PDA

View Full Version : Save the Fire Dragons!



brightblade
11-03-2009, 20:25
Recently I have been reading old issues of White Dwarf and came across the first codex for Eldar that involved Aspects, Exarchs and whatnot. Now, the interesting thing that I noticed was that Fire Dragons had a 3+ save. Is it just me or does this really make sense?
Dragons are expensive and have a very short life expectancy. Does anybody else agree that increasing the save would make them fit their fluff better? Also I figure it would help make them more common and surely variation is the spice of life?

Now, the same goes for Exarchs? Should they have two wounds? I have discussed this with a couple of my gaming friends and they agree (even though they don't play eldar) that it would make sense. Maybe with a minor points increase? Whaddya reckon?

Please don't just slate these thoughts but honest discussion is welcome:)

totgeboren
11-03-2009, 20:30
Dunno, just about every Eldar army I have faced has included Fire Dragons. They are a much much better choice vs vehicles than Bright lances.

Seeing has how they are so popular, I dont really think they need to be improved.

Then again, the IG Hellhound is maybe the best buy unit in the Guard Codex now, and all rumours point to it being improved anyway, so maybe improving good units is the way forwards? :)

Lord Damocles
11-03-2009, 20:33
Necron Scarabs used to be T8 with a 2+ save.

Not everything should go back to how it was in the 'good old days' ;)

Sarevok
11-03-2009, 20:34
I read my old Chaos Codex where Bloodthirsters had WS10, W10 and A10!

I think they should get it again to make them fit the fluff better and make them more common!

Ubermensch Commander
11-03-2009, 20:35
Well I am pretty sure the problem here is that we are looking back across older editions. Heck in 2nd edition Terminator armour granted a 3+ save...on 2d6.
As for fitting the fluff, that depends. My friend argued all throughout 3rd edition, that the Dark Reapers should have 3 + saves. He just pointed at the model and said "Look at that! See those legs!? They need a 3+ save!" With them not needing more movement and fleet being unused by those of 3+ save and better, it actually made sense. And in 4th edition Eldar codex, we see that DR now have 3+ svs ( or am I going mad and misremembering?)

So I dunno if it fits the fluff better, but it could easily be argued to make sense, the whole "going into raging infernos" and all that requiring bulkier armor. *shrug* Might be pushing it though.

Exarch with two wounds? Meh. Only certain Aspects and as a special ability or something. I do not feel it is necessary from a gameplay balance standpoint.

Reaver83
11-03-2009, 20:46
I read my old Chaos Codex where Bloodthirsters had WS10, W10 and A10!

I think they should get it again to make them fit the fluff better and make them more common!

hah! look at the stats for a DP in the 2nd ed codex, some were above 10!

mughi3
11-03-2009, 20:53
Now, the same goes for Exarchs? Should they have two wounds?
They are squad sargents, so unless they feel like giving every armies equivalent of a sarge 2 wounds i say no.

totgeboren
11-03-2009, 20:55
Also, the ability to fleet should no be underestimated for a unit armed with meltabombs.

Shooting 6 meltaguns at a land raider, Leman Russ or Battlewagon has a quite high chance to fail to destroy the tank if you are not within 6".
If you start about 8"-9" away, it might be better to fleet and just smack abunch of meltabombs on the tank.

I think they would be weakened by a 3+ save, since those grenades are really good.

Though I compare them to Tankhuntas, whom I use alot when I play orks. Their rokkits seldom do anything, but if they get to assault a vehicle it tend to go *boom*.
Much much easier to do when they can fleet.

Bob Hunk
11-03-2009, 21:12
Going waaaaaaay back, Marines had T3 and a 4+ save! Things move on, I think a 4+ is good enough for the Fire Dragons. :)

boogle
11-03-2009, 21:41
They are fine as they are, the armour looks similar enough to the other aspects to remain a 4+ save

Dr.Clock
11-03-2009, 21:50
At the time, there were save modifiers... hence, getting that full 3+ was a very rare occurrence.

Fire dragons are just fine... a 3+ would make them more feasible to take as an infantry selection perhaps, but I don't think it would actually result in people doing this more often.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Isambard
11-03-2009, 22:18
They are squad sargents, so unless they feel like giving every armies equivalent of a sarge 2 wounds i say no.

What, like Ork Nobz?

Remember, Swooping Hawks used to have a really shoddy save as well, so I think we are better off sticking with what we have now.

Doomseer
11-03-2009, 22:27
Giving the Exarch a better save or an Invulnerable save is more likely, but thats probably still pushing it!

Spell_of_Destruction
11-03-2009, 22:29
Most of the counter examples here are ludicrously exaggerated. Fire Dragons are much the same as they were in 2nd edition as are most of the other aspects so comparing FDs reverting back to having a 3+ save to Greater Deamon stats reverting back to 2nd ed levels is somewhat ridiculous. All Aspects now have the same save that they had in 2nd edition bar Fire Dragons and Swooping Hawks (who only had a 5+ but made up for it by being harder to hit).

I would like to see Fire Dragons get a 3+ save simply because it would make them less one dimensional. Together with Banshees they are another Eldar infantry unit that can't really be used outside of a transport.

That said, they're pretty good as they are just now but I think that a 3+ save would make sense for a unit that isn't really reliant on speed and will generally put itself in danger by getting close to the enemy despite not being armed for assault.

As for exarchs getting two wounds - no. Maybe there could be a 'high exarch' as some sort of mid level HQ but they would have to buff up autarchs for that to be worth it.

AtnaShadow
11-03-2009, 22:30
Exarchs definitely don't need two wounds, as it is they get more bonuses than a lot of sergeant-type upgrades for squad, what with always having a 3+ save regardless of aspect, plus WS and BS 5!

Also, as nice as a 3+ save could be for fire dragons, having fleet can be nice for the meltabombs. Though I agree that the better armor save would be nice for an army with fewer transports.

Irisado
11-03-2009, 23:53
Ah another one of those discussions where we go back along that misty path with the first rays of sun just beginning to come through that early morning mist.... :)

If you look at the drawings for Fire Dragons back in White Dwarf 127, it's easy to make an argument in terms of the background for them to have a 3+ save.

The problem with doing this in terms of the rules is that they would then lose fleet, and this could make them much more vulnerable in situations where you want to move them away from enemy assault troops, or move them back to a transport in a hurry after they have fried a tank or two.

I do take the point that it would make them slightly more viable on foot, but their short range would still count against them, and they still wouldn't be a tough as Wraithguard, who would be their direct comparison in that infantry role.

It's a catch twenty-two situation really, so I suspect that they will just stay as they are.

As for their points cost. I think that it's just right, so no problems there.

dal9ll
12-03-2009, 00:15
Frankly, I think GW has done enough damage making Eldar's rules fit the fluff.

tuebor
12-03-2009, 00:17
The problem with doing this in terms of the rules is that they would then lose fleet, and this could make them much more vulnerable in situations where you want to move them away from enemy assault troops, or move them back to a transport in a hurry after they have fried a tank or two.

Fleet doesn't really help with any of those situations anymore.

Orkeosaurus
12-03-2009, 02:26
Fire dragons are already one of the better units in the codex.

I don't really see the need to make them better for the sake of "diversity" or anything.

AtnaShadow
12-03-2009, 02:37
Frankly, I think GW has done enough damage making Eldar's rules fit the fluff.

Really don't want to derail the thread, but damn, sounds like you've got a major issue with some Eldar rules somewhere!

Admittedly there is no rule against units with a 3+ or better save from getting fleet, as some exarchs, autarchs, and phoenix lords have it. But again, FDs are fine as they are.

Warforger
12-03-2009, 03:10
During 4th Fleet was more unique, now its just for assault units, so alot of the units in the Eldar codex (which half its units had fleet) became less unique in terms of there extra movement, others totally lots the point of needing it (Like Swooping Hawks, there not even that good in CC, there exarch can't even take a power weapon like Warp Spider and Dire Avenger Exarchs can).

So Dragons don't really need to be pitied that much, since they are pretty much, the most overkill unit in 40k.

Faolain
12-03-2009, 03:40
I'd like to see them get some kind of resistances to flame weapons. Not the most useful upgrade, but it would fit the fluff.

Filthy O'Bedlam
12-03-2009, 03:43
I see them almost every game. Trust me, they're plenty deadly without a 3+. I can't count the number of vehicles\Dreadnaughts\Terminators I've lost to them.

Znail
12-03-2009, 07:10
Save the Fire Dragons...

Can we expect 'Save the Nob Bikers' next?

holmcross
12-03-2009, 07:52
Save the Fire Dragons...

Can we expect 'Save the Nob Bikers' next?

Haha, I was about to mention Nob Bikers, but you beat me to it.

To the OP: Run fire dragons in a game and you'll see why people are teasing you. They're very good and common in most Eldar lists. Its inevidible that the in game rules willd deviate from the fluff: balance comes first.

Lets put it this way: you can have your 3+ armor saves and exarchs with two wounds if I can have my Gauss weaponery that always wounds/penetrates on a 2+ and allows no armor saves. Don't even get me started on the sillyness of giving the C'tan rules which fit thier fluff :)

Doppleskanger
12-03-2009, 11:13
Well I must be missing a point here, why would an increase in armour make them loose Fleet? Because it's not in the original list, or am i missing some subtelty.
Anyway, that WD127 list isn't even 2nd edition, it's RT, and save modifiers applied to almost every weapon to some degree making a 3+ save much less useful than it is today.
So no, it's not needed. Occasionally changes from the old lists are sadly missed (Harlequin mini grenade launchers, for example, as they were so characterful). In general though the games moved on, it's been through 5 editions and there isn't any reason to revert to ancient early stats and equipment.

BaronDG
12-03-2009, 11:43
It was in the old codex and since the scorpions and reapers still do that trade-off, it seems likely any 3+ save eldar still would, even if it is not explicitly stated.

EVIL INC
12-03-2009, 13:37
hah! look at the stats for a DP in the 2nd ed codex, some were above 10!
But dont forget, in RT, a bloodthirster could drop his axe and summon a second bloodthirster out of it to fight alongside of him.:evilgrin:

@ IJW No, It was a volantary thing he could do without having to die. Of course, you rolled a d100 (results of each # band youll have to look up on your own P 97 of Slaves to Darkness) and the new bloodthirster did not come with an axe so you couldnt get an neverending line of them. Anyone with a daemon weapon could do the same. Read page 98 of the same book and youll see the axe of khorne has a variety of other powers as well. The ability to regenerate wounds on it's bearer for example.

IJW
12-03-2009, 13:45
Almost. If the BT died, there was a chance of the BT bound into the axe coming out and going postal...

sliganian
12-03-2009, 13:56
...
I would like to see Fire Dragons get a 3+ save simply because it would make them less one dimensional. Together with Banshees they are another Eldar infantry unit that can't really be used outside of a transport.

That said, they're pretty good as they are just now but I think that a 3+ save would make sense for a unit that isn't really reliant on speed and will generally put itself in danger by getting close to the enemy despite not being armed for assault.

The bolded part is why an Eldar player I know never takes Fire Dragons. They are one of the more pricey 'one-shot' units in the game.

Fly up, hop out, shoot, hope it does well, then die.

3+ or 4+ would make little difference to the outcome.

Razarael
12-03-2009, 14:23
Well this topic wasn't responded to very politely. I shouldn't be surprised and dissapointed... But I am. Probably because the OP asked not to have the idea slated. Oh well.

Fluff wise, if they wore Power Armor equivelant they wouldn't be considered to have the most risky Aspect Warrior occupation out there!

Game wise, I don't mind them only having a 4+ save. They are supposed to be good at destroying the most resilient things on the map, not surviving. There'd probably be a ton of extra whining if it went down to 3+, that I am sure of.

I've also used played plenty of games with footslogging Fire Dragons. It's all in how you manoeuver. :)

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 16:23
Fire Dragons -do not need a buff- period.

If anything they should have the option to swap out their melta guns for Flamer type weapons for free. But most definitely they do not need more durability.

EVIL INC
12-03-2009, 17:22
The topic was indeed responded to politely and respectably. Just because not everyone agreed does not mean the posts were not polite and informative. You do not have to totally agree to be polite.
Personally, I feel that they do not need any sort of buffs at all although I do like the idea of the ability to trade out for free flamer weapons.

Irisado
12-03-2009, 17:25
Fleet doesn't really help with any of those situations anymore.

Could you please elaborate as to while you feel that this is the case? I can't see where you are coming from on this issue.


They are one of the more pricey 'one-shot' units in the game.

Fly up, hop out, shoot, hope it does well, then die.

I don't agree. As I've said many times in the Eldar Tactica thread, Fire Dragons can be kept alive for multiple turns, and I have managed to do so. It's not easy, but it can be done, providing you have coordinated the rest of your army correctly.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 17:26
The topic was indeed responded to politely and respectably. Just because not everyone agreed does not mean the posts were not polite and informative. You do not have to totally agree to be polite.
Personally, I feel that they do not need any sort of buffs at all although I do like the idea of the ability to trade out for free flamer weapons.

I heard that idea recently myself and I rather like it.

It gives the Eldar an answer to Orks which I feel they don't presently have.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 17:36
Eldar used to be the 3+ save army.

In the original WD craftworld list, Aspects were your main troops and 3/6 aspects had a 3+ armour save. Compare and contrast with 4+ save marines, who needed Terminator armour (2+/6++) for a better save (can't remember if Artificer armour was in the game then).

Also, I agree that Exarchs should be 2 wound models; actually, I think they should have 'premium' combat stats to reflect their fluff.

While Marines have uber characters and ok squadleaders, Eldar should be the other way around.

I propose the following:

Autarch: 5 5 3 3 3 6 3 10
Exarch: 6 6 3 3 2 7 3 9

Autarch gets a price drop and more of a support focus.

And the WD list was less powerful than the 2nd ed list, but I liked it more because it was more flavourful.

tuebor
12-03-2009, 17:48
Could you please elaborate as to while you feel that this is the case? I can't see where you are coming from on this issue.

All Fleet does is allow you to assault after Running, which everyone can do now. Since none of the situations you described involve assaulting enemy troops, having Fleet or not doesn't make any difference.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 17:51
They are squad sargents, so unless they feel like giving every armies equivalent of a sarge 2 wounds i say no.

They're more akin to an Ork nob rather than a Sergeant. In the background, they're actually beyond nobs and even SM Chaptermasters in experience and combat prowess.

Depulsor
12-03-2009, 17:56
Well... I agree that Exarchs should be 2 wound models... as I see them, they are more (tragic)heros than only some simple squadleaders.

But in an actual game it doesnt make much of a difference.

BrotherOfBrass
12-03-2009, 18:24
Firstly I don't think Fire Dragons need an in-game boost at all. In terms of fluff, I kinda like the fact that they are not as resilient as other Aspects. Fire Dragons are the embodiment of unbridled destruction, not preservation. The very nature of the Aspect implies, to me, that armour would take a backseat to firey death! On that note, I also would like to see some kind of low-power flamer replacement for fusion guns.

Oh, and for my money, no way should Exarchs have 2 wounds.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 19:44
Why not? they had 2 wounds before nobz ever did.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 19:53
Because Exarchs are good enough as it is.

If Terminators are 1 Wound (who are really the equivalent when you think about it) then Exarchs are 1 Wound.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 20:04
They really aren't the equivalent if you actually think about it. Exarchs on the whole would be far, far more experienced and better fighters than any Terminator; the only ones that should come close are the oldest of Chapter masters and Chaos champions.

Rick Blaine
12-03-2009, 20:05
3+ saves are ruining the game, except of course when Eldar have them.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 20:07
They really aren't the equivalent if you actually think about it. Exarchs on the whole would be far, far more experienced and better fighters than any Terminator; the only ones that should come close are the oldest of Chapter masters and Chaos champions.

Please if we go by Fluff Necron weapons should all be Ap1 with +d3 penetration.

The IG would have all 1s in their stat lines, and marines would have 3 3+ saves at all times.

Also fluff wise they aren't that different. Remember Veteran Marines are often hundreds of years old in of themselves which you only get to be a Termi if you are the best of the Vets.

Also there is the issue of you can only get so much better at combat, and there is a thing called game balance.

Sarevok
12-03-2009, 20:10
Exarchs used to be "hero" level characters, not squad leaders.

If they were made like they were in 2nd they would have to become an HQ choice instead.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 20:23
Please if we go by Fluff Necron weapons should all be Ap1 with +d3 penetration.

Nothing in the Necron book suggests this though. It suggests it's devastating to flesh... just like Bolters, Shuriken Catapults... even Lasguns have had that described. The extra thing Gauss weaponry gets is it's effective against vehicles too because of the way it works.


Also fluff wise they aren't that different. Remember Veteran Marines are often hundreds of years old in of themselves which you only get to be a Termi if you are the best of the Vets.
hundreds of years is 10 times smaller than thousands of years + another few thousands of years of the previous owner of the suit + etc.

There's no comparison.

As for game balance, that can be adjusted with points values and the fact that they only have a 3+ save and no invulnerable and are instakilled by S6 weaponry.


3+ saves are ruining the game, except of course when Eldar have them.
My solution is way more drastic (and won't come into fruition any time soon): Drop the AP system.

Exarchs used to be "hero" level characters, not squad leaders.

If they were made like they were in 2nd they would have to become an HQ choice instead.
In 2nd ed your only HQs were Avatar and Farseer; in 1st it was the Avatar. Exarchs had the 'hero' statline but were limited to one per aspect squad.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 20:27
Again see reference about not being able to get better after a certain point. Otherwise those 10k year old CSM Vets should be every bit as deadly if not more so than an Aspect Exarch who might not even be multi thousand years old.

It suggests that armor is of no use against Gauss in certain areas of the Necron Codex. hence Ap1.

"only a 3+ save" only? You do realize how good 3+ is right?

Aside from that Exarchs are about -helping the squad- more than helping themselves. That's the point of an Exarch, aside from that what good does giving him 2 wounds do other than jack his point costs. You have -ablative wounds- in a squad anyway. All it would do actually would -hurt- the Eldar it wouldn't help them. Because then the Exarch would have to cost even more than he does and they aren't cheap.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 20:49
Again see reference about not being able to get better after a certain point. Otherwise those 10k year old CSM Vets should be every bit as deadly if not more so than an Aspect Exarch who might not even be multi thousand years old.
While I do concede that there is a ceiling to it, do the CSM just fight or do they train specifically? Secondly, time is not necessarily linear in the eye (a cop out, I know =p); thirdly, some of the CSM are just as good; I actually would support more multi-wound Chaos Champions as well. Lastly, the Eldar skill / speed apex is higher than the human one if the original tables are anything to go by.


Aside from that Exarchs are about -helping the squad- more than helping themselves. That's the point of an Exarch,
Only ruleswise. Originally, their abilities just improved their combat prowess. Fluffwise, the 4th ed book is just copy-pasted from 2nd ed.

aside from that what good does giving him 2 wounds do other than jack his point costs.
(5th edition shooting/close combat allocation rules, especially as with the new squad based aspect powers around losing the Exarch to this completely devastates the squad)

"only a 3+ save" only? You do realize how good 3+ is right?
It's good 2/3 of the time, and not as good as a 2+ save which is good 5/6 of the time. Except against good AP weaponry and power weapons of course.

Though we've digressed from Fire Dragons here.

Karnstein
12-03-2009, 20:55
Again see reference about not being able to get better after a certain point. Otherwise those 10k year old CSM Vets should be every bit as deadly if not more so than an Aspect Exarch who might not even be multi thousand years old.

That's a mood comparison, cause GW fluff clearly says that time in the EoT runs different compared to the "outside" world. Also the exarch don't have to be thousands of years old, because his mind merges with those who beared the armour before him.

Also not every chosen is a veteran of the HH. GW turned away from the legion and put a spotlight on renegade chapters, like the red corsairs. And a chosen aka veteran of the red corsairs isn't 10k years old, period...

EDIT: And I think a 3+ save would fit the fluff. FD are specialists in the field of destroying tanks AND bunkers. You don't walk towards a pilebox full of enemy soldiers with a medium armour, if you're part of a dying race. Loosing fleet wouldn't be the problem, because you can't field footslogging FD and if you could charge a tank from a unmoved serpent, you could also fly towards it and kill it with some sweet melta shots. Esp. if the tank has moved in his last turn, which would render your m-bombs in something rather useless. (MB to me only sound like a last chance weapon, if you're charged by a dread you didn't kill).

kikkoman
12-03-2009, 20:55
Because Exarchs are good enough as it is.

If Terminators are 1 Wound (who are really the equivalent when you think about it) then Exarchs are 1 Wound.

40k's moving towards less models having multiple wounds. The new IG priests, commissars are down to 1 wound, when they had multiple before. So I don't really mind 1wound exarch's now, but still...


the space marine equivalent would probably be the company or chapter champion
chapter champion is ws5 bs4 s4 t4 w1 i4 a3 ld9-10
with nice rules for rerolling hits and wounds I believe.

Space marines though are tiered with scout->brother->vet->champion->commander
Eldar just jump from militia guardian-> aspect warrior-> centuries/millenia old composite soul armor warrior

except that centuries/millenia old composite soul armor warrior is only at "veteran" level equivalency to marines or guardsmen.

if I could make things up, it'd probably go aspect warrior->senior (veteran warriors)>weaponmaster (mastered 'exarch weapons', but not the head of the shrine)->Exarch (multiple wounds leve)



Aside from that Exarchs are about -helping the squad- more than helping themselves. That's the point of an Exarc
I don't like that change though, it doesn't make much sense. Does it really take the Exarch's magic soulstone composite warrior spirit to make the Exarch hold the scorpion squad's hands as they cross through the woods? Most of these powers are things that should be inherent in aspect warrior training anyways (withdraw for spears, infiltrate for scorpions, bladestorm for avengers, etc.)

The only ones that enhance their individual ability are the Reaper's Fast and Crack shots.

AtnaShadow
12-03-2009, 21:06
I really don't see why Exarch's need 2 wounds. Name another WS/BS 5 squad leader. yes they're generally expensive, but they tend to vastly improve their squads through various special abilities, and have access to some pretty fantastic weapons.

holmcross
12-03-2009, 22:29
Also, I agree that Exarchs should be 2 wound models; actually, I think they should have 'premium' combat stats to reflect their fluff.

You should know by now that fluff takes a backseat to game mechanics/balance. The fluff is there as a marketing tool, and to help players become more attached to thier armies (sometimes this works too ... *ahem* ... well).

To suggest that exarchs (or the Eldar army in general) need some kind of boost says to me, to put it kindly, that you are very out touch with the Eldar and thier gameplay potential.

I don't give a crap about RT, 2nd edition, or any other archaic system in which GW haden't yet learned how to write a proper set of rules.

holmcross
12-03-2009, 22:47
Nothing in the Necron book suggests this though. It suggests it's devastating to flesh... just like Bolters, Shuriken Catapults... even Lasguns have had that described. The extra thing Gauss weaponry gets is it's effective against vehicles too because of the way it works.

"Because of the way it works"

Which is rapidly stripping away matter at the atomic and sub-atomic level. What do you suggest?

Necron Warrior: My lord! Our Gauss weapons are ineffective against the hull of that human tank!
Necron Lord: How can this be? Our weaponery bypasses tertiary organizations and effects everything at the sub-atomic level, where the particles themselves exhibit no unique properties whatsoever! Its the way it works!
Necron Warrior: But thats only for flesh! A phospolipid bi-layer is no problem for a gauss flayer to disintegrate, but the presence of trace amounts of Cadmium in the hull composition lend it a slightly greater electronegativity which we have never before encoutered! All is lost!
Necron Lord: ...
Necron Lord: CURSE YOU CADMIUM!!!

reireyder
12-03-2009, 22:49
More common? I've never taken or seen an army without those melta nuts

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 23:00
I don't give a crap about RT, 2nd edition, or any other archaic system in which GW haden't yet learned how to write a proper set of rules.
Like 5th edition.

To suggest that exarchs (or the Eldar army in general) need some kind of boost says to me, to put it kindly, that you are very out touch with the Eldar and thier gameplay potential.
You are gravely mistaken. I never suggest things for the sake of petty things like 'buffing' and 'nerfing' unless there's a massive gameplay balance problem. This is not one of them, and I am approaching something entirely different.

I am only suggesting things that add to the flavour and enjoyment of the game, and for me the two are interwoven.

In fact, what I suggested is to make the army more interesting by having stronger squad leaders and weaker (or rather, more supportive) HQs. Exarchs go to the WS/BS 6 line; Autarchs go down to WS/BS 5 and I will go further to put Farseers down to WS/BS 4 or even 3. It makes a big change to have the flightiest individuals not as the HQs for once.

It's also perfectly reasonable to have a more balanced game that adheres to the mythos of the setting (which is a bigger selling point, or rather it makes customers more effectively than good rules).


You should know by now that fluff takes a backseat to game mechanics/balance. The fluff is there as a marketing tool, and to help players become more attached to thier armies (sometimes this works too ... *ahem* ... well).
You know that game mechanic/balance takes a back seat to selling the most models too?

kikkoman
12-03-2009, 23:22
Firstly I don't think Fire Dragons need an in-game boost at all. In terms of fluff, I kinda like the fact that they are not as resilient as other Aspects. Fire Dragons are the embodiment of unbridled destruction, not preservation. The very nature of the Aspect implies, to me, that armour would take a backseat to firey death!

Their Phoenix Lord has Feel No Pain, he can stride through a raging inferno unharmed. If anything that fluff backs up toughness as an aspect of the Dragon.

Then again the Reaper Phoenix Lord has a giant monster cleaving scythe...


You should know by now that fluff takes a backseat to game mechanics/balance. The fluff is there as a marketing tool, and to help players become more attached to thier armies (sometimes this works too ... *ahem* ... well).


It seems the other way around for me. 40k is a miniatures hobby game, gameplay has to match the story it's representing. There's still balance involved, but 40k is definitely more about the setting than merely a set of rules.

holmcross
12-03-2009, 23:36
I don't think 5th edition is too bad. There are some problems due to GW's laziness/poor playtesting (dual-lash lists). Most of the problems I have with 5th are a result of severely outdated codieces (Necrons are/were my primary army) and ones that are fairly outdated (Tyranids are/were my secondary army). Its been the least problematic edition for me, so far.

I didn't notice you suggested introducing drawbacks for the new advantages you posted. If your problem with the Eldar list isn't related to thier in-game potency but rather that they don't fit the fluff, I can't really argue that. Each player derives fun in a different way.


You know that game mechanic/balance takes a back seat to selling the most models too?

Haha, I can't argue with that. But creating a good set of rules that everyone is happy with is condusive to happy players, and increased players and revenue. I know plenty of people (myself included) who have stopped playing TT and CCGs over rules/edition gripes.


It seems the other way around for me. 40k is a miniatures hobby game, gameplay has to match the story it's representing. There's still balance involved, but 40k is definitely more about the setting than merely a set of rules.

I find the setting of 40k to be fantastic (basic details about the races and the galaxy), but the specific details read like they were written by a jr high school boy (Calgar using his UltraAnnihilationVolcano Scythe to destroy a galaxy). Most of the story I've read is laughably bad, and you couldn't get me to read a BL novel even if Scarlett Johanson promised to come sit on my face.

Poseidal
12-03-2009, 23:51
I don't think 5th edition is too bad. There are some problems due to GW's laziness/poor playtesting (dual-lash lists). Most of the problems I have with 5th are a result of severely outdated codieces (Necrons are/were my primary army) and ones that are fairly outdated (Tyranids are/were my secondary army). Its been the least problematic edition for me, so far.
I don't think the problem is with GW's core rules as such; I actually think 1st, 2nd (ignoring the black codex), 3.5, 4 and 5th are very well written in themselves. (though the 2nd ed CC rules were silly, 1st was almost the same to what we have now)

But the codices often end up with silly rules and oversights and we end up with Lash Princes in 4/5th or infinite Seer Councils in 3rd at the most extreme, for example.

The black codex (2nd edition quick-fix army lists) was quite silly to start, and once the power creep set in it went out of control.

They threw all the rules away for 3rd but I think a simplification of the core 2nd ed rules, with the 3-5ed style weapon profiles and vehicles and 5th style polish would be the best ruleset. One problem that the 3 onwards editions have is too many special rules because some details were missing in the game.

Unfortunately, players (naturally) react badly to codex resets so it's not something they will try again because it is bad if your army list has to wait a while before it exists in-between editions.

Nym
12-03-2009, 23:53
In 2nd ed your only HQs were Avatar and Farseer; in 1st it was the Avatar. Exarchs had the 'hero' statline but were limited to one per aspect squad.

The Harlequin Troup Master and the Phoenix Lords could also be Army commanders, it wasn't limited to the Avatar and Farseer. And even if Exarchs weren't "Army commanders", they were still part of the "Characters" section, which became the HQ slot in 3rd edition. If 2 wounds Exarchs were reintroduced into the game, they would have to be HQ choices, being the Eldar equivalent of Senior Officers.

Concerning Fire Dragons, they're already in 99% of Eldar army lists, which is an obvious proof that they're good enough as is. Giving them a 3+ save would only be detrimental to other Elite choices.

AtnaShadow
12-03-2009, 23:55
Also just related to the Autarch/Exarch skill differences, I think it makes more sense for an Autarch to have higher WS/BS than an Exarch. Exarchs are absolutely incredible at one aspect by definition, as they are unable to leave that path. However, Autarchs are exceptional aspect warriors who have managed to master many paths without becoming trapped. I'd say their higher WS and BS (and also LD, though that's overall less important in this case) is reflective of a mix of their greater level of discipline (able to travel and more or less master many aspects without becoming trapped, plus the path of command), coupled with the fact that unlike Exarchs, they are highly adaptable. A striking scorpion exarch is great at fighting in heavy armour with a mix of sword, pistols, and mandiblasters. An Autarch's not actually as good at this, but he can do it incredibly well still, all while teleporting around with a warp pack, and taking potshots with a fusion rifle. Fluff wise I'd say this factors in to their WS/BS of 6 pretty nicely.

dal9ll
13-03-2009, 00:16
I just cant believe that players from the strongest, most versitile army in the game are complaining that their unit isnt powerful enough, or doesnt fit the fluff. As an army, theyre obviously above the power curve so why why why why why in hell do they need more buffs?

I guess it just goes to show that no one is ever satisfied.

Rick Blaine
13-03-2009, 00:39
I guess it just goes to show that no one is ever satisfied.

I think the Ork players are pretty happy with their lot. You certainly don't see them going "Flash Gitz need a 3+ save or they're useless! It's fluffy!"

Sarevok
13-03-2009, 01:03
I just cant believe that players from the strongest, most versitile army in the game are complaining that their unit isnt powerful enough, or doesnt fit the fluff. As an army, theyre obviously above the power curve so why why why why why in hell do they need more buffs?

I guess it just goes to show that no one is ever satisfied.

Eldar players are always moaning about how everything in their army should be more powerful because of the fluff.

What is it about Eldar that their players act this way? The 40K equivalent of Elphofiles?

Orkeosaurus
13-03-2009, 01:28
I think the Ork players are pretty happy with their lot. You certainly don't see them going "Flash Gitz need a 3+ save or they're useless! It's fluffy!"To be fair, flash gitz do sort of suck.

I'd go so far as to say they're the only thing in the ork codex that would need fixing.


On a side note, if space marine players started complaining that space marines need to be more powerful they'd probably get laughed out of the room.

kikkoman
13-03-2009, 02:26
I think the Ork players are pretty happy with their lot. You certainly don't see them going "Flash Gitz need a 3+ save or they're useless! It's fluffy!"

You know, if any orks would be in 3+ power armor, it'd be Flash Gits

Badrukk already wears 3+sv armor


...and they're legitimately the weakest choice in the ork armylist. 25pts for a 1 shot gun on bs2... and odds are it won't be penetrating any power armor on its d6 AP.

Hicks
13-03-2009, 02:49
I think trying to have the game match the fluff is a bad idea. The game isn't balanced as it is and it would only get worse if every army was just made of godly units like they are presented in the codex.

Plus Fire Dragons are already very very good, they really don't need to be tougher, or I want a +2 invulnerable save for my genestealers, because of their reflexes and all. :angel:

Warforger
13-03-2009, 03:55
Well I must be missing a point here, why would an increase in armour make them loose Fleet? Because it's not in the original list, or am i missing some subtelty.


Aspect Warriors that have a 3+ save don't have fleet, as fluff wise there armor is too heavy, aspect warriors who have a 4+ save have fleet. Autarchs and Exarchs are the only ones with 3+ save and fleet (and I guess PL's too)

Poseidal
13-03-2009, 09:38
The Harlequin Troup Master and the Phoenix Lords could also be Army commanders, it wasn't limited to the Avatar and Farseer. And even if Exarchs weren't "Army commanders", they were still part of the "Characters" section, which became the HQ slot in 3rd edition. If 2 wounds Exarchs were reintroduced into the game, they would have to be HQ choices, being the Eldar equivalent of Senior Officers.
Troupe Master could only be commander if you're running an all-harlequin force. Phoenix Lords were special characters, and even then I'm not sure if they could be made your general; they didn't have a strategy rating.

Exarchs came from your character allowance, yes. But so did your Warlocks, pirate sergeants, Marine veteran sergeants, exodite heroes etc. Basically, anything that wasn't a basic foot soldier came out of that part, the exception being normal marine and possibly guard sergeants.


Aspect Warriors that have a 3+ save don't have fleet, as fluff wise there armor is too heavy, aspect warriors who have a 4+ save have fleet. Autarchs and Exarchs are the only ones with 3+ save and fleet (and I guess PL's too)
That was only in the Dark Eldar codex, nothing says that in the Eldar one though it follows the correlation (apart from Exarchs, Autarchs and Phoenix lords having 3+/2+ saves and can still fleet).

But ever since Shrike and his fleeting terminators came about, I don't really think that objection is really valid any more.

I just cant believe that players from the strongest, most versitile army in the game are complaining that their unit isnt powerful enough, or doesnt fit the fluff. As an army, theyre obviously above the power curve so why why why why why in hell do they need more buffs?

I guess it just goes to show that no one is ever satisfied.
o_O

No Ork players have commented on this thread at all yet.

Karnstein
13-03-2009, 10:35
Concerning Fire Dragons, they're already in 99% of Eldar army lists, which is an obvious proof that they're good enough as is. Giving them a 3+ save would only be detrimental to other Elite choices.

They are good no doubt about that. And I don't think the "give them 3+" faction wants them to be a 3+ workhorse for the same price. Point is that a 3+ save would be fitting, giving them the chance no to be played as suicide units (suicide units don't get exarchs, cause nobody survives long enough...^^). They are cheap and they die fast, so people only use them in tanks (because the will get slaughtered on foot) and most times as a fire&forget weapon. Which don't fit the role, GW want them to play... short range tank killer isn't the same as short range martyr space elves. They don't wear suicide belts, do they?

And I disagree with the assumption, that a 3+ save FD would be detrimental to other elite choices. People take them, because you need them against tanks that much. 3+ FD still can't do the job scorps&shees do, unless you make the melta a dual-use weapon (which would be rather silly).

Filthy O'Bedlam
13-03-2009, 11:25
CURSE YOU CADMIUM!!!

Seriously, That is my new Favourite Line. I'm gonna be shouting this from the Rooftops.

Exarchs absolutely do not need 2 wounds. Assault aspects like Scorpions and Banshees would just become absolute Monsters in combat. Well, More than they already are.

Cheers, Filthy

borithan
13-03-2009, 12:31
In 2nd ed your only HQs were Avatar and Farseer; in 1st it was the Avatar. Exarchs had the 'hero' statline but were limited to one per aspect squad.Well, yes, but regardless of being limited they were still the combat characters of the Eldar (The avatar really being a monster/leader thing, the Farseers being the wizards, and the autarchs only being a recent addition to the 40k eldar army). Since 3rd edition they became squad leaders, though with special abilities that applied to themselves (and themselves only). Now, of course, they are squad leaders who provide bonuses to their squads (actually the way I think most squad leaders should work... not necessarily the same way as exarchs, but I do find it a bit crap that all squad leaders do is have different weapons, and, if they are lucky, can hit things better). I like the current incarnation, but yes, as far as the background would suggest they would be character level figures.

Nym
13-03-2009, 13:05
And I disagree with the assumption, that a 3+ save FD would be detrimental to other elite choices. People take them, because you need them against tanks that much. 3+ FD still can't do the job scorps&shees do, unless you make the melta a dual-use weapon (which would be rather silly).

3+ FD won't take the job of Banshees / Scorpions, just their FOC slots. Today people rarely bring more than one squad of Fire Dragons because they're just a suicide tank hunting unit. But with a 3+ save, they would become survivable enough to justify taking more than one squad and use it as objective cleaners (Dragon's Breath Flamer + Crack shot = world of hurt) or anti-MEQ/TEQ. That would leave very few room for Banshees, Scorpions or Harlequins.

Karnstein
13-03-2009, 13:22
Hm, I don't think you can say "most people use one squad of FD" because it depends on the enviroment they are playing at. If your a casual gamer and all your mates stick away from tooled out nob bikers, dual Raider armies or going full-mechanised, you surely don't need more than one squad of FD.

If your enviroment is going tank heavy, you really need those 2+ squads FD as mech-eldar, unless you field a lot of witchblade/spear wielding jetlocks. So there is only one slot left for shees/quins anway, regardless of the FDs armour save.

Captain Micha
13-03-2009, 13:58
Ever see an Eldar Player with two squads of FDs against Deathwing?


I never thought I'd see a Dark Angel player cry..... and I almost did.

boogaloo
13-03-2009, 17:42
I don't really think that FD NEED 3+ armour or really even deserve it for that matter, to me they fit in perfecctly with the glass hammer motif.

I did read a celtic myth once about a guy who bathed in dragons blood and his skin became inmpenetrable. So what if we gave them a squad upgrade "Bathed in Blood" that gives them a 3+ save at +15 pts. this almost doubles their cost. The reason that i selected 15 pts is that the cost of the armour on an 8 man squad is equal to a serpent with 2 shuricannons. so while a footsloggin dragon squads becomes fairly viable, the means of getting them across the board costs the same amount of points.

I'm not saying that this SHOULD happen, but it's a ballanced way of going about it.

Starchild
13-03-2009, 18:29
Recently I have been reading old issues of White Dwarf and came across the first codex for Eldar that involved Aspects, Exarchs and whatnot. Now, the interesting thing that I noticed was that Fire Dragons had a 3+ save. Is it just me or does this really make sense?
Dragons are expensive and have a very short life expectancy. Does anybody else agree that increasing the save would make them fit their fluff better?

Sorry if this was already mentioned... the 2nd edition Eldar Codex explains that Fire Dragons wear heavier armour due to the short range of their weapons. It also makes sense because they specialize in eliminating strongpoints and vehicles, so they have to deal with heavy weapons pointed their way. So I do agree that they need to get the 3+ save back.

On the other hand, Swooping Hawks used to have a 5+ save. The explanation here was that they needed lighter armour to enable flight. I'd gladly accept a 5+ save on Hawks if I could have a 3+ save on Dragons! :evilgrin:

Captain Micha
13-03-2009, 18:34
Sorry if this was already mentioned... the 2nd edition Eldar Codex explains that Fire Dragons wear heavier armour due to the short range of their weapons. It also makes sense because they specialize in eliminating strongpoints and vehicles, so they have to deal with heavy weapons pointed their way. So I do agree that they need to get the 3+ save back.

On the other hand, Swooping Hawks used to have a 5+ save. The explanation here was that they needed lighter armour to enable flight. I'd gladly accept a 5+ save on Hawks if I could have a 3+ save on Dragons! :evilgrin:

And I would flog you in a heartbeat if Hawks got their save taken away. :evilgrin: (5+ = 0 + ). I like Swooping Hawks. And again, there's this thing it's called Balance. If everything followed fluff the game would be an all over the place mess that would be unplayable.

Poseidal
13-03-2009, 19:46
Exarchs are absolutely incredible at one aspect by definition, as they are unable to leave that path. However, Autarchs are exceptional aspect warriors who have managed to master many paths without becoming trapped. I'd say their higher WS and BS (and also LD, though that's overall less important in this case) is reflective of a mix of their greater level of discipline (able to travel and more or less master many aspects without becoming trapped, plus the path of command), coupled with the fact that unlike Exarchs, they are highly adaptable. A striking scorpion exarch is great at fighting in heavy armour with a mix of sword, pistols, and mandiblasters.

Actually, most if not all Exarchs have trodden many warrior paths.

From WD127:

In most cases however, Exarchs cease to change their Warrior Aspect once they become Exarchs, although they may pass through several cycles as different Aspect Warriors before they are finally trapped by the Warrior Path. The Eldar then becomes an Exarch of his final Warrior Aspect, a Fire Dragon Warrior can thus become a Fire Dragon Exarch, or a Dire Avenger Warrior a Dire Avenger Exarch. He still retains all the battle-skills he has learned in any previous Warrior Aspects, so Exarchs tend to have a broader understanding of the Path of the Warrior than ordinary Aspect Warriors.

Bolded for emphasis.

kikkoman
13-03-2009, 20:30
I thought what made an Exarch especially fearsome was their mastery of many paths of battle

Maugan Ra is both shooty and choppy, Baharoth can shoot you with a hail of lasers or chop you with a hail of sword blows.
Fuegan has a big smashy axe, in addition to his fire pike

Dire Avenger Exarch's often become swordmasters despite the regular warriors not carrying any swords.
heck, Asurmen doesn't even have a shuriken catapult, but pistols are on vambraces so he swings his sword better.

Scorpion Exarch's get a big klaw with a nice and shooty shuriken catapult stuck on too. He shoots at bs5, better than any regular Avenger warrior.


Thats something curious that I don't really think about often, usually the Exarch uses a weapon entirely different from what he learns. Even if they only trod one path, Exarch's often use weapons entirely different in philosophy to their students.
"ok mr Scorpion, you're an exarch now, trade in that chainsword and pistol you've been using for centuries, here's a new power klaw, oh wow you're already ws5 with it!"

or when Maugan Ra visits
reaper:"Hey Mr Phoenix Lord, how come you're our boss, but none of us use shurikcannons with giant scythes on them? They say you invented our reaper launchers, but... you don't even use missiles!"
Maugan Ra: "... don't contradict da boss"

Leo
13-03-2009, 20:30
I'm not actually sure that the 3+ safe would kill the game balance. Of course Fire Dragons would neccessarily become more expensive (like three to four points if not more).
This could result in them being more usable on foot because of their greater durability and put less in vehicles because their greater cost would add up with the Falcon/Serpent quickly.

On the other hand I think Fire Dragons are already totally ace the way they are, they're easily the most useful Aspect of the lot and I don't leave home without at least one small squad and usually I have two.

brightblade
13-03-2009, 21:11
Coolio. Good debate. Liked it.

Kinda the response I expected really. I like the idea of a better save but clearly most don't. Mainly because I do see dragons but usually for one turn. Out of serpent, kill tank, get shot to pieces by ap4 weapons. Just though it was a shame.

As for exarchs, I agree with the 'tragic heroes' argument. Eldar have either total hard knocks or one wound wonders (not including Wraiths which are very different). I was again curious what people thought of a midlevel hero, much like the orks have zagstruk or snikrot. Exarchs are way more than sergeants in everything but game terms.

Thanks for the debate. Good stuff all round.:D

Irisado
13-03-2009, 22:16
Kinda the response I expected really. I like the idea of a better save but clearly most don't. Mainly because I do see dragons but usually for one turn. Out of serpent, kill tank, get shot to pieces by ap4 weapons. Just though it was a shame.

As I said earlier on, Fire Dragons don't have to be one hit wonders. There are ways to help them last for longer, so that they end up surviving and destroying multiple targets before the end of the game.

Regarding some of the other points which have been made:

In an ideal world, it would be better if Fire Dragons were to have a 3+ save and Swooping Hawks were to have a 5+ save in my opinion, and it would certainly fit their background much better.

The problem with this though is that it wouldn't really do either of them any favours in fifth edition, as these saving throws come from a different era of rules mechanics, so you can't really make a direct comparison, and making the changes without factoring in the current game dynamic could lead to balance issues as others have already pointed out.

As for Exarchs. This is an area where GW has never really been able to make up its mind. In Rogue Trader they were basically squad leaders or minor characters who had access to an array of powerful weapons. In Second Edition they were made more powerful, more like characters, and still had access to an array of powerful weapons. Since then, they have become more like sergeants.

I see pros and cons to both, but again the more 'character' style Exarch was designed for a set of rules which now doesn't exist, so it's hard to compare.

Another important factor to consider is that I think that Exarch's are fairly cheap for that which they can do, and if they were to be made into more of a secondary level character they would have to have a points increase to compensate.

Also, if Exarchs were to get two wounds, for example, surely Warlocks would have to have two wounds as well? The matter then starts getting very complicated, so I don't think that there are any easy answers to this debate.

holmcross
13-03-2009, 23:16
Eldar players are always moaning about how everything in their army should be more powerful because of the fluff

Its not just Eldar players. Virtually every player, regardless of the army they play, can complain that their army isn't as powerful "as the fluff would suggest"

I blame GW's ridiculous over-the-top fanboy writing. Each codex tells the player that the respective army they're playing is the most bad ass in the galaxy.

Therefore, buy more of them!

volair
13-03-2009, 23:23
I'm not actually sure that the 3+ safe would kill the game balance. Of course Fire Dragons would neccessarily become more expensive (like three to four points if not more).
This could result in them being more usable on foot because of their greater durability and put less in vehicles because their greater cost would add up with the Falcon/Serpent quickly.

On the other hand I think Fire Dragons are already totally ace the way they are, they're easily the most useful Aspect of the lot and I don't leave home without at least one small squad and usually I have two.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Such a drastic point increase would result in a negligible increase in resilience and a drastic reduction in firepower. Do you realise what it means to raise the point cost of a unit? It means that for the same amount of points you get less of them, which means they have less firepower and are easier to kill.

kikkoman
14-03-2009, 02:07
In Rogue Trader they were basically squad leaders or minor characters who had access to an array of powerful weapons. In Second Edition they were made more powerful, more like characters, and still had access to an array of powerful weapons. Since then, they have become more like sergeants.


Rogue Trader had some crazy strong warrior powers for them to pick though, an Exarch could potentially reach s10 and t10

There's even one power where the Exarch charges up his power for a few turns, then unleashes it to act twice as fast for that many turns.

Poseidal
14-03-2009, 10:20
As for Exarchs. This is an area where GW has never really been able to make up its mind. In Rogue Trader they were basically squad leaders or minor characters who had access to an array of powerful weapons. In Second Edition they were made more powerful, more like characters, and still had access to an array of powerful weapons. Since then, they have become more like sergeants.
The Rogue Trader and 2nd edition rules were almost identical, but 2nd edition gave them access to wargear cards (any) rather than have them take from the Aspect/Ancestral Eldar wargear lists which combined with the new Warp Spider jump pack is what gave them the silly combinations.

Leo
14-03-2009, 10:49
You have no clue what you're talking about. Such a drastic point increase would result in a negligible increase in resilience and a drastic reduction in firepower. Do you realise what it means to raise the point cost of a unit? It means that for the same amount of points you get less of them, which means they have less firepower and are easier to kill.



really?

raise the cost by four and it means that for the points they afforded you ten Fire Dragons before you'd now get eight.

Now after receiving six wounds from something that allows both saves (like Shootas and Bolters) you would lose 3 models with a 4+ save and 2 models with a 3+ save. So even after a few successful wounds the numbers of both squads would start to look alike soon.
Meaning that all you really lose is 2 Meltaguns when the squads is still fresh.

It would also need 20 wounds to put down the 10 4+ save Fire Dragons but actually 24 to kill those 8 Dragons with a 3+ save.

And all this is assuming that weapons with AP5 or worse are used. AP4 weapons (like Heay Bolters, Autocannons, Gauss Flayers, Plasma Rockets, Missile Pods, Grenade Launchers, Venom Cannons etc) would totally blow the 4+ Dragons off the board.
AP3 or weapons would of course kill both squads easily but there isnīt really that much difference between squads with eight and ten guys, is there?

Cover would help 4+ Dragons more than it would 3+ Dragons, but with their limited range thay cannot often afford to stay in cover if they want to use their weapons.

So yeah, I'd say that a raise of four points isn't far fetched at all.

Irisado
14-03-2009, 16:45
Rogue Trader had some crazy strong warrior powers for them to pick though, an Exarch could potentially reach s10 and t10

There's even one power where the Exarch charges up his power for a few turns, then unleashes it to act twice as fast for that many turns.

Yes, there were some very strong powers, I agree, I was speaking purely in terms of their statistics and weaponry rather than their powers.

I would have to go back through WD127 to read about that specific power you have mentioned, but I can't do that until I go home for Easter.


The Rogue Trader and 2nd edition rules were almost identical, but 2nd edition gave them access to wargear cards (any) rather than have them take from the Aspect/Ancestral Eldar wargear lists which combined with the new Warp Spider jump pack is what gave them the silly combinations.

The Ancient Weapons were wargear cards in their own right, and tended to be the weapon of choice for Eldar Exarchs, since they were very powerful, but I agree that some other 'odd' options were taken as well, and some of these choices really didn't reflect the background of an Eldar Exarch at all in my view.

Poseidal
14-03-2009, 19:31
Yes, there were some very strong powers, I agree, I was speaking purely in terms of their statistics and weaponry rather than their powers.

I would have to go back through WD127 to read about that specific power you have mentioned, but I can't do that until I go home for Easter.

The Ancient Weapons were wargear cards in their own right, and tended to be the weapon of choice for Eldar Exarchs, since they were very powerful, but I agree that some other 'odd' options were taken as well, and some of these choices really didn't reflect the background of an Eldar Exarch at all in my view.
I think Exarchs could only get to S5 OR T8; Avatar (who could take Exarch powers) could be S10 T10 if you rolled right (T12 if the system didn't limit it actually).

One Exarch combo was Vortex Grenade + (spider) Jump Pack, where he 'goes solo' to deliver the payload.

Karnstein
14-03-2009, 23:16
rAnd all this is assuming that weapons with AP5 or worse are used. AP4 weapons (like Heay Bolters, Autocannons, Gauss Flayers, Plasma Rockets, Missile Pods, Grenade Launchers, Venom Cannons etc) would totally blow the 4+ Dragons off the board.
AP3 or weapons would of course kill both squads easily but there isnīt really that much difference between squads with eight and ten guys, is there?

Cover would help 4+ Dragons more than it would 3+ Dragons, but with their limited range thay cannot often afford to stay in cover if they want to use their weapons.

So yeah, I'd say that a raise of four points isn't far fetched at all.

Unless their cover is called serpent. -2 members also means that you need only 8 wounds to force a save on his exarch (if he fields one) and you also loose to melta shots. Those are the primary argument for taking FD after all, which you can't just say that 20pt dragons are balanced in comparison to the old ones, because they got slightly better against most anti-infantery weapons.

Leo
15-03-2009, 00:28
Unless their cover is called serpent. -2 members also means that you need only 8 wounds to force a save on his exarch (if he fields one) and you also loose to melta shots. Those are the primary argument for taking FD after all, which you can't just say that 20pt dragons are balanced in comparison to the old ones, because they got slightly better against most anti-infantery weapons.

sure, if put in a transport, the increased point cost could become a hindrance which I already said myself.
Then again, Fire Dragons in a transport are already extremely awesome, so a little reduction in effectiveness would not hurt that much and they'd still be more survivable after leaving the transport.

My whole point was, that 3+ save would make Fire Dragons on foot a more viable alternative and this obvious increase in survivability would probably mean an increase in points cost as well.
Wether this would neccessarily be four points or two or six I'm not sure, who could say without playtesting?

Oh, and increasing the save of a model from 4+ to 3+ isnīt a slight increase insurvivability but rather a pretty solid one.

Dr.Clock
15-03-2009, 00:45
Fair enough... but I routinely run only six dragons in a serpent. 24 points may not seem like alot, but it is considerable when you are trying to squeeze points out of a list notorious for high-point, low T units.

One of the things I like most about the elite aspect selections in particular is that they are all identically costed. You can get a ridiculously effective unit for a small cost for the simple fact that they are relatively fragile. We already HAVE tough, short-ranged AT - they're called wraithguard. If you want to spend the points, they'll certainly stick around longer than dragons.

I LIKE my dragon unit to cost 96 points. It fits a very specific place in my list. If you really want to run dragons as infantry, you are likely going to be investing heavily in other infantry selections. Ten of each elite aspect backing up a guardian horde with some pathfinders and reapers is an interesting change of pace from mech-dar. Be that as it may: I would not like to see people trying to use dragons to turn eldar into an MEQ close-range list. They aren't supposed to be used as screening troops: that's why we have guardians.

Dragons have a place. That place is limited. Currently, I think they fit their place perfectly.

As many posts have already pointed out: fire dragons don't need saving. If you are having a hard time keeping your models alive, change your tactics. Sometimes it is better to bait the enemy and line up your attack so that you render the enemy incapable of mounting significant resistance. Needing to use your units in concert is how Eldar are designed.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

noobzor
15-03-2009, 01:46
The bolded part is why an Eldar player I know never takes Fire Dragons. They are one of the more pricey 'one-shot' units in the game.

Fly up, hop out, shoot, hope it does well, then die.

3+ or 4+ would make little difference to the outcome.

Obviously you have never played against guard tanks :p

Against russes (AP3), if part of the squad is behind cover, they will all get cover.

Against hellhounds (AP4) there is no cover.

Need I say more?

however, I think changing it would be a bit silly. They are somewhat effective as-is.

brightblade
26-03-2009, 00:10
Strangely, I noticed that guard will be buying three tanks in squadrons as one heavy choice.
Does this mean that they get targetted as a squadron? Fire Dragons will just slaughter them if that is the case.
My 'three squads of Dragons' army list comes out of the dust covers again.:D

Bunnahabhain
26-03-2009, 01:38
Strangely, I noticed that guard will be buying three tanks in squadrons as one heavy choice.
Does this mean that they get targetted as a squadron? Fire Dragons will just slaughter them if that is the case.
My 'three squads of Dragons' army list comes out of the dust covers again.:D

It does indeed.

Lots of Guard players are looking at this one, and thinking the following:


1) 9 Russes in a standard army! Time to vaporise some half painted smurfs!

2) They've gone up HOW much! A few less Russes then....

3a) Standard squadron rules. WTF? They're even worse for heavy vehicles than light ones...

3b) How many targets actually need 3 battle cannons to deal with....

3c) What if a flyrant/ winged DP/ Squad of fire dragons gets in effective range, I don't want to lose 3 tanks at once.

4: Looks like solo Russes, or maybe squadrons of 2, possibly.
( all of 3 happens at the same time, as you see the problems)

The problems with the squadrons are unavoidable, so they simply won't be used for the heavy tanks. The biggest is points, as 3 x3 russ squadrons can easly be 2000pts. Add in the rest of the army, and you're playing apocalypse.

For the light tanks, squadrons look very viable. In particular, for 75pts each:

Griffons. S6AP4 ordnance barrage, with special rule to improve accuracy. will be popular due to Orks. Will not do eldar any good at all..
Hydras. Heavy 4 , TL autocannons, that ignore SMF. I don't think wave serpents will like those much.

As far as I can see, both of these could be popular, have useful places in all comers lists,a nd really cause problems for eldar foot and mech lists.

brightblade
26-03-2009, 16:16
What is nice is that with the changes to guard rules, some eldar units that were previously not on my scope (as I like things to get their points back) become more attractive again. Theme armies being viable is much more interesting. :D