PDA

View Full Version : Shuriken catapults at 18"



Smokedog
04-09-2009, 00:31
What do people think about shuriken catapults getting an 18" range?

Would that be too powerful?

Just thinking about what GW could do in the future for guardians.

Vedar
04-09-2009, 00:34
They should all be 18". 12 is just silly.

Gimp
04-09-2009, 00:36
Yeah man 18 all the way.

hawo0313
04-09-2009, 01:57
probably 18 would be better espeacialy for balance then people will be more likely to take the expensive guardsmen I mean guardians.

Nym
04-09-2009, 02:21
Assault 1 and 18" would be good. Assault 2 and 18" would be *too* good.

Giving Guardians the same weapons as Dire avengers would be a bad move as far as internal balance is concerned.

Kelderaith
04-09-2009, 02:22
Either that or rapid fire, both option would render guardians into something viable again. To be honest I prefer the rapid fire 24" myself as it gives the impression that they usually stay a bit farther from immediate danger and use medium range weaponry to engage their foe. Giving them 18" assaut 2 would be, imho, a bit too similar to Dire Avenger. As to the "reason" behind the change, just call it either a long barrelled shuriken catapult or just call it as it is now, the avenger one is already called Avenger catapult to make the distinction anyways. Another thing I would like to see is 1 platform per 10 guardians. Not only would it be a viable option, it would particularly efficient with the current box set that is being selled at the moment.

Leftenant Gashrog
04-09-2009, 03:19
I'm all for 24" as well - thats how it was before 3.x, and I'm pretty certain WD included a design commentary at the time which stated the range reduction was to counterbalance the Eldars increased mobility (fleet of foot) - which of course everyone has now.

Gimp
04-09-2009, 03:33
Either that or rapid fire, both option would render guardians into something viable again. To be honest I prefer the rapid fire 24" myself as it gives the impression that they usually stay a bit farther from immediate danger and use medium range weaponry to engage their foe. .

I have always believed that Shuriken Catapults should be Rapid Fire Range 24 and that Splinter Rifles should be Assualt 2 Range 18.

MadHatter
04-09-2009, 03:43
I think 18" 2 assualt is fine. The Guardians are not all that scary in an assualt. And since they used to be 24" in second edition I do not see this as a bad thing. It does not seem intellegent to give your baisc troops a gun that when the are in range to shoot they are dead in the next phase/turn.

they move so they are in range, they fire. then they get ready for being charged. not smart at all. Not to mention they are rifes, not pistols.

Just make the Avenger rifles AP 3 or 4.

Silentexile
04-09-2009, 04:39
Just make all Shuriken Catapults assault 2 18" like the Avenger Shuriken Catapults are right now, the difference in armor and BS will make them different enough to still justify taking Dire Avengers, as will the Bladestorm Exarch power.

shabbadoo
04-09-2009, 04:52
Guardians would be well costed with R 18", Assault 2 shuriken catapults. Besides, they really need some range to go with their (horribly) mandatory platform weapons. I'd make the platform an option anyways so that you can run Guardian Squads so that they can be something other than weapon platform meat shields.

"Okay new citizen recruit! You will now be trained in how to perform a Guardian's primary battlefield function- "weapon platform meat-shield." Any questions?"

"No, not really, but I think I now know why we are a dieing race."

:p

Dexter099
04-09-2009, 05:00
Make Catapults range 18 assualt 1 S4.

Aethernaut
04-09-2009, 05:10
I think the basic shuriken catapult should have an 18" range. It wouldn't be overpowered in my opinion. Guardians would still be different from Dire Avengers, and a more viable troops choice. It would also make a nice defensive weapon on so many Eldar vehicles. :)

Corpse
04-09-2009, 05:16
They were made 12" range when the fish/serpent of fury was still in great use.

Paying 4 points more for a superior save, leadership, ballistic skill and +6" range is just plain better then taking +3 point guardsmen with bigger shotguns and really expensive heavy weapons teams that move+fire can be done elsewhere more efficiently.

Though I can't disagree that they do well as they are.

Radium
04-09-2009, 07:38
They should be given lasblasters. That would make the humble guardian defender unit a bit more useful again.

MadHatter
04-09-2009, 09:28
They should be given lasblasters. That would make the humble guardian defender unit a bit more useful again.


I am willing to work with this one alot better then some of the other suggestions. (if it was up to me) However the only problem I have is I do not wish to tear the 80 guardians that I have painted appart to change thier weapons. So just change the stats of the Shuriken Catapults so many people and myself included do not have to do that. :)

Arkondak
04-09-2009, 09:32
assault 2 18" Shuriken catapults sounds fair to me. Lasblasters as an upgrade option would be cool too.

Filthy O'Bedlam
04-09-2009, 10:49
Wow, guess I'm gonna be the first one to say no here. If you want 18", take Dire Avengers, Simple as that IMO. The eldar army needs absolutely no help in the shooting department. Also, they're guardians; A citizen Levy. They should be armed with weapons that they could effectively use.

Cheers, Filthy

ashc
04-09-2009, 11:03
You could up Guardians to 18" and Avengers to 24".

I don't think it would actually make too much difference, considering everything can run or uses mechanised at the moment.

It is the equivalent of giving them *almost* an extra round of shooting if they are lucky, and they *may* do a bit more damage thanks to it. Overall though, not gamebreaking.

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 11:46
I don't think it would actually make too much difference, considering everything can run or uses mechanised at the moment.

It would. The ability to stay out of charge range and still shoot twice is a huge advantage over rapid-fire weapons.



It is the equivalent of giving them *almost* an extra round of shooting
Well, considering such an unit could keep firing while moving back, it's a far more significant advantage than you think. Actually, if it wasn't, people wouldn't field Dire Avengers in the first place.

A free weapon swap for a Lasblaster is still the best way to go IMHO.

Radium
04-09-2009, 11:56
Also, they're guardians; A citizen Levy. They should be armed with weapons that they could effectively use. y

True, but considering their cost and the battlefield roles, they can really use a bit of boost.

Smokedog
04-09-2009, 13:12
You could up Guardians to 18" and Avengers to 24".


That is what I was thinking too, and as you suggested it I can't be the only one. This is all hypothetical of course!!

Colonial Rifle
04-09-2009, 13:21
-You could up Guardians to 18" and Avengers to 24"

This would be fine and actually make a more infantry based list interesting again (I can hear the howls of protest from the ork players already though....). Shuriken catapults *should* be scary, not nearly the worst small arm in the game. Might need to tweak DA points cost a bit.

I don't know why we are still using the 3rd edition list as any kind of "base" document. It was a complete disaster from start to finish.

ashc
04-09-2009, 13:27
It seriously wouldn't be overpowered.

Considering the Eldar now face the likes of the 5pt. Green Tide, being able to get the odd extra round of shooting and being able to manouvre out of target charge range (and lets be honest, if Eldar are meant to be a fluid mobile force then shouldn't they be, well, mobile? :confused: ) doesn't seem out of line.

It's not like shuricats are the most powerful gun in the game.

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 13:27
Shuriken catapults *should* be scary, not nearly the worst small arm in the game.
Yeah, I forgot how awful S4 AP5 weapons are. God, I feel so bad with my overpowered S3 Lasguns. And what about Bolters? I'm almost sure most SM players would happily trade them for Shuriken Catapults, because, let's face the truth, a single S4 shot at 24'' while standing still is hardly an improvement over a 12'' Assault weapon.


being able to get the odd extra round of shooting and being able to manouvre out of target charge range (and lets be honest, if Eldar are meant to be a fluid mobile force then shouldn't they be, well, mobile? ) doesn't seem out of line.
Well, that's why Eldar players have Dire Avengers.



I don't know why we are still using the 3rd edition list as any kind of "base" document. It was a complete disaster from start to finish.
Well, the 2nd Edition Codex was probably even worse, considering how unbalanced and game-breaking most Eldar units were.

Zaonite
04-09-2009, 13:59
I quite like the idea of increasing the range from 12" to 18" for guardians and from 18" to 24" for Dire Avengers. The problem with that is it makes them a bit too powerful IMO.

The other suggestion of changing the normal Shuricat to R; 18" assault 1 sounds more balanced.

I am though totally against the Rapid Fire suggestion. Eldar are a mobile force, rapid fire would limit mobility.

Either way I would appreciate any change made to guardians.
(I'd like to see all plastic storm guardians but that's a slightly off this topic)

Poseidal
04-09-2009, 14:53
My preference would be 18" Catapults all round, Dire Avengers get AP4 (the longer barrel means better muzzle velocity so the AP is better! They have more recoil, which is where Dire Avenger training is needed so you can't just give it to any common or garden Guardian).

This means we don't go to 24" Catapults (which is what they would be if they had a direct tranlation from 2nd ed -> 3rd ed, since it was better than a Storm Bolter then) but Guardians and Dire Avengers both get use and the under-slung tank catapults aren't totally useless with their 12" range.

incarna
04-09-2009, 14:53
I strongly feel that Guardians should have their Shuriken catapults range increased to 18Ē assault 2. Iíll even go a step further and say I think they should be able to purchase up to 4 heavy weapons platforms (1 for every 5 guardians in the squad) and storm guardians should be able to purchase up to 4 power weapons (again, 1 for every 5 guardians in the squad).

Eldar were my first and will always be my favorite army. I donít want them to be overpowered but as 5th ed churns out one codex after another, Eldar are becoming more and more out of context leaving Eldar with fewer and fewer viable army builds.

ďBut you already have jetbike sear councilsÖĒ
ďBut you already have eldarzilla....Ē
ďBut you already have EldradÖĒ

Having powerful units in our 2 MAYBE 3 viable builds doesnít make for a versatile well balanced army. It makes for an army thatís becoming more and more boring to play. If you go to a tournament and look at the Ork armies, you can expect to see typically 3 extremes Ė Nob bikers, Green Tide, and MechanizedÖ but you ALSO can see armies that are competitive hybrids of those three armies.

Eldar armies that can compete without a seer council or without 3 wraithlords are becoming more and more scarce and I do not feel thatís a player issue Ė itís a codex issue as Eldar players are building armies to win (as everyone does) and finding fewer and fewer options to keep up with the meta-game.

Iíd LOVE to build an army of footslogging Guardians with no sear council or 3 Wraithlords and tweak it until itís competitive. That would be enormously funÖ but in the CURRENT codex, an army like that will find itself severely outmatched by most of whatís out there.

I donít expect it ANY time soon but Iím counting down the days until a new elder codex.

shin'keiro
04-09-2009, 15:23
i think they should be - 18" assault 2 (like Avenger Shuriken cats)

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 15:35
My preference would be 18" Catapults all round, Dire Avengers get AP4 (the longer barrel means better muzzle velocity so the AP is better! They have more recoil, which is where Dire Avenger training is needed so you can't just give it to any common or garden Guardian).

This means we don't go to 24" Catapults (which is what they would be if they had a direct tranlation from 2nd ed -> 3rd ed, since it was better than a Storm Bolter then) but Guardians and Dire Avengers both get use and the under-slung tank catapults aren't totally useless with their 12" range.

That sounds like a very fair upgrade to me. We curently pay 8 points for an I4 guardsmen that can't use orders :p

I think Avengers are currently pretty pricey as well for what they can actually achieve... a squad of Avengers with bladestorm is the same cost as a unit of marines and they are tougher, stronger, have a better save and can rally even if under half strength. They even have practically the same gun :p Bladestorm isn't all that good, look at the statistics:

27 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 3 dead Meqs

+

5 * 5/6 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 0.69 dead Meqs

So with Bladestorm we killed 3.7 Meqs and we can't fire next turn... great :p

I think AP 4 would make them a lot more effective against a wide range of targets without making them over-powered :)

Bartali
04-09-2009, 15:36
Wow, guess I'm gonna be the first one to say no here. If you want 18", take Dire Avengers, Simple as that IMO. The eldar army needs absolutely no help in the shooting department. Also, they're guardians; A citizen Levy. They should be armed with weapons that they could effectively use.

Cheers, Filthy

Yes, they should. As they'll often get assaulted before they get a chance to fire the current ones.

Hellebore
04-09-2009, 15:47
How many years have i been arguing that the 12" shuriken catapult is perhaps the stupidest gun in the game? Oh about as long as the 3rd rulebook has existed.

Apart from the fact that shuriken catapults were stormbolters in 1st and 2nd ed of 40k, they make no sense given to a guardian. I would gladly take lasguns instead of catapults at the current guardian cost. Then perhaps my precious dying race might not do SO MUCH dying on the battlefield.

My preference:

Shuriken catapult 18" S4 AP5 Assault 2
Dire catapult 18" S4 AP4 Assault 2
Shuriken Cannon 30" S5 AP4 Assault 4

then perhaps guns mounted on tanks and bikes that aren't affected by so called recoil might shoot farther than someone can spit.

But then I'm one of those crazy people that thinks the eldar guardian is the MOST nonsensical unit in the eldar army list.

Either they should be nothing but heavy weapon platform squads of say 3-4, or they should be equipped in such a way that doesn't make going into battle to protect their dying race an exercise in futility.

Farseer: "We must do something to stop the deaths of 10,000 of our kind."
Autarch: "Righteo then. I'll just get our 10,000 guardians kitted out..."
Farseer: "No, those are the deaths we have to stop."
Autarch: "Ok, how about we give them the worst armour our race can manufacture and give them the shortest ranged gun we can devise so that when they go into battle they'll have to weather a firestorm before getting slaughtered in melee."
Farseer: "......."
Farseer: "My visions tell me this won't work."
Autarch: "We'll that's good enough for me! Inferior armour and arms all round then."
Farseer: "Ah, I forget that seeing future outcomes tells you nothing about how to prepare in advance or correct errors before they happen. If only there were a way to take preexisting superior armour and weaponry designs and manufacture them decades in advance of a military action for use by our citizens. Alas, being a Farseer that can see the future leaves me no way of understanding how to accomplish such a mindboggling complex feat. If only I was a bonesinger that sings our technology into existence using psychic energy, then perhaps I could puzzle out how to do this thing."

The more I think about the mored pissed I get. It's SO rediculously stupid it defies any and all military reasoning. All this talk of eldar fighting in perfect harmony, orchestrated by the Autarchs. Guardians must be the stupid kid in the back bashing on a drum out of order.


Hellebore

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 15:54
Shuriken catapult 18" S4 AP5 Assault 2
Dire catapult 18" S4 AP4 Assault 2
Shuriken Cannon 30" S5 AP4 Assault 4

I would be happy if the Cannon was Assault 3 with a 30" range and AP4... I think lowering the strength may be a bad move tbh.

I'm growing quite fond of using guardians atm cos they're cheap. But i'm forced to use serpent of fury tactics (yeah that's right, with guardians defenders) just so that my guns are in range :p

rjderouin
04-09-2009, 15:58
I run mech eldar and I do not use Guardians. They suck. This would make them suck only a little bit less.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 16:01
Yeah they do suck, but they are better in terms of killing power than jetbikes when mounted in a shuriken cannons serpent and they cost the same... They can also benefit from guide AND doom making them even better. It's just an interesting new unit i've been playing around with :)

Hellebore
04-09-2009, 16:10
I would be happy if the Cannon was Assault 3 with a 30" range and AP4... I think lowering the strength may be a bad move tbh.

I'm growing quite fond of using guardians atm cos they're cheap. But i'm forced to use serpent of fury tactics (yeah that's right, with guardians defenders) just so that my guns are in range :p

Well originally a shuriken cannon was a better heavy bolter. Being S6 AP4 Assault 3 with a 30" is ok, but the problem I have is there are just too many S6 weapons in the eldar arsenal. They all fall over each other in overlapping use and so some are ignored over others.

I want each weapon to have a clear and concise use, rather than 'I'll take a shuricannon because I don't have enough points.'

Shuriken Cannon 30" S5 AP4 Assault 4
Scatter Laser 36" S6 AP6 Assault 6
Starcannon 36" S6 AP2 Heavy 1, Blast
Missile Launcher 48" S8 AP2 Heavy 1
-plasma missile 48" S4 AP3 Heavy 1, Blast, Pinning
Brightlance 36" S9 AP1 Heavy 1

I think the lance rule is dumb. Against most vehicles a lascannon is better than a brightlance.

AV 14 - brightlance better
AV 13 - Identical
AV 12 - Lascannon better
AV 11 - Lascannon better
AV 10 - Lascannon better

Call me crazy but the supposed potent eldar brightlance plain sucks compared to a lascannon and there are plenty of people whinging the LASCANNON needs a boost. :rolleyes:

Hellebore

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 16:26
I see your point that there are a lot of str 6 weapons but I don't mind... Scatter Lasers are overcosted so I plain and simple ignore them unless i have some spare points kicking around. If you boosted the laser to Assault 5 or even 6 they would be more widely used imo. They would be worth about 15 to 20 points for BS 3 models.

Starcannons got nerfed to hell and back by such a small change in the profile and that needs to be adressed. Saying that I do field starcannons but in small numbers :)

I think your missiles are a little too strong, or at least the plasma one is. AP4 i have no problem with but AP3 blasts would just get spammed... The AP2 single shot would be fine and makes more sense, but it wouldn't boost it's tank hunting ability so it isn't OP :)

BLs definitely need to become AP1 but i think the lance rule could stay and the weapon be kept str 8. If you boosted the lance to AP1 then you would be better than a lascannon vs all AVs, provided you break armour. I just think Str 9 is a little much tbh... Maybe the lance rule could be tweeked a little bit :)

If the Lance became AP1 you would have the benfit of more damageing results per pen and the ability to destroy a vehicle with a glancing hit. This would make it stronger than the LC imo, no need for the Str boost :)

Fable
04-09-2009, 17:00
I'm all for 24" as well - thats how it was before 3.x, and I'm pretty certain WD included a design commentary at the time which stated the range reduction was to counterbalance the Eldars increased mobility (fleet of foot) - which of course everyone has now.

The 12" catapult was introduced with the advent of 3rd edition when they got rid of the movement stat, so Eldar had the same mobility as all other armies and infantry. FoF was then introduced in a White Dwarf article as a racial trait for the Eldar because they needed additional mobility to counter their short range and lack of armor (almost like the elven response to ATSKNF). Then third edition codex was released. Then the Craftworld Minidex. Then 4th edition was released and Fleet of Foot was no longer a racial trait for Eldar as much as it was an ability being applied through multiple races and units and codex creep made the list vastly less competitive. Then the 4th edition dex came out and the Avenger Catapult was given an 18" as a concession and guardians were changed to require heavy weapons, given FoF even with the weapon and are forced to take larger minimum squads. Now in 5th Guardians are overpriced for what they do and their role as a support unit is questionable at best. In another 4 years or so when the dex is redone I hope they get brave enough to actually meddle with the weapon stats for both units again and come up with something interesting and variant... look what they did to Hellguns for IG.

Fist of Crimson
04-09-2009, 17:03
How about a warlock power to boost the range of guardians shooting by 6" ?
Maybe even have the warlock make a psychic test to use it.

It can be appropriately costed to give balance.

Just a thought?

marv335
04-09-2009, 17:13
Personally I would prefer the standard SC to be a rapid fire weapon.
Keep the ASC the same as it is now.
I've long upheld that the Eldar and Dark Eldar had their weapon mechanics the wrong way round.
The SC should have been rapid fire and the SR should have been assault.
However boosting all SC ranges by 6" is a bit too nasty at the current points level when you take the other Eldar abilities into account.
Bladestorm with a 24" range?
Bit too good I think.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 17:20
Have you seen how poor bladestorm actually is??? It is only good at short ranged anyway because you can't fire the following turn. Any decent commander is either going to BS when expecting an assault or assaulting themselves. I think making the avengers AP4 is a better solution anyway but guardians definitely need a range boost.

Your idea to make them rapidfire is a nerf rather than a boost to an already overpriced unit...

Gutlord Grom
04-09-2009, 17:22
I would like to point out that Guardians are the Eldar equivalent of a militia. You know a stop gap in case things go wrong? While Guardians aren't bad fighters, they aren't meant for frontline duty like Aspect Warriors. They're more or less Eldar civilians who are kitted out for war, even ifthey're not on the Path of the Warrior. They don't carry Aspect warrior grade kit, primarily because they are auxilary troops.

As to the Eldar far-seeing, while it's been made abundantly clear the Eldar can see the future, or at least the paths it can take, it has also been made clear time an again that they can only see some of the results, and even those results could be nothing more than a false-future, or a future caused by the Eldar's own actions or inactions.

Most times in the background, Eldar Farseer's see a clouded future, and sometimes multiple farseers will see multiple paths that they insist are real. While the Eldar can predict who they need to kill to prevent or cause a future event, it's often never clear that they will win out.

So when the Eldar go to war, it's always a bit of a gamble. Sure they might have favorable numbers, but I doubt they predict the course of a battle, where each Eldar will die or who will kill them.

Hellebore
04-09-2009, 17:35
Or they could hedge their bets. The Tau have their entire army equipped in carapace armour and they aren't concerned about going extinct any time soon.

hellebore

Isambard
04-09-2009, 17:51
The problem with the Cat as it is is that you have to get within 12" of the enemy to use it. There are very few enemies Guardians can get within 12" of and come out on top.

One solution is to up the range, the other is to count the Guardians as having militia weapons, CCW, Shuriken Pistol and a Cat, and maybe throw a few weapon options in for the unit.

Flying Toaster
04-09-2009, 17:55
This thread fails. I'm glad none of you are going to be games designers anytime soon.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 17:56
Tau fire-warriors are a good comparison for guardians. They have roughly the same statline but for 2 points they get a strength 5 gun with a 30" range and a 4+ save! Both of us can improve our shooting ability (tau with marker lights and eldar with powers.) Our extra point of WS and better Initiative are worthless as we don't want to be in combat any more than the tau...

Guardians definietly need a boost but only the defenders. Stormies are fine as they are :)

Hellebore
04-09-2009, 17:57
This thread fails. I'm glad none of you are going to be games designers anytime soon.

Well aren't we a genius.:rolleyes:

I'm glad the orks have managed to develop guns of a better quality than the eldar.

Hellebore

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 17:59
This thread fails. I'm glad none of you are going to be games designers anytime soon.

So what would you do with the overpriced guardians? Lowering thier points is a pretty crude method tbh and it wouldn't make them any more used than they currently are because (as has been said many times already) guardians don't want to be within 12" of ANYTHING!

Vepr
04-09-2009, 18:03
I think they are overpowered. I think they need to be changed to heavy, range 6. ;)

Anaxagoras
04-09-2009, 18:04
what about assault 1 18" or Heavy 2 18"? Like a sonic blaster in principle...

Dire Avengers get the flat assault 2 due to better balance, accuracy, etc...

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 18:05
I think they are overpowered. I think they need to be changed to heavy, range 6. ;)

Let's not get carried away! If you're gonna boost them that much it needs to be str 2 maximum ;)

Maybe a points increase is in order too haha! :P

Iracundus
04-09-2009, 18:06
The basic Guardian Defender is lacking a role and that is their problem. Are they meant to sit and baby sit a weapon platform as meat shield? Meat shields don't really fit the theme of the precious dying race. If they are baby sitters, then their gun is not suited for that role as it lacks the range, and anything closing to within that range is going to be assaulting them. A longer range gun would allow the Guardians to at least plink away at any targets of opportunity and participate in the battle in more ways than just being mobile target boards.

If Guardians are meant to be to close and shoot up the enemy in close range firefights, then they are again hampered by their gun and armor. The Dire Avengers right now fit this role better as they have better armor to withstand enemy fire or assault, better BS to inflict more damage, Exarch powers to boost total number of shots in one phase, and an Exarch + power to act as tar pit. All the above plus the greater range of the DA catapult means the unit has a better chance of 1) being able to fire 2) being able to do enough damage to justify the effort of getting into range and risking assault 3) better able at tar pitting an assault.

Guardian Defenders lack the range, and if by some chance they do get into range, they lack the damage output to justify the effort and risk of assault. So there is essentially no particular role for which they are suited, except as meat shield baby sitters for weapon platforms. The increased range of the Dire Avengers from 3rd ed. is acknowledgement of the problem. In the WD that accompanied the latest Eldar Codex, the GW studio team even admitted that they had to boost DA as nobody was taking them before, and they cited the range as a major factor in why.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 18:06
what about assault 1 18" or Heavy 2 18"? Like a sonic blaster in principle...

Dire Avengers get the flat assault 2 due to better balance, accuracy, etc...

Assault 1 would reduce thier damage too much imo. They are only BS 3 remember :)

I think the AP boost for the Avengers is the best way to go and both weapons need Range 18", Assault 2

Alessander
04-09-2009, 18:11
Remember that unlike aspect warrior weaponry, shuriken cats are not exclusive to Guardians; vehicles would need a slight points increase to reflect the change, as would all jetbikes.

Shurkien pistols would probably become a whine-fest if they were not changed as well.

I believe that the Guardians just need to have a point decrease, instead of changing the shur-cat stats.

Fluff wise (a flurry of razor sharp blades), I always thought that shurkien weaponry should have a watered down form of rending, just like ranger rifles. Perhaps for every to-wound roll of 6, successful saves must be re-rolled ("Doom" style)? Not as harsh as rending but still deadly (and somewhat rare). Keep the same stats but add the new rule, perhaps have this be an ammo upgrade or something ("former ranged aspect training" or something).

marv335
04-09-2009, 18:19
Have you seen how poor bladestorm actually is??? It is only good at short ranged anyway because you can't fire the following turn. Any decent commander is either going to BS when expecting an assault or assaulting themselves. I think making the avengers AP4 is a better solution anyway but guardians definitely need a range boost.

Your idea to make them rapidfire is a nerf rather than a boost to an already overpriced unit...

I make it as 4 dead marines from one round of shooting.
Now if you guide them and doom the target you'll get 7.
With doom and guide you can pretty much wipe out a unit of 30 Ork Boys in one round of shooting.
They're powerful within the army, remember in the Eldar army especially, no unit acts alone.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 18:19
Remember that unlike aspect warrior weaponry, shuriken cats are not exclusive to Guardians; vehicles would need a slight points increase to reflect the change, as would all jetbikes.

Shurkien pistols would probably become a whine-fest if they were not changed as well.

I believe that the Guardians just need to have a point decrease, instead of changing the shur-cat stats.

Fluff wise (a flurry of razor sharp blades), I always thought that shurkien weaponry should have a watered down form of rending, just like ranger rifles. Perhaps for every to-wound roll of 6, successful saves must be re-rolled ("Doom" style)? Not as harsh as rending but still deadly (and somewhat rare). Keep the same stats but add the new rule, perhaps have this be an ammo upgrade or something ("former ranged aspect training" or something).


Jetbikes wouldn't need a points increase... Orks get a T5 monster witha permanent cover save for 3 points more. We are over-pointed if anything especially with such poor base stats. Vehicles currently don't even use thier chin weapons most of the time... A points upgrade to make our weapons useful is no biggy for me. I don't think that would ever happen tho considering it's like 10 points for a TL shuriken cannon... it's a bit harsh to boost points for a 6" boost on a pretty poor weapon :) Afterall, pintle stormbolters are like 5pts and that is BS4 and longer range than the extended range catapult.
All pistols are range 12" or less... Why should a shuriken pistol be any different? Also pistols are combined with CC weapons for extra attacks which would make guardians a tad less useless...
Dropping the points would not solve the problem of them being USELESS in almost every build of army. They are bolter fodder with a sub-par leadership, weapons they can't use and no combat ability beyond that of a fire-warior squad on speed.
Again, it doesn't solve the problem of getting within assault range to use, and isn't powerful enough to ensure there will be no enemy there, even with like 3 or 4 squads firing... On top of that you have to actually get in range!

Tsear
04-09-2009, 18:21
I play Eldar, and I use a squad of guardians in my army, and I think they're fine. And I haven't lost a game with my eldar for half a year.

I think guardians do play a role in the eldar army, just not necessarily an offensive one. A kitted out avenger squad will cost in the neighborhood of 160 points, and 270 if you want to give it a transport, which you almost always will. For that cost, you get 10 avengers. For 160 and 270 points, respectively, you can buy 20 or 33 guardians.

Now, this large amount of guardians is not going to perform that well offensively. But 20-30 guys sitting in cover holding an objective while the rest of your army is across the board mashing face as they get out of their waveserpents are pretty difficult to dislodge.

Just to clarify, not many people are going to run 20-30 guardians in their lists. I personally only take a squad of 15 at 2000, or two squads of 10 at 2050. The point I'm making is that the guardians do have a role, that of a cheap troop choice with a large bodycount and cheap (by eldar standards) cost. That said, they could possibly use some improvements, but changing their gun to 18" assault seems very, very powerful and too much of a buff.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 18:28
I make it as 4 dead marines from one round of shooting.
Now if you guide them and doom the target you'll get 7.
With doom and guide you can pretty much wipe out a unit of 30 Ork Boys in one round of shooting.
They're powerful within the army, remember in the Eldar army especially, no unit acts alone.

I am very aware that no unit should act alone. Now in your example you have wasted doom and guide on a single squad to kill... 7 marines... Also it's only 3.69 marines so you can't bank of 4 from your regular bladestorm.

30 Boyz is a bit optomistic don't you think? You only get 32 shots lol. 1/4 of hits wont wound so if you hit with every shot you are already down 6 boyz...

27 * (2/3 + 1/3 * 2/3) * 3/4 = 18 dead boyz

Now by my math that makes a good 48 attacks at str 4 with you in thier threat range... Just to make another point, how many ork players advance in the open??? That number is usually going to be 9 dead since standard cover is 4+ :)

My point would still stand even if you killed 50 ork boys with the shots. Upgrading the cannon to 24" would make no difference because you are only going to bladestorm if you intend to assault or are going to be assaulted :)

If you are blade-storming every other turn at 24" you may as well shoot normally since you will do more damage (because of the exarch's weapons) An Exarch get's 4 shots standard and 5 with Storm so you gain 3 more shots by firing normally...

Poseidal
04-09-2009, 18:29
I make it as 4 dead marines from one round of shooting.
Now if you guide them and doom the target you'll get 7.
With doom and guide you can pretty much wipe out a unit of 30 Ork Boys in one round of shooting.
They're powerful within the army, remember in the Eldar army especially, no unit acts alone.
Which isn't that impressive considering:

For the same cost as those Dire Avengers with Blade Storm and a Farseer with Guide and Doom you can get 45 Ork Shoota boys who have vs T4:
- around 75% of the firepower on a Bladestorm turn (though the Avengers can't fire thhe next turn)
- around 112% of their firepower on a non bladestorm turn

And are much much tougher (45 T4 wounds on a 6+ save as opposed to 13 T3 wounds on a 4+ save)

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 18:31
So what would you do with the overpriced guardians? Lowering thier points is a pretty crude method tbh and it wouldn't make them any more used than they currently are because (as has been said many times already) guardians don't want to be within 12" of ANYTHING!
Well, a free Lasblaster would go a long way toward improving Guardian Defenders.



I'm glad the orks have managed to develop guns of a better quality than the eldar.

Orks have Assault weapons because they don't give a damn about aiming and rather prefer running straight to the enemy lines all guns blazing. You can't dissociate an Ork Shoota from its user's mediocre Ballistic Skill and the fact that Shoota Boyz are still heavily CC-oriented.



For the same cost as those Dire Avengers with Blade Storm and a Farseer with Guide and Doom you can get 45 Ork Shoota boys who have vs T4:
Good luck getting those 45 Orks into firing positions.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 18:36
@ Tsear: I have been running guardians in a serpent of fury style recently but i have to say that even with the catapults in range thier damage output is pretty poor. I'm using them simply cos it's something different...

If you made it so the catapults are usually going to be in range i would say they are still not great for thier 8pts but they are more in the league of other troops of similar or even less points. Look at guard! They outnumber us 2 to 1, can use orders, have a marginally worse weapon but an otherwise carbon copy of our statline except Initiative (which is always an improtant stat for guardians :rolleyes:)

Orks are another example... 4 attacks at str 4 with a toughness of 4 and fearless if there are 11 models or more in the unit? And the ability to fleet?? how many points you say??? 6!? *head explodes in shock* :p

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 18:39
;3921824']Well, a free Lasblaster would go a long way toward improving Guardian Defenders.

I think suddenly swapping the guardians weapon wouldn't work out tbh. It'd ruin just about every single piece of art they have ever made :p

What is so bad about a range 18 shuriken catapult?? It's on a BS 3 model lol

Poseidal
04-09-2009, 18:43
;3921824']
Good luck getting those 45 Orks into firing positions.

Thanks to the 18" range, that's easier than getting 30 Guardians into firing positions.

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 18:56
What is so bad about a range 18 shuriken catapult?? It's on a BS 3 model lol
It would make Dire Avengers effectively useless, even with AP4. Do you remember the last time someone bought a weapon because it had an AP of 4? Yeah, me neither.



Thanks to the 18" range, that's easier than getting 30 Guardians into firing positions.
But much harder than getting a DA squad into optimal firing positions. Anyway, weren't the Eldar supposed to favour manoeuvre over sheer volume of fire?

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 19:16
;3921901']It would make Dire Avengers effectively useless, even with AP4. Do you remember the last time someone bought a weapon because it had an AP of 4? Yeah, me neither.

Have you forgotten that Avengers get BS 4, a better save, better WS, Better I, Better Ld and bladestorm?

Absolutionis
04-09-2009, 19:19
I would like to point out that Guardians are the Eldar equivalent of a militia. You know a stop gap in case things go wrong? While Guardians aren't bad fighters, they aren't meant for frontline duty like Aspect Warriors. They're more or less Eldar civilians who are kitted out for war, even ifthey're not on the Path of the Warrior. They don't carry Aspect warrior grade kit, primarily because they are auxilary troops.Their militia status is reflected in their WS3 and BS3. The Eldar have the technology and resources to produce aspect armor, they can give those to the militia. If Tau can pull off 4+ armor on basic soldiers, the Eldar definitely should.


Remember that unlike aspect warrior weaponry, shuriken cats are not exclusive to Guardians; vehicles would need a slight points increase to reflect the change, as would all jetbikes.

Shurkien pistols would probably become a whine-fest if they were not changed as well.Just rename the vehicle weapons and keep them as-is. You could use the excuse that vehicle-mounted catapults are difficult to aim at that range or whatever.

As for pistols, no pistol in the game exceeds 12". Even bolt pistols are 12" pistols. Leave pistols alone.

---

Overall and personally, I agree with the lasblaster idea. Taking that further, why not allow Guardians to take almost any aspect weapon? Storm Guardians already get Fire Dragon weapons and scorpion weapons (minus mandiblasters), and Defenders already get heavy weapon platforms (comparable to reapers).

Avengers will be known for their excessive training in the standard catapult weapon.
Hawks will be known for using their weapon while flying.
Have every 1 in 5 guardians allowed to take a banshee power sword, a dragon fusion gun, a reaper weapon platform, or a deathspinner.

Eldar are flavorfully supposed to have low manpower, not resources. The Aspect Warriors are trained to use their weapons (better stats) and use them in unique ways (exarch powers).
The thing that would make Aspect Warriors special is their better WS and BS, Exarchs, the Exarch powers, the better armor, and whatever their special abilities are (banshee mask, mandiblasters, warp generator, etc).
That would give enough reason to take aspects and still let Guardians be viable.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 19:26
Overall and personally, I agree with the lasblaster idea. Taking that further, why not allow Guardians to take almost any aspect weapon? Storm Guardians already get Fire Dragon weapons and scorpion weapons (minus mandiblasters).

Errr they don't get anything like the scorpion gear lol... It's a CC weapon and a pistol... Scorpions have scorpion chainswords which boost thier strength. I'm also pretty sure that the Storm guardians weapon is named differently to the fire-dragon one too. The storm guardians carry a bog standard melta, it's nothing special.

Lasblasters have never been on guardians as far as i can tell. It makes little sense for them to introduce them now imo. There are far too many pieced of art and literature with guardians and shuriken weaponry. It'd screw with fluff :)

Nym
04-09-2009, 19:29
Orks are another example... 4 attacks at str 4 with a toughness of 4 and fearless if there are 11 models or more in the unit? And the ability to fleet?? how many points you say??? 6!? *head explodes in shock* :p
The whole Ork army revolves around this particular model. The eldar army revolves around it's highly specialized troops, not the humble Guardian. If the Ork boy wasn't as strong as it currently is, the whole codex would crumble.

Guardians aren't shock troopers, they need a role that fits into the "average joe protecting his home" theme. On this point, I agree with Tsear, they should become better objective holders, certainly not close range fire-fight experts.

I agree though that the basic shuricat needs a range increase, but not as an Assault 2 weapon. I've played Eldars for years, and Assault 1 18" shuricats would have made me a happy panzee.

Absolutionis
04-09-2009, 19:33
Errr they don't get anything like the scorpion gear lol... It's a CC weapon and a pistol... Scorpions have scorpion chainswords which boost thier strength.Stormies don't exactly have Scorpion chainswords, but the current GW-Direct Stormies have chainswords modelled on.


I'm also pretty sure that the Storm guardians weapon is named differently to the fire-dragon one too. The storm guardians carry a bog standard melta, it's nothing special.Oddly enough, they're really the same weapon.


Lasblasters have never been on guardians as far as i can tell. It makes little sense for them to introduce them now imo. There are far too many pieced of art and literature with guardians and shuriken weaponry. It'd screw with fluff :)Guardians' standard weapon could be the catapult and that'd be fine. Just go to fluff to say Catapults are normal but Craftworld Altansar, recently emerged from the warp with their tradition of giving Lasblasters to the guardians. All the "main" craftworlds may do it the normal way, and that is what the art depicts.

Irisado
04-09-2009, 19:41
I have been part of an online group working on updating the the current Eldar Codex to fifth edition (don't get excited it's nothing official, i.e. the participants don't work for GW).

The project is still on its first reading, but we opted to increase the range of the Shuriken Catapult to eighteen inches, in order to make Guardians more effective in an anti-infantry support role.

It is important to note, however, that this change was not made in isolation, and all units have been considered alongside each other, in order to ensure that this change isn't going to cause problems of internal balance. Play testing will reveal whether this is the case, but certainly the issue of Dire Avengers and Guardians coming into conflict in terms of their roles is going to be looked at (although changes were made to the Dire Avengers as well, although not in terms of the range of their weaponry).

There are some ideas that have been discussed here which were rejected heavily:

1. Rapid Fire: In my view, it makes no sense to make Eldar weapons work in this manner. They are supposed to be the most mobile race in the game, and they need to be able to run rings around the opposition to be able to compete, so why restrict their movement and assault options by giving them a rapid fire weapon? GW even removed the rapid fire rule from the Death Spinner for the current Eldar Codex, and they did that for this very reason in my opinion, so rapid fire weapons for the Eldar is definitely a retrograde step in my view, and, in background terms, does not reflect their superior technology.

2. Lasblasters. There is no precedent in the background for Guardians to get Lasblasters, since these are a specialist Aspect Warrior weapon, and are better suited to warriors who can generate more hits, so that the lower strength of the weapon can be compensated for, thus giving them to Guardians made no sense in my view.

On a separate issue, somebody raised the issue of Eldar being overpowered in Second Edition, and yes, in some respects they were (notably Warp Spiders), but then so were all the other armies in some way. It was the era of unit killing Special Characters, bizarre wargear, and nasty units in the extreme, so to imply that only Eldar were overpowered smacks of a rather selective memory in my opinion.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 19:43
The whole Ork army revolves around this particular model. The eldar army revolves around it's highly specialized troops, not the humble Guardian. If the Ork boy wasn't as strong as it currently is, the whole codex would crumble.

Guardians aren't shock troopers, they need a role that fits into the "average joe protecting his home" theme. On this point, I agree with Tsear, they should become better objective holders, certainly not close range fire-fight experts.

I agree though that the basic shuricat needs a range increase, but not as an Assault 2 weapon. I've played Eldars for years, and Assault 1 18" shuricats would have made me a happy panzee.

So what happend for people wanting to do a guardian force? Can i just point out that 1 str 4 shot at 18" range is laughable... here is a 10 man squad firing at Orks (remember 1 can't fire cos he mans the weapon platform):

9 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 2.25 wounds assuming there is no cover.

we'll give them a scatter laser to be nice and fair.

4 * 1/2 * 5/6 = 1.6 wounds assuming once again there is no cover.

So we can assume we get 2 turns of firing ammounting to 7.7 wounds... then we get hit with 88 str 4 attacks. Yay for us!

A range 18 assault 2 weapon would not be game-breaking by any measure. just look at Dire-Avengers. They have better BS, Blade-storm, and an Exarch and they're still crap lol :)

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 19:45
Lasblasters have never been on guardians as far as i can tell. It makes little sense for them to introduce them now imo. There are far too many pieced of art and literature with guardians and shuriken weaponry. It'd screw with fluff
Are you joking? The humble Lasgun used to be the standard Guardian weapon for two editions. And by Lasgun, I mean the very same weapon used by Imperial Guardsmen, not the fancy high-tech rifle Swooping Hawks currently field.



A range 18 assault 2 weapon would not be game-breaking by any measure. just look at Dire-Avengers. They have better BS, Blade-storm, and an Exarch and they're still crap lol
Remember 3rd Edition? Guardians and Dire Avengers used to share the same weapon. Guess what? Nobody ever fielded Dire Avengers.



On a separate issue, somebody raised the issue of Eldar being overpowered in Second Edition, and yes, in some respects they were (notably Warp Spiders), but then so were all the other armies in some way.
Each army had its fair share of powerful units, but nothing beat the infamous Eldar and Space Wolves. Eldar utterly dominated the Psychic phase (any player who forgot to bring his Level 4 Psyker had to face an uphill battle), and had plenty of unbelievably deadly units (Warp Spiders, anyone?) and broken psychic powers. I have yet to hear players complainging about the 2nd Edition Orks or Space Marines.

Absolutionis
04-09-2009, 19:47
The whole Ork army revolves around this particular model. The eldar army revolves around it's highly specialized troops, not the humble Guardian. If the Ork boy wasn't as strong as it currently is, the whole codex would crumble.

Guardians aren't shock troopers, they need a role that fits into the "average joe protecting his home" theme. On this point, I agree with Tsear, they should become better objective holders, certainly not close range fire-fight expertsSome people enjoy the concept of fielding not Craftworld Eldar but corsairs or pirates without going into Dark Eldar territory. This is where Guardians fit.


;3922035']Remember 3rd Edition? Guardians and Dire Avengers used to share the same weapon. Guess what? Nobody ever fielded Dire Avengers.Also, nobody fielded them because you were essentially paying +4pt for better armor and better BS. That is half a Guardian. I'd rather simply buy three guardians for the price of two avengers.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 19:47
;3922035']Are you joking? The humble Lasgun used to be the standard Guardian weapon for two editions. And by Lasgun, I mean the very same weapon used by Imperial Guardsmen, not the fancy high-tech rifle Swooping Hawks currently field.

Yeah, maybe I was unclear. There has been no mention of a lasblaster type weapon on a guardian in the time since i was playing or just before i started playing. I've been playing like 6 or so years and the whole time there has been shuriken catapults :)

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 19:49
;3922035']Remember 3rd Edition? Guardians and Dire Avengers used to share the same weapon. Guess what? Nobody ever fielded Dire Avengers.

That's because they costed the same as they do know and didn't get bladestorm, the power which makes them what they are now. They also weren't as good as tarpits either due to the lack of shimmer-shields.

Nym
04-09-2009, 19:58
So we can assume we get 2 turns of firing ammounting to 7.7 wounds... then we get hit with 88 str 4 attacks. Yay for us!
You're comparing a 180pts (most likely 220) Ork squad to a 95pts Guardian squad, what else did you expect ?

Plus, those 95pts Guardians would make an awesome speedbump, allowing whatever is behind them to get the charge and wipe out the Orks easily. Some units aren't meant to destroy whatever foe you throw at them, sometimes dying is a good thing for the overall strategy.


A range 18 assault 2 weapon would not be game-breaking by any measure. just look at Dire-Avengers. They have better BS, Blade-storm, and an Exarch and they're still crap lol :)
Dire avengers are awesome troops, I wonder where you get that they're crappy ?

BS used with a transport vehicle basically means 'no drawback'. They disembark, BS, and on next turn re-embark and relocate to a better position.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 20:06
They're crap because a cheaper squad of storm guardians beats them on killing power. The BS avengers can almost never hope to kill the unit they are shooting at, making re-embarking out of the question since your target will usually assault you :p

There are far better units than the avengers if you're using them to BS... The only place Avengers really excell is as tarpits for a mixed list :)

The major drawback for me with Serpent of Fury avengers is the cost! They are HUGELY expensive for what they can achieve... The cheapest way to achieve the Avengers level of fire-power is double shuiken cannon walkers. You can get 6 (nearly 7 in fact) for the cost of the Avenger squad and they can outflank :)

EDIT: On the point of the Orks vs the guardians. Throw 2 units against them then... 15.4 kills so we're still getting hit with 60 attacks and the ork unit is still fearless :) This is all assuming no cover at all which is unlikley at best! if the guardians had assault 2 guns you would kill 24.4 from 2 squads. That's still enough orks left to cause some hurt. If there is cover then we have killed only 12 orks and we are still getting swept aside. It's not game-breaking at all :)

Irisado
04-09-2009, 20:07
;3922035']Are you joking? The humble Lasgun used to be the standard Guardian weapon for two editions. And by Lasgun, I mean the very same weapon used by Imperial Guardsmen, not the fancy high-tech rifle Swooping Hawks currently field.

A Lasgun is not the same as a Lasblaster. There is no precedent for Guardians to use the latter.


Remember 3rd Edition? Guardians and Dire Avengers used to share the same weapon. Guess what? Nobody ever fielded Dire Avengers.

This has been debated elsewhere, please see my post above which you quoted from for further details. Suffice to say it's an important point, but Dire Avengers can still be just as an attractive choice by making them more skilled than Guardians in other ways.


Each army had its fair share of powerful units, but nothing beat the infamous Eldar and Space Wolves. Eldar utterly dominated the Psychic phase (any player who forgot to bring hisa Level 4 Psyker had to face an uphill battle), and had plenty of unbelievably deadly units (Warp Spiders, anyone?) and broken psychic powers. I have yet to hear players complainging about the 2nd Edition Orks or Space Marines.

Did you ever face an Inquisitor in the Psychic Phase? Njal was very nasty too, as was the Dark Angel Special Character who was a psyker, so there were quite a few candidates.

I mentioned the Warp Spiders.

The psychic powers were not more broken than other options in the game for other armies. Also, Inquisition psychic powers were truly evil, so the Eldar didn't have everything their own way.

Anyway, I'm going to stop taking about Second Edition now, as it's well and truly in the past, and it's going too far off topic.

The Orange
04-09-2009, 20:10
IMO the only real fix is giving them a standard 24" gun. Like Hellebore said Guardians in the current incarnation make absolutely no sense. Guardians (Like guardmen) are a weak fodder unit, you could have them used as mass hth troops but that's sort of what storm guardians were for, right? But Defender Guardians currently don't have any other choice given that their guns shoot freaking only 12". "Look boys here comes a mob of orks, lets move in closer" :rolleyes:. Being a relatively weak unit, and now strapped down with a long range support weapon they should have a regular long ranged rifle to fulfill the role of a long distance supporting shooting unit. Not a "we shoot our one big gun until they get close, then shoot and assault when they get close". And IMO its simply a 24" gun that will put them into that role, which both makes them better as a shooting unit and makes them tactically unique from DA's. Otherwise their still just a weaker DA unit, that relies on mass of numbers rather then skill. And the "we sit of fat ass' on an objective and shoot our one big gun" tactic doesn't really say to me "look we have a purpose" either. It'd be far better if they could sit their fat ass' there and still lend in some fire support.

DA as far as i'm concerned can be left the same. They are a tougher unit more able to handle a close combat situation (thanks to exarch abilities) thus they IMO should keep to the more up close and personal shooting role they currently with their 18" ranged guns. Extending their range to 24 just makes them a better shooting unit, again superior to using Guardians.

Hell since DA were able to get their own special version of the surri-cat I don't see why the Guardians can't get their own too. (That would avoid having to refit vehicle mounted surri-cats, though tbh the fact that vehicle mounted weapons are only 12" is absurd too IMO.) They should be able to shoot a long distance single shot, I'd take it even if it was weaker. Personally, the fact that it's an assault weapon means squat to me because of the unit it's on. You think if my Tau were all armed with assault weapons I'd be sending them into the fray? Hell no :mad:. The current incarnation of Guardians is just down right stupid and GW needs to sit their butt's down and rethink them instead taking the lazy way out and just copy pasting them from the last edition.

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 20:35
A Lasgun is not the same as a Lasblaster. There is no precedent for Guardians to use the latter.
I mentionned it because it's the closest thing to a Lasgun the Eldar army currently has. Plus, it would require very little change in terms of rules or point cost (they would be roughly on par with IG Penal Legionaries), whereas 8-point Guardians with Avengers Catapults are still problematic in terms of internal balance. Not to mention the fact they would easily outgun Tau Firewarrior, Imperial Guardsmen, and even Space Marines in a longe-range firefight, thanks to their effective 24'' range. Anyway, IIRC, Swooping Hawks used to have Lasguns as well, didn't they? I wish I still had my old Eldar Codex...


This has been debated elsewhere, please see my post above which you quoted from for further details. Suffice to say it's an important point, but Dire Avengers can still be just as an attractive choice by making them more skilled than Guardians in other ways.
I'd welcome such ideas, but your previous post was somehow vague.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 20:43
;3922186']Not to mention the fact they would easily outgun Tau Firewarrior, Imperial Guardsmen, and even Space Marines in a longe-range firefight, thanks to their effective 24'' range.

Where are you getting your assumptions from?? Dire Avengers do none of what you're saying above and they are BS4, why would a B3 guardian with the weapon be any better?

You would only get like 10 hits fom a 10 man unit (assuming you've not taken casualties!) Fire warriors have a 4+ save so that's half the wounds not doing anything and marines have a 3+ save! So you kill 3 fire-warriors and less than 2 marines. Fire-warriors wound on 2's, ignore your saves and have a 30" range! Marines are BS 4, wound on 3's and ignore your saves. You are gonna lose that fire-fight pretty quickly imo :)

Nym
04-09-2009, 20:43
@Anarchist Angel : I don't really have the time to start a quote war so I'll restrain from answering every point you made in your post (especially since I disagree with... Everything :D).

However, I'd like to ask what good it would do to DA if Guardians were given 18" shuricats ? I mean, since DA are a such terrible troop choice, why would anyone use them if Guardians had the same weapons (or an AP5 version vs AP4 for DA, which wouldn't change anything since AP4 = crap) ?

Irisado
04-09-2009, 20:47
;3922186']I mentionned it because it's the closest thing to a Lasgun the Eldar army currently has. Plus, it would require very little change in terms of rules or point cost (they would be roughly on par with IG Penal Legionaries), whereas 8-point Guardians with Avengers Catapults are still problematic in terms of internal balance. Not to mention the fact they would easily outgun Tau Firewarrior, Imperial Guardsmen, and even Space Marines in a longe-range firefight, thanks to their effective 24'' range. Anyway, IIRC, Swooping Hawks used to have Lasguns as well, didn't they? I wish I still had my old Eldar Codex...

Swooping Hawks were originally equipped with Lasguns, yes, which was always a bit bizarre for an Aspect unit in my view, so I'm glad GW fixed that anomaly.

The Lasblaster isn't a standard issue weapon though (the Shuriken Catapult, however, is), and while it may look an attractive option on paper, its lower strength arguably makes Guardians worse off than they are now (remember they have inferior BS relative to the Swooping Hawks), so I don't think Lasblasters are the solution, as it will simply reduce their damage output (i.e. fewer wounds are likely to be scored) in my opinion.


I'd welcome such ideas, but your previous post was somehow vague.

My post was deliberately vague, since these ideas have not yet been finalised, so I can't say too much about them at this stage.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 20:50
Well AP4 would give the avengers a bonus vs the storm guardians in terms of killpower. It would give them different targets to the guardians too :) Eldar have units for different types of units so why do we have like 5 that specialise in killing stuff with 5+ saves or less? ;)

As Irisado said, they would require some kind of other bonus in terms of skills.

Also I never said they were terrible. I said in my post they are good as tarpit units in a mixed list due to shimershields and defend :) They are just not very good as offensive units as I demonstrated with some math earlier :)

Poseidal
04-09-2009, 20:55
Swooping Hawks were mostly a grenadier unit, the Lasgun was because they needed some sidearm, and giving them Pistol+CCW was inappropriate.

Guardian Lasguns are fine, but the Shuriken Catapult should still be 18" minimum. With the current Rapid Fire rules, there's literally no excuse.

Fable
04-09-2009, 20:57
In 2nd edition, not only did guardians have lasguns, but they were standard issue... Shuriken Catapults were an upgrade. And there was a rule prior to the 2nd edition codex that one in 3 guardian units had to have lasguns (this was to emphasize the relatively limited number of shuriken catapults in comparison). Some of us maintained the ratio up until the release of 3rd edition.

Nym
04-09-2009, 20:57
They are just not very good as offensive units as I demonstrated with some math earlier :)
I must have missed something because my maths tell me that DA are on-par with Ork shootas (shooting-wise), and largely outshoot Marines at 13-18".

While Bladestorming, they outshoot Ork Shootas. With Doom, they're pretty much the best anti-infantry shooting unit in the whole 40k universe.

Irisado
04-09-2009, 21:02
In 2nd edition, not only did guardians have lasguns, but they were standard issue... Shuriken Catapults were an upgrade. And there was a rule prior to the 2nd edition codex that one in 3 guardian units had to have lasguns (this was to emphasize the relatively limited number of shuriken catapults in comparison). Some of us maintained the ratio up until the release of 3rd edition.

Yes, I fielded that ratio for much of Second Edition (due to a lack of Guardians modelled with Shuriken Catapults more than anything else), although not in every game I played.

Shuriken Catapults became a standard issue weapon from third edition onwards, and I think that while the choice of the Shuriken Catapult as the standard weapon could be debated, there is no doubt in my mind that GW were right to get rid of the Lasgun, as it was an Imperial weapon by all accounts.

Poseidal
04-09-2009, 21:08
Fable/Irisado, the ratio was actually 1 to 2, though it was 1 Catapult : Lasgun OR Pistol/CCW so you could technically have no Lasgun Guardians.


I must have missed something because my maths tell me that DA are on-par with Ork shootas (shooting-wise), and largely outshoot Marines at 13-18".

While Bladestorming, they outshoot Ork Shootas. With Doom, they're pretty much the better anti-infantry shooting unit in the whole 40k universe.

Point for point, with Blade Storm, Dire Avengers with a Guide AND Doomseer Bladestorming are 33% more firepower than Ork Shootas, but then 100% less firepower in the next turn. Without Bladestorm, they are actually worse, you'll get more damage buying another Avenger unit than a Farseer with Guide and Doom.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 21:17
I must have missed something because my maths tell me that DA are on-par with Ork shootas (shooting-wise), and largely outshoot Marines at 13-18".

While Bladestorming, they outshoot Ork Shootas. With Doom, they're pretty much the best anti-infantry shooting unit in the whole 40k universe.

27 * (2/3 + 1/3 * 2/3) * 3/4 = 18 dead boyz

That's with Guide AND Doom, again with no terrain. Not good at all lol :) You have dedicated a full farseer to this squad and it kills like 6 - 7 marines or 18 ork boys in the open.... YAY!

As i said, there are better units for this type of role. Storm guardians for one. Now here's some math for the walkers. 7 Walkers is the same cost as the avengers and the transport.

7 * 6 * 1/2 * 5/6 = 17.5 dead boys

and 5.8 dead marines.

They match you on kills and don't need doom and guide. Plus they have a better range and can shoot more targets :)

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 21:18
The Lasblaster isn't a standard issue weapon though
Neither is an Avenger Shuriken Catapult. Actually, both weapons are relatively recent additions to the Eldar arsenal.


and while it may look an attractive option on paper, its lower strength arguably makes Guardians worse off than they are now (remember they have inferior BS relative to the Swooping Hawks), so I don't think Lasblasters are the solution, as it will simply reduce their damage output (i.e. fewer wounds are likely to be scored) in my opinion.
Guardians were never meant to be hard hitters, but a support unit that hangs at the back while providing the long-range fire support Aspect Warriors sorely lack. As much as I'd like to field what amounts to a Storm Bolter-toting Guardsman for a mere 8 points, such expectations are at best unrealistic.

Lasblasters allow Guardians to trade sheer firepower for safety, which fits the Eldar way of war perfectly: professional soldiers do the dirty job while conscripts provide fire support and avoid devastating firefights at all cost.



Point for point, with Blade Storm, Dire Avengers with a Guide AND Doomseer Bladestorming are 33% more firepower than Ork Shootas, but then 100% less firepower in the next turn. Without Bladestorm, they are actually worse, you'll get more damage buying another Avenger unit than a Farseer with Guide and Doom.
Are Eldar supposed to outshoot an army who has always been known for its impressive volume of fire? No. They're meant to outmanoeuvre it.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 21:24
We're not suggesting we give them 'avenger shuriken catapults' we are simply saying give the catapult a better range...

And will you stop using hyperbole lol. We wouldn't have storm-bolter toting guardsmen at all... They are 18" range not 24". Guardians have only been used in the role you are presenting because they are forced to! The 12" weapons have really stopped them doing anything but sit at the back shooting the one big gun.

I think they could do a few things with the weapon platforms too. Mainly make it so you can have 1 for every 10 guardians rather than 1 per squad...

Irisado
04-09-2009, 21:28
;3922306']Neither is an Avenger Shuriken Catapult. Actually, both weapons are relatively recent additions to the Eldar arsenal.

The Shuriken Catapult is not new. It has been around since the days of Rogue Trader.

The Avenger Catapult was introduced for fourth edition, so don't confuse the two, since they are not the same.

The Shuriken Catapult has been considered standard issue since third edition, while the Lasblaster has never been standard issue, ergo, Guardians would not be equipped with a non-standard issue weapon.


Guardians were never meant to be hard hitters, but a support unit that hangs at the back while providing the long-range fire support Aspect Warriors sorely lack. As much as I'd like to field what amounts to a Storm Bolter-toting Guardsman for a mere 8 points, such expectations are at best unrealistic.

Support units can support Aspect Warriors while advancing with them, they don't have to stand at the back of the field, and increasing the range of the Shuriken Catapult to eighteen inches was designed to give them more of a battlefield role than protecting a gun crew.

While they can still be used as mobile support, and this is how I use mine, increasing the range makes it more viable to use them in this way, while still not giving them the same maximum range as a rapid fire weapon, which seems fair to me, and to those who were also involved with making this decision in the project I referred to earlier on.


Lasblasters allow Guardians to trade sheer firepower for safety, which fits the Eldar way of war perfectly: professional soldiers do the dirty job while conscripts provide fire support and avoid devastating firefights at all cost.

The Lasblaster wouldn't allow them to avoid firefights though, it would just make them less likely to be involved in intense firefights, but as I said it does not fit the background to give Guardians a Lasblaster, so I'm not in favour of doing so I'm afraid.

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 21:31
We're not suggesting we give them 'avenger shuriken catapults' we are simply saying give the catapult a better range...
Which is exactly the same thing. A S4 AP5 18'' Range Assault 2 weapon.



And will you stop using hyperbole lol. We wouldn't have storm-bolter toting guardsmen at all... They are 18" range not 24".
Again, the difference between 12'' and 18'' range weapons is far more significant than between 18'' and a 24'' ones, as the former allows you to gain up to two additional shooting phase if you keep firing while moving back.



I think they could do a few things with the weapon platforms too. Mainly make it so you can have 1 for every 10 guardians rather than 1 per squad...
It sounds indeed reasonable.



The Shuriken Catapult has been considered standard issue since third edition, while the Lasblaster has never been standard issue, ergo, Guardians would not be equipped with a non-standard issue weapon.
Then call it an Eldar Lasgun or whatever you like most. Game balance is the only reason Swooping Hawks and Dire Avengers had different weapons from Guardians in the first place. Anyway, The Eldar arsenal has already been retconned twice since Second Edition, and there isn't much you can change without screwing the current fluff, game balance, or both.

I had enough experience with the (awesome) Penal Legionaries and their Assault 2 Lasguns to know that such an improvement would be indeed a bargain.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 21:32
Hey Irisado, what do you think to 1 platform per 10 men? I think it's a pretty fair idea :)

Nym
04-09-2009, 21:33
Guys, your mathammer is from another planet. You can't have two units shooting at each other, it doesn't make any sense. You take a toughness value and compare the results against this toughness :

Long range (over 12") :

10x Dire Avengers, against T4 : 20 shots, 13.3 hits, 6.6 wounds
20x Shootas, against T4 : 40 shots, 13.3 hits, 6.6 wounds
10x Marines, against T4 : 10 shots, 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds

At close range (less than 12"), things even out for the Marines, but they still cost more than both the squads above.

With BS, the Dire Avengers cause 10 wounds on T4. Being unable to fire in the following turn isn't a drawback, since you only use BS when you'd have been unable to fire in the following turn anyway (before being assaulted, or in a "Fish'of'Fury' kind of tactic).

I won't take into account the incredible synergy that DA have with their HQ here, otherwise things would get ugly. They're already one of the best shooting unit in 40k without it.

Giving basic Guardians the same shuricats would turn them into mini-avengers (5 wounds instead of 6.6 against T4) for 4pts less. That's definitely not a good idea. Changing the Avengers AP is pointless, since AP4 is utter crap.

The only way to make it fair imo is to use what a previous poster suggested : S4, AP5, Assault 2 12" or Heavy 1 18" (ala Sonic Blaster)

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 21:36
;3922333']Which is exactly the same thing. An S4 AP5 18'' Range Assault 2 weapon.

They are not the same thing at all... One is an aspect warrior weapon which would be just as against the fluff as your lasblaster idea. The other is the standard guardian weapon made more usuable...

Also what's the problem with being able to move back with the guardians to prolong your shooting? Sounds like more tactical flexibility to me and it opens all kinds of counter-assault options... It's not as over-powered as a 24" range catapult tho because you cannot avoid jump infantry or fast troops :)

Irisado
04-09-2009, 21:37
Badger[Fr]: You can't change one unit without looking at altering others, so you have to take a holistic approach. Changing the range of the Shuriken Catapult to eighteen inches has implications across the Eldar army (remember it is mounted on a lot of vehicles and Jetbikes too), so other changes are made to reflect this.

In the case of Dire Avengers, they have received bonuses in other areas, in the project I have been involved with, so while the range may end up being a problem in isolation, it ends up being a solution when designed within an altered list as a whole.


Hey Irisado, what do you think to 1 platform per 10 men? I think it's a pretty fair idea :)

This was voted through in the project I'm involved in, but I voted against it for reasons of background. When it comes up for second reading, I will be trying to get that change rescinded.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 21:44
The only way to make it fair imo is to use what a previous poster suggested : S4, AP5, Assault 2 or Heavy 1, 18".

Heavy 1??? What planet are you on? For a start how does that make any fluff sense? Second that is a dreadful balance idea...

And yeah they are pretty even when firing normally but the Avengers have that magical ability to BS where as the others do not. Which would make them much better than the Guardians. You are also paying for survivability as well remember... Dire avengers would probably be reasonable at 11pts but I think that could lead to some DAVU balance issues...

AP 4 is not crap. It means you have a serious edge vs fire-warriors, ard boyz, most extended carapace nids, carapace armoured guard, aspect warriors, scouts. That's just off the top of my head... People would still take them and they would still be the best tarpit in the codex for mixed lists :)

Nym
04-09-2009, 21:52
Heavy 1??? What planet are you on? For a start how does that make any fluff sense? Second that is a dreadful balance idea...
I edited my post to make it clearer. I'm not suggesting Heavy 1, I'm suggesting something like Sonic Blaster, be it Assault 2 within 12" / Heavy 1 up to 18", or Assault 2 within 12" / Heavy 2 up to 18". That would make them better than Rapid Fire, but worse than Avenger shuricats. Of course, that would also make them pretty complex to use and Rapid Fire could probably be easier.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 21:54
I still don't find that in keeping with Eldar fluff... Eldar are all about being a mobile force and heavy weapons just don't feature at all! Look at weapon platforms for example :)

Badger[Fr]
04-09-2009, 21:54
Badger[Fr]: You can't change one unit without looking at altering others, so you have to take a holistic approach. Changing the range of the Shuriken Catapult to eighteen inches has implications across the Eldar army (remember it is mounted on a lot of vehicles and Jetbikes too), so other changes are made to reflect this.
God, I haven't even thought about Jetbikes. Well, that's probably why designers usually don't mess with basic weapons profiles in the first place.



In the case of Dire Avengers, they have received bonuses in other areas, in the project I have been involved with, so while the range may end up being a problem in isolation, it ends up being a solution when designed within an altered list as a whole.
An almost complete rewrite of the Codex may indeed work, but I'd rather take a minimalist approach, hence why I'm loathe to do anything that might compromise the role of an already well-balanced unit (in this case, Dire Avengers). If it ain't broken, don't fix it...

Kudos to you if you manage to balance your project, though.

Anarchist Angel
04-09-2009, 22:00
We have already spoken about bikes and tanks earlier in the thread. I would be happy to take a 5 point increase to tank costs to get a usable chin gun :) As for jetbikes, just look at what the orks get for 25 points! An extra 6" range on the guns isn't game-breaking considering we are only 3 points less. The newest print of the ork codex gives them 2 wounds each ffs... what... the... hell!?

Tbh the Eldar codex is gonna need some pieces re-written. Swooping hawks need an over-haul for a start. They are useless in 5th edition due to the changes to vehicles. Heavy Weapon platforms need changing too. I haven't seen one used EVER!

Fable
04-09-2009, 22:01
Shuriken Catapults became a standard issue weapon from third edition onwards, and I think that while the choice of the Shuriken Catapult as the standard weapon could be debated, there is no doubt in my mind that GW were right to get rid of the Lasgun, as it was an Imperial weapon by all accounts.


While I agree that it was good to get rid of the lasgun, I think lasblasters rather than shuriken catapults would have been a better choice, more in line with the Eldar arrogance about their high falutin prowess with las weaponry (their technical mastery extending to light itself).

Irisado
04-09-2009, 22:02
;3922412']Kudos to you if you manage to balance your project, though.

It's not my project, I'm just one of the project contributors and discussion leaders :).

It is very hard work trying to rework the Eldar Codex and maintain internal balance as well, and changing one thing, e.g. the range of the Shuriken Catapult has a lot of repercussions, which had to be factored in when looking at other units.

On the idea of dual firing modes for the Shuriken Catapult, I don't think that's really very workable at all in my view as Eldar are meant to be a mobile army, by and large, and the Shuriken Catapult is a basic weapon, so giving it two firing options doesn't seem like a good idea in my opinion.

Fable: If GW had made that choice at the time, then it probably would have been accepted without too many complaints, but it's too late to go back on it now in my view.

MadHatter
05-09-2009, 00:23
[QUOTE] Incarna

I strongly feel that Guardians should have their Shuriken catapults range increased to 18” assault 2. I’ll even go a step further and say I think they should be able to purchase up to 4 heavy weapons platforms (1 for every 5 guardians in the squad) and storm guardians should be able to purchase up to 4 power weapons (again, 1 for every 5 guardians in the squad).

Eldar were my first and will always be my favorite army. I don’t want them to be overpowered but as 5th ed churns out one codex after another, Eldar are becoming more and more out of context leaving Eldar with fewer and fewer viable army builds.

“But you already have jetbike sear councils…”
“But you already have eldarzilla....”
“But you already have Eldrad…”

Having powerful units in our 2 MAYBE 3 viable builds doesn’t make for a versatile well balanced army. It makes for an army that’s becoming more and more boring to play. If you go to a tournament and look at the Ork armies, you can expect to see typically 3 extremes – Nob bikers, Green Tide, and Mechanized… but you ALSO can see armies that are competitive hybrids of those three armies.

Eldar armies that can compete without a seer council or without 3 wraithlords are becoming more and more scarce and I do not feel that’s a player issue – it’s a codex issue as Eldar players are building armies to win (as everyone does) and finding fewer and fewer options to keep up with the meta-game.

I’d LOVE to build an army of footslogging Guardians with no sear council or 3 Wraithlords and tweak it until it’s competitive. That would be enormously fun… but in the CURRENT codex, an army like that will find itself severely outmatched by most of what’s out there.

I don’t expect it ANY time soon but I’m counting down the days until a new elder codex.
QUOTE]

I totally agree. Though I would also like to make the platform a option not mandatory.

Dexter099
05-09-2009, 00:27
24" Dire Avengers would not work. In fact, I like the idea of keeping it the way it is now.

MadHatter
05-09-2009, 00:43
I kinda find it funny that the standard Eldar weapon is the range of a movement phase and running/fleet of foot. It is important to make the rewrite so that the eldar are competitive. But also to make it so that we can have choices when we are making our list for tournament as well as when we are playing fun game.

Bolter Bait
05-09-2009, 03:08
Sure, go to town with long ranged Cats. I mean, my Gaunts can have an Assault 2, Str 3 with reroll to wound at 18" for 10 points each (which I never take because they perform poorly and it's way too expensive for what they do). Gaunts don't get the awesome weapon platform, no, but still, I don't think it would be game-breaking if Guardians got one extra shooting phase per game.

shabbadoo
05-09-2009, 05:38
Yes, its pretty sad when a sphincter gun can launch a boring beetle farther than a high tech xenos gun can shoot a crystalline disc.

Absolutionis
05-09-2009, 05:45
I am willing to work with this one alot better then some of the other suggestions. (if it was up to me) However the only problem I have is I do not wish to tear the 80 guardians that I have painted appart to change thier weapons. So just change the stats of the Shuriken Catapults so many people and myself included do not have to do that. :)If anything, you'd have to buy the lasblasters in Guardian kits, so you'd have a whole new set of Guardians.

Badger[Fr]
05-09-2009, 06:52
Eldar armies that can compete without a seer council or without 3 wraithlords are becoming more and more scarce and I do not feel thatís a player issue Ė itís a codex issue as Eldar players are building armies to win (as everyone does) and finding fewer and fewer options to keep up with the meta-game.
You mean, Eldar armies that actually require tactics instead of spamming nigh-unkillable transports and no-brainers? There are plenty of excellent units in the Eldar Codex, as long as you don't expect them to meet the ridiculously high standards set by Holofalcons, Seer Councils, or Craftworld rules.

Arakanis
05-09-2009, 07:28
;3923306']You mean, Eldar armies that actually require tactics instead of spamming nigh-unkillable transports and no-brainers? There are plenty of excellent units in the Eldar Codex, as long as you don't expect them to meet the ridiculously high standards set by Holofalcons, Seer Councils, or Craftworld rules.


Whoa! We have Craftworlds now? I thought all we had was that one craftworld, Eld'drad Everyfarseerioc that employs nothing but Harlequins, Falcons, Wraithlords and Jetbikes and is always led by a chap who is just as well trained and powerful as Eldrad... but isn't.

Seriously. Give us back a codex with viable flexibility.

Badger[Fr]
05-09-2009, 07:36
Whoa! We have Craftworlds now? I thought all we had was that one craftworld, Eld'drad Everyfarseerioc that employs nothing but Harlequins, Falcons, Wraithlords and Jetbikes and is always led by a chap who is just as well trained and powerful as Eldrad... but isn't.
Yeah, because the only viable armies are the broken ones? Seriously, if you can't field a decently competitive army without Eldrad, I blame your lack of imagination.



Seriously. Give us back a codex with viable flexibility.

You mean, like the current one, which is far more flexible than the rubbish 3rd Edition Craftworld rules? There are far less rubbish units in the Eldar Codex than, say, in the Chaos or Space Marines books.

Tsear
05-09-2009, 08:18
Holofalcons are inferior compared to waveserpents. I don't think harlequins are a competitive unit either. If you, for some odd reason, want to complain about the good units in the eldar codex, do it right.

MadHatter
05-09-2009, 08:56
If anything, you'd have to buy the lasblasters in Guardian kits, so you'd have a whole new set of Guardians.

Well If the kit gets like a ton of options and new sprue this might be cool. But I have built and painted 80 guardians so far and 40 storm guardians. The other 20 are still on sprue because I do not need that many guardians, even in an apoc game.

For the most part I love the Eldar as they are. I just think that a basic troop who has no chance of standing up to most other armies basic troops in hand to hand would have a gun which would allow them to actually shoot something before the are charged. thier guns are no worse then anyone else.

But I think I can be fair here. how about we make every bodies basic troops shoot with pistols instead. After all one of the oldest race in the universe would not have any stock piles or armory with anything better.

And for the argument of the vehicles have them on them so what. The marine bikes have bolters. the ork bikes have guns I can not think of at the moment. And its not like they have a great BS anyways. give them a chance to actually survive. And I would love to field them again.

And yes this codex is alot better then the third. though to be fair Craftworlds was like the chapter marines, a seperate book all together. So no comparing them. People cryed when the eldar stomp them in second edtion and to be fair the Eldar were way over the top. But they were not only nerfed they were beatin with the nerfing bats. And while they did fix alot of issues I had, they still need to fix the Shuriken Catapults so they are a rifle type weapon and not a pistol.

Marrak
05-09-2009, 09:40
Yes.

While we're at it my fleshborers could use a bit of a boost too. :)

aeoglas
05-09-2009, 13:53
honestly, Avenger catapults at 24" range? I'm happy with 18" for all shruiken catapults. what we really need is the shruiken cannon to go up to 30", otherwise there's no point. mabye avenger catapults could be ap 4.

Partisan Rimmo
05-09-2009, 14:24
I'm not convinced you should simply up the range, but I am convinced that 12" is not viable at all.

Helicon_One
05-09-2009, 16:06
A few years ago when a bunch of us on RGMW were arguing about the Eldar and throwing out our own lists, I proposed this:

Shuriken Catapult: 12" S3 AP4 Assault 3
Shuriken Pistol: 12" S3 AP4 Pistol
Lasfusil: 24" S4 AP6 Assault 1
Lasblaster: 24" S4 AP6 Assault 2

- Guardian Defenders armed with Shuriken Catapults, 0-1 weapon platform and 0-1 flamer or fusion gun.
- Guardian Battle Squad with BS4 (these are a generic Ulthwe Black Guardian-type unit) and armed with Lasfusils
- Guardian Storm Squad armed with Shuriken Pistols, close combat weapons and 0-3 flamers or fusion guns
- Dire Avengers armed with Shuriken Catapults. Bladestorm exarch power makes all shooting count as twin-linked.

Eldar have a 'short range/overwhelming power' vibe going on and making the shuriken capapult shootier rather than extending the range and turning it into a bolter seemed a more appropriate step.

Flying Toaster
05-09-2009, 21:24
So what would you do with the overpriced guardians? Lowering thier points is a pretty crude method tbh and it wouldn't make them any more used than they currently are because (as has been said many times already) guardians don't want to be within 12" of ANYTHING!

Well I don't think they need changing. You are just using them for the wrong purpose. Guardians arent meant to be front-line troops and if you do try using them like that they will just die painfully. That what Dire Avengers and other Aspect warriors are for.

Guardians are primarily there to make up the numbers in your force and fight only incase of emergency and capture objectives while your aspect warriors do all the fighting. Occasionally they may kill something with a pot shot from their weapon platform but its not their job to go around massacring everything they see.

And if you do get your Guardians within 12" of something that is a big threat to them then your doing something wrong and need to revise your tactics with them.

Any of the suggestions of changing them like the ones above my other post are ludicris and need to be burnt on the bonfire of bad ideas. Giving one unit like Guardians 4 heavy weapons WTF? I mean thats as much firepower as one SM devastor squad and your taking them as TROOPS!!! Another point is that you already have Dire Avengers with increased range and better BS to try and do the fighting that you want guardians to achieve why bother make guardians almost the same as them? Would that not just make Dire Avengers redundant?

You really need to think long and hard about what that certain unit is meant to achieve in their role in the game before you try to make any radical changes like those ones you are thinking about. These ideas are obviously not thought through well enough and if they were implicated in the game then they would break it to some extent and this is why you should never be games designers.

As to your point about them being to expensive, they are not. My guardian squad of 10 with EML costs just 100pts and sits on my objective while shooting at targets of opportunity. They are not a frontline unit and never will be. If Phil Kelly ever saw this thread I think he may well just bang his head against the keyboard and kill himself.

Happy now that I spent 15 mins of my life explaining why you fail?

Poseidal
05-09-2009, 22:02
Well I don't think they need changing. You are just using them for the wrong purpose. Guardians arent meant to be front-line troops and if you do try using them like that they will just die painfully. That what Dire Avengers and other Aspect warriors are for.

Guardians are primarily there to make up the numbers in your force and fight only incase of emergency and capture objectives while your aspect warriors do all the fighting. Occasionally they may kill something with a pot shot from their weapon platform but its not their job to go around massacring everything they see.
Except that Dire Avengers do the same for cheaper (smaller min unit) and they do that badly. Rangers do better too, with their superior cover save. Why would you use the Guardians?


And if you do get your Guardians within 12" of something that is a big threat to them then your doing something wrong and need to revise your tactics with them.
You contradict yourself. If they're standing on an objective, like you advocate before, something big and nasty WILL come within 12" of that objective. They can either abandon the objective, or fire their 12" gun and get massacred the next turn.


Any of the suggestions of changing them like the ones above my other post are ludicris and need to be burnt on the bonfire of bad ideas. Giving one unit like Guardians 4 heavy weapons WTF? I mean thats as much firepower as one SM devastor squad and your taking them as TROOPS!!! Another point is that you already have Dire Avengers with increased range and better BS to try and do the fighting that you want guardians to achieve why bother make guardians almost the same as them? Would that not just make Dire Avengers redundant?
Guard can get over 4 heavy weapons in 1 Troops choice already (same ballistic skill as guardians, and less than devastators). I'm not advocating it, but it's not as outlandish as you're making it out to be.

You really need to think long and hard about what that certain unit is meant to achieve in their role in the game before you try to make any radical changes like those ones you are thinking about. These ideas are obviously not thought through well enough and if they were implicated in the game then they would break it to some extent and this is why you should never be games designers.
And 12" catapults were well thought out to start with?

As well as not giving them any fix in 4th edition when Rapid Fire weapons got the extra shot at 12"?

For the same points cost?

The best Guardian build doesn't use Catapults or heavy weapons at all; it's 2 Flamers and a Warlock with destructor on Storm Guardians. If you have to get into assault range to fire your guns, you might as well make them guns that count.

12345_7
05-09-2009, 22:03
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but:
6" from movement + 12" range = 18" for rapid fire(no assault) and shuriken catapults(can assault) with 2 shots
no movement + 24" range = 24" for rapid fire(no assault) with 1 shot
6" from movement + 18" range = 24" from avenger shuriken catapults(can assault) with 2 shots

So basically, this shows that the normal sc is the same as a rapid fire weapon that can assault and the asc does have the same range as a bolter with more shots and the ability to assault. Making the sc rapid fire like some have said would make them worse in a way that they wouldn't be able to take advantage of charging into a unit they can actually do damage to, like guardsmen.

Badger[Fr]
05-09-2009, 22:40
Guard can get over 4 heavy weapons in 1 Troops choice already (same ballistic skill as guardians, and less than devastators). I'm not advocating it, but it's not as outlandish as you're making it out to be.
Though, there's a huge difference between 4 not-so-heavy weapons hidden behind 20 bodies with an inbuilt 5+ cover save, and an outrageously vulnerable heavy weapon squad with no way to soak wounds or improve its resilience whatsoever.



Well I don't think they need changing. You are just using them for the wrong purpose. Guardians arent meant to be front-line troops and if you do try using them like that they will just die painfully. That what Dire Avengers and other Aspect warriors are for.
To be fair, they aren't exactly brilliant at holding objectives or providing long-range fire support either.

Irisado
05-09-2009, 22:58
Flying Toaster: I don't think you've read all the contributions in this thread particularly well, as it has been indicated on a number of occasions that no change can be made in a vacuum, and that other units would have to be looked at as well were the change to be made.

As for your definition of how Guardian squads are supposed to work, I feel it is fundamentally flawed on numerous levels, and it is quite evident that you never played under Rogue Trader and Second Edition rules, where Guardians did not have a heavy weapon, so were used as more mobile fire support in conjunction with Aspect Warriors. Yes, they had a much longer range for their weapons back then, but the point was that they were used more aggressively than they are by most players now.

It is also worth noting that you can still be aggressive with Guardians in my experience, but it is like everything else when talking about the Eldar, it all depends on your overall army composition.

Sorros
05-09-2009, 23:03
Make avenger rifles AP 4, make guardian catapults 18 inches. Of course they will cost a few more points.

Also, Guardians as of right now can be used to a good effect, its just...annoying. You can keep them in 4+ cover on an objective, make them go to ground, and waste 130 points on a unit that is essentially a marine squad with that 3+ save, while the rest of your army goes around preventing the enemy from reaching that guardian squad. I have used this tactic not only on objectives, but just to soak up enemy fire. People tend to consider guardians as an easy kill point, with a 5+ armour save...when I toss them in a trench, go to ground, and maybe pop fortune on them? Good luck. You would be surprised by how much firepower an enemy will lay down into that effective little meat shield, allowing my hard-hitting units (warp spider-autarch squad) to kill.

Sure, they are militia, but as I have stated before, they're quite good for militia...several craftworlds have a core army of militia, so I would assume those militia aren't exactly as crappy as most would think.

MadHatter
05-09-2009, 23:16
If Phil Kelly ever saw this thread I think he may well just bang his head against the keyboard and kill himself.

Happy now that I spent 15 mins of my life explaining why you fail?

Actually I bet he would laugh and just shake his head. Saying something like, they will just never get it.

But this is why GW frowns on thier employees being active on forums.

And why type any response if you feel it was just going to be a waste of your time explaining your point of view? After all isn't this the whole purpose of this thread to create a constructive discussion?

It should not really matter I guess since I only use my guardians in large point games that require two or more FOC or apoc game.

But if you put them with an avatar they are more dangerous these days especially if they are supported by the storm guardians.

The Orange
06-09-2009, 03:15
Well I don't think they need changing. You are just using them for the wrong purpose.

It still boggles my mind, please explain how 10 bodies babysitting one effective heavy weapon makes this an effective unit?

I mean look at the unit, it has fleet, a 12" assault 2 weapon, and a heavy weapon that moves and shoots. That screams "close in with the enemy" but unfortunately that's most likely the worst thing you can do with this unit. And then you tell me "well just sit them on the objective" :rolleyes:, so they can be an actual meat shield. Your telling me that their literally on the battlefield to sit around and soak up fire with only 1 heavy weapon to retaliate with :wtf:. And here I thought Kroot had it bad being the de-facto meat shield for the Tau, but heh at least they can shoot back and hold their own in hth (oh did I mention their cheaper too). Granted fluff wise it makes perfect sense that the aspects go out to kick ass while the guardians take and hold stuff, but they should be able to do more then just pick there noses while one guy in the unit operates the big gun.

The unit is fundamentally flawed. Eldar already have storm guardians and DA that can move in close to the enemy, but they could sure use a weight of fire ranged Troops option, and IMO that's the role Defender guardians should fulfill, instead of a 3rd variant of "I have to move in close to do anything" troops choice.

Enialas
06-09-2009, 03:40
The unit is fundamentally flawed. Eldar already have storm guardians and DA that can move in close to the enemy, but they could sure use a weight of fire ranged Troops option, and IMO that's the role Defender guardians should fulfill, instead of a 3rd variant of "I have to move in close to do anything" troops choice.

I'm not sure guardians really need to provide "weight of fire" as that's precisely what DA's are there for. I'd personally prefer something like assault 1 24" range, giving their catapults better synergy with the long range heavy weapon in the unit. This would firmly set them in the sit back and provide support fire role without stepping on any other units toes.

Dictator
06-09-2009, 04:43
I'm not sure guardians really need to provide "weight of fire" as that's precisely what DA's are there for. I'd personally prefer something like assault 1 24" range, giving their catapults better synergy with the long range heavy weapon in the unit. This would firmly set them in the sit back and provide support fire role without stepping on any other units toes.

I like this idea and am really not in favor with upping avenger catapults or making guardian ones 18 inches. Etc...

Badger[Fr]
06-09-2009, 10:00
I like this idea and am really not in favor with upping avenger catapults or making guardian ones 18 inches. Etc...
So do I. Guardians with 18'' Shuriken Catapults would easily be one of the most powerful Troop units in the whole game. Just compare them with 5-point Guardsmen. For a mere additional 3 points, you get:
-Far better fire power, both at long and short ranges.
-Better manoeuvrability.
-Not-so-Heavy Weapons.
-The ability to assault after firing. As an IG player, I learnt that underestimating the weight of S3 attacks such an unit could throw up is a huge tactical mistake. As an exemple, a 20-man Guardian squad can almost slaughter a 30-model strong Ork Mob in a single turn if you cast Doom on the Ork unit, thanks to the additional 40 S3 attacks. With 18'' Shuriken Catapults, such a move would be pathetically easy to achieve.
-I4. Sorely needed to avoid getting caught in a sweeping advance.

A little bit too much to my liking, considering Guardians aren't exactly a mainstay of the Eldar army, contrary to Ork Boyz or Guardsmen.

Irisado
06-09-2009, 12:14
;3925978']So do I. Guardians with 18'' Shuriken Catapults would easily be one of the most powerful Troop units in the whole game.

That hasn't been reflected in play testing reports so far where this range has been used, but if further reports suggest otherwise, it will, of course, be revisited.


As an exemple, a 20-man Guardian squad can almost slaughter a 30-model strong Ork Mob in a single turn if you cast Doom on the Ork unit, thanks to the additional 40 S3 attacks.

Guardians are absolutely terrible in close combat, and they should be especially so against Imperial Guard infantry, who will most likely be sitting in cover meaning that they strike before the Guardians.

Also, squads of twenty Guardians are just asking to be barraged to death, so I never recommend fielding squads of that size.


A little bit too much to my liking, considering Guardians aren't exactly a mainstay of the Eldar army, contrary to Ork Boyz or Guardsmen.

For some Craftworlds, Defender Guardians are the main unit in the army, so you need to be careful about generalising too much in my view.

Sekhmet
06-09-2009, 12:25
I think 18" 2 assualt is fine. The Guardians are not all that scary in an assualt. And since they used to be 24" in second edition I do not see this as a bad thing. It does not seem intellegent to give your baisc troops a gun that when the are in range to shoot they are dead in the next phase/turn.

they move so they are in range, they fire. then they get ready for being charged. not smart at all. Not to mention they are rifes, not pistols.

Just make the Avenger rifles AP 3 or 4.

I like this idea. Lets make Avengers AP3. Bladestorm is just buckets of fun.

Vaktathi
06-09-2009, 12:39
We really don't need AP3 or AP4 Dire Avengers. Come on people, Dire Avengers are already great units as is. 18" Bladestorming AP3 would be ridiculous and that should be pretty blatantly obvious and I don't think people want DA's to start costing what Chaos Cult units do.

18" Shuricats would essentially make Dire Avengers redundant in terms of cost effectiveness.

I think an alternate profile like the Psi-cannon would be best for basic Guardians. Heavy 1 24" or Assault 2 12". This would complement the heavy weapon a bit more and reinforce the role as objective holders while the Dire Avengers are the more mobile shooty base to take objectives.

The big problem I think is that they are so similar to guardsmen in purpose and profile, yet still so much better (higher init, higher S guns with an Assault profile, able to move and shoot their heavy weapons, can take a warlock for cover out in the open and other powers, etc), that it's hard to cost them close enough to guardsmen and yet far enough away to make a distinction. If they were 7pts each with plasma grenades and the alternating profile weapon, they'd be pretty solid, maybe access to a fusion gun or flamer as well?

Poseidal
06-09-2009, 12:55
;3925978']So do I. Guardians with 18'' Shuriken Catapults would easily be one of the most powerful Troop units in the whole game. Just compare them with 5-point Guardsmen. For a mere additional 3 points, you get:
-Far better fire power, both at long and short ranges.
-Better manoeuvrability.
-Not-so-Heavy Weapons.
-The ability to assault after firing. As an IG player, I learnt that underestimating the weight of S3 attacks such an unit could throw up is a huge tactical mistake. As an exemple, a 20-man Guardian squad can almost slaughter a 30-model strong Ork Mob in a single turn if you cast Doom on the Ork unit, thanks to the additional 40 S3 attacks. With 18'' Shuriken Catapults, such a move would be pathetically easy to achieve.
-I4. Sorely needed to avoid getting caught in a sweeping advance.

A little bit too much to my liking, considering Guardians aren't exactly a mainstay of the Eldar army, contrary to Ork Boyz or Guardsmen.
For basic troops, +3 points is massive, it's more than a 50% price increase.

Being able to assault after firing means you're in 6" of them, and if you do get casualties, if they remove the closest troops you're then stuck in the open sucking up a charge the next turn. On top of that, the extra expense of the Guardians makes them worse in combat as you get less attacks/wounds per points.

Put it this way, would you take Fleet and Shuriken Catapults and I4 for your guardsmen (losing special weapons options too, grenades and pistols.) for each squad costing 50% more? (note the move+fire heavy weapons are costed into the weapon so don't count here).

+3 points is huge, considering now Guardsmen all have laspistols now, they can shoot and assault.

Lastly, Eldar aren't meant to be a horde race. Cheapo guardians with shotguns don't fit into the archetype of the race. The fail at their purpose of being support, and their best options (Storm Guardians with 2x Flamer) is one of the most in-your-face units in the army, doing something you imagine an Aspect would be doing.

banik
06-09-2009, 12:59
Up guardians to 18" and Avengers to 24"

or

add another shot to each.


Personally, I'd rather have the range.

Venkh
06-09-2009, 12:59
I would like to see the option to take a S3 24" range weapon on my Guardian squads. A lasblaster or a lasgun, I dont really care. The weapons platform should NOT be madatory so if you want to send your gardeners and bakers into the meat grinder you can do so. Messing with the shiricats range starts to impinge on the role of the Avenger. I would leave them as they are.

I completely agree about the absurdity of a dying race giving its citizen soldiers short range weapons and telling them to get close and dirty with the enemy. It is equally absurd to have to pay for a squad that should avoid using its weapons as much as possible.

IMO defender guardians should hold objectives and support the other elements of the army from range. How about.

Option 1 Lasguns, weapon platorms (1 per 10 bods).
Option 2 Shuricats, 2 special weapons. Flamer or Melta (1 per 5 bods)
Option 3 CCW & Shuriken pistol. Flamer, Melta

shabbadoo
06-09-2009, 13:33
The devolution of the Shurikne Catapult:

1e(Rogue Trader): Str 4 R: 24", Follow Through Fire(trust me, this was horrid)

2e: Str 4, R: 24", 1 Sustained Fire dice*
*1=jam(can't fire next turn), 2= 1 shot, 3-5= 2 shots, 6=3 shots.

3e(and onwards): Str 4, R: 12", Assault 2

The gun really steppedown a grade under 3e and its all basic weapons must be either R: 12" or R: 24" design. The shuriken catapult is not so good from 3e onwards, especially alongside all of the rapid fire weapons they used to be comparable to. Just a tad bit of extra range would be even this out, would take advantage of Eldar's "fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee" playing style, and would be preferable to simply keeping the gun as it is and lowering the cost of Guardians.

Dire Avengers are different enough to still remain identifiable as an actual Aspect Warriors- better stats, better armor, and an actual skill with the shuriken catapult that only they have. The weapon platform anchor the unit has to drag around surely needs to be optional too, or be able to break off to from the unit on its own- something other than what it is now. The basic Guardian unit remains one of he most horribly designed units in the game from a tactical standpoint. Other than for Guardians, every unit in the Eldar army has an actual purpose and blatant battlefield application.

Iracundus
06-09-2009, 13:40
The devolution of the Shurikne Catapult:

1e(Rogue Trader): Str 4 R: 24", Follow Through Fire(trust me, this was horrid)

2e: Str 4, R: 24", 1 Sustained Fire dice*
*1=jam(can't fire next turn), 2= 1 shot, 3-5= 2 shots, 6=3 shots.

3e(and onwards): Str 4, R: 12", Assault 2

The gun really steppedown a grade under 3e and its all basic weapons must be either R: 12" or R: 24" design. The shuriken catapult is not so good from 3e onwards, especially alongside all of the rapid fire weapons they used to be comparable to. Just a tad bit of extra range would be even this out, would take advantage of Eldar's "fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee" playing style, and would be preferable to simply keeping the gun as it is and lowering the cost of Guardians.

The 2nd ed. was admittedly far too powerful, especially once one took the -2 armor save modifier into account. Armies of Guardians could shred most other armies in firefights with the sustained fire. The change to the Eldar catapult was actually heralded even before 3rd ed. 40K in GW's Epic 40K (which was a failed revision of 2nd ed. Epic). There Eldar Guardians were changed to be more close range firefight infantry whereas before they were essentially like IG but with better morale.

Problem is that "extra firepower at close range" wasn't well implemented in 3rd ed.. An additional S4 shot hardly compensated for the complete loss of any damage dealing potential at above assault range, especially when the new armor system meant all the MEQ armies shrugged off any non AP3 weapon not applied in huge quantities. The change of Dire Avenger catapults was acknowledgement that the 3rd ed. catapult wasn't working. Avengers already had better BS, Ld, and armor compared to Guardians but nobody was taking them due to the short range and this was admitted in WD. GW should just admit the rest of their mistake and go back to the drawing board with the catapult instead of a jury rig "patch" of the catapult just for Avengers.

Just what does GW want for Guardians? In the old days, they were like IG but better, with mesh armor superior to flak armor, the catapult better than the lasgun, and the higher I and Ld reflecting the whole fast stoic Elf theme. This was before the massive proliferation of MEQs skewing the perception of "average" saves and characteristics in 40K. Whatever GW decides to do for the next Eldar Codex, they should leave some role for the Guardians to fill that does not involve them just sitting around being meat shields for a heavy weapon platform. That's something that Grots and Gaunts do.

shabbadoo
06-09-2009, 13:44
Agreed about the 2e armor reduction, but with the implementation of AP values and a range decrease in 3e they snipped the nuts off of the gun to be sure. ;) I never had a problem dealing with Eldar Guardians in 2e though. Armor Saving Throw Modifiers made everything nastier back then, and cover was still important. Guardians were more effective, and thus fielded more often then than now, but they were not the end all be all. The Guardian's BS 3 and 5+ Armor Save balanced out the gun then, as it would still do if they were R: 18" as they still need to advance on enemies with R 24" weapons. Sure, the Guardians can take the initiative and advance to fire 2 shots first(against most enemies), but to do so they still need to open themselves up to most enemies in turn advancing to Rapid Fire range and returning the favor. That's a nice tit for tat situation if you ask me, but the shuriken catapult has the range of pistol weapon so there is little to none of that, an so Guardians are more often than not warming the bench rather than being in the game.

Surely taking away 1 point of BS, Initiative and Leadership from a Dire Avenger and taking away the Blade Storm ability(while leaving the Avenger Shuriken Catapult as it is) and lessening its armor save from 4+ to 5+ is worth 4 points. If you remove all of that, what you should be left with is a Guardian. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Anarchist Angel
06-09-2009, 14:34
I don't see the problem with upgrading the range. At the end of the day the weapon is still being wielded by a BS3 model... Sure you would have to alter the Avengers a little bit to compensate but they are still much better than guardians in terms of stats. They have 4+ armour, (which is important for advancing on the enemy as they will not be cut down by bolters unlike the guardians) better initiative, better Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill along with better Leadership. They also have some pretty nifty Exarch powers :)

AP4 weapons on the avengers would be a nice change but i think the suggestion to make BS TL is also a great idea :) It would give them a serious edge on the guardians but it isn't game breaking imo.

27 * (2/3 + 1/3 * 2/3) * 1/2 = 12 dead orks or 4 dead Meqs

5 * (5/6 + 1/6 * 5/6) * 1/2 = 2.4 dead orks or 0.81 dead Meqs

27 * (2/3 + 1/3 * 2/3) * 2/3 = 16 dead Geqs

5 * (5/6 + 1/6 * 5/6) * 2/3 = 3.2 dead Geqs

That's not too bad imo, especially since they can't fire next turn :) I don't think upgrading the avenger catapult range any further is a good idea at all. It would give them very little benefit in terms of regular shooting since the guardians have the added benefit of the weapon platform. It also doesn't help for Bladestorm shooting either as the Avengers only really want to bladestorm when they plan to assault or are going to be assaulted :)

Smokedog
06-09-2009, 19:58
I will hopefully be play testing guardians with 18" shuricats next game. I will let you know how it goes.

Cheers

Irisado
06-09-2009, 20:01
Iracundus and Shabbadoo: Two top quality posts, and I couldn't put the problems with Guardians, even though I still use them myself, any better than that.


18" Shuricats would essentially make Dire Avengers redundant in terms of cost effectiveness.

Not necessarily, you have to look at the army as a whole, and other changes that are made (as I keep saying), and there are further reasons why Dire Avengers are still superior (see the preceding posts I referred to for a sound summary).

Dire Avengers, for example, were still fielded in Rogue Trader and Second Edition when Guardians had the same range as they did, so the idea that making their weapons have the same range as each other will automatically negate Dire Avengers as a choice seems a bit simplistic to me.


I think an alternate profile like the Psi-cannon would be best for basic Guardians. Heavy 1 24" or Assault 2 12". This would complement the heavy weapon a bit more and reinforce the role as objective holders while the Dire Avengers are the more mobile shooty base to take objectives.

There is no precedent in the background for Guardians to have dual firing modes, as I alluded to previously, and they are not support specialists, so giving their basic weapons a 'heavy' firing option, which constrains their ability to move and fire, does not make sense in terms of background, or internal synergy within the Eldar list as a whole in my opinion.

Venkh
06-09-2009, 20:44
Dire Avengers, for example, were still fielded in Rogue Trader and Second Edition when Guardians had the same range as they did,

I completely agree. I used DA and Guardians in RT. The problem was always the range of the weapon in the 3rd ed codex. 12" is very poor for a unit that is:

non MEQ
S3/T3
Has no pistol
Has no grenades
Only 1 model has a melee upgrade.

The 5th ed rules have made things even worse as your opponent can now take casualties from outside of the weapons range. No more removing models in assault range.

Badger[Fr]
06-09-2009, 21:20
Guardians are absolutely terrible in close combat,
Are they? Never underestimate the weight of attacks cheap models can put. More often than not, even S3 attacks are enough to slaughter a doomed unit.



Being able to assault after firing means you're in 6" of them, and if you do get casualties, if they remove the closest troops you're then stuck in the open sucking up a charge the next turn. On top of that, the extra expense of the Guardians makes them worse in combat as you get less attacks/wounds per points.
Of course, Guardians are usually better off avoiding CC as much as they can, but still, the additional flexibility provided by Assault weapons cannot be denied. Guardsmen are hardly better in combat, considering their Lasguns prevent them from charging, and they're actually much more likely to get charged than upgraded Guardians, as they can't stay out of charge range without wasting their fire power.

I often wish I had the opportuniy to charge after opening fire with my Lasguns. It would almost double my damage output in a single turn.



Put it this way, would you take Fleet and Shuriken Catapults and I4 for your guardsmen (losing special weapons options too, grenades and pistols.) for each squad costing 50% more? (note the move+fire heavy weapons are costed into the weapon so don't count here).
Yes I would. Put it this way: a Penal Legionary is an 8-point Guardsman with Stubborn, Scout, an Assault 2 Lasgun, and no special or heavy weapons at all. I regulary field such squads with satisfying effectiveness. Is the loss of Stubborn and Scout worth a far superior gun, the ability to field heavy weapons, and a better initiative? As far as I'm concerned, I think it is.



Lastly, Eldar aren't meant to be a horde race.
Indeed, and that's why I think Guardians should be limited to a support role, which hardly fits an unit strong enough to kill a whole Ork mob in a single turn with relative ease. Had they S3 guns, it would be a whole another issue.

Anarchist Angel
06-09-2009, 21:27
They will not be able to slaughter a whole ork mob... The math i posted above is for if Bladestorm was TL'd :) Even that cannot kill a whole mob of orks in the open, nevermind in cover! :p

EDIT: Here is the math for a maxed out squad of guardians firing at some orks,

38 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 9.5 dead from Shuriken Catapults

4 * 1/2 * 5/6 = 1.6 dead from Scatter Laser

Total dead Orks = 11.1 OR 5.55 if the Orks are in cover :)

Badger[Fr]
06-09-2009, 21:35
They will not be able to slaughter a whole ork mob... The math i posted above is for if Bladestorm was TL'd Even that cannot kill a whole mob of orks in the open, nevermind in cover!
If said mob is doomed and the Guardians get the charge, they can. 40 BS 3 S4 shots and 40 S3 attacks later, there are only 4 Orks left out of 30. Given an S4 Assault weapon and proper support, even S3 models can defeat stronger foes in CC.

Of course, it is indeed a best case scenario, but this is still something Kroots or Guardsmen will never be able to achieve.

Anarchist Angel
06-09-2009, 21:41
And how many Ork players do you know that would advance without cover? I don't know a single one... Even the noobs learn within 2 games that they need to get cover somehow!

Also what are the chances that the guardian squad is at full strength? With 20 models in the squad i would expect them templated to hell and back. The T3 and 5+ save would make them easy targets for even standard weapons... Also the guardian squad you are talking about is 165 points minimum. The Orks are 180 points and would do just as much damage if they got into combat... And they don't need a seer to support them :)

EDIT: For 165 points, guard can achieve similar results. Using the firing order to get them 3 shots each would more than make up for the extra strength on the catapult. The Guard also have an extra turn of shooting and more men... A lot more men. How many points are guard now? 4 isn't it? They can also take an arsenal of heavy weapons that would make damn short work of that ork squad :)

Isambard
06-09-2009, 21:57
What I find funny is that most of the people saying Guardians are fine as they are always refer to them being used in conjunction with doom and/or guide. Remember that it costs close to 150pts to get doom and guide on a unit and that at the most you can get 2 units done like this. Buffs like guide and doom are supposed to make the unit better, not ok in the first place, hence the points cost of the Farseer. If guide and doom were needed to make Guardians an acceptable troops choice then each unit would have to come with its own, free, Farseer.

Guardians are better than Guardsmen at a lot of things, but remember that Guard can form up in to a 50 man block with Ld10 and stubborn (thanks to a commissar, which CAN be included in every squad) with 5 heavy weapons and 5 special weapons. Don't underestimate the power of a horde of 5pt models. Guardians though, even in a block of 20, are pretty terrible even with guide and doom, as when you do get them in range they may wipe out an enemy unit, but provide a very soft 200pt target.

Guardians are, as the stand, are slightly better than Guardsmen, but much, much worse than shooter boys, who are 2pts each cheaper. Something should be changed.

Anarchist Angel
06-09-2009, 22:00
Isambard, do you think that a 6" range increase would be fine? I think it would solve every single problem with them at the moment...

Badger[Fr]
06-09-2009, 22:02
And how many Ork players do you know that would advance without cover? I don't know a single one... Even the noobs learn within 2 games that they need to get cover somehow!
Granted, Ork Mobs usually get the 5+ cover save provided by the KFF. But Guardians have their own in-built cover save as well, and contrary to Orks, could stay in cover while gunning the enemy down from afar, whereas Ork Boyz have no choice but to march toward the enemy lines.


The Orks are 120 points and would do just as much damage if they got into combat... And they don't need a seer to support them

The usual 30-Ork strong mob with the mandatory Power Klaw-toting Nob costs 215 points, not 120.



Also what are the chances that the guardian squad is at full strength?
The Guardian squad won't probably be at full strength... But neither will the Ork mob against any half-decent Eldar player.


The Guard also have an extra turn of shooting and more men...
An extra turn of shooting? Not if said Guardians have 18" Shuriken Catapults, which is the whole point of this thread. As long as the enemy is not running toward them, Guardians could stay almost indefinitely out of charge range, which is the whole point of an 18" Assault weapon.


Using the firing order to get them 3 shots each would more than make up for the extra strength on the catapult.
Granted, Guardsmen can be issued Orders, but Eldar have their psychic power as well, and a combined Infantry squad issued the FRFSRF order is still hardly on par with a Guardian squad shooting at a Doomed target, as it lacks the ability to charge or stay out of charge range, despite a relatively similar damage output.


4 isn't it?
5 points, actually. Plus, the Sergent and the Heavy Weapon Loader both lack a Lasgun, which hinders the squad's total damage output.


Remember that it costs close to 150pts to get doom and guide on a unit and that at the most you can get 2 units done like this.
Actually, I haven't even factored Guide in my calculations.

Isambard, do you think that a 6" range increase would be fine? I think it would solve every single problem with them at the moment...
So would a 24" Lasblaster.

Anarchist Angel
06-09-2009, 22:12
I changed my 120, i was thinking about a mob of 20 Orks :p

A lasblaster would not solve any of the problems... Yeah you get a longer range but the strength 3 weapon in the hands of a BS 3 model simply will not deliver on damage. You have to bear in mind that MOST people will not take guardians as a squad of 20. They will take them in squads of 10. 10 Lasblasters will cause like 3 wounds on a mob of orks. 20 lasblasters will only cause 6 per turn so it is still massively under-powered...

I also like that you are making a big thing about guardians being able to mow a squad of orks down in one turn but the cheaper Dire Avenger squad would be just as effective using the current rules once you factor in doom...

You wanna know an even cheaper way of getting the same result? Storm guardians! Anybody complain about them? I have never heard anybody complain about storm guardians at all and they will decimate a 30 man mob of orks. They can also get the job done with only 10 men. That's 127 points :)

Irisado
06-09-2009, 22:20
;3927379']Are they? Never underestimate the weight of attacks cheap models can put. More often than not, even S3 attacks are enough to slaughter a doomed unit.

Have you tried using Guardians in an assault without any other Eldar units supporting them? They would probably defeat Fire Warriors, if they could get close enough to assault them without being shot to pieces first, and they would be it.

I also go back to my previous point that most eligible targets for Guardians are going to be in cover, so the Guardians will be very lucky to strike at anywhere near full strength.


Of course, Guardians are usually better off avoiding CC as much as they can, but still, the additional flexibility provided by Assault weapons cannot be denied.

That is so that they can fire and move away from units come towards them with big axes ;).

Again, Guardians can be used to support the charge of a dedicated Eldar Aspect unit into combat, but even then it can be hazardous against certain units, and the old tactic of Guardian horde plus the Avatar has been killed off the no retreat rule, so their uses in assaults are limited in my experience.

As for the Lasblaster, I've already explained to you why I don't feel that's viable.

Poseidal
06-09-2009, 23:07
;3927379']Yes I would. Put it this way: a Penal Legionary is an 8-point Guardsman with Stubborn, Scout, an Assault 2 Lasgun, and no special or heavy weapons at all. I regulary field such squads with satisfying effectiveness. Is the loss of Stubborn and Scout worth a far superior gun, the ability to field heavy weapons, and a better initiative? As far as I'm concerned, I think it is.
Would you drop them down to a 12" range? and assault 2 lasgun is still 24" range.

Stubborn also gives better (or actually some) staying power in assault, and scout gives outflank.

Heavy Weapons aren't costed into the squad (and really expensive in Eldar, the worse brightlance is more expensive than a lascannon on the same ballistic skill) and initiative is next to worthless on a S3 model with 1 attack.

All of those things make penal legionnaires objectively far superior to Guardians for the same cost.

Badger[Fr]
06-09-2009, 23:24
Have you tried using Guardians in an assault without any other Eldar units supporting them? They would probably defeat Fire Warriors, if they could get close enough to assault them without being shot to pieces first, and they would be it.
Well, there is almost no CC unit I haven't defeated with Furious Charging Guardsmen, be it Assault Terminators or Ork Boyz. Guardians backed up by a Doomseer are hardly different. While not a CC oriented unit, Guardians can still finish a weakened unit or, given enough psychic support, defeat units far more impressive than themselves. The statline hardly matter, as long you have enough models with roughly 2 S4 attacks each. As Staline once said, quantity has a quality of its own, and 40 S4 shots followed by 40 S3 attacks on a doomed unit are more than enough to bring it down.


Would you drop them down to a 12" range? and assault 2 lasgun is still 24" range.
I'd happily exchange an Assault 2 Lasgun for an 18" range Shuriken Catapult, yes.

There is no denying Guardians currently don't work. Does that mean they should necessarily outgun and outmanoeuvre any other GEQ unit in the whole game?

Sekhmet
06-09-2009, 23:56
;3927709']Well, there is almost no CC unit I haven't defeated with Furious Charging Guardsmen, be it Assault Terminators or Ork Boyz. Guardians backed up by a Doomseer are hardly different. While not a CC oriented unit, Guardians can still finish a weakened unit or, given enough psychic support, defeat units far more impressive than themselves. The statline hardly matter, as long you have enough models with roughly 2 S4 attacks each. As Staline once said, quantity has a quality of its own, and 40 S4 shots followed by 40 S3 attacks on a doomed unit are more than enough to bring it down.


I'd happily exchange an Assault 2 Lasgun for an 18" range Shuriken Catapult, yes.

There is no denying Guardians currently don't work. Does that mean they should necessarily outgun and outmanoeuvre any other GEQ unit in the whole game?

I'd challenge you to defeat a wraithlord with guardsmen in close combat. Or a C'tan.

MadHatter
07-09-2009, 00:38
Of course, Guardians are usually better off avoiding CC as much as they can, but still, the additional flexibility provided by Assault weapons cannot be denied.

That is so that they can fire and move away from units come towards them with big axes ;).



I think I am missing something with this. You cannot shoot and then run or fleet. so they are not going to get away if they stand and shoot. They have to move forward and shoot. And then hope to wipe them out in the charge.

Venkh
07-09-2009, 00:58
Doom helps many other, more viable units in the Eldar army equally. Doom doesnt make Guardians with shuricats a good choice, it just compensates for their weaknesses a little.

We should be trying to make Defender Guardians a decent unit in their own right, not assuming that there will always be a 150pt HQ model supporting them in every scenario.

Sorry but it irks me a little when posters state that if 'x' crap unit performs perfectly well when supported by 'y' unit (usually costing more than the unit it is supporting) then unit 'x' must be a viable choice.


And then hope to wipe them out in the charge.

Assuming the enemy doest just remove the models in charge range as casualties leaving the guardians standing around in the open waiting to get shot.

Corpse
07-09-2009, 01:35
Wow this topic spanned another +5 pages last I checked it so please pardon me skipping a large sum to place some of my old thoughts into the debate. (I'll properly read things later, atm I dont have time)

18" Range, 6" move, same ideals as orks shootas. Shuriken Cannon has the same AP value as catapults, not really flowing considering that bolters are completely inferior to heavy bolters in comparisons. I suggest that the BS3 unit, that is spendier then shoota boyz, have guns like shootaz with AP6, but 18" range. Considering the big shoota is superior to the shoota the same way that the Sh-catapult will be to the Sh-cannon. Orks are still superior in melee, but the guardians will still have that 5+ armor save, warlock and that move+shoot variable heavy weapon team with BS3.

If all else fails in the fairness, guardians can always have +1 point to the model.

Bladestorm should be an option that the exarch orders them to shoot more, but with slow and purposeful rule. Instead of forgoing a turn of fire, your actually destroying some of their mobility. But can fire it every turn so not to make it a strict transport-style tactic(Or, blade and scoot).

And if that makes them too powerful, again +1 point wont be that big of a deal, though I may suspect they might get +2 points a model for such an upgrade. (I would pay it!)

On the offhand, I feel that the upgrade of the standard weapon would affect all shuriken catapults on bikes, which will be the REAL problem. So a similar rule of reducing the range on ork bikers will be the same as for the jetbikes. Same reasoning that a weapon fired from the arms is harder from a air-based craft turning constantly. (Have to consider all the other users of the Shuriken catapult) - As for the tanks though I think its fine they have 18" on their TLSCatapults. Feels more "Eldar"-ish that way. Especially when a stable gunner like a Dire Avenger will have it better ranged then a dude firing a rifle from a tank.

I'm also in the boat that rangers should cost a little less as a result of this change. Because many people use rangers for their heavy range forces, sitting them behind a line of conceal guardians and having the pathfinder upgrade for a good cover save.

The other change perhaps would be Black Guardians costing as much as dire avengers, but having a special rule or two such as having the hit+run ability, the storm guardians having furious charge. And so on.

shabbadoo
07-09-2009, 03:28
;3927379']Indeed, and that's why I think Guardians should be limited to a support role, which hardly fits an unit strong enough to kill a whole Ork mob in a single turn with relative ease. Had they S3 guns, it would be a whole another issue.

Um…no. That would be like saying “I think Imperial Guard Troopers should be limited to a support role.” The mainstay forces in an Elder army are supposed to be Guardians. They are the rank-and-file of the Eldar Army. Everything else is supplementary and specialized. The vast majority of Eldar citizens remain as Guardians, while those who catch the fighting bug will mostly become Dire Avengers, with only the really oddball ones going to some other aspect shrine.

Orks are not that easy for a unit of Guardians to kill either. Even if the Guardians get off a volley first, the Ork remnants will slaughter them. 175 points of Guardians are going to get pounded to goo by 175 points of Orks, IG or pretty much any basic squad from any army. It’s just a fact with comparative point forces.

That is 10 Marines with a heavy bolter, flamer, vet. sgt. and 5 points to spare. Combat squad them, stand at range and fire away, and if the Guardians finally advance to firing range, then the squad with the flamer steps up and smokes them with flame and pistol shots, and then assaults the remains.

For IG that is 30 men with 3 mortars and two grenade launchers. Can you say “dying race”?

For Orks that is a unit of 30 Slugga Boyz with three big shootas. The Guardians will get off one good round of shooting before they get beaten into the ground by the 19 or so survivors. No Nob required. Better still, have a shooting contest with 30 Shoota Boyz with 3 big shootas that outrange them. The Orks getting in the first round of solid fire with 60 shoota shots and 9 big shoota shots to start with will turn the Guardians into leaky blood sacks. Half their unit will be gone with the first Ork shots. The rest is academic.

For Tyranids the discrepancy is not so marked, as they are somewhat expensive for that they can do shooting-wise too, just like Guardians. Moreover, the whole Instinctive Behavior thing makes comparing their basic units to Guardians problematic, and so I will not.

A unit of ten Tau with pulse rifles and a unit of seven Tau with pulse rifles will just turkey shoot the Guardians until they get within range, at which time the Tau will step up and rapid fire them dead.

Now, you give shuriken catapults a range of 18’ and any of the above situations become a crapshoot, which is as it should be. Guardians would then have enough bite and maneuverability that they would be a unit that one needs to deal with much more carefully.


;3927423']If said mob is doomed and the Guardians get the charge, they can.

Okay, it was inevitable that somebody would add in another factor(of course).:rolleyes:

Yeah, and Orks do not have KFFs or can be 'Ard Boyz, have a cybork upgrade, or even Feel No Pain from Grotsnik. Forget all of that getting your big brother to help you fight your battles though. Let us stick to the bare bones units and how much bang for the buck they give you, because that is what it is all about. With that in mind, Guardians are comparatively crap.


And how many Ork players do you know that would advance without cover? I don't know a single one... Even the noobs learn within 2 games that they need to get cover somehow!

Sure, I take advantage of cover when I can, but I also advance my Orks without cover all of the time. With enough models it becomes inevitable. Of the last 3,000 points of enemy models I have faced, only three models have escaped to tell of the horror of facing my Waaagh!!! And no, I haven’t been using any KFFs. At all. I think I’ve got things down pretty good at this point(25+ years of experience surely doesn’t hurt ;)).

Isambard
07-09-2009, 08:27
Isambard, do you think that a 6" range increase would be fine? I think it would solve every single problem with them at the moment...

Quite possible yes. What you then do with Dire Avengers, I dont know (I would guess make Blade Storm an option that they can use anyway, on every turn they don't move, and give the Exarch some other boost).

I think 18" range for Guardians is well worth testing.

shabbadoo
07-09-2009, 11:23
Dive Avengers don't need anything else. Their stat boosts, better armor and blade storm ability, not to mention their exarch and its abilities, are all that they need. They are unique enough and powerful enough as is.

Poseidal
07-09-2009, 12:42
;3927709']
I'd happily exchange an Assault 2 Lasgun for an 18" range Shuriken Catapult, yes.
Remember along with the 18" is swapping for the Assault 2 Lasgun AND Stubborn + Grenades, if that's what you're saying here is a fair swap then that's ok; both have their uses (the Assault 2 lasgun has a longer range, and they tarpit better in exchange for 6" range and more hitting power). However the 12" Catapult 8 point guardian is really inferior though.


There is no denying Guardians currently don't work. Does that mean they should necessarily outgun and outmanoeuvre any other GEQ unit in the whole game?
With the 18" catapult or 24" las, they still cost more point for point, so you get a trade off for durability (staying power rather) and damage ranges. The heavy weapon outmanoeuvres but is quite expensive (the move+fire is included in the points), otherwise they move just the same as guardsmen. Now Run exists, I don't rate fleet for Guardians as worth anything at all.

Old Gobbo
07-09-2009, 13:55
I think Shuriken Catapults should have 18" Range and still be Assault 2. Dire Avengers would still benefit from higher BS and AS along with the extra bits and bobs the Exarch can give. The Shuriken Catapult is supposed to be the main Eldar Weapon of choice and Guardians are supposed to be the most numerous Eldar troops, but this just doesn't seem to be reflected on the gaming table.

An improvement to 18" would give a little tactical flexibility to the unit, without being too OTT.

Spell_of_Destruction
07-09-2009, 17:12
Currently a shoota is better than a regular shuriken catapult which definitely represents the low point for the weapon that used to be the best basic firearm in the game.

I think that assault 2 18" would be fine. Every other basic weapon in the game seems to have benefitted since 3rd ed from either the changes in the rapid fire rules or changes to the weapon itself. The basic shuricat has ben left to look pretty sorry in comparison.

If Guardians don't get the boost then they need to have their points dropped as they simply don't compare to comparative troops at present. I'm not really in favour of putting more Eldar on the table so the shuricat bost seems like the most sensible option to me.

I don't think the change would make Avengers redundant. As others have pointed out Avengers have other abilities that make them stand out as more than just upgraded guardians.

Bitey
07-09-2009, 17:19
I think it should be like a psycannon and have 2 modes of fire-
assault 1 range 18" and
assault 2 range 12"
almost like a rapidfire weapon with range 18" but assault (if that makes sense:rolleyes:)
I'd be tempted to make shuriken catapults (of both types) less powerful though, I don't really see them as being as strong as bolters, maybe ap 6 instead....

Oh and shootas have no business being assault 2 either, in my view there was no need to change them from rapidfire at all. But then most ork weapons are a bit ridiculous like that when you think about them. The orks have somehow created a completely non-uniform, bolted together machinegun (intrinsically at risk of jamming) whic can be fired on the move to the same range as a heavy bolter with no loss of accuracy and can also be fired whilst charging headlong into combat

Spell_of_Destruction
07-09-2009, 17:26
I think it should be like a psycannon and have 2 modes of fire-
assault 1 range 18" and
assault 2 range 12"
almost like a rapidfire weapon with range 18" but assault (if that makes sense:rolleyes:)

Seems a bit w*nky for a basic weapon.

Is an 18" S4 assault 2 weapon on an a BS 3 model really that overpowered when for 2 points less you can get an Ork boy with an almost identical weapon?

Okay the Ork boy has BS2 but the points difference more or less cancels that out and the boy is pretty much better at everything else anyway.

Bitey
07-09-2009, 18:46
Seems a bit w*nky for a basic weapon.

Is an 18" S4 assault 2 weapon on an a BS 3 model really that overpowered when for 2 points less you can get an Ork boy with an almost identical weapon?

Okay the Ork boy has BS2 but the points difference more or less cancels that out and the boy is pretty much better at everything else anyway.

Oh indeed but i think the point here is that as well as guardians now being overcosted, orks are also undercosted

my reasoning against a straight assault 2 18" statline was to keep it inferior to the Avenger catapult- which should be better but does not need a boost in my view...

borithan
07-09-2009, 19:00
Swooping Hawks were originally equipped with Lasguns, yes, which was always a bit bizarre for an Aspect unit in my view, so I'm glad GW fixed that anomaly.Many of the aspects were armed with fairly standard weaponry, it was more the better skills, better armour, extra special equipment and slightly different way of using them that set them apart. Dire Avengers had shuriken catapults identical to those that 50% of all Guardians could field. Striking scorpions chainswords and shuriken pistols were identical to those fielded by any other CC Guardian, as were the las-pistols and power weapons of Banshees. Dark Reapers missile launchers were identical to those that Guardians could be equipped with (in RT... not sure if they could in 2nd ed?), just they could be fielded by a full unit, and had other gear alongside it. Swooping Hawks, as said, had lasguns. Only more recently has it been the weapons themselves that set aspects apart, rather than the figure they were carried by.



The Lasblaster isn't a standard issue weapon though (the Shuriken Catapult, however, is), and while it may look an attractive option on paper, its lower strength arguably makes Guardians worse off than they are now (remember they have inferior BS relative to the Swooping Hawks),But 24" range would really help. Yes, they would kill less when they shoot, but they would get to shoot more often, and they wouldn't have to get to face-crumpin range to do it. I don't think anyone is that bothered about making them particularly powerful, just making their weaponry make sense for their role.



there is no doubt in my mind that GW were right to get rid of the Lasgun, as it was an Imperial weapon by all accounts. It was just a name for a family of similar laser weapons, just it was used very widely by Imperials (and it used to be said that the best example of las weapons were eldar ones). It only became an "imperial" weapon with 3rd ed... much like bolters. True, I do think moving the race's weapons away from each other has some advantages, but a "lasgun" has not been an "Imperial" weapon for as long as it was just a generic weapon.



So do I. Guardians with 18'' Shuriken Catapults would easily be one of the most powerful Troop units in the whole game. Just compare them with 5-point Guardsmen. For a mere additional 3 points, you get:With any change in rules there would obviously have to be a look at the points cost. You cannot predict that they would be 8 points still.


Follow Through Fire(trust me, this was horrid)Actually a rules mechanism used by some other games of the time... a weird one, but obviously considered a popular one at the time. Personally prefer the fixed "Heavy" stat of the moment though.


In the old days, they were like IG but better, with mesh armor superior to flak armor,I think this has to be one of the biggest hits that the Eldar received. Flak used to be 6+... and pretty much all weapons ignored it. OK. Mesh was 5+ (normally reduced to a 6+). Not great, but still better than flak... however, for whatever reason Flak was increased to a 5+ in 3rd ed, but it seems to have been decided that most weapons should still ignore flak, meaning that AP had to be set to 5 for things like bolters... rendering mesh provided no protection against many basic weapons. A 5+ save which they could actually take against most in game instances of small arms, while not amazing, would have set Guardians apart from the races that relied on bodies to take damage, rather than avoiding them, while not being a 4+ or better armour.

Aliarzathanil
07-09-2009, 19:56
As an Eldar player since second edition, we need to let the "shuriken catapult was the best basic weapon in 2nd edition" thing go. Virus grenades were pretty good too and I don't miss them.
Here's my questions to all those that want to change it:
-Why can't guardians be used as a unit that holds on objective far from danger?
-Why are all your suggestions retaining AP5? An increase in range would make them even better against units they're already good at. Dropping the AP5 would make them no worse against marines. Seems like an okay trade.
-Why do you need them to be better? Seriously. We have bikes, avengers, and rangers as troops. Use those. I personally, just field a cheap squad with a lance to hold objectives. They don't get charged much, and if they get blasted, I have them go to ground. Don't try and use them as frontline troops and you won't be so disappointed.

Anarchist Angel
07-09-2009, 22:35
So what if I want an ulthwe army? Guardians are the frontline troops for the Ulthwe craftworld. We can make effective armies for every major craftworld but due to the guardians having a ridiculous weapon we cannot make effective, fluffy Ulthwe. If your guardians are sitting unopposed on objectives I suggest you find some better opponents...

Isambard
08-09-2009, 00:05
I would do terrible, terrible things in order to get lasblasters for Guardians (and keep them at 8 points).

shabbadoo
08-09-2009, 02:10
-Why can't guardians be used as a unit that holds on objective far from danger?

You can of course do this. Fortunately EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO uses objectives safely stowed away in your own deployment area, so this tactic is the PERFECT reason to keep Guardians as useless as is possible. :rolleyes: (yes, sarcasm ;))


-Why are all your suggestions retaining AP5? An increase in range would make them even better against units they're already good at. Dropping the AP5 would make them no worse against marines. Seems like an okay trade.

AP 5 keeps them competitive with NON-marines, which is the point. Contrary to popular opinion, not everything is always all about marines.


-Why do you need them to be better? Seriously. We have bikes, avengers, and rangers as troops. Use those. I personally, just field a cheap squad with a lance to hold objectives. They don't get charged much, and if they get blasted, I have them go to ground. Don't try and use them as frontline troops and you won't be so disappointed.

Why do they need to be better when there is no need, and little desire, to use what is the most fundamental unit of the Eldar Army? Did you even read what you just typed? Do you see any problem with it? To paraphrase your sentiments, you are basically saying "Why even use this crap unit when you can use these instead." The point is that there shouldn't be any crap unit that does not equitably reflect in-game performance how much it actually costs in points. They don't, and so people leave them by the wayside and take Jet Bikes, Dire Avengers, and scouts instead- basically anything that is NOT Guardians. They may take a unit of Guardians just to get a weapon platform, but that really isn't very smart because it is a waste of resources, as most of the points value of the unit just stands around and does literally nothing. It doesn't take a genius to see that though, and so we see those weapons taken on Warwalkers, Wraithlords, Vypers and Wave Serpents instead where they are effective for the points cost.

"Congratulations! You just spent 110 points for a bright lance platform! Enjoy not using your other 72 points of Guardians in the unit, for they will just be standing around looking awesome!"

With an advertising campaign like that(and considering the sub-par abilities of the shuriken catapult), it is no wonder we don't see Guardians more often. :p

Horrible. Just horrible.

Hellebore
08-09-2009, 02:27
I gave up long ago trying to convince irrational people that the guardian is fundamentally flawed.

Until GW actually rewrite them and TELL people it's ok to admit they were flawed, people will still cling to the idea they are fine.

For every argument that 'X is fine as is. Doing Y is broken' GW have changed them to exactly that and miraculously that argument disappears.

Because only GW get to say what is and isn't broken, we plebs can't possibly point these things out. So we are wrong until GW says we are right. :rolleyes:

The simple fact is that:

Guardians (as currently depicted and equippd) make no sense in the context of the eldar.
A dying race with highly advanced technology and the forknowledge of when to use it does not go into battle with its 'precious' citizens wearing cheap armour and carrying suicidally short ranged weapons. The background describes the eldar going to great lengths to preserve their population, the whole 'gladly sacrifice a million humans to save one eldar' shtick. And yet, when it comes to fighting a battle TO protect their population the first thing they do is put said precious population in the worst armour their technology can make and give them the most inappropriate guns for their role. Guardian DEFENDERS? Guardian suicide squads more like.

Their armour and weapons also make them a horde in an elite army. It would be like having imperial guard squads in the space marine codex. Except Imperial Guard are better defenders than Guardian Defenders.

My opinion is that aspect armour be standardised to 3+ and guardians wear carapace armour. They are already wearing full body suits with helmets, far more heavily armoured than a guardsman.

The catapult goes up to 18" range and defender squads get to take up to 3 heavy weapon platforms in one squad (at max size of course). Take 2 if you've got a squad of 10 and a 3rd if you have 15. Prevents people min maxing the 5 man weapon platform.

But then all of the above will be decried as broken and unworkable - until GW themselves do it and suddenly it's the best idea eva and GW are geniuses. :eyebrows:

Gamer hypocrisy gets old.

Hellebore

Nym
08-09-2009, 03:49
I gave up long ago trying to convince irrational people that the guardian is fundamentally flawed.

They're not flawed because of their "very poor" standard weapon though (that every single Guardsman in the galaxy dreams of having). They're flawed because the designers *obviously* wanted them to provide some heavy fire support (mandatory platform), and they can't even do it efficiently due to their incredibly high cost (and the cost of their heavy weapons).

You're paying for I4, Ld8 and a 12" Stormbolter, but no one cares about all of this since A) I4 on WS3 S3 A1 troops is crap B) Ld8 is only marginally better than Ld7 C) you don't want to come close to ennemy units.

The solution isn't to turn them into Dire Avengers wanabees or to make them better at mid-range firefights than Marines or Ork Shootas, but to give them a global cost reduction (and maybe access to a second heavy weapon), to make them good at what they were meant to do *in this codex* : heavy-weapon fire support.

Maybe they'll be given a whole new role in the next codex, but in the current one you can't just improve their Shuricats and hope it will be ok, because by doing so you render Dire Avengers completely useless (no one would care if their Shuricats became AP4, only AP3 would justify taking them over Guardians with 18" Shuricats).

Hellebore
08-09-2009, 04:15
They're not flawed because of their "very poor" standard weapon (that every single Guardsman in the galaxy dreams of having). They're flawed because the designers *obviously* wanted them to provide some heavy fire support (mandatory platform), and they can't even do it efficiently due to their incredibly high cost (and the cost of their weapons).


Lol, I'd rather have lasguns on my guardians than shuriken catapults. 24" range is far better, regardless of the weapon.



You're paying for I4, Ld8 and a 12" Stormbolter, but no one cares about all of this since A) I4 on WS3 S3 A1 troops is crap B) Ld8 is only marginally better than Ld7 C) you don't want to come close to ennemy units.


If people looked at the gun as a pistol I think it would open up their eyes. Do you give core troops nothing but a pistol as their basic ranged weapon?



The solution isn't to turn them into Dire Avengers wanabees or to make them better at mid-range firefights than Marines or Ork Shootas, but to give them a global cost reduction (and maybe access to a second heavy weapon), to make them good at what they were meant to do *in this codex* : heavy-weapon fire support.


They are already dire avenger wannabes because they are equipped in the same way. A global cost reduction simply makes this dying race the Imperial guard. Being cheap doesn't make them good at fire support, it makes them good at providing bodies to catch bullets to protect a heavy weapon.



Maybe they'll be given a whole new role in the next codex, but in the current one you can't just improve their Shuricats and hope it will be ok, because by doing so you render Dire Avengers completely useless (no one would care if their Shuricats became AP4, only AP3 would justify taking them over Guardians with 18" Shuricats).

If you say so.

Hellebore

shabbadoo
08-09-2009, 04:42
That would be the same argument as before in the 3e Eldar codex. Why take Dire Avengers when you can have Guardians for cheaper? (Foolishly)quite a few people seemed to think that it wasn't worth the extra 4 points to get:

*4+ armor save(a really big deal in the upgrade as they actually then get save vs. most basic weaponry)
*+1 Initiative(not too big a deal for most ranged units, but when coupled with a 12" range weapon and a close combat oriented exarch, it is pretty useful)
*+1 WS(considering the above parenthetical bit, the usefulness of this is obvious)
*+1 BS(16% more accuracy is not too shabby)
*+1 Leadership(once again, obvious benefits)

Dire Avengers got all of that above and beyond what Guardians had for 12 points; only 4 points more than a Guardian cost back then, and the cost hasn't changed, though the loss of usefulness and added abilities, respectively, have. Nowadays Dire Avengers get all of that, Avenger Shuriken Catapults and the Bladestorm ability. They needed it though, so that 's fine. Guardians have always been rather poor, and more often than not the only reason you would even see Guardians is because somebody would play using the Ulthwe Craftworld list and get a +1 BS on all of their Guardian units for FREE(and +1 WS on all of their Storm Guardians for FREE). Then Guardians performed somewhat decently then, but it took a full on improvement of 16% in their main ability, and the usefullness of being able to fly up in Wave Serpent, deploy, shoot and charge to do it. Well, those stat buffs and tactical options are gone now, rendering basic Guardians a sub-par unit, yet the basic cost of the Guardians remains the same. The cost of Guardians could be lowered to 6, and that would work, but the unit would still be tactically flawed- sit back and be mostly useless, or move forward and try to do what Storm Guardians are better equipped to do anyways.

Apocalypse_Nigh
08-09-2009, 06:43
Another option to altering the base stat line of the shuriken catapults is to alter, or add, to the powers available to warlocks. I won't pretend to be able to think up proper powers, with respect go game and internal balancing, but the expansion of what warlocks can do would add greatly to the variability and should increase the number of builds available to Eldar players.

The huge draw back to this is that warlocks show up in many different types of units: guardian defenders, storm guardians, jetbike squads, support weapon batteries, wraithguard squads and of course the 'seer council'. Since warlock exist as options to so many different types of units, from pretty underwhelming units to what some consider cheesy, it would be a pretty mean balancing act to get that strait.

As far as fluff goes I think increasing the reasons for people to field warlocks, outside of 'seer councils', fits the Eldar's psychic heritage much better that it is represented currently.

shabbadoo
08-09-2009, 08:36
As you pointed out, altering Warlocks doesn't fix the fundamental problem- Guardians/shuriken catapults.

Poseidal
08-09-2009, 09:17
Back in 3rd edition, I suggested that along with the global range change to 18" that Dire Avengers got true grit (thoug now I think ccw and pistol would be fine) because all aspects originated from them so they show the progression with the other specialised aspects.

Anarchist Angel
08-09-2009, 11:34
I think the way you could keep the Dire-Avengers better than guardians would be to TL thier BS. I did some math earlier and it wasn't super-mega awesome but it would certainly boost them above the guardians. The fact that you can only fire every other turn would more than make up for the BS being TLs imo. Atm BS makes very little sense in normal circumstances since you cause more damage by firing every turn normally (due to the Exarch's Weapon.) Adding the TL benefit would make BS more useful generally and make them an appealing choice over the guardians if the range was increased to 18" :)

Atm I find that Avengers are unable to do enough damage against very common armies especially marines. You can expect to kill like 3 or so models from a bladestorm atm. With TL you are looking at nearer 5 which is much more fitting of thier points imo :)

Whoever said that giving Dire Avengers AP3 would not make them used in simply not thinking... You would wipe a marine squad with AP3! That is way, way, way, way too powerful!

I was thinking about something that was said earlier about Guardians with 18" weapons being able to wipe an ork mob in 1 turn. The thing that you failed to realise is that your calculations included combat, making the 18" range completely irrellivent... You can do that with the 12" catapults but it would invove using doom and getting into a risky combat with some orks (which is exatly what you needed to do.) Even the 4 remaining boyz would cripple your squad... As I said before, this was ignoring cover, Ard Boyz, Cyborks, etc so you're calculations are VERY situational and therefore unreliable. We should also be taking the guardians ability with no buffs into account rather than what they do with guide and doom...

Anarchist Angel
08-09-2009, 11:40
Back in 3rd edition, I suggested that along with the global range change to 18" that Dire Avengers got true grit (thoug now I think ccw and pistol would be fine) because all aspects originated from them so they show the progression with the other specialised aspects.

This is a decent idea. Maybe we could take a leaf out of the Chaos Marines book and give them a shuriken catapult AND a shuriken pistol and CCW. They would be great all-rounders and no too powerful due to the fact they have no power-weapons and relatively few attacks. Not to mention str 3 :)

Hellebore
08-09-2009, 11:44
This is a decent idea. Maybe we could take a leaf out of the Chaos Marines book and give them a shuriken catapult AND a shuriken pistol and CCW. They would be great all-rounders and no too powerful due to the fact they have no power-weapons and relatively few attacks. Not to mention str 3 :)

It reflects the 'core aspect' concept they are supposed to represent.

Hellebore

NightrawenII
08-09-2009, 12:01
Im 100% for assault 2 18" Shuriken Catapult. Why? Babbysitting unit with range of 12" is ridiculous.

Also DA having ccw and pistol are good idea for being *core* unit of Eldar. It will be good addition to Bladestorm.

Onisuzume
08-09-2009, 12:47
Imo, Tueleans do need a boost.
They used to be better than bolters back 2nd edition.

So how about...
18" Range, S4, AP5, Assault 2

Nym
08-09-2009, 13:48
The whole problem with this thread is that Dire Avengers *don't need* to be improved, yet to justify a ridicoulous improvement for Guardians, you're trying to change a perfectly balanced unit.

If you love Guardians so much or want an Ulthwe Black Guardians army, why don't you just use count-as Dire Avengers guys ?

Onisuzume
08-09-2009, 14:01
Weren't we talking about guardians? :confused:

Petay1985
08-09-2009, 14:22
Assault 1 and 18" would be good. Assault 2 and 18" would be *too* good.

Giving Guardians the same weapons as Dire avengers would be a bad move as far as internal balance is concerned.

I agree whole heartedly!! :)

shabbadoo
08-09-2009, 15:02
The whole problem with this thread is that Dire Avengers *don't need* to be improved, yet to justify a ridicoulous improvement for Guardians, you're trying to change a perfectly balanced unit.

I agree with the first bit, but not with the "ridiculous" part. Dire Avengers are very well balanced, and they are obviously effective enough that practically everybody uses them. They need NOTHING; not even a pistol and close combat weapon or grenades.

Guardians on the other hand are just not very effective against anything. Their supposedly decent gun is beaten at range by almost every basic gun in the game and equaled in effectiveness at close range by almost every basic weapon in the game as they are mostly Rapid Fire weapons. That reminds me of the change in Rapid Fire weapons being able to move and fire twice. I forgot to mention that. That's another thing that shuriken catapults used to have over other weapons, but that edge is now gone too. Almost every basic weapon can now do that; only pulse carbines cannot, but they are S 5, Assault 1, R 18", Pinning so they don't exactly suck. ;) Taken altogether, Guardians and their main weapon, for their points cost, are sub-par across the board in comparison to the standard units of other armies.

incarna
08-09-2009, 15:18
I use two squads of bladestorming Dire avengers in my army and the units both perform exemplary. I think Dire Avengers with an Exarch are among the best offensive troops in the game.

Some people are arguing from the perspective that increasing the range of shuriken catapults to 18Ē will somehow diminish Dire Avengers. There are FAR more things than 6Ē additional range that makes Dire Avengers better than Guardian Defenders.

1. Dire Avengers can take an exarch which increases the effectiveness of the squad through his powers and equipment.

2. Dire Avengers have a BS (and WS) of 4 making them better shots than their civilian counterparts.

3. Dire Avengers have a 4+ armor save. This may not seem like much but, considering 90+% of the basic weapons in the game have an AP of 5 thatís the difference between life and death.

I believe that Shuriken catapult should have its range increased to 18Ē across the board. Partially for fluff reasons, but mostly for the sake of the Guardian Defender unit. And for those of you suggesting that bladestorm sucks Ė my only reply to you is that youíre either not using the Avengers correctly or arenít supporting them correctly Ė on MANY occasions Iíve watched 250+ point Terminator command squads make short work of the 90-point fire dragon squad that just vaporized their 200+ point Land Raider ride get eaten alive by 60 shuriken catapult shots in my following shooting phase. It doesnít bother me that I canít shoot in the following phase because usually there isnít anything to shoot at anyway!

Irisado
08-09-2009, 16:05
I think I am missing something with this. You cannot shoot and then run or fleet. so they are not going to get away if they stand and shoot. They have to move forward and shoot. And then hope to wipe them out in the charge.

What was missing was the added explanation that this is a line of retreat tactic for when the opposition get within assault range (I'm talking about regular assault range here), so the Guardians shoot, move back, and then an assault unit, leaps in to finish off the squad that they shot at.

The other option would be, as you say to shoot, and then assault but doing that without assaulting in conjunction with another unit fails abysmally in my experience, so Badger[Fr] please take note. Even if you cast Doom on a squad which is assaulted by twenty Guardians, there is no guarantee that you will win the combat, because I have tried it.

Unless the opposition is very poor in assaults, and has poor armour save as well, they just do not cause enough wounds.


Many of the aspects were armed with fairly standard weaponry, it was more the better skills, better armour, extra special equipment and slightly different way of using them that set them apart.

I know. I started playing when White Dwarf 127 came out ;).


Only more recently has it been the weapons themselves that set aspects apart, rather than the figure they were carried by.

Since third edition, so that it quite a long time now in my view.


But 24" range would really help. Yes, they would kill less when they shoot, but they would get to shoot more often, and they wouldn't have to get to face-crumpin range to do it. I don't think anyone is that bothered about making them particularly powerful, just making their weaponry make sense for their role.

You can still make them much more viable as a support fire unit for Aspect Warriors by extending the range of the Shuriken Catapult in my view, and I just don't think the background is there to support the use of the Lasblaster by Guardians.


but a "lasgun" has not been an "Imperial" weapon for as long as it was just a generic weapon.

I would argue that Eldar should have had access to their own specialised laser weapons from the word go, but 40K didn't work like that back then, so the comparison doesn't really work as well as it might unfortunately.

Anarchist Angel
08-09-2009, 16:33
...get eaten alive by 60 shuriken catapult shots in my following shooting phase. It doesnít bother me that I canít shoot in the following phase because usually there isnít anything to shoot at anyway!

You realise that this is not anywhere near average shooting though right? 60 Catapult shots should kill 3 terminators :)

If you read earlier in the thread, I and other posters have said that the Avengers have a lot extra on the guardians. I am only posting some additional suggestions to make Avengers a little better so that they are still taken over guardians. Personally i would still use both but there are a lot of people on the thread that seem to think Avengers would not get used at all, much like in previous editions. The thing they aren't seeing is that Avengers have had additional upgrades since the addition besides the range increase that make them much better than guardians, such as bladestorm. They also have the additonal stats. I am trying to find a very minor change that would appeal to these people to make the Avengers the obviouse better choice over guardians. Something like CCweapons and pistols, or TLing BS are just a couple of suggestions. If you run the math i think you'll find that neither are overly effective boosts but maybe they are enough to make the avengers worth the extra 4 pts in the eyes of some people on this thread :)

The main issue was that with the extra range, the Avengers only just beat the gaurdians on fire-power. So giving the Avengers the TL Bladestorm was an easy way to outgun the guardians but it's still not a massive boost imo. It's also compensated by the fact you fire every-other turn if you want the TL shots :)

Although TL sounds like a massive change (it's essentially free guide) you have to remember that the higher your BS the less of a boost it is. For the BS 5 Exarch, the TL shots are barely an improvement. For the BS 4 Avengers it's not a massive boost either... If the guardians had guide they would have a much bigger benefit than the Avengers. :)

Memnos
08-09-2009, 16:52
12" is a good range, I believe, because of what the Eldar have.

The Eldar could have 20 Guardians for 160 points move in to fire range and get rerolls(Thanks to guide) of both hit and wound(Thanks to Doom). That's 40 shots, 30 hits, 22.5 armor saves against toughness 4 troops.

With all the augmentation, being able to do that twice before someone could charge would not be a 'balanced' alternative as it would wipe out nearly any unit for a cost that is laughably inexpensive.

Iracundus
08-09-2009, 16:54
12" is a good range, I believe, because of what the Eldar have.

The Eldar could have 20 Guardians for 160 points move in to fire range and get rerolls(Thanks to guide) of both hit and wound(Thanks to Doom). That's 40 shots, 30 hits, 22.5 armor saves against toughness 4 troops.

With all the augmentation, being able to do that twice before someone could charge would not be a 'balanced' alternative as it would wipe out nearly any unit for a cost that is laughably inexpensive.

Your points do not account for the cost of the Farseer and psychic powers nor the opportunity cost in having the Farseer tied up solely "babysitting" a sub par unit.

incarna
08-09-2009, 17:06
You realise that this is not anywhere near average shooting though right? 60 Catapult shots should kill 3 terminators :)


Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit but my experience is, with proper support, a terminator command squad doesnít last long against 2 squads of mounted bladestorming avengers after their ride is nuked.

I am a huge fan of mathematical analysis of the effectiveness of a unit but my experience has shown that bladestorm is very much worthwhile because there isnít much out there that can survive shear volume firepower.

Apocalypse_Nigh
08-09-2009, 17:09
Also getting a mob of 20 guardians a cover save would be difficult at best. In addition since they die as easy as guardsmen, it wouldn't be hard to kill 5 and with leadership 8 its not all that unlikely they will fail causing them to run.
Also, as stated by Iracundus, your points are off.
160 pts (20 guardians)
15 pts (Scatter Laser)
120 Farseer (Doom, Guide, Stones)

Together thats 395 points for one more point you can get a wraithguard sqaud with a spiritseer and conceal.

Anarchist Angel
08-09-2009, 17:30
I am a huge fan of mathematical analysis of the effectiveness of a unit but my experience has shown that bladestorm is very much worthwhile because there isnít much out there that can survive shear volume firepower.

The problem with mathematical analysis of Blade Storm etc is that is ignore so many factors such as cover. Ork Boyz for example will suffer:

27 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 9 Dead Orks

5 * 5/6 * 1/2 = 2.08 Dead Orks.

So 11 Casualties... Now if we put some cover into the equation or FNP:

11.08 * 1/2 = 5.54 Dead Orks (looking a bit pathetic now...)

If they only have a Mek Field for cover:

11.08 * 2/3 = 7.39 Dead Orks (again, not looking to clever)


As you can see the numbers are not that strong vs T4 targets, even if you ignore thier save :) I'm not saying Avengers are bad or anything but they are certainly not a wonder unit lol. I think you put it as "the best offensive unit in the game." I don't think you would be too hard-pressed to find a better unit tbh. I think 10 Fire Warriors would almost match you for kills at rapid-fire range for example and they can fire every turn :)

The whole changing the Avengers thing was all a case of internal balance. The smallest change we can make to the Avengers to make them appeal over guardians to everyone is what we are aiming for. Look at some math for TL shots at the Orks for example. This represents the TL BS idea:

27 * (2/3 + 1/3 * 2/3) * 1/2 = 12 Dead Orks

5 * (5/6 + 1/6 * 5/6) * 1/2 = 2.4 Dead Orks.

That's only an improvement of 3 casualties. When you add the cover in, you get even more diluted improvements:

4+ cover = 14.4 * 1/2 = 7.2 Dead Orks

5+ cover = 14.4 * 2/3 = 9.6 Dead Orks

The changes obviously have to remain fluffy and I think TLing BS is reflects fluff very well. With such a low recoil weapon, firing a hail of shurikens at the enemy is going to have more chance of hitting than firing fewer shots. It's the whole principle of twin-linked. Firing more shots is a crude but effective way of ensuring more hits :)

MadHatter
08-09-2009, 23:40
Your points do not account for the cost of the Farseer and psychic powers nor the opportunity cost in having the Farseer tied up solely "babysitting" a sub par unit.


12" is a good range, I believe, because of what the Eldar have.

The Eldar could have 20 Guardians for 160 points move in to fire range and get rerolls(Thanks to guide) of both hit and wound(Thanks to Doom). That's 40 shots, 30 hits, 22.5 armor saves against toughness 4 troops.

With all the augmentation, being able to do that twice before someone could charge would not be a 'balanced' alternative as it would wipe out nearly any unit for a cost that is laughably inexpensive.


As it was said this lacks the cost of the farseer. And to be honest, I do not want to commit my Farseer into a baby sitting. I want to have my Farseer where I need it, giving the support to the unit that may need it else where in a game turning event. As it has been stated when you are looking at a unit, you need to look at the unit, not the unit and the HQ unless it is the HQ's Bodyguard/Retuine.

The Guardian need to be able to stand on thier own without the Farseer much like the firewarriors, ork mobs, the new guardsmen and the tactical squads. That is what I see this thread being about.

shabbadoo
09-09-2009, 11:04
Precisely, and for that 390 points of Eldar Guardians with scatter laser and Farseer I could take...

80 (20) grots, 2 runtherds with grabba sticks
95 (25) grots, 2 runtherds with grabba sticks
110 (30) grots, 3 runtherds with grabba sticks
110 (30) grots, 3 runtherds with grabba sticks

Oh the grot luv! :p

...or

125 (20) Slugga Boyz, 1 big shoota
120 (20) Slugga Boyz
150 (25) Slugga Boyz

THE HORROR!(the horror!)

...or

210 (10) Tactical Marines: heavy bolter, flamer; razorback w/twin-linked heavy bolters.
170 (10) Tactical Marines: heavy bolter, flamer.

Really. You're going to outclass 20 Marines and a Razorback with an equal number of guardians plus a Farseer? :eyebrows:

...or

130 (12) Fire Warriors: pulse rifles; shas'ui.
130 (12) Fire Warriors: pulse rifles; shas'ui.
130 (12) Fire Warriors: pulse rifles; shas'ui.

I'll play "turkey shoot" with you all day long, and if you actually survive to get within range of shooting your shuriken catapults you'll be in the Tau's rapid fire range, so you'll get double the fire back. You'll be close to death before even getting the chance to do so though.

...or

*Combined unit*
95 (10) IG Troopers: mortar, flamer, commissar.
60 (10) IG Troopers: mortar, flamer.
60 (10) IG Troopers: mortar, flamer.
60 (10) IG Troopers: mortar, flamer.
60 (10) IG Troopers: mortar, flamer.
60 (10) IG Troopers: mortar, flamer.

60 stubborn IG and all that death awaits. Good luck.

...or

147 (5) Tyranid Warriors: extended carapace, scything talons, 5 death spitters, 1 barbed strangler(10).
120 (20) Gaunts: adrenal glands(+1 I), spinefists.
126 (21) Gaunts: adrenal glands(+1 I), spinefists.

Gotta take the Nid' Warriors to avoid the Instinctive Behavior thing so I might as well make them evil nasty too, but otherwise the unbreakable Gaunts will wreak havoc with no support from the Warriors, and with that support the Eldar are surely *Doomed*. Ah, the irony.

...or the ultimate insult

140 (12) Dire Avengers: exarch w/dual avenger shuriken catapults, bladestorm.
140 (12) Dire Avengers: exarch w/dual avenger shuriken catapults, bladestorm.
104 (7) Dire Avengers: exarch w/dual avenger shuriken catapults, bladestorm.

Bladestorm. 43 *wounds* to save against. Red mist. Good game. If something were to still be alive, on the following turn when they cannot fire, the Dire Avengers will instead move, fleet, and assault(by Isha's tears they are a DAMN good unit!). :evilgrin:

So, that's what we're talking about here. The Guardians will just get their arses handed to them time and again, even by their own Dire Avenger buddies who, points for points, they are supposedly just as effective as. Plainly they are not. There is for the most part nothing special going on with these opponent units at all other than just being made up of basic TROOPS(i.e. the stuff you should be running into all of the time).

Now, you give Guardians an 18" range shuriken catapult, drop the Farseer, and you'll have a little bit different story when you field...

101(12) Guardians, shuriken cannon platform
101(12) Guardians, shuriken cannon platform
101(12) Guardians, shuriken cannon platform
85 (10) Guardians, shuriken cannon platform

Holy crap. Now I'm seeing a bloodbath for all concerned, and whoever gets to go first will probably have a slight advantage. With a 12" range though, this group is going to get mauled badly. At 18" range they are more likely only going to take one round of incoming fire before they themselves can answer back.

And then there will be blood, as it should be.

Now, all of this doesn't come from the point of view of some Eldar cheese loving whore, but from somebody who is currently NOT playing Eldar(but has) and that may be fighting Eldar with a variety of armies. I have no ulterior motive in this. My only motive is to actually have a Guardian unit that is worth the points that one must pay for them. As THE standard unit in the Eldar army, they deserve no less.

Cynisperer
09-09-2009, 14:37
As a IG player I'd stay neutral, but 18" with assualt 2 would be a viable option for the catapults. With the new guard order that lets las guns shoot 2 times at normal range(24") and 3 times at rapid fire(12"), it would help a infintry based Eldar player even the field a bit.:cool:

Silentexile
09-09-2009, 20:58
I think the 18" range would put Guardians at a level where people would actually have to decide for themselves whether Guardians or Dire Avengers fit their playstyle better, as both have their own benefits (if given 18" range Shuriken Catapults,) such as price vs. statline. The effect on non-Guardian units, I don't personally think would be unbalanced in the least, let's take a look at the Guardian Jetbike for example. At the moment, they're usually relegated to turbo-boosting on the back edge until turn 5 at which point they turbo-boost onto an objective to score. We have to ask ourselves, why is this? and the answer is, they can't deal enough damage compared to what they can take in return. At 12" range, even with the 6" Eldar Jetbike move to jump out of assault range, the opponent can still stand still and lob a volley of shots at 24" and knock out a few of the MEQ bikes that we pay so many points for. With a leadership of 8, losing 2 means taking a leadership test on all but the largest Jetbike squads (9+.) With an 18" range, the Shuriken Cannons could be used more complimentary in an offensive role WITH the Shuriken Catapults, vs. sitting in the back field and sniping at weakened targets.

On vehicles, the 18" range would be a great help to ensure that the weapon can be used outside of the opponent's potential assault range(excluding jump infantry, cavalry, and leaping units.) Even though our Falcon based vehicles are rather assault proof against assaults due to 6's to hit from SMF, the whole "dying race" thing should lead them to prevent troops or vehicles from operating within an area they do not excel at.

Units that can use Shuriken Catapults:
Karandras (As a character, the 6" extra range on 2 shots isn't going to effect enough to worry about unbalancing him.)
Wave Serpent (The range increase would be beneficial, but with BS3, will not make a difference noticable enough to be unbalanced.)
Guardian Defenders (Wants to be far away from the enemy)
Guardian Jetbike Squadron (Wants to be far away from the enemy)
Shining Spears (Either doesn't shoot, or uses their Lances)
Vyper Squadron (Wants to be far away from the enemy)
Wraithlord (Doesn't matter, because flamers are superior in 99% of all cases.)
Falcon (This vehicle is supposed to be our "gunship" unit, which due to the new defensive weapons rule, it no longer can utilize all its weapons and its speed. With 18" Shuriken Catapults, it could become ever so slightly more effective with two S8 shots, two S4 shots, and an S4 blast template from an Eldar Missile Launcher, at 18", which is a modest range for what is also a semi-APC vehicle as well. Now, ideally it would be operating at 24"+ with a Shuriken Cannon underneath, but in order to utilize it's speed, we'll have to wait for GW to fix it's mistake of defensive weapons at S4, which is a rulebook flaw, not a codex entry flaw.
Fire Prism (Shouldn't be in range to fire either Shuriken Catapults, or the Shuriken Cannon if you can help it, so a rather non-issue for this vehicle.)

So as you can see, all the units capable of using Shuriken Catapults, either don't usually use them in gameplay (Wraithlords, Fire Prism, Wave Serpent) or are very underused/never used (Guardian Jetbikes, Shining Spears, non-DAVU Falcons, Guardian Defenders, Vypers.) Boosting the range on Shuriken Catapults could very well be a big step towards making these choices viable in relation to the other choices in their respective FOC slots.

shabbadoo
10-09-2009, 06:03
Right. Making the shuriken catapult a Range 18" weapon doesn't unbalance the other units in the Eldar army, even the jetbike units. It doesn't much affect the vehicles at all, as they usually hang back anyways and never fire their shuriken catapults. With a range of 18' they actually might fire them every now and again.

Hellebore
10-09-2009, 06:16
At the moment a falcon's defense weapon is a twin linked pistol. Let's see marines fight with 12" storm bolters on their tanks. :p

No wonder people upgrade it to a shuriken cannon, just to get the 24" range of a basic rifle.

Hellebore

Anarchist Angel
10-09-2009, 22:10
Right. Making the shuriken catapult a Range 18" weapon doesn't unbalance the other units in the Eldar army, even the jetbike units. It doesn't much affect the vehicles at all, as they usually hang back anyways and never fire their shuriken catapults. With a range of 18' they actually might fire them every now and again.

I agree. It wont unbalance vehicles imo and you can justify the upgrade for jetbikes simply by looking at Ork bikes... In the latest print they have 2 wounds (check next time you're in your store if you don't believe me) and T5 along with a permanent cover save. All this for only 3 points and they even have 4 str 4 attacks on the charge as a sweetener. We have... well a guardian on a floating stick tbh :p

aeoglas
10-09-2009, 22:51
GW has made two big mistakes. One, Guardians. they are just completely unfluffy and uncompetitive. You will get owned at everything by a model 2 points less.
Second, FOF. Great, nearly every single army out there gets a bonus to their movement phase while eldar end up vastly overcosted. I'm so happy.
Third, jetbikes. I love jetbikes, but they are overcosted, non-viable except as a last turn objective grabber and their harley davidson look doesn't suit the eldar. We may get some new jetbikes later so the latter may be fixed, but were still overcosted

Badger[Fr]
10-09-2009, 22:59
In the latest print they have 2 wounds (check next time you're in your store if you don't believe me)
A misprint fixed in the FAQ, fortunately. Plus, Ork Bikers don't get a 3+ save, are far less manoeuvrable than Jetbikes, and drop like flies if hit by a Heavy Flamer. While Guardian Jetbikes could indeed do with a little improvement, they are hardly underused or underpowered. Actually, they are horribly annoying in objective-based games. A turboboosting Jetbike unit can be a game winning asset for a mere 66 points.


and an S4 blast template from an Eldar Missile Launcher,
Aren't Eldar Missile Launchers S5 anyway?



At the moment a falcon's defense weapon is a twin linked pistol. Let's see marines fight with 12" storm bolters on their tanks.
Does anyone ever field Storm Bolters on SM tanks?


we'll have to wait for GW to fix it's mistake of defensive weapons at S4,
I don't consider it a mistake, despite the fact that many vehicles in my army suffered from this rule change. Under the previous ruleset, there was no reason to field anything but S5/6 weapons: a fast Skimmer could move 12" a turn, fire all its weapons, and still benefit from the SMF rule. The 5th Edition rules favour tactical thinking over no-brainers: you now have to balance manoeuvrability, resilience, and firepower, instead of getting all the benefits without a single drawback.

Irisado
10-09-2009, 23:25
;3940057']Aren't Eldar Missile Launchers S5 anyway?

No, Reaper Launchers have a strength of five. The EML fires Plasma Missiles at strength four, and Krak Missiles (which are universal).

Anarchist Angel
10-09-2009, 23:28
A misprint fixed in the FAQ, fortunately.

As far as I know, they only corrected the Nob profile to have 2 wounds in the FAQ but then they re-printed the codex with a further mistake... Even without 2 wounds they are still far better value than our mere Jetbikes imo :)

I also would hardly say they drop like flies to Heavy Flamers... It wounds on 4's afterall :)

Memnos
28-09-2009, 13:05
I think that's a fair point. I mean, as long as the Farseer's powers don't work on the Guardians.

If you think you need to take just the unit in to consideration without considering synergy in costs, I suggest you go ask people about Plaguebearers and whether 12 points is an appropriate cost for a T4, 5+ ward save creature that causes fear.

Or if a Space Marine army with hordes of flamers, multi-meltas and meltaguns are undercosts when you have Hestan.

You don't take singular units in to consideration - You can't. An army must be considered based upon the synergy of all of their units. Without that, it's just a poorly designed army.

On the other hand, I would agree to an 18 inch range in any game with you if you agreed that the farseer's augmentation powers wouldn't affect the unit. I'd say 'Go nuts! I'm okay with that.'


As it was said this lacks the cost of the farseer. And to be honest, I do not want to commit my Farseer into a baby sitting. I want to have my Farseer where I need it, giving the support to the unit that may need it else where in a game turning event. As it has been stated when you are looking at a unit, you need to look at the unit, not the unit and the HQ unless it is the HQ's Bodyguard/Retuine.

The Guardian need to be able to stand on thier own without the Farseer much like the firewarriors, ork mobs, the new guardsmen and the tactical squads. That is what I see this thread being about.

Poseidal
28-09-2009, 13:31
I think that's a fair point. I mean, as long as the Farseer's powers don't work on the Guardians.

If you think you need to take just the unit in to consideration without considering synergy in costs, I suggest you go ask people about Plaguebearers and whether 12 points is an appropriate cost for a T4, 5+ ward save creature that causes fear.

Or if a Space Marine army with hordes of flamers, multi-meltas and meltaguns are undercosts when you have Hestan.

You don't take singular units in to consideration - You can't. An army must be considered based upon the synergy of all of their units. Without that, it's just a poorly designed army.

On the other hand, I would agree to an 18 inch range in any game with you if you agreed that the farseer's augmentation powers wouldn't affect the unit. I'd say 'Go nuts! I'm okay with that.'
The Farseer is the cost factor there. The Farseer with Doom offers only his wounds reroll and a single attack on profiile for his points. Also, Doom is limited by only one target.

Plaguebearers have Daemon unbreakable which is superior to normal morale. Adding the Herald does two things: Add a character (thus the character's leadership and combat ability to the unit) and give them regen, for the cost of one character. It seems like Regen wasn't costed into anything, unlike the Farseer. (and that's not including any Wizarding abilities the herald has)

Hestan gives an upgrade to the entire army. His advantage scales without his points cost, which is very unlike the Farseer's single target debuff/buffs.

So the Farseer Synergy is very unlike the two examples given.

Currently, with the 12" Catapults, the effectiveness of Guardians is 0. Any force multiplier from the Farseer on them is therefore moot, as any number x 0 is still 0.

Badger[Fr]
28-09-2009, 15:40
Currently, with the 12" Catapults, the effectiveness of Guardians is 0.
Currently, Guardians are also grossly overpriced. Were they 5 or 6 points per model, they would provide a decent, relatively cheap scoring unit, which is a boon in an Eldar army.

Eldar players keep complaining about Shuriken Catapults, but they eagerly forgot that most firearms in 40k (minus Ork Shootas and DA Shuriken Catapults) have a 12" effective range as well (firing one shot at 24" is pathetic, and most armies won't even bother with it).


The Farseer is the cost factor there. The Farseer with Doom offers only his wounds reroll and a single attack on profiile for his points. Also, Doom is limited by only one target.
And yet, you cannot design an unit in a vacuum. As an example, Guardsmen heavily rely on their officers and, without orders, commissars, or combined squads, would be utterly useless.

Hellebore
28-09-2009, 15:51
;3989956']Currently, Guardians are also grossly overpriced. Were they 5 or 6 points per model, they would provide a decent, relatively cheap scoring unit, which is a boon in an Eldar army.


You aren't wrong in the sense that a 5pt guardian AS IS is far more balanced than the current system. However you ARE wrong in that this is how the most technologically advanced dying race should be represented. A horde they are not.


;3989956']
Eldar players keep complaining about Shuriken Catapults, but they eagerly forgot that most firearms in 40k (minus Ork Shootas and DA Shuriken Catapults) have a 12" effective range as well (firing one shot at 24" is pathetic, and most armies won't even bother with it).


Have you heard of the term hyperbole? How about, blatant lie? Because you've done one or the other.

24" is an excellent option that any marine or guard player welcomes. If you seriously think that firing once at 24" is useless then frankly you really don't know what you are talking about.


;3989956']
And yet, you cannot design an unit in a vacuum. As an example, Guardsmen heavily rely on their officers and, without orders, commissars, or combined squads, would be utterly useless.

No you can't design them in a vacuum. But you can design them without hyperbole or outright lies. Utterly useless they would not be. Their officers come as part of their FoC choice, so you don't have a choice in whether you can take them or not.

You can get far more bang for your buck using a Farseer's abilities on a different unit, say dire avengers with blade storm. Guide and doom is a far better combo on a unit of DAs than on a unit of guardians.


There are many ways to fix a problem. But just because you've fixed a problem doesn't mean you've used the right fix. Making 5pt guardians fixes the problem, but it isn't the right fix.

Hellebore

Poseidal
28-09-2009, 15:57
;3989956']Currently, Guardians are also grossly overpriced. Were they 5 or 6 points per model, they would provide a decent, relatively cheap scoring unit, which is a boon in an Eldar army.

Eldar players keep complaining about Shuriken Catapults, but they eagerly forgot that most firearms in 40k (minus Ork Shootas and DA Shuriken Catapults) have a 12" effective range as well (firing one shot at 24" is pathetic, and most armies won't even bother with it).
Yet they have the option. Also, if you look at those units they do get to fire; Space Marines have the inherent toughness so they are more suited to the short range firing environment (and get special weapons options). Guardsmen are entrenched, so will get to use it.

Fire Warriors have S5 guns, but I don't consider them very strong either

Guardians are the only ones who don't even get the option of 1 shot at 24"; many Eldar players would consider a Lasgun an upgrade for the same cost, but they would still be awful.

Also, 5-6 point Guardians cease to be Eldar.



And yet, you cannot design an unit in a vacuum. As an example, Guardsmen heavily rely on their officers and, without orders, commissars, or combined squads, would be utterly useless.
Yet Guardsmen without any of those things are still more effective at what their purpose is than Defender Guardians WITH a Farseer.

laucian_meliamne
28-09-2009, 17:18
What about (and I know there will be objections to this) increasing the standard Guardian/Jetbike/Vehicle catapults to 18" and giving the Dire Catapult 24". This essentially means Dire Avengers are armed with *gasp* Storm Bolters! Bump up the price tag of a Dire Avenger to somewhere closer to 16-18 points per model and it's really not so bad. Yes, bladestorm would be nasty with 3 shots each at 24" but that can easily be fixed by modifying Bladestorm to say "...may fire 3 shots, but reduces the range to 18 inches."

This means that Dire Avengers are still better-armed than Guardians, eliminating much of the "if Guardians had 18" range guns then DAs are useless!" arguments, but it makes Avengers significantly more expensive than your 8-point Guardians. You can have half as many Avengers with 6" more range, or you can have twice as many Guardians with 18" catapults *and* some heavy weapons (depending on your perspective). Both units still fill roles, and neither seems particularly over-powered.

Badger[Fr]
28-09-2009, 17:18
You aren't wrong in the sense that a 5pt guardian AS IS is far more balanced than the current system. However you ARE wrong in that this is how the most technologically advanced dying race should be represented. A horde they are not.
Of course, Eldar should not be an horde army. Though, do you realize that giving one of the best firearms in the whole game to a cheap, expendable trooper is exactly the kind of design flaw that favours horde armies?


Have you heard of the term hyperbole? How about, blatant lie? Because you've done one or the other.
You mean, like pretending Guardians are utterly useless without a thinly-disguised Storm Bolter, or discounting the ability to assault and shoot in the same turn? Or even saying that the current Guardians have zero effectiveness (they're bad, but obviously not bad enough to be unplayable)?



You can get far more bang for your buck using a Farseer's abilities on a different unit, say dire avengers with blade storm. Guide and doom is a far better combo on a unit of DAs than on a unit of guardians.
Pretending that, because Unit A does Unit B's job better, B is automatically worthless and that any bonus it could get should be discounted, is a blatant logical fallacy. Plus, Guide is far more efficient on BS 3 models than BS 4 ones.


24" is an excellent option that any marine or guard player welcomes.
Guard players do (thanks to the FRFSRF orders, of course). But Marines? Marines are almost always riding in Rhinos or deep-striking in drop pods, and only seldom have the occasion to stand still and fire at 24". I think most Marine players would happily trade their Bolters for Shuriken Catapults. I often wish I could charge after firing my Lasguns, because it would almost double the amount S3 attacks I can put in a single turn.

The truth is, you cannot tell how such a change will affect the whole Eldar army without intensive playtesting. That means, of course, one should try even the sillyest builds (such as, guess what, an Eldar horde army), or else repeat GW's past mistakes ("We never thought somebody would ever field 9 Obliterators! Never!").

laucian_meliamne
28-09-2009, 17:22
;3990198']I think most Marine players would happily trade their Bolters for Shuriken Catapults.

And many Eldar players would happily trade in their Shuriken Catapults for Bolters.

Ghal Maraz
28-09-2009, 17:49
What would you people expect from a unit with a short-range, assault-weapon; an assault USR; and I4? Guardians Defender!:rolleyes:

Which combine those assault skills with an abysmal WS3, S3, A1 assault profile...:rolleyes:

And at the same time, go around with a heavy, medium to long-range weapon...:rolleyes:

And to over-compensate their all-round excellency (sarcasm here), they play their objective-holding role with exceptional T3, W1, Ld8 and AS5+, at a points cost 25% greater than Ork Boyz. And, oh yes, they can get uber-expensive Warlocks with Conceal (and if you do some math, you'll quickly see the bargain that is buying multiple Warlocks, one for squad, in comparison to an Ork Mekboy with KFF that covers more than one squad and/or vehicle(s) at the same time - more sarcasm here)!:rolleyes::wtf:

And now, in 5th edition environment, with the exceptionally-good new Grey Hunters, cheap-ish Ork Shootas, lowered-in-cost Guardsmen with increased equipment AND Orders and, GW adding insult to injury, with the rumoured 3 points-Without Numbers Gaunts, I hear that I'm a whiner because I want Guardian with at least one decent use?

I'm for giving them 18" range and, if deemed necessary, tweaking their points cost or fiddling a bit with DA. Or even, 18" and Assault 1. I really don't understand, sometimes...

Rlyehable
28-09-2009, 19:10
My preference:
Shuriken Catapult: 18" S:4 AP:5 Assault 2

Dire Avengers either gain:
1. True-Grit with Shuriken Catapult
-or-
2. Bladestorm means they cannot assault instead of not shooting next turn.

Ianos
28-09-2009, 19:38
My preference:
Shuriken Catapult: 18" S:4 AP:5 Assault 2

Dire Avengers either gain:
1. True-Grit with Shuriken Catapult
-or-
2. Bladestorm means they cannot assault instead of not shooting next turn.

True grit is gone for good but your bladestorm version is totally nailing it i think.

As for the shuriken, i will agree with most, 12" is, was and always will be a design mistake.

ntin
28-09-2009, 22:23
Why not a split profile weapon for Guardians?

Shuriken Catapult: Range 12” S:4 AP:5 Assault 2
OR
Shuriken Catapult: Range 18” S:4 AP:5 Assault 1

Dire Avengers get to keep their 18” version of the Shuriken Catapult and a Guardian unit would have an effective 24” ranged attack when they move.

Bartali
28-09-2009, 22:27
And many Eldar players would happily trade in their Shuriken Catapults for Bolters.

Not this Eldar player. Fire one shot at 24" (if you haven't moved) or two shots at 12" (and can't assault). I really don't like Rapid Fire Weapons.

Waveblade
28-09-2009, 22:30
18" range works but I don't think that is the answer.

The whole unit needs a major overhaul.

Lusall
28-09-2009, 22:35
Yeah, sure...18 inches...why not. I'm feeling like this discussion is getting to be like the Wraithlord discussion however.

But yeah...I guess I've just heard this too much.

Dear GW...give all shrkcats 18inch, assault 2.

Done.

laucian_meliamne
29-09-2009, 14:58
Not this Eldar player. Fire one shot at 24" (if you haven't moved) or two shots at 12" (and can't assault). I really don't like Rapid Fire Weapons.

I wouldn't trade them in either. I love Shuriken Catapults, but Guardians are an inherently conflicted, hard-to-use unit. I rarely actually field Defenders; I tend to use Storm Guardians instead.

If Defenders had some kind of longer-range standard weapon (Lasblasters get tossed around a lot as an option, though if that were to happen I'd like to see Hawks get a completely new gun to set them further apart from Guardians -- maybe something more like the Vespid's gun from the Tau) and the standard Shuriken Catapult was an option for Storm Guardians it could work. Storm Guardians are meant for getting in close, so having the choice of CCW+Pistol OR Catapult for them (allowing for mixed-squads) would be a good fit. You lose some attacks, but you get twice as many shots at close-range.

Karhedron
29-09-2009, 15:23
I am gonna go against the flow here. I am an Eldar player and I think Guardian Defenders work fine as they are. Park them on a objective and let them snipe with their platform. If any enemy come too close, let rip with the shuricats. Chuck in a Warlock or SpiritSeer and you can back them up with a Wraithlord. I find these 2 units work well together. The Wraithlord can easily deal with most opponents who might threaten the Guardians in assault which the Guardians catapultsa can shred horde units who might try to tarpit the Wraithlord.

I don't agree with the idea of making Guardians too good as a stand-alone unit. That is not what the Eldar codex is about. They are intended to support the rest of the army and take territory, not act as a mass-firepower generator. If you want Troops strong enough to function independently then Avengers fulfill that role. Guardians are cheap Troops of modest potential with the ability to work some nifty combos.

They work fine as they are and I usually take a unit in my army. I don't see the need to change them beyond the desire to make allmy units more uber and "deztroy all rezistance!" :p

Vedar
29-09-2009, 17:13
You might as well call them shotgun suicide troops. It is not fluffy for eldar to be given super short range weapon and told to charge the enemy and die like lemmings. That is what guard are for.

Bitey
29-09-2009, 17:18
;3989956']
And yet, you cannot design an unit in a vacuum. As an example, Guardsmen heavily rely on their officers and, without orders, commissars, or combined squads, would be utterly useless.

Just to pick up on this, I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you're saying, this isn't an issue I feel particularly strongly about, but thats a pretty stupid statement. Without orders, commissars or combined squads, Guardsmen are just like they were in their previous codex except they're 1 point cheaper, come with frags (and for some inconceivable reason veteran sergeants) and have cheaper heavy weapons. Guard players (myself included) were not complaining in 4th edition that virtually the entirety of the IG army was 'utterly useless'

Mojaco
29-09-2009, 17:23
I'm skipping most of the posts just to yell; "YES!"

Ork shoota is 18" and 2 shots, so the Eldar gun should be too. At BS3 instead of the Ork BS2 it's more acurate, but its carrier is weaker (T3), less reliable (Ld8) and has poor synergy with the more interesting heavy weapon options. At 8pts each, 18" is more than fair.

Forgotmytea
29-09-2009, 17:45
I'm skipping most of the posts just to yell; "YES!"

Ork shoota is 18" and 2 shots, so the Eldar gun should be too. At BS3 instead of the Ork BS2 it's more acurate, but its carrier is weaker (T3), less reliable (Ld8) and has poor synergy with the more interesting heavy weapon options. At 8pts each, 18" is more than fair.
Ditto. I'm a relatively new Eldar player, having been a staunch Necron follower for the last however-many-years-it-was-since-they-were-released-in-Chapter-Approved, but already I have found my Storm Guardians to be far more useful than the regular Guardians. I just think it's not too in keeping with the Eldar ethos, giving them only one chance to stop an enemy unit before it charges (and subsequently massacres) them :p

Sister_Sin
29-09-2009, 18:33
18" is what they ought to be. But then so should bolters. I just have a bit of trouble with the notion that the maximum effective range is at the point where the others guys can charge you waving a sharpened crowbar or chainsaw variant.

Sister Sin

howlinmonkey
29-09-2009, 20:16
If anything not powerful enough,but would also suggest giving the eldar a decent saving throw also.