the job done, and are NOT right next to the most active Chaos hub of the galaxy. These Black Guardians would also have much more real battle experience, since Ulthwe is so often under attack.

Radium
14-02-2009, 11:23
No, it should not. Nevermore!

I really, really like the Eldar codex as it stands, almost every unit is a viable choice, point costs seem to be pretty okay and we have the ability to field almost any form of army you'd want. If you can't field it with the codex, you've most likely chosen the wrong codex.

Besides, the CWE mini-dex was pretty horrendous, nothing really groundbreaking except for obviously broken things, and as loveless has said, you can field whatever you like with the current codex.

Gorbad Ironclaw
14-02-2009, 11:31
No, it really shouldn't. I don't really like the Eldar codex, but the Craftworld Codex was a really bad idea. For a start, most of the stuff in there was silly (Black Guardians, disruption rolls, etc.) and second it just didn't felt right. 40k forces are so small that minor differences in the overall structure really doesn't make any difference.

Biel-tan might have more aspect warriors than other craftworlds, but we are talking about what, 40 or so models? Any craftworld could just as easily put a all aspect force on the table at the scale we play 40k at (and IMO, that should be the default army). And it's the same with the other 'variations'. They are meaningless at the scale we operate on.

Grazzy
14-02-2009, 12:29
Only the most extreme builds from that old codex cannot be made easily with the new codex.

Loads of starcannon vypers as troops and 1300 point seer councils were not fun to play against, let me tell you.

EVIL INC
14-02-2009, 13:40
LOL. Its funny to see that when chaos was made like this, people threw fits but with eldar, its ok.
It is true though, you can also very well represent the craftworlds with the current codex and stay well within the fluff. Just a matter of pulling yourhead out of the sand, stop throwing a fit and use a little comman sense.
(Whoops, editeds for grammer)

Colonial Rifle
14-02-2009, 14:45
As awful as the 3rd Ed Eldar codex was, Gav actually made something worse in the Craftworld supplement. Why would you actually want to use that thing anymore? It was broken all to hell - I remember the horror of the disruption table & 3 wraithlord Aliatoc lists. Yuck.

Grand Master Raziel
14-02-2009, 14:53
So, Loveless was kind enough to cover using the current (and legal) Codex: Eldar to play thematically-appropriate armies from any of the Craftworlds mentioned in (not legal anymore) Codex: Craftworld Eldar. Thank you, Loveless. To answer your question, I'm fairly certain most opponents are going to give you a resounding "NO!", as Codex: Craftworld Eldar was eliminated from the system pretty much by popular demand. The only circumstances under which I'd endorse it is if your local gaming group has some ninny who still insists on using the 3.5 Codex: Chaos Space Marines, as that thing was also eliminated from the system by popular demand. Under those circumstances, using Codex: Craftworld Eldar is just sort of a little conversational gambit to get the recalcitrant 3.5 fanboy to let it go and move on.

The_Outsider
14-02-2009, 16:15
LOL. Its funny to see that when chaos was made like this, people threw fits but with eldar, its ok.

Thats because there is a secret vendetta against Chaos by GW - spread the truth! Believe not the lies!

The Samaritan
14-02-2009, 20:04
gosh everyone jump on me at once :p
i just wanted to make a themed army using aspect warrior as troops...

Corrode
14-02-2009, 20:16
Which you can already do - Dire Avengers are Aspect Warriors. Just because you can't use all the Aspects as troops doesn't mean you can't put together a Biel-tan Swordwind ;)

The Samaritan
14-02-2009, 21:20
yeah i guess :p

carlisimo
14-02-2009, 22:44
gosh everyone jump on me at once :p
i just wanted to make a themed army using aspect warrior as troops...

Sorry about that. There was a big philosophical shift from 2nd edition to 3rd. In 2nd, the lists were wide open and it was up to the player to express a theme in his list. The lists in 3rd were much more prescriptive. People wanted a theme written for them, though it was partly because the standard lists were pretty limited. Now we're back to relatively open lists and there are more people who like it than don't.

Regarding aspect warriors... it would be strange to have an aspect warrior army without dire avengers. They're the only troop-like aspect when it comes to being generalist fighters and (more importantly) being the kind that can hold ground. In real life, that's why infantry still exist despite the tanks and artillery and planes that are so destructive - only infantry can hold a position, not assault troops. Give the dire avengers a chance!

The Samaritan
15-02-2009, 02:03
i like dire avengers, they look great!

Born Again
15-02-2009, 07:32
Biel-Tan:
Troops - Dire Avengers (Aspect Warriors)
Elites - Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Fire Dragons (Aspect Warriors)
Fast Attack - Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Shining Spears (Aspect Warriors)
Heavy Support - Dark Reapers (Aspect Warriors)
HQ - Autarch (Super Aspect Warrior), Phoenix Lord (Super Duper Aspect Warrior), Avatar (Sacrificed Aspect Warrior)

...so you're missing, what, exactly?


A good point, hilariously made. Totally right.

It was mentioned at the time the codex was released, you can do all major craftworlds using the 1 book.

Snotteef
15-02-2009, 15:42
No Craftworld codex; not ever again. I hated that disruption table so bad that I refused to play against people using it. It could cripple my entire Ork army before the game even started. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

You can do all the craftworlds with the current dex (as has been said), so you don't even need a Craftworld codex. If we want to expand Eldar, do Exodites or Pirates (though neither is any kind of priority).

Dire Avengers rock hard. I love them to death.

Mascharius
15-02-2009, 15:59
I think there is no need for a craftworld codex.
You can play realy every craftsworld you want to, with the Codex. The only thing I am not sure is about Iyanden, but I am very pleased never again to run again a horde of only Phantomdroids and Phantomlords.

Bekenel
15-02-2009, 16:06
Those are the German names? So much better than the normal ones :p

Iyanden you can do, you can take 10 Wraithguard (Phantomdroids!) as Troops if you also have a Spiritseer. Expensive, but can be fun.

The Samaritan
15-02-2009, 16:42
LOL PHANTOMDROIDS!! sounds like star wars.

isidril93
15-02-2009, 16:52
yeah...sounds like those like ones that roll rmound wit the forcefield

Ubermensch Commander
15-02-2009, 17:45
Thats because there is a secret vendetta against Chaos by GW - spread the truth! Believe not the lies!

Hah I know. When all the forces for Tyranids, Orks, Eldar, and Guard (FAR more diverse entities fluff wise than Chaos marines) can be found under one book, I do not want to hear anymore crying over "bahhh my Legions!". Those rules only existed for ONE codex. Rules change! Moving on!
I blame the 3.5 dex, written by a Chaos fanboy and literally spoiled Chaos players expectations.



ANYWAY, back to topic.
No. Unless GW reverses its policy of gettting rid of mini-supplement dexes, the old variant Craftworld book should stay dead and gone.


I think there is no need for a craftworld codex.
You can play realy every craftsworld you want to, with the Codex. The only thing I am not sure is about Iyanden, but I am very pleased never again to run again a horde of only Phantomdroids and Phantomlords.


No Craftworld codex; not ever again. I hated that disruption table so bad that I refused to play against people using it. It could cripple my entire Ork army before the game even started. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

You can do all the craftworlds with the current dex (as has been said), so you don't even need a Craftworld codex. If we want to expand Eldar, do Exodites or Pirates (though neither is any kind of priority).

Dire Avengers rock hard. I love them to death.


A good point, hilariously made. Totally right.

It was mentioned at the time the codex was released, you can do all major craftworlds using the 1 book.

Thank you all.
You can make any craftworlder list you want with the new Eldar dex. Hell, it does it very well actually. The current craftworlder dex is pretty kickass, IMO.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
15-02-2009, 18:40
Hah I know. When all the forces for Tyranids, Orks, Eldar, and Guard (FAR more diverse entities fluff wise than Chaos marines) can be found under one book, I do not want to hear anymore crying over "bahhh my Legions!". Those rules only existed for ONE codex. Rules change! Moving on!
I blame the 3.5 dex, written by a Chaos fanboy and literally spoiled Chaos players expectations.

Tell that Space Marines :roll:

Seriously, it would be fine [if C:CSM will get new codex obviously] IF SM will recive the same treatment - only 1 codex.

Any chance you are SM player ?

Noserenda
15-02-2009, 19:41
Jesus Wept, can we not turn this into a Chaos Codex bitch fest? Codex Eldar works for every list!

EVIL INC
15-02-2009, 19:47
Thats the point. The eldar codex works perfectly fine just as the orks and chaos ones do and likely the rest as they are produced.
Just pointing out the hypocracy of whining about the newer codex.

Atheist
15-02-2009, 19:57
I support the craftworld re-emerging in the same spirit I want my Legions' rules back : BALANCED is the key word here . This is absolutely POSSIBLE , with enough playtesting .

Come on you people , we want the flavor !

No one enjoys a bland codex except for the competitive players who will time and time again stretch its strengths to the absolute limit , who also don't give a damn about the fluff , it's only the army rules they care about in any given codex . Why should I play with a bland codex because of them ( if it is true that the Eldar and CSM dexes wre killed because of popular demand ) ?

To be honest I'd support anything and anyone who'd give us back our Legions instead of this bard-type ( D&D anyone ? ) renegades codex .

So , support the craftworlds .

Drongol
15-02-2009, 20:47
Come on you people , we want the flavor !


What flavor?

I'm actually being serious here.

Was it in the restrictions? I mean, I can still build an Iron Warriors list out of the C:SM Codex, but I can actually include a few Daemons and maybe some marked troops, too.

I can still build a Kult of Speed, but now there's nothing stopping me from adding Lootas if I want.

I can still build a Sam-Hann force, but nothing's stopping me from having some War Walkers in it.

So, evidently, the flavor is in the straightjackets. I did not know that.

Drongol

The Samaritan
15-02-2009, 21:00
WOULD PEOPLE STOP TELLING ME THAT I CAN MAKE ANY CRAFTWORLD WITH THE AVERAGE DEX. I HAVE HEARD ABOUT TWENTY TIMES BY NOW :p
ahhhh i see what you guys were saying... the mid codex supplement was pretty useless :p

Atheist
15-02-2009, 21:17
What flavor?

I'm actually being serious here.

Was it in the restrictions? I mean, I can still build an Iron Warriors list out of the C:SM Codex, but I can actually include a few Daemons and maybe some marked troops, too.

I can still build a Kult of Speed, but now there's nothing stopping me from adding Lootas if I want.

I can still build a Sam-Hann force, but nothing's stopping me from having some War Walkers in it.

So, evidently, the flavor is in the straightjackets. I did not know that.

Drongol

You understand of course that one's taste rarely stands as an argument .

The above statement includes my taste too , which coincides eventually with most other Chaos player's taste , evidently and Eldar players , so on the grounds of me/us being customer(s) of the particular product that has changed much to my/our disappointment , I/we voice my/our discontent . In the hopes that someone would hear .

To argue on this seems rather irrelevant , if you are pleased with any new codex be it Codex Eldar , Codex Chaos Space Marines , or Codex Orks without the Craftworlds/Legions/Kults enjoy your games . No one has told you that you're not playing cool lists because they might be unfluffy - for example - did they ?

Funny thing that whenever someone is not happy with his new codex is automatically criticized and/or called names , whiner , cheesy and beardy to name but a few . No offense meant ( or implied even ) to you of course , just a general impression of the discussion threads concerning the discontent of previously mentioned customers .

Drongol
15-02-2009, 21:45
You understand of course that one's taste rarely stands as an argument.

Isn't that the entire grounds for the argument in the first place?


The above statement includes my taste too , which coincides eventually with most other Chaos player's taste , evidently and Eldar players , so on the grounds of me/us being customer(s) of the particular product that has changed much to my/our disappointment , I/we voice my/our discontent . In the hopes that someone would hear .

Interesting. Have you spoken with the majority of Chaos players out to verify the veracity of your statement? After all, I'd hate for your admitted "worthless" argument to be thrown out due to using unsubstantiated hyperbole.


Funny thing that whenever someone is not happy with his new codex is automatically criticized and/or called names , whiner , cheesy and beardy to name but a few . No offense meant ( or implied even ) to you of course , just a general impression of the discussion threads concerning the discontent of previously mentioned customers .

If I go to a restaurant and they've changed the menu and none of the food I like is on it anymore, I stop going to the restaurant.

If a bar decides to raise all of its prices 50%, I stop going to the bar. Likewise if they decide to eliminate specials or any activity that I enjoyed.

If a store's new employees are overly pushy, arrogant, ignorant, or just plain rude, I find another store to do business with.

Evidently, however, if a game company alienates me with a rule change, I continue to play the game and post on its message boards, but I do so primarily to let everyone know how much I do not enjoy playing this game that I'm spending money and time playing because of the rules change.

...I just don't get it. If you don't enjoy the game and think that GW does not appreciate you as a customer, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to play.

Can I have your army when you go?

Drongol

carlisimo
15-02-2009, 23:20
Wait, what are we arguing about now?

The Samaritan
15-02-2009, 23:44
really how the **** did this thread turn into these two duking it out :p

Gensuke626
15-02-2009, 23:52
Atheist wants a new Eldar Dex similar to the rumored Chaos Legions book. Drongol says that it's not needed. Argument ensues.

Personally I also think that we don't need a book to cover the specific Eldar Craftworlds, becuase the current Chaos Marine dex doesn't cover the 10,000 year old legions, but rather focuses on the more generic "Renegades".

This is what I think should be the supported Codexes if we want to go into multiples per race:
Imperial Guard
Imperial Forces (Sisters of battle, Ad Mech, Inquisition)
Space Marines
Space Marine Templars and Hunters (Crusader /Space Wolf chapters)
Space Marine Angels of Death (Blood Angels/Dark Angels)

Orks (We don't need anything else really)

Craftworld Eldar (As In, the Current Eldar Dex)
Dark Eldar
Eldar Exodites

Tyranids

Tau

Chaos Renegades
Chaos Legions
Chaos Traitors (Lost and the Damned)
Chaos Daemons

Personally I'd lump them together like this based on forces that could not be lumped with main codexes. Templars and Wolves operate too differently from Codex Astartes to be included with the main dex, so they get their own. Dark and Blood Angels Have a plethora of special characters and might have restrictions on certain pieces of wargear or vehicles that are not present in the Base Marine dex, the mostly get their own codex so that there aren't another 4-6 more special characters in the base codex.

Likewise Chaos is divided into the newly fallen, who likely have different tactics from the Old Legions. That and Legions can introduce and restrict units that may or may not work with older legions. Then there's the Demons who are very unique and the traitor guard, who are VERY different from loyal guard by the addition of Daemons and chaos icons to normal humans.

For Eldar, The craftworlds don't have tactics that are different enough from each other to require a completely different codex for such changes. The pronounced difference in Salamander and White Scar tactics prove that two armies who have completely different play styles can exist within one codex if they use the same basic units.

But that's just my oppinion.

Occulto
16-02-2009, 00:06
Those are the German names? So much better than the normal ones :p

I'd love to see a game of 40K played in German. Looking at the boxed sets (or German online store) they've got much better sounding names for everything.

Draxas
16-02-2009, 00:57
I think it would be nice to see some special characters in the next Eldar codex that include similar things to the Chapter Tactics that SMs got in their new codex. That being said I do think that the current codex is perfectly adequate to represent all of the craftworlds.

Atheist
16-02-2009, 01:00
The point of this thread is not the Chaos Codex so even though I mentioned it as an example , I will not comment any further on the matter .

I still believe that if there are dissatisfied customers the service provider has to respect their wishes since we are talking about the quality time that 40k offers as a hobby , but that's just my opinion .

I didn't duke it out with anybody , even though I must say that the last quoted part of my earlier post in Drongol's last post is true I'm afraid .

Drongol I lose mate .Yay for you . I will wait for your personal info ( name , address , telephone number ) if I am to send you my army . Cheers .

Rioghan Murchadha
16-02-2009, 01:36
I'd love to see a game of 40K played in German. Looking at the boxed sets (or German online store) they've got much better sounding names for everything.

Damn straight, especially the ork stuff.

You get squads riding around in their Pikk-up

Or the Waaaghbikeschwadron

My personal favorite the Gargbot

Everything sounds cooler in german.

Gensuke626
16-02-2009, 01:46
I still believe that if there are dissatisfied customers the service provider has to respect their wishes since we are talking about the quality time that 40k offers as a hobby , but that's just my opinion .


See, if there are dissatisfied customers, a service provider has to take their wishes into account. They have to prove that the number of dissatisfied customers Exceeds the number of satisfied customers before changing anything.

You can't just look at it from the side of dissatisfaction. If GW changed the Eldar Codex to respect the wishes of Group A (The Dissatisfied Folk) and suddenly Group B (The Satisfied Folk) become dissatisfied, then they'd have to change it right back again per your logic.

What it comes down to is proper application of Utilitarian Philosophy. You do what creates the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, because you can't satisfy everyone.

Here's the other problem...Many people who don't like the current Eldar Codex, don't like it for various reasons. It Lacks Black Guardians, I can't take Striking Scorpions as Troops, I can't take Wraithlords as Troops, There's no entry for Wild Riders, ect. ect. So what do you change? What do you add in? What do you remove? How do you balance it?

The problem is that we can't let the Eldar Codex become so full of choices that it becomes like the last edition of Codex:Chaos Space Marines (The one with veteran skills) or worse, like the second edition of Codex: Eldar, lest there be endless cries of cheese by others. And then what? We'd have to change it to accommodate the dissatisfied players, obviously. :angel:

Atheist
16-02-2009, 02:30
I understand what you're saying and you are right .

But , from my point of view as a Chaos player , I am dissatisfied because of the bland codex , not because of the loss of strong options as this is untrue ; the chaos space marines codex does indeed have some very easy to abuse combinations . This will always be more or less the case I believe , so what's the point ?

I trust it is the same for some people who are dissatisfied with Craftworlds codex , and this is why I participate in this thread .

Is there a reason to mutilate the fun/fluffy elements for these players who one way or another want and actively try to focus on a themed army more than a super strong list ? Or do you believe that the old codexes presented a fluffy super list option , while now the superlists are unfluffy ?

Who cares about fluff-ness? Surely not the powerplayer . I do , it was the only reason that got me started in 40k , soon after I learned to like as much the other aspects of the hobby .

I even know that there exist nowadays terms like " slave to the fluff " etc , as if this is a bad thing .

I mean this is not chess , this is a game of dice , it seems silly to be competitive about it even if you are a master in the field of probabilities . But , again , this is only my opinion on the matter .

So let's accept the fact the game ( and rules ) revolve around the competitive players , shall we ? But these are ruining it for the rest of us .

Is "their" number greater than "ours" ? Well Drongol just might be right then . I should quit rather than complain , however , this , as a fact , is extremely sad .

Stupid Diablo , you have ruined it all .

EVIL INC
16-02-2009, 02:47
Remember that the current "blandness" (LOL), is in the eye of the beholder. Just as many people find the current chaos codex to be an improvement or equal. Personally (and I am sure I am not alone here) I find the current one to be much LESS bland then the previous one. In the previous version, all khorne followers were berserkers, all slannesh followers were noise marines ect. This made the codex very bland as it was full of one dimensional (and unfluffy)choices that did not truly reflect chaos at all as it offered you less options. True, you had much more wargear options but those were a waste as only a very select few were ever actually used as the no-brainers were used every time. The only time you ever saw any of the others were when the player had a few extra points to spend and didnt have enough for a whole new unit so they just tossed them into an extra piece of wargear or gift just so they could say they could spend them.
Not to say the new one is perfect (although it is better) or even to say that the new eldar codex is perfect (although it too is better), it is to say that the world has advanced and if you prefer to whine and cry and generally toss a hissy fit, you will not find a sympathetic ear here. We have gone over the subject far too many times and no one is going to change anyone elses mind.
We the customers have spoken and GW has listened. To the customers who are unhappy, learn to live with it or pout, up to you.

Atheist
16-02-2009, 03:14
I wonder if some people have to physically strain themselves in order to respond in a civil and non-offensive manner .

Well , it's only the internet .

%^$* this . Have a nice day gents .

Ubermensch Commander
16-02-2009, 03:18
Tell that Space Marines :roll:

Seriously, it would be fine [if C:CSM will get new codex obviously] IF SM will recive the same treatment - only 1 codex.

Any chance you are SM player ?


Thats the point. The eldar codex works perfectly fine just as the orks and chaos ones do and likely the rest as they are produced.
Just pointing out the hypocracy of whining about the newer codex.

This. Chaos got brought to the same level as Eldar and Orks
I am a Space Marine player. I am also a Dark Eldar player (first and foremost), and a Tyranid player.
So i think I WILL "tell that to Space Marines" my Dear Acheron. I play Salamanders. You will recall that Salamanders once had their own list in an Armageddon book. Gone now. Then 4th edition list of "traits. Now also gone.
And I do not cry that "I no longer have a prescriptive sublist for my Salamanders therefore they are not in the game!" Are you gonna tell me that I cannot make a Salamanders army because I do not have a set prescriptive list? I would have to vehemently disagree. I would also like to point out Vulkan He'stan is not necessary for a Salamanders list either. The new SM special charaters are not restricted to any one army, same as the SC
in the other codices as well. They are just, to use GW own description, archetypes.
Nor do the grand majority of Eldar players complain that Craftworlds are "gone".
Chaos was brought into line with the other codices. CSM are not that special. Moving on.

But back to Eldar codex. No old mini dex. New design philosophy. Represents different craftworlds fairly well. If and when new mini dexes are released, will re evaluate.

Ubermensch Commander
16-02-2009, 03:28
I wonder if some people have to physically strain themselves in order to respond in a civil and non-offensive manner .

Well , it's only the internet .

%^$* this . Have a nice day gents .

Atheist, who has responded in a uncivil manner?
As far as I can tell no one has made any personal attacks, used foul language, or made broad sweeping statements about players of certain armies.

carlisimo
16-02-2009, 04:34
I don't know much about Chaos lists... but Eldar players did not lose much at all when the Craftworld codex ceased to exist. Seer councils were cut back a bit, but not completely. Black Guardians disappeared too, but not every Eldar player approved of them to begin with. Maybe because they were totally new at the time... easy come, easy go. No models were made useless.

I don't know about good or bad, but the changes Chaos went through were much larger.

Iracundus
16-02-2009, 06:43
Black Guardians disappeared too, but not every Eldar player approved of them to begin with. Maybe because they were totally new at the time... easy come, easy go.

Black Guardians are not new. They are as old as Ulthwe itself when Ulthwe and the other major craftworlds were first introduced way back before 2nd edition. They just never had any rules at 40K level but they existed in Epic long before the CWE Codex.

Trench_Raider
16-02-2009, 07:20
...so you're missing, what, exactly?



Why the ability to create a "three wraithlord and three Reaper squad" army of course! MEQ killing insanity at it's best! :D

TR

Leo
16-02-2009, 09:35
I don't know much about Chaos lists... but Eldar players did not lose much at all when the Craftworld codex ceased to exist. Seer councils were cut back a bit, but not completely. Black Guardians disappeared too, but not every Eldar player approved of them to begin with. Maybe because they were totally new at the time... easy come, easy go. No models were made useless.

I don't know about good or bad, but the changes Chaos went through were much larger.

Well, the things that Eldar players did lose, were the extreme lists of their respective Craftworld, like full Starcannon-CTM-Viper armies, full Dark Reaper armies, 50+ Seer Councils etc, so technically they did lose quite a lot.

I only started Eldar recently so I can´t really comment but it looks like most 'reasonable' lists can be made with the basic Codex.
'Reasonable' being open for interpretation because, if you were an avid tournament participant you might have relied on those units.
Evidently it seems possible to score solid without extreme lists although Eldar have lost ground compared to Orcs and (Chaos) Space Marines.

The only other people who regularly report problems are Ulthwé players who are miffed because their Guardians aren´t better than other peoples Guardians anymore.



Damn straight, especially the ork stuff.

You get squads riding around in their Pikk-up

Or the Waaaghbikeschwadron

My personal favorite the Gargbot

Everything sounds cooler in german.

funny enough I always use the english names instead because many german names sound fishy: Cybot for Dreadnought, Kyborg for Obliterator, Devastor for Devastator. Those names don´t mean anything and they really sound awful when pronounced german, so I really don´t get why they had to change them.
Another bad mess up are Asuryans Jäger (Hunters of Asurian) for Dire Avengers because it collides with the background of Aspect Warrior.

Poseidal
16-02-2009, 10:08
The old Craftworld Codex was pretty funny, but probably not the best of ideas.

I do miss a few things that could be reinvented:

Pathfinders being a bit more special (perhaps a new level of pathfinder can be introduced as an elite choice?)

Wild Rider Chief: While the chief himself could be represented by an Autarch (and is more powerful than before!), having the 'counts as' the retinue with Shining Spears doesn't seem too right. Perhaps a 'veteran jetbike' squad could do it, in Fast Attack or HQ addon to the Autarch?

CoTYK: While it was pretty silly, Exarch squads were pretty fun. Rather than mixing them up, perhaps there should be a new 2 wound Exarch and some small (3-5 man?) Exarch squads? Probably best as a retinue / bonus squad for having a Phoenix Lord?

Seer Council and Black Guardians: Shouldn't come back. The USF list though, was quite a good concept that perhaps could be extended to all the Craftworlds; heavy vehicle light list that relies on portals, and can come in USF Guardian, Aspect and Bike flavours.

Ghost Warriors: Currently exist, sort of. Taking Wraithlords as Troops limited you to 3 anyway, as you had to take at least as many Wraithguard.

Bathfinder
16-02-2009, 11:16
What is right and wrong about sub-codices, according to yours truly:
Every sub codex, list of traits etc that lets you take more of one type of something, or use some units as troops, or something like that are a bit silly, possibly game-breaking and could in most cases be represented by the standard codex or ignored.
What should be in sub codices are: more or less unique units and characters, fun special rules and upgrades for units that come at a cost. This is what I would want from an eldar craftworld-list.

Son of Russ
16-02-2009, 11:57
The old Craftworld Codex was a nifty idea. Shame that it was broken. When I read the current Codex, I was pleased to see that the Craftworlds could still be built but in a slightly or restrained manner.

Part of the reason is that I could still build a pretty mean and effective Swordwind Army for my personal Craftworld, Arithym. I have four 10 man squads of Avengers, a 10 man squad of Scorpions, 10 Woman squad of Banshees and whole piles of other up to date Aspect warriors, not to mention a huge amount of 1st gen Aspects.

I love Eldar!:D

Rioghan Murchadha
16-02-2009, 15:40
funny enough I always use the english names instead because many german names sound fishy: Cybot for Dreadnought, Kyborg for Obliterator, Devastor for Devastator. Those names don´t mean anything and they really sound awful when pronounced german, so I really don´t get why they had to change them.
Another bad mess up are Asuryans Jäger (Hunters of Asurian) for Dire Avengers because it collides with the background of Aspect Warrior.

Oh, I imagine to a native german speaker it's bloody horrible. I don't speak a word of it, and even I can tell that most of the names aren't translations, but horribly made up words. But when you say them with a really bad fake german accent, then they sound perfect for the 40k setting, (goofy and just plain wrong:p)

You think that's bad though? Try getting through any published GW material with a working grasp of latin. Ugh.

feugan
16-02-2009, 15:51
I second Son of Russ. The trick is to accumulate so many models that moderately different army builds don't really affect you. The only down side is that buying 20 wraithguard costs about the same as a Forgeworld Revenant. Looks good though!

USF Webway portals, Black Guardians and indeed infinite Seer Councils still exist in Apocalypse, though happily the 'naked' Warlock is gone, using as it does unrestricted units from the current (awesome) Eldar codex.

Spell_of_Destruction
16-02-2009, 19:34
I would love to be able to field all Aspect Warriors as troops again purely for the benefits it would bring in objective missions. I do think that Biel-Tann do suffer quite badly from that 5th ed rule change particularly compared to Chaos and Orks (but then so does everyone else). Biel-Tann is about specialisation so bringing along a lot of objective holding troops isn't really part of the equation. Perhaps I should just live by the Biel Tann mantra (annhilate everything!) and quit complaining.

MrLiy
16-02-2009, 20:16
my first eldar list was a strike force, so as you can imagine I was pretty miffed with the new dex since I didnt own any falcons prisms or WS's. I've slowly adapted, and had to find ways to make up the loss of the gates with pure speed. Adding the list to apocalypse was almost a slap to the face for those few strikeforce players out there. I definetely did not enjoy spending 500 something points on transports.

Conclusion: I think the new codex is great, and agree with all the changes to the craftworlds, except for the gates. Maybe they can introduce an autarch special character that allows you to bring gates?

Son of Russ
17-02-2009, 11:36
The only down side is that buying 20 wraithguard costs about the same as a Forgeworld Revenant. Looks good though!

Blimey! 20 Wraithguard? That would look good! Cost the bloomin' Earth but it'd look good. I'll stick to the two Revenants and Phantom I have though.:D


Biel-Tann is about specialization so bringing along a lot of objective holding troops isn't really part of the equation.

Specialization as in they have a huge number of Aspect Warriors. Of which, most would be Avengers (since they are the most numerous Aspect there is) thusly you have a whole bunch of troops. Like I said, I have 4 squads of them. Plus I have the option to give em Wave Serpents for back up (though they tend to go to the Banshees/Scorpions/Dragons more frequently.)

Captain Micha
17-02-2009, 13:32
This is why sub codexes are bad.

Let's say I'm building a Far Sight Enclaves list. There's plenty of restrictions in there, that make sense sure. But what do I get out of them? Nothing really. They restrict Vespid, don't give you Human Auxiliaries and so much more. For what? Sucking in melee combat but liking it? Ew. They could have handled them much better than they did.

The point being with a Subdex, is that you either get a FarSight Enclaves... or a broken on the overpowered end of the scale Eldar Craftworld codex.

There is no "proper" balance in a subdex, because often times they violate the army lists given synergy, and either replace it with a haphazard poorly thought out "balancing factor" (such as the "perk" of fire warriors in the FarSight sub list in the Tau dex) to make up for the loss, or they out right destroy some very key -balancing restrictions- such as the Craftworld Dex did.

Or they just won't be well thought out all period in any way shape or form (like the 3.5 Chaos codex) at all and be hideously broken.

incarna
17-02-2009, 14:42
As an Eldar player I think making the old Crafterworld Eldar codex playable would be a TERIBLE idea. It all sounds great until someone slaps down an army that consists of 6 squads of 10 Fire Dragons with flamer Exarch or 6 squads of 5 dark reapers with fast shot EML Exarch… yeah, those armies are beatable but ridiculous.

Not to mention the utter absurdity that was the Alaitoc ranger disruption table.

Dr.Clock
17-02-2009, 17:02
Yes... aspect warriors are elites for a REASON.

If you can't build a decen Biel-tan list for friendly play using the existing codex, you aren't using the FOC correctly. You could make a competitive list with only one type of unit in each chart area - saaaay farseer, Banshees, Avengers, Spiders and walkers???

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.