PDA

View Full Version : The Eldar's ridiculously low WS & BS



TheLaughingGod
07-04-2011, 23:21
Alright, so I was looking through the Eldar codex the other day (all of them, actually, throughout the ages) and I realized that Aspect Warriors are only BS 4 and WS 4 along with Warlocks and Guardians are only a measly BS 3 and WS 3! What's worse is that Exarchs are only WS/BS 5 along with Farseers! Even mighty Phoenix Lords are matched by Archons and out performed by human temple assassins!

Why is it so low? For the Eldar, with all their mystical powers, incredibly advanced technology and thousands of years experience, perfected ritual battle skills, gestalt experiences, superior mental and physical abilities, I'd expect them to be at LEAST BS/WS 4 with Warriors and Warlocks around 5, Farseers and Exarchs around 6, Autarchs perhaps at 7 (If they became super-Exarchs again) and Phoenix Lords at 9? With only the Avatar of Khaine above them at 10.

Also, speaking of BS 4, Why do Wave Serpents, vypers and Falcons only have BS 3? Even if Guardians aren't great shots, the Fire Prism has a BS 4 targetter! Why isn't that built in standard? Or even an option?!

Anyways, the regular troops fold pretty quickly in close combat as it is. Dire Avengers, Guardians, Jetbikes, Rangers, Wraithguard all tend to die against anyone with more than moderate hand to hand ability. Also, Eldar are pretty expensive when you think about it. 8 Points for a Guardsman with a shotgun and +1 Intiative. Aspect Warriors have the same BS/WS as a Marine unit, cost roughly the same but don't get any of the special rules, flexibility or S/T/Sv. Is this fair? No. Now, I could justify them with BS/WS 4 if they were cheaper (13-14 points per model), but right now the Eldar pretty much hands-down suck.

Discuss.

Bunnahabhain
07-04-2011, 23:28
Minimalist design philosophy

That has gone, we've had stat inflation. Simples..

Irisado
07-04-2011, 23:45
Your expectations are based on the second edition Eldar codex. We are not playing second edition any more, and this is reflected in the statistics. In addition, background is directly translated into rules.

Let's deal with Guardians. This comes up all the time, and the idea that they should have an increased WS/BS is completely misplaced (except in the case of Black Guardians). Guardians are civilians. They only receive basic training. The fact that they have the same WS and BS as trained Imperial Guardsmen actually demonstrates how good they actually are.

It is a fallacy that WS4 and BS4 represent the average in 40K. The only reason why players have this false impression is because there are so many Space Marine players. WS4 and BS4 are elite statistics, which is why Space Marines and Aspect Warriors, for example, have these stats. Guardians do not have them because they are not elite soldiers. In fact, they are not even proper soldiers (see above), so we should all be grateful that they actually have the stats which they do.

Moving onto vehicles, again, this is a false argument. Standard Eldar transports require only basic training to fly them and shoot their weapons; whereas the Fire Prism is a far more specialised piece of kit. For this reason, the difference in BS can easily be explained, although I would certainly have no issue with the Fire Prism having the same BS as the other Eldar vehicles.

As for your final paragraph, I get the impression that it belongs in the wishlisting thread, not here. For that reason, I will simply say that I don't agree with any of it, and that I think that you are oversimplifying the situation far too much.

Stealin' Genes
07-04-2011, 23:48
This may change when the Eldar are redone. Probably not quite to the degree of DE, since DE are meant to be even more offense oriented and even more fragile than Craftworld Eldar. But I wouldn't be surprised if the CC aspects got WS5, for example.

It'll be more stat inflation, but that seems to be the way the game is going. From a design perspective, Irisado is right that aspects really ought to stay at WS/BS 4, as this represents an elite level of skill, and aspect warriors and marines are really supposed to be roughly equal, at least when comparing a marine to what an spect specializes in. The strength of the marine is that he's also pretty good at other things where the aspect warrior isn't.

Also, as Irisado said, guardians are citizen soldiers, their stats are completely appropriate.

tl;dr: Aspects will probably get stat boosts in a new eldar book, if the rest of the 5e codices are any indication.

Korraz
07-04-2011, 23:48
You should have added a "Badum-Tsch" after your post. Most people will miss it now.

naloth
07-04-2011, 23:52
Eldar don't really need or deserve a boost in stats, but they do tend to be somewhat more expensive than the more recently revised books. I suspect that Eldar infantry will get some combination of a stat boost or cost reduction whenever they get a new codex.

Deadnight
07-04-2011, 23:58
you raise 1 valid point. i would argue that eldar vehicles are priced for bs4, when they're only bs3 themselves. and thats a bad thing. either the price should go down, or the bs should go up (deliberate pun).

bs4 and ws4 is fine. why shouldnt they get more? they're wimpy elves. :P

and yes, i get the joke. good one :)

fluffymcfluff
08-04-2011, 00:02
Post#3 pretty much sums it up. I play against the eldar quite frequently, they are not as weak as the OP suggests.

They compete fairly well IMO, that being said, it may be some time before they get thier upgrade. There are other armies in far need more than the eldar at this time

althathir
08-04-2011, 00:09
Um check out this thread http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298515 and you'll see what the OP was going for.

edit: so take a deep breath and maybe laugh a bit

chamelion 6
08-04-2011, 00:20
Oh lordie, this could get entertaining.... :evilgrin:

Obrimos
08-04-2011, 00:41
Plz don't roast me for this, when I say that I like to compare stats to warhammer fantasy.
While I do believe that guardians have accurate stats, aspects don't.

Most elvish elite troops in WHF have either WS or BS 5, sometimes both and (in few cases) even 6. Also, they have I 6.
While I do belive that guardians are ok with BS/WS3 and I 4, I might also remind you to the fact that the basic troops of Ulthuan are also a militia and come with WS/BS 4 and I 5, simply for being elves and doing a little regular military exercise.

Thus, I find it acceptable to discuss this topic here. It doesn't belong to wishlisting, but should be a debate of its own.

Question is, can you somehow justify Eldar having better stats?
My answer is yes, you could justify it for abovementioned reasons.

Guardians WS/BS 4, I 4
Aspects WS or BS 5 (depending on the aspect), I 5

Dark Eldar would still have an edge in initiative, which represents the different lifestyles of the two eldar races and still profit from power from pain.
Eldar however excel in their psychic buffing and wraithbone for balance.

Israfael
08-04-2011, 00:44
Um check out this thread http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298515 and you'll see what the OP was going for.

edit: so take a deep breath and maybe laugh a bit

Yeah, I immediately considered it to be a snide poke at the Tau thread.

Raibaru
08-04-2011, 00:48
Still worth considering though now that it's posted, in jest or not...

Guardians are fine as WS and BS 3. They are painters, craftsmen, and poets. They have no training. They have no reason to fight. They do it out of sheer desperation.

That said, they should be manning the support platforms and vehicles where you would expect the onboard systems to help compensate for this somewhat. This is why, while the guardian should remain BS and WS 3, the craft and platforms they control should be at BS4.

Sarevok
08-04-2011, 00:51
eldar guardians are cooks and cleaners and stuff
why should they have also the same WS/BS as a mighty Dark Eldar Warrior who spends his whole life devoted to combat?


Plz don't roast me for this, when I say that I like to compare stats to warhammer fantasy.

me too, Chaos lords with WS8 and great unclean one with 10 wounds plz

Torpedo Vegas
08-04-2011, 00:55
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH Fantastic.

Good on you laughing god, I would rage again. Its a joke guys.

night2501
08-04-2011, 01:10
yea noticed the joke, but then on the topic...

I do not think buffing a bit the WS or BS or some aspect warriors would be much of a stretch, I can imagine banshees with WS 5 or most shoting specialist with BS4, mostly because the specialist already have quite good shoting, if not for tha tI would say BS5 ...

well WS 5-6 or 7 and BS 5 for HQ I think would fit...

The Orange
08-04-2011, 01:21
Good on you laughing god, I would rage again. Its a joke guys.

Yea but the whole "lets make fun of a topic by posting a sarcastic topic" joke is getting old. Especially when most posters take it as a real topic and just keep going. Ironically it was someone named TheLaughingGod that beat this dead horse.

Admitidly was surprised that the Tau post made it past page 1. It's not like that was the first newb to think (and post about) how all Tau should have had a higher BS.

MikeyB
08-04-2011, 01:24
MUCH LULZ!!

Not only at the joke but also people saying "yes i know its a joke" and then carrying on discussing it like its a serious topic :D

Does anyone in their right mind believe standard guardians should have aspect warrior stats? O.o

VoodooJanus
08-04-2011, 01:25
I think most people have moved on from this argument in the Tau thread, actually. Honestly- stat inflation is occurring throughout the new 5th edition codexes, regardless of how many spoof threads are posted :p. IMO Eldar will likely look very similar to Dark Eldar when all's said and done.

Though, I'll give you this much: you spelt 'ridiculously' correctly, haha.

DivineVisitor
08-04-2011, 01:28
Plz don't roast me for this, when I say that I like to compare stats to warhammer fantasy.
While I do believe that guardians have accurate stats, aspects don't.

Most elvish elite troops in WHF have either WS or BS 5, sometimes both and (in few cases) even 6. Also, they have I 6.
While I do belive that guardians are ok with BS/WS3 and I 4, I might also remind you to the fact that the basic troops of Ulthuan are also a militia and come with WS/BS 4 and I 5, simply for being elves and doing a little regular military exercise.

Thus, I find it acceptable to discuss this topic here. It doesn't belong to wishlisting, but should be a debate of its own.

Question is, can you somehow justify Eldar having better stats?
My answer is yes, you could justify it for abovementioned reasons.

Guardians WS/BS 4, I 4
Aspects WS or BS 5 (depending on the aspect), I 5

Dark Eldar would still have an edge in initiative, which represents the different lifestyles of the two eldar races and still profit from power from pain.
Eldar however excel in their psychic buffing and wraithbone for balance.

Well would Space Marines not be equivalent to Chaos Warriors in that argument in which case why not bump them up to WS/BS5 aswell, you know just to be fair ;)

chamelion 6
08-04-2011, 01:34
MUCH LULZ!!

Not only at the joke but also people saying "yes i know its a joke" and then carrying on discussing it like its a serious topic :D

Does anyone in their right mind believe standard guardians should have aspect warrior stats? O.o

No... But my Kabalites should....:cool:

SgtTaters
08-04-2011, 03:35
Your expectations are based on the second edition Eldar codex. We are not playing second edition any more, and this is reflected in the statistics.

Lets look at the stats of the Temple Assassin over the various editions

2e ws8 bs8
3e ws5 bs5
5e ws8 bs8

Let's look at the stats of a TROOP CHOICE in the grey knights codex
ws5 i6 a2 5++ uncanny reflexes save.

This is the era of s5 t5 space marine heroes, even a s6 t6 w4 space marine hero that flies and shoots lasers from his eyes.
This is the era of a single psyker tossing around battlefield sweeping tornados
This is the era of "no save of any kind, remove model from play" attacks
This is the era of grenades that roll on a table for random effects.



I'm going to ask you a simple question, and please give me your candid response.
Pretend you didn't know the grey knights codex came out. Ok, we are now in the world of a month ago.
I have a proposition for you

"what if we gave the grey knights a teleporting carnifex? Oh it has a force field too"
What would your reaction be?
Does it sound too absurd for 5e 40k? Does it even make sense in 2e?

Whatever the answer you would have given a month ago, the 40k you knew from last month is gone.

We are in the 40k of jokaero and hallucinagen grenades.
2e did not have wolves riding wolves or golden nipple angel squads either, 5e is 5e, it is the weirdest edition of 40k yet.

Chapters Unwritten
08-04-2011, 03:47
Oooh...I see what you did there... :)

As someone who is both amazed and appalled that the original Tau thread is still somehow alive, I applaud your lampooning!

Wolf Lord Balrog
08-04-2011, 04:02
Unoriginal trolling is unoriginal. Can't even give you a nice try on this one.

Spell_of_Destruction
08-04-2011, 04:08
Your expectations are based on the second edition Eldar codex. We are not playing second edition any more, and this is reflected in the statistics. In addition, background is directly translated into rules.

Am I missing something here? As far as I can see the stats for most of the infantry units are identical to the 2nd ed codex. Only the characters have changed significantly.


Let's deal with Guardians. This comes up all the time, and the idea that they should have an increased WS/BS is completely misplaced (except in the case of Black Guardians). Guardians are civilians. They only receive basic training. The fact that they have the same WS and BS as trained Imperial Guardsmen actually demonstrates how good they actually are.

I agree that Guardians should not be WS4 BS4 but for different reasons. It's a game balance issue and also down to the fact that stats in 40k are based on a simple D6 system (in fact anything above WS or BS is truly beyond exceptional). There's effectively a 'rounding down' effect - Guardians are probably around a 3.4 and Guardsmen around a 3.2.

Same point with Aspect Warriors. On a D20 scale, for example, they should be more skillful than a marine. I think that you could justify Aspect Warriors with WS or BS 5 (it's a moot point) from a fluff perspective given the lifespan of the average Eldar and the fact that they could spend an entire human lifetime hoing their skills as a particular aspect. I'm not sure it would add much on the tabletop though and we'd end up paying through the nose for something that doesn't substantially improve the effectiveness of the unit. So I'm happy with WS4 BS4.

Another point re Guardians, the idea that the Eldar are giving civilians a crash course in training and throwing them onto the frontline is ridiculous from a fluff perspective given the value the Eldar place on a single life. There would surely be a range of training levels within the citizen militia (everyone is trained to some degree in case the Craftworld is attacked) and only the best soldiers will be given front line duties.


Moving onto vehicles, again, this is a false argument. Standard Eldar transports require only basic training to fly them and shoot their weapons; whereas the Fire Prism is a far more specialised piece of kit. For this reason, the difference in BS can easily be explained, although I would certainly have no issue with the Fire Prism having the same BS as the other Eldar vehicles. .

The Fire Prism went to BS4 for two reasons - a) in 4th ed a tank with a single BS3 template weapon is completely useless (No one ever took Fire Prisms when they were BS3 in the old 3rd ed codex and b) it can be explained by the advanced targeting systems incorporated into the gun itself. I remember a piece in WD about this around the time the Fire Prism was released (sorry, don't mean to offend you by a loose reference to some 2nd ed era fluff! :p).

I think the main problem is that two successive codexes have failed to balance BS3 with regards to single shot weapons (brightlance - I'm looking at you!). If they decrease the pts of the brightlance I don't have any issue with Guardian manned vehicles remaining at BS3.

There is clearly a hankering for BS4 Eldar vehicles (it does seem a bit wierd that an elite army is saddled with BS3 vehicles) though so why not introduce Star Eagles Aspect Warriors as a 'Vehicle Upgrade'? At 15-20pts it wouldn't be a no brainer.

fidesratioque
08-04-2011, 08:13
It is a fallacy that WS4 and BS4 represent the average in 40K. The only reason why players have this false impression is because there are so many Space Marine players. WS4 and BS4 are elite statistics, which is why Space Marines and Aspect Warriors, for example, have these stats. Guardians do not have them because they are not elite soldiers. In fact, they are not even proper soldiers (see above), so we should all be grateful that they actually have the stats which they do.


Not true, Guardians are former Aspect Warriors who have completed their path and moved on to the next, civilian one. They retain the knowledge and skills of the previous path, they're just not actively walking it any more.

fidesratioque
08-04-2011, 08:15
Same point with Aspect Warriors. On a D20 scale, for example, they should be more skillful than a marine. I think that you could justify Aspect Warriors with WS or BS 5 (it's a moot point) from a fluff perspective given the lifespan of the average Eldar and the fact that they could spend an entire human lifetime hoing their skills as a particular aspect.

An eldar who spends his whole life in a path of one of the aspects of Khaine is an exarch. He is no longer able to participate in civilian life and becomes completely consumed by warfare and is restricted to temple life. Even aspect warriors only don their war masks during battle, for the rest of the time they are like normal eldar civilians, participating in everyday craftworld life.

Spell_of_Destruction
08-04-2011, 08:16
Not true, Guardians are former Aspect Warriors who have completed their path and moved on to the next, civilian one. They retain the knowledge and skills of the previous path, they're just not actively walking it any more.

I think there's a bit of fluff inconsistency from 2nd through to 5th ed...like I said in my above post though, the idea that the Eldar would throw barely trained civilians onto the frontline is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that the barely trained Guardians don't exist, simply that they wouldn't get sent to fight in off world campaigns. They'd be the "Dad's Army" of the Craftworlds.

Poseidal
08-04-2011, 08:23
I'd rather the rest of the stats were lower instead of inflating the historical Eldar ones (except for Exarchs/Phoenix Lords, who I found were too low even in 2nd ed for their reputation).

How about this rule: non-Eldar or Dark Eldar reduce all their profile stats and weapon strengths by 1 in a battle with Eldar. :D

Shamana
08-04-2011, 08:32
Hey, it might be joke thread, but it is something a lot of people feel strongly about. Joke or not, there is a perceived problem that might have to be adressed in the next codex.

Nah, I don't think it would happen. You'd **** a lot more people by nerfing their units than if you just gave eldar a single point of BS or WS across the board, and no one likes extra rules. Keep it simple.

I'm for a single 4 in a guardian's skills (guys, ratlings have BS 4) as a squad upgrade to represent elite guardian kinships (Ulthwe's come to mind), and a single 5 for aspects. It is not too far against the fluff (you know, training possibly for a century in a single style), and I prefer making them better rather than cheaper. Alternatively, it could be that melee specialists get WS 5 BS 3 and ranged specialists WS 3 BS 5. I don't see why a reaper and a banshee should be equally proficient in fencing and markmanship. Generally, higher weapon or ballistic skill builds on the concept of aspects as elite, inhumanly skilled warriors, who compensate for their "normal" physique with unnatural speed and centuries of training.

For vehicles, I'd like to either make them BS 4 and incorporate it in the cost or give them a cheap upgrade like what Tau have.

Zweischneid
08-04-2011, 08:35
How about this rule: non-Eldar or Dark Eldar reduce all their profile stats and weapon strengths by 1 in a battle with Eldar.

About the dummest thing I have ever heard? What is that gonna yield? Thousands of players that'll need to re-learn, re-familiarize with their army-mechanics if playing against Eldar only because you people cannot wrap your head around the fact that game stats are simply game stats and not necessarly related to any specific fluff element such as "elite" or "training".

The fluff-based "elite" status of Space Marines or Aspect Warriors is not defined by WS/BS4. It is defined by a complete stat-line (A, T, S, I, LD, you name it) along with special rules, equipment, deployment options, etc...,etc..,etc... (compare the "rank-and-file-Marine" to the "elite-Sternguard/Terminators".)

Giving more humble troopers a raise here and there does not impinge upon these "elite" troops in any shape or form.

Hendarion
08-04-2011, 08:35
Your expectations are based on the second edition Eldar codex. We are not playing second edition any more, and this is reflected in the statistics. In addition, background is directly translated into rules.

Let's deal with Guardians. This comes up all the time, and the idea that they should have an increased WS/BS is completely misplaced (except in the case of Black Guardians). Guardians are civilians. They only receive basic training. The fact that they have the same WS and BS as trained Imperial Guardsmen actually demonstrates how good they actually are.

It is a fallacy that WS4 and BS4 represent the average in 40K. The only reason why players have this false impression is because there are so many Space Marine players. WS4 and BS4 are elite statistics, which is why Space Marines and Aspect Warriors, for example, have these stats. Guardians do not have them because they are not elite soldiers. In fact, they are not even proper soldiers (see above), so we should all be grateful that they actually have the stats which they do.

Moving onto vehicles, again, this is a false argument. Standard Eldar transports require only basic training to fly them and shoot their weapons; whereas the Fire Prism is a far more specialised piece of kit. For this reason, the difference in BS can easily be explained, although I would certainly have no issue with the Fire Prism having the same BS as the other Eldar vehicles.

As for your final paragraph, I get the impression that it belongs in the wishlisting thread, not here. For that reason, I will simply say that I don't agree with any of it, and that I think that you are oversimplifying the situation far too much.

QFT. Best answer I've seen for a very long time. That is exactly what GW has told us in the past and what imo is right, correct and fair too.
Thanks for that.


Ironically it was someone named TheLaughingGod that beat this dead horse.
Who said you can't ride a dead horse? ;) And at least, you can still eat it.

Poseidal
08-04-2011, 08:38
Hmm, some people can't see past an obvious joke. I'm going to have to resort to smilys or /joke tags in the future.

nagash66
08-04-2011, 08:39
Why are people talking about the uber eldar when Tau still only have BS 3??

OP: Nice very nice.

Symrivven
08-04-2011, 09:21
My problem is more why are the stats of deathcult* assains so high. It doesn't sit right with me that (non HQ)humans should have ws 5 and initiative 6, thats just as fast as harlequins and wyches and a higher ws than bloodbrides.
I understand the whole stat inflation arguments but apparently some codices have more inflation than others. It wouldn't hurt if GW had some internal guidelines about what the minimum and maximum stats of each race could be.

*Temple assains can be more dangerous imo, they are enhanced and are trained in one of the most efficient assassin programs in the galaxy but ws/bs8 and i7? That's higher than chaptermasters and a higher ws/bs than archons and phoenix lords.

Yes I know game mechanics/stats and fluff are totally different things, but still some consistency would be nice.

MajorWesJanson
08-04-2011, 09:23
How about this rule: non-Eldar or Dark Eldar reduce all their profile stats and weapon strengths by 1 in a battle with Eldar. :D

Sure, you can have the "Elegant Ancient Race" rule, but in exchange you also get the "Last of a Dying Empire" rule, where you cannot win, and any results that would give you a win end up as a tie instead. After all, you can't afford to take losses, and if you have hit a battlefield, something has gone wrong on the Farseers part :D

Zweischneid
08-04-2011, 09:26
...you also get the "Last of a Dying Empire" rule, where you cannot win, and any results that would give you a win end up as a tie instead. After all, you can't afford to take losses, and if you have hit a battlefield, something has gone wrong on the Farseers part :D

Though being fair, this should apply to all 40K factions. Noone ever truly wins.. and there is only war.

I thus propose to simply remove "winning" from the next edition of 40K.

Tymell
08-04-2011, 09:29
As someone who is both amazed and appalled that the original Tau thread is still somehow alive, I applaud your lampooning!

Ditto :D The Laughing God strikes again.

Poseidal
08-04-2011, 09:30
The assassins stick out really strangely, even in 2nd ed. (however, in 1st they were ironically more like the 3rd ed statlines, though temple assassins didn't exist per se).

They had better stats than almost everyone. Better than the Phoenix Lords, Chapter Masters, Warbosses. You basically had to be an Avatar, Bloodthirster or other greater daemon to have a higher all round statline.

Zweischneid
08-04-2011, 09:48
The assassins stick out really strangely, even in 2nd ed. (however, in 1st they were ironically more like the 3rd ed statlines, though temple assassins didn't exist per se).

They had better stats than almost everyone. Better than the Phoenix Lords, Chapter Masters, Warbosses. You basically had to be an Avatar, Bloodthirster or other greater daemon to have a higher all round statline.

Yes. But that doesn't mean Assassins were necessarly "better"/"more elite" warriors than.. say Eldar Aspect Warriors or Assault Marines from a fluff-perspective, let alone Greater Daemons or some such.

It was simply a prudent use of game-stats to recreate, in the game, the effect of a specific kind of threat that Assassins pose to "characters"/"HQ-units" through "assassination".

They could have perhaps used some clunky "always-hits-on-a-2+/can-only-be-hit-one-a-5+" special rule. But using the game mechanics that exist, rather than working around them out of some misguided sense of "stat-fluff-linkages", makes for a much better game.

Poseidal
08-04-2011, 09:57
The Assassins mostly relied on their equipment and special rules rather than stats though.

Except maybe the Eversor, who got stuck in fighting multiple models. The Callidus still needed the polymorphene and Vindicare had his rifle and spy mask, and the Culexus needed his anti-psyker special rules.

Note there's one model that mostly shared stats with the Assassins: Ordinary Inquisitor lords, though they got as much coverage ruleswise as Squats did.

Shamana
08-04-2011, 09:58
Yes. But that doesn't mean Assassins were necessarly "better"/"more elite" warriors than.. say Eldar Aspect Warriors or Assault Marines from a fluff-perspective, let alone Greater Daemons or some such.

It was simply a prudent use of game-stats to recreate, in the game, the effect of a specific kind of threat that Assassins pose to "characters"/"HQ-units" through "assassination".

I'd be quite happy if they could just reroll to-hit and to-wound rolls against ICs, really. It's more powerful against the VIPs (you know, assassination and all) and doesn't need absurd stats.

Zweischneid
08-04-2011, 10:00
I'd be quite happy if they could just reroll to-hit and to-wound rolls against ICs, really. It's more powerful agains the VIPs and doesn't need absurd stats.

But that's some unnecessary die-rolls. Why add more dice if you can do it more elegantly with a stat-raise. I'd try to minimize re-rolls instead (say.. twin-link doubles BS, rather than give a re-roll) in order to speed up games.

Stats are never "absurd". Stats are just stats. They have no "meaning", absurd or not.

Shamana
08-04-2011, 10:07
Compared to everything else, rerolls for a single character can be quite tame. It's not like an ork waagh when you need a dice bucket to roll all at once :D .

Poseidal
08-04-2011, 10:10
Stats have meaning in so far as they're an abstraction of a concept. This is described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, with strength, toughness, initiative etc.

Moving massive amounts of figures (even out of their figure case for a game) takes more time out of the game than rolling dice, generally.

Bunnahabhain
08-04-2011, 10:54
Stat inflation isn't the sole answer through.
One 5th ed book had minimal, probably even negative Stat inflation, but still worked rather well.

The Guard book. The only Stat I can think of that went up was Ogryns T. Fairly much every comparable stat either went down ( commisars W, psykers S), or stayed the same.

I don't have a problem with aspect warriors being BS5/WS3 or WS5/BS3- this is fine for dedicated specialists, and probably better than the current 4/4. Similarly, for Guardians, either a 3/4 or 4/3, ( make them two separate units, say defender and storm guardians) reflecting their past training bias, would be fine.

I don't think it is needed, but as a simple and fitting way to change stuff, it would be fine.

Poseidal
08-04-2011, 12:09
The Aspects are complete fighting systems, so Dark Reapers do have close combat training.

4/4 would be more appropriate, but 5/4 (even for reapers) wouldn't be too much considering all the Phoenix Lords fight in close combat and Incubi sort of follow that pattern. 4/5 causes problems due to the BS4->BS5 jump due to the limited 3rd edition legacy BS rules compared with the modifiers used in Fantasy and the older systems.

Shamana
08-04-2011, 13:01
BS 5 is a pretty flat increase in firepower - unless my math is wrong, it ensures 25% more hits (thus wounds and casualties), by increasing accuracy from 67 to 83%. It IS useful, but generally less so than giving the lasblaster or reaper launcher one extra shot. It is a bit poor on exarchs, though, who only get a (poor) reroll on the 1... IIRC boosting accuracy from 83 to 87%.

BS 5 can become almost fool-proof by guide, but the actual gain is iirc notably less than you get by guiding a BS 2/3/4 unit. In the end, yes, BS 5 is a serious buff, but not gamebreaking on most units, and generally less powerful than increased rate of fire.

@ Poseidal - I have no information on the aspects focusing equally on the use of different weapons. While Banshees may have some target practice with their pistols and reapers some close-combat drills, I'd expect the main body of their training to deal with their weapon of choice. Have you read differently somewhere?

Irisado
08-04-2011, 13:13
Lets look at the stats of the Temple Assassin over the various editions

Why? How is this relevant to Guardians? Assassins are unique individuals with all sorts of specialist training and skills. That's a completely different argument.


Let's look at the stats of a TROOP CHOICE in the grey knights codex

Grey Knights are supposed to be better than most other elite units, let alone Eldar Guardians. They are immensely powerful, so again it is no surprise that they have higher stats than Aspect Warriors and Marines, let alone Guardians.


This is the era of s5 t5 space marine heroes, even a s6 t6 w4 space marine hero that flies and shoots lasers from his eyes.

One exception does not result in a trend being set ;). As for the first part of your sentence, apart from Cassius, no Space Marine character in the Space Marine codex has a toughness which exceeds that of a normal Marine, and not a single Space Marine character from that book has the toughness which you mention either. Yes, regular Chapter Masters and Captains can boost their strength by taking a Relic Blade, but that's the only way they can exceed standard Marine strength.

The Blood Angels codex is just one codex. It does not characterise an era or define the edition, so my advice to you is to take a look at the wider picture :).


"what if we gave the grey knights a teleporting carnifex? Oh it has a force ield too"
What would your reaction be?

I assume that you're referring to the Dread Knight? There's actually an issue of it losing its monstrous creature status if you give it that piece of wargear by RAW, but that's not a debate to to be had here. Again though, it doesn't have anything to do with Guardian stats, it's a completely different concept. If you want to argue that it's overpowered relative to similar units, then feel free to do so, but that would be a subject for a different thread :).


We are in the 40k of jokaero and hallucinagen grenades.
2e did not have wolves riding wolves or golden nipple angel squads either, 5e is 5e, it is the weirdest edition of 40k yet.

If you think fifth edition has some weird units, you really need to get yourself a copy of the Rogue Trader rulebook ;).


Am I missing something here? As far as I can see the stats for most of the infantry units are identical to the 2nd ed codex. Only the characters have changed significantly.

I was referring more to special rules, and weapon capabilities, but, as you've seen from the post I've quoted above, some people seem to believe that we've gone back to second edition, due to the changes to certain units in certain codices. I was addressing a false perception, rather than reality.


Another point re Guardians, the idea that the Eldar are giving civilians a crash course in training and throwing them onto the frontline is ridiculous from a fluff perspective given the value the Eldar place on a single life. There would surely be a range of training levels within the citizen militia (everyone is trained to some degree in case the Craftworld is attacked) and only the best soldiers will be given front line duties.

Read through the background on Guardians across all editions of the game, and you will see that there is no indication that Defender Guardians receive different degrees of training. It also isn't crash course training, rather it's akin to a life skill. There are likely to be different types of training for different roles, but as for only the best soldiers being sent into battle, that's not really the case, because Guardians are not professional soldiers. If Eldar craftworlds had the choice, they would not send Guardians into battle at all (Ulthwé being an exception), but they don't have the option.


The Fire Prism went to BS4 for two reasons - a) in 4th ed a tank with a single BS3 template weapon is completely useless (No one ever took Fire Prisms when they were BS3 in the old 3rd ed codex and b) it can be explained by the advanced targeting systems incorporated into the gun itself. I remember a piece in WD about this around the time the Fire Prism was released (sorry, don't mean to offend you by a loose reference to some 2nd ed era fluff! :p).

I agree with your explanation of the reasons. I just don't agree with the reasons GW gave in terms of the background :).


There is clearly a hankering for BS4 Eldar vehicles (it does seem a bit wierd that an elite army is saddled with BS3 vehicles) though so why not introduce Star Eagles Aspect Warriors as a 'Vehicle Upgrade'? At 15-20pts it wouldn't be a no brainer.

This is an idea to be debated in the wishlisting thread, but this would be the better option from a background perspective, as dedicated Aspect Warriors who follow a path dedicated to piloting vehicles are bound to be superior to Guardians in terms of accuracy. As to whether it's needed, I don't think that it is, but I won't go into details here, as it's off topic.


Not true, Guardians are former Aspect Warriors who have completed their path and moved on to the next, civilian one. They retain the knowledge and skills of the previous path, they're just not actively walking it any more.

You're mixing up Storm Guardians with every other form of Guardian. It is only Storm Guardians who tend to be retired Aspect Warriors. The fact that they no longer follow a path, and no longer train regularly, is reflected by their inferior combat stats.

Obrimos
08-04-2011, 13:59
Well would Space Marines not be equivalent to Chaos Warriors in that argument in which case why not bump them up to WS/BS5 aswell, you know just to be fair ;)

Chaos Space Marines do, indeed.
Mere veteran skills do not represent what they really are.

Space Marines are the equivalent to Imperial or Bretonnian knights.
Their stats are fine as they are.
They have +1 T for biomodifications and BS4 for additional ranged combat training.

Back to Eldar:
The Eldar are a race that was created for warfare, as were the Orks. They have a natural inclination towards violence (albeit different from that of Orks and strongly controlled and refined by culture) as well as superiour intelligence, learning capacities, reflexes, perception, body control, ki psychic powers, and cardiac systems.
They have probably practised eugenics for millenia.
And while I do agree that their bodies do not exceed S/T 3, they should be decisively superiour in every other respect to any human being.

People should start thinking the other way round and not compare Eldar to Space Marines, but Space Marines to Eldar.
Space Marines can reach levels of Eldar skill by intense inhuman training, as well as surpass them physically in strenght and toughness.
Still, a dedicated Eldar warrior should deal with a Space Marine as easily as a normal Eldar deals with a normal human.
WS/BS 5 for aspect warriors is justified, IMO.

Dark Reapers are described as the best sharpshooters in the galaxy.
Stat reflection plz.

Irisado
08-04-2011, 14:15
The Eldar are a race that was created for warfare.

That's not accurate. The history of the Eldar race is far more complicated than that. I suggest that you take a look at the second edition Eldar codex, as well as the current one, and look at their society prior to the fall. The emphasis was not on waging war, and many of the craftworlds which followed the Fall will only get involved in conflict when they have to.


Still, a dedicated Eldar warrior should deal with a Space Marine as easily as a normal Eldar deals with a normal human.
WS/BS 5 for aspect warriors is justified, IMO.

That might be your opinion, but the game balance just doesn't justify it I'm afraid. Space Marines are elite, and they are not normal human beings, so comparing them with Aspect Warriors is entirely justified. Both of them could be argued to be underpowered from a purely background perspective, but this is why background and rules are not completely linked. Units have to be balanced within the game, and what you're proposing starts undermining balance quite quickly.

Obrimos
08-04-2011, 15:08
That's not accurate. The history of the Eldar race is far more complicated than that. I suggest that you take a look at the second edition Eldar codex, as well as the current one, and look at their society prior to the fall. The emphasis was not on waging war, and many of the craftworlds which followed the Fall will only get involved in conflict when they have to.


The Eldar avoid conflict now, because they are weak, but this wasn't always the case. While I do agree that the 2nd edition Eldar codex doesn't mention the Eldar being created for purposes of warfare alone, the fluff that was retconned into the Eldar with the arrival of the necrons in game sure does. The old ones had a purpose in mind, when they created the Eldar, and it's highly doubtful that they were planned as gardeners, even though they terraformed a lot of planets. They were a means of psychic warfare, the only weak spot of the C'tan.
This is also one of the many reasons, why the Eldar failed as a society, once the Enslavers went back to the warp, the Necrons went to sleep and no other serious threat remained to fight against.

Shamana
08-04-2011, 15:22
Units have to be balanced within the game, and what you're proposing starts undermining balance quite quickly.

It would allow aspect warriors to land more hits against most marines (all in shooting, WS 4 in melee), and be hit a bit harder by WS 2 (Tau, conscripts, gretchin) or WS 5 (DC marines, librarians/sorcerers, paladin terminators,khorne berserers and a few others) enemies. A Marines are still tougher, stronger, generally better armored, have grenades, etc. and have no fear. A WS/BS boost would shift the balance somewhat, yes (that's what it is meant to), but undermine it? Not if the aspects are priced appropriately.

In general, marines will be more resilient and harder to kill, eldar aspects will have better offense. Considering both are elite armies, wouldn't it put them about on par - better defense vs better offense?

BTW, please note: I would prefer a 5/4 statline akin to the incubi (although their BS of 4 doesn't really matter since they lack any ranged weapons).

fidesratioque
08-04-2011, 15:22
You're mixing up Storm Guardians with every other form of Guardian. It is only Storm Guardians who tend to be retired Aspect Warriors. The fact that they no longer follow a path, and no longer train regularly, is reflected by their inferior combat stats.

Where did you find that? Storm Guardians are just Guardians with close combat weapons and shuriken pistols instead of shuriken catapults. They are the same as Defender Guardians in every other way. They have different equipment, not different training.

Also, they don't send Guardians into battle unless necessary because the Guardians aren't on that path. It's a question of personal fulfillment. The eldar who are on the path of the aspect warrior are warriors by choice. The Guardians are something else by choice and only warriors by necessity. Since the eldar put the greatest emphasis on personal development and freedom of choice, it's considered 'horrible' to have to force eldar to do something as disgusting as fight when they have already moved past mastering how to deal with the touch of Khaine.

razcalking
08-04-2011, 15:23
Hrmmm. If you want statlines higher than 4 in your next codex, prepare to pay more than a Grey Knight for them.

Shamana
08-04-2011, 15:32
Dark Eldar should have better than Eldar

Why?

Evil today with its sense of entitlement... Back in the day, potential evil overlords had to WORK for their power, not come in preening and say "I has been badz today, can I has buffs plz?" a few months after their new codex.

@ razcalking: Trust me, I wouldn't mind if aspects were priced the same way as grey knights are, and I doubt many eldar players would. However, IMO it would take a good deal more than just a WS or BS buff to make them more expensive. Remember, the standard PAGK has:

- the standard SM package: all the 4s in the stats, 3+ armor, ATSKNF, frag and krak grenades
- storm bolter
- force sword that is still a demon/psykerbane power sword if hammerhand was used
- the hammerhand power (S5 if the test works)
- minor psychic defense (aegis)
- anti-psyker/demon grenades.

For 20 points, you could do worse. How much would an eldar aspect trade out of this to get I5 and WS5, if it is still more expensive?

Now, this presumes that the new units aren't underpriced. If they are, well, then what - everyone else takes one for the team?

althathir
08-04-2011, 16:36
Chaos Space Marines do, indeed.
Mere veteran skills do not represent what they really are.

Space Marines are the equivalent to Imperial or Bretonnian knights.
Their stats are fine as they are.
They have +1 T for biomodifications and BS4 for additional ranged combat training.

Back to Eldar:
The Eldar are a race that was created for warfare, as were the Orks. They have a natural inclination towards violence (albeit different from that of Orks and strongly controlled and refined by culture) as well as superiour intelligence, learning capacities, reflexes, perception, body control, ki psychic powers, and cardiac systems.
They have probably practised eugenics for millenia.
And while I do agree that their bodies do not exceed S/T 3, they should be decisively superiour in every other respect to any human being.

People should start thinking the other way round and not compare Eldar to Space Marines, but Space Marines to Eldar.
Space Marines can reach levels of Eldar skill by intense inhuman training, as well as surpass them physically in strenght and toughness.
Still, a dedicated Eldar warrior should deal with a Space Marine as easily as a normal Eldar deals with a normal human.
WS/BS 5 for aspect warriors is justified, IMO.

Dark Reapers are described as the best sharpshooters in the galaxy.
Stat reflection plz.

Honestly I can't think of any fluff that has aspect warriors easily handling marines, or that has reapers as "the best sharpshooters in the galaxy". Aspect warriors are protrayed as equals sometimes, but never flat out better. Space Marines have long live spans, are genetically modified for the sole purpose of combat, and for all intents and purposes on a strict path their whole life (and fluffwise its not uncommon for them to have fought for a 100 years and still be a basic trooper).


Where did you find that? Storm Guardians are just Guardians with close combat weapons and shuriken pistols instead of shuriken catapults. They are the same as Defender Guardians in every other way. They have different equipment, not different training.

Also, they don't send Guardians into battle unless necessary because the Guardians aren't on that path. It's a question of personal fulfillment. The eldar who are on the path of the aspect warrior are warriors by choice. The Guardians are something else by choice and only warriors by necessity. Since the eldar put the greatest emphasis on personal development and freedom of choice, it's considered 'horrible' to have to force eldar to do something as disgusting as fight when they have already moved past mastering how to deal with the touch of Khaine.

In the second edition fluff the squad leaders were former aspect warriors but all eldar are trained to be guardians. Third edition introduced storm guardians and part of the unit description said that they used to belong to CC aspects so there is a distinction between the two. That said I hope the next codex clears things up a bit, as far as guardian training and how they deal with war (the main character in path of the warrior has to learn to wear one, which implies he hasn't trained to be guardian yet?) eldar fluff is kind of a mess.



Dark Eldar should have better than Eldar

So if Guardians get 4/4 and Aspect Warriors get 5/5 then Dark Eldar Warriors should get 5/5

Incubi WS6
Klaivex WS7
Archon WS8
Succubus WS9
Lelith WS10

Troll much? Game wise and fluffwise they should balance out and based solely on WS & BS, and durability they do. Eldar just need some tweaks, if
banshees and scrops get ws 5 as a boost fine that doesn't effect it much, but I doubt every aspect will, and I will be shocked if a BS 5 unit shows up in any codex.


Hrmmm. If you want statlines higher than 4 in your next codex, prepare to pay more than a Grey Knight for them.

Fair point.

Honestly I would just like a balanced codex with good swooping hawks (who only had a small stretch of being useful in the 12+ years i've played eldar). If boosting WS & BS is how GW decides to do it thats fine, but the fluff doesn't really justify it anymore than it does for other fractions.

SgtTaters
08-04-2011, 20:13
Why? How is this relevant to Guardians? Assassins are unique individuals with all sorts of specialist training and skills. That's a completely different argument.
I was only targeting your statement "this isn't 2e and the stats don't reflect it", by posting stats between editions. Guardians are ws3 bs3 in 2nd edition anyways so you tell me what point you're trying to make.


-----




They could have perhaps used some clunky "always-hits-on-a-2+/can-only-be-hit-one-a-5+" special rule.

There's the favored enemy USR to represent studied knowledge or intense passion against specific foes. I think decapitator has it as part of his assassination style.
Space wolves do that, as does Kharn
Emperor's Champion has rerolls too
Chapter Champions do rerolls
Grey Knights champion has ws7 plus special close combat rules that also change his initiative vs independent characters (in same codex as assassins)



But using the game mechanics that exist, rather than working around them out of some misguided sense of "stat-fluff-linkages", makes for a much better game.

so there's already a large precedent to do fixed hit numbers and rerolls.




Hrmmm. If you want statlines higher than 4 in your next codex, prepare to pay more than a Grey Knight for them.
ws5 i6 with two (three) power weapon attacks and a 5+ inv sv, 15pts
everyone already pays more than C:GK for stats above 4.

and 3e grey knights just shows you can have ws5, s6, and be a terrible, terrible unit.

Slayerthane
08-04-2011, 20:27
Guardians are fine as WS and BS 3. They are painters, craftsmen, and poets. They have no training. They have no reason to fight. They do it out of sheer desperation.

So are High Elf spearmen and archers in Fantasy. Swordsmen of Hoeth, White Lions, Pheonix Guard are comparable to aspect warriors. Archers are actually young elves so are BS4. Most young eldar will have been rangers at one point given their desires to travel and see the universe.

While Guardians are civilians, but this doesn't mean they don't have training. They're a citizen levy basically and they all receive basic and regular training based on my understanding of the fluff. Also in 40K WS4 BS4 is considered an average stat line, while in Fantasy WS3 and BS3 is the average. Taking into account that all Eldar live for hundreds of years (some die earlier, some die later but the average is probably over 500 hundred years), and they will have countless human lifetimes of experience under their belts as a result I agree with the OP they should be WS4 BS4. Aspect Warriors should be WS5 BS5.

Irisado
08-04-2011, 20:34
The Eldar avoid conflict now, because they are weak, but this wasn't always the case. While I do agree that the 2nd edition Eldar codex doesn't mention the Eldar being created for purposes of warfare alone, the fluff that was retconned into the Eldar with the arrival of the necrons in game sure does. The old ones had a purpose in mind, when they created the Eldar, and it's highly doubtful that they were planned as gardeners, even though they terraformed a lot of planets. They were a means of psychic warfare, the only weak spot of the C'tan.
This is also one of the many reasons, why the Eldar failed as a society, once the Enslavers went back to the warp, the Necrons went to sleep and no other serious threat remained to fight against.

The background of the Eldar in codices which came after the Necrons were shoehorned into the 40K narrative has barely changed though, so I still don't see how you draw the conclusion which you do looking at official Eldar material.

As for the whole Old Ones saga, I suspect that this thread would be seriously derailed if we started talking about that, so it's probably better that we don't :).

Regardless, none of this justifies altering Eldar stats :).


It would allow aspect warriors to land more hits against most marines (all in shooting, WS 4 in melee), and be hit a bit harder by WS 2 (Tau, conscripts, gretchin) or WS 5 (DC marines, librarians/sorcerers, paladin terminators,khorne berserers and a few others) enemies. A Marines are still tougher, stronger, generally better armored, have grenades, etc. and have no fear. A WS/BS boost would shift the balance somewhat, yes (that's what it is meant to), but undermine it? Not if the aspects are priced appropriately.

It would undermine it, because there is no way that Eldar Aspect Warriors are better than Space Marines. They are equivalent in their elite capacity, and to give Aspect Warriors parity with Grey Knights and their own Exarchs makes no sense at all, so I'm sorry, but this does shift the balance.

I've never understood this desire to change basic Eldar stats. The stat lines work perfectly well as they do now, and there just isn't a good reason to alter the status quo. All I've ever seen for a justification for these sorts of changes is the 'I want' argument, which isn't a very convincing one as far as I am concerned I'm afraid.

Aspect Warriors didn't even have enhanced WS and BS relative to Marines in second edition, which was when the Eldar were considered one of the most powerful armies, so if they didn't need it then, why do they need it now?


In general, marines will be more resilient and harder to kill, eldar aspects will have better offense. Considering both are elite armies, wouldn't it put them about on par - better defense vs better offense?

Aspect Warriors work perfectly well when being used offensively now, so they simply don't need a boost, and again, they are elite. Space Marines are also elite, so the two ought to be very similar, with differences reflected in the specialised nature of the Eldar, and their superior agility.


Where did you find that? Storm Guardians are just Guardians with close combat weapons and shuriken pistols instead of shuriken catapults. They are the same as Defender Guardians in every other way. They have different equipment, not different training.

This is incorrect. See the background for them in both the third and fourth edition Eldar codices.

Shnerg
08-04-2011, 20:53
OP: I lol'd.

If people want to be like fuwjnbufciwebcnimkglchcdulhdtkubhacv give eldar bs5860387603-238682956830-5 becuz dey is like totally old nd dat, then I say to them, think of the likelihood of anyone every being in a war like that, in the real universe.

Obrimos
08-04-2011, 21:10
Shoehorned or not, the fluff is now official. The Eldar were a tool in the fight between Old Ones and C'tan.

Apart from that, the Eldar have always been portrayed as a warlike race, to their glory and their demise. Farseers regularly complain about the eagerness of their brethren to go to war, when opportunity presents itself.
Even though the Eldar are a broken race, their subconscious thirst for bloodshed and the thrill of combat is powerful enough to nourish and awaken an Avatar of Khaine.

Apart from that, how could you justify better stats except for reasons of fluff?

Also, is it so hard to accept for people that there might be highly developed xenos out there that are actually better warriors than Space Marines?

But then again we aren't talking about making aspects superiour to SM.
At the moment SM has better S and T.
The only thing in favour of the aspects is I.
Adding a point of WS or BS is not only justifiable but would be an act of balance. Even a Space Marine should have little chance to survive a banshee attack.

Irisado
08-04-2011, 21:48
Apart from that, the Eldar have always been portrayed as a warlike race, to their glory and their demise. Farseers regularly complain about the eagerness of their brethren to go to war, when opportunity presents itself.

I would be interested in reading an example or two to support the part of your statement I have put in bold.


Apart from that, how could you justify better stats except for reasons of fluff?

As I've pointed out above, it's a question of relative balance more than it is a question of background.


Also, is it so hard to accept for people that there might be highly developed xenos out there that are actually better warriors than Space Marines?

Space Marines are not like a regular human, and are very powerful, so it makes sense for them to be on par with Aspect Warriors. They are similar elite units in the game, superior to basic troopers, but similar to each other.


But then again we aren't talking about making aspects superiour to SM.
At the moment SM has better S and T.
The only thing in favour of the aspects is I.
Adding a point of WS or BS is not only justifiable but would be an act of balance. Even a Space Marine should have little chance to survive a banshee attack.

You forget the benefit of fleet, and the benefits of specialisation. The survival of Marines is poor against Howling Banshees as it stands, due to the specialisation of Banshee wargear bypassing the best defence a Marine has, armour.

I've played Eldar in every edition of this game, and I have never encountered a situation in which I have found the stat line of Guardians or Aspect Warriors to be an issue. Guardians are on par with basic human troopers, while Aspect Warriors are on par with elites. This is how it should be. Leave the higher stat lines to Exarchs, Autarchs, and Phoenix Lords.

Archibald_TK
08-04-2011, 22:05
Hi guys! I heard that was the thread where you can ask advices for using Eldar as count as GK!
More seriously I find that thread kind of funny because no later than yesterday a friend of mine was reading the GK Codex and when he stumbled on the Death Cult entry the conversation went that way:

"- Hey they are kind of awesome, that's a lot of power weapons attacks even without grenades they are good.
- Yeah, they kind of remind me of a weaker Banshee without a mask.
- With more attacks?
- With more attacks.
- With Str 4?
- With Str 4.
- A 5++ save?
- A 5++ save.
- WS5?
- WS5 ok Banshee kind of remind me of a weaker Death Cultist..."

ObiWan
08-04-2011, 22:41
I agree with Irisado's point of view on stats. However, I do think there should be a cost reduction on some units that pay premium for no longer useful abilities or are just simply overpriced.

TheLaughingGod
08-04-2011, 23:00
This is incorrect. See the background for them in both the third and fourth edition Eldar codices.
Incorrect. The 4th Edition Codex does not support Storm Squads as being any different from Defender Squads. That oddity arose from a single line in 3rd edition and has never been repeated before or since. It is safe to say it was in error and has been since corrected.


In addition.
1. All Eldar are Guardians.
2. Guardians having combat training.
3. They are not "Desperate civilians with no training."

Ail-Shan
08-04-2011, 23:17
Aspect Warriors work perfectly well when being used offensively now


You forget the benefit of fleet, and the benefits of specialisation. The survival of Marines is poor against Howling Banshees as it stands, due to the specialisation of Banshee wargear bypassing the best defence a Marine has, armour.

There is one thing I'd like to illustrate. A howling banshee will, on average, kill the same number of marines in combat as a grey hunter (assuming no charging). Obviously the banshee has more I which is a bonus. But is it really worth an extra point, considering banshees are less resilient, can't hope to hurt vehicles, and poor at shooting, as well as not being scoring? Obviously result of an old codex, but the point is some complaints at aspect warriors being poor at combat are justified, and shouldn't be dismissed as "they are supposed to be equals of marines." I recall reading a post long before where the OP argued that banshees should be weaker than marines, as long as they are costed appropriately. But due to squad size, that means Eldar are not only pushed towards a horde like army, but also that we would not be able to play at higher points do to FOC strangulation.


However, I do think there should be a cost reduction on some units that pay premium for no longer useful abilities or are just simply overpriced.

As I pointed out above, this leads to FOC strangulation. It works at lower points (at the moment Eldar scale rather poorly compared to other races. We can't get enough useful units at low points, and are restricted to only the strongest at high because we run out of FOC slots and our troops are all centered around anti-infantry), but at higher points, what are you going to do? If you face marines are you going to field 2 squads of banshees and only 1 squad of dragons, and pray you don't come up against a lot of armor? With the specialization of Eldar, yet their lack of strength, they run into a lot of problems:

If you lower the points, you don't really solve the problem because now our specialists aren't killy enough to stay around for more than 1 attack (without good positioning and the like. You're not keeping your unit safe every game). In addition, you can't field them in numbers because you're out of FOC slots. I think the only real way to get Eldar back to where they should be would be to increase their power, and a bit of a stat boost is a way to do this without really causing too much havoc. As another point, it's frustrating that a GK should be faster than an aspect warrior because he has a halberd, but that's me being annoyed.

If I recall correctly, basically anything (especially marines) that got in combat with a banshee (when the banshee was charging at least) in previous editions was dead short of really bad luck. There'd be other draw backs of course, but there was an element of certainty that the Eldar heavy infantry killing combat aspect warrior could, in fact, kill heavy infantry in combat. As it stands now, they aren't that impressive (they do .3 wounds to a grey hunter, the same that that grey hunter does to a banshee after armor).

Anyway, I don't want to be wishlisting or anything of the like in here. My main point is that eldar aspects at least, despite all their specialization and cost, are not much, if any, better than a marine in the same field. This is at the same cost, and with the drawback of losing effectiveness in every other field. Because of how the FOC is organized currently, reducing the cost of Eldar will sort of solve the problem, but will create many new problems. On the other hand slight stat boosts would not cause major issues as Irisado fears. However, another option would be going back to special rules (such as the turn a banshee charges the enemy may not attack back. Not a suggestion but an illustration as I believe that was one of the old rules), which goes into what one of my friends told me:

"An regular player is to read the main rulebook to learn how to play. An Eldar player will read the main rulebook to learn how everyone else plays, and then read their codex to see how they will play."

Irisado
08-04-2011, 23:17
Incorrect. The 4th Edition Codex does not support Storm Squads as being any different from Defender Squads.

It differentiates them by stating that they are rarer than Defender Guardians, otherwise you are correct though, my apologies. I could have sworn that I had seen the reference to Storm Guardians including retired Aspect Warriors in the current codex, but I can't find it now.


In addition.
1. All Eldar are Guardians.
2. Guardians having combat training.
3. They are not "Desperate civilians with no training."

I haven't said anything which contradicts that, but this in no way justifies an increase in their WS or BS, because they are all still civilians. The combat training makes them as good as an Imperial Guardsmen, not better.

Ail-Shan: There are issues with certain units in the Space Wolves codex, but this does not mean that Eldar stats need to change. Space Wolves are a specialist close assault Chapter for the most part in any case, so you would expect them to hit harder in close combat than regular Marines. As for Eldar assault squads, they are not poor in close combat, survivability is their main problem, and as for shooting performance, they have high enough BS for it to actually be quite useful, but they are specialists, so by comparison it will always be inferior.

You also haven't demonstrated how boosting the WS and BS of Aspect Warriors would not cause imbalances. How is it right that their stats become superior to those of a regular Space Marine, when the latter is a superhuman elite fighter? There is no precedant for this, and it completely distorts the stats within the game.

theunwantedbeing
08-04-2011, 23:26
Nothing wrong with bs3 guardians really.
Guardians are standard line-toops, nothing special really...even if they are eldar.
They make up for that with a high initituive anyway, and fleet?
Plus with warlocks they can be improved with regards to weaponskill at any rate.

Bs3 falcon and vehicles however....very silly, they all need at least targetting matrix upgrades to make them bs4.

Ail-Shan
08-04-2011, 23:41
There are issues with certain units in the Space Wolves codex, but this does not mean that Eldar stats need to change.

You do realize that a standard chaos marine has the same number of attacks as a grey hunter, and the only combat difference is upgrades and counter attack? Therefore, a chaos marine is exactly as effective as a banshee against marines. In fact, any marine with 2 base attacks, whether from dual wielding or just an A2 stat (assault marines, veterans, scouts with bp/ccw even) are all exactly as effective as a banshee at killing marines in combat*(SEE EDIT). I take some issue with that when we're paying to specialize at heavy infantry killing, while the rest are base choices for similar, if not less, cost. (Obviously jump marines are more, but their relative cost is comparable to the serpent that banshees require to get to their target).


they have high enough BS for it to actually be quite useful

They don't have the shots. It can be useful, but it rarely is, and since our combat aspects are so vulnerable to shooting fleet will almost always be a better decision (especially with lack of an assault ramp, which I DON'T think we need).


but they are specialists, so by comparison it will always be inferior.

Being Eldar specialists (meaning elite specialists, not horde ork specialists), then they should then at least be above average in their specialization as a counter balance, or else we are stuck without enough FOC choices, enough transports, and enough killing power.


You also haven't demonstrated how boosting the WS and BS of Aspect Warriors would not cause imbalances. How is it right that their stats become superior to those of a regular Space Marine, when the latter is a superhuman elite fighter?

I didn't intend to, as it's difficult to show. However, how is it right that a human assassin is more skilled than a Phoenix Lord? Training only gets you so far, and I'm fairly certain the Phoenix Lords have far more hands on experience with combat. I just don't think changing hitting on 4s to 3s, or 3s to 2s will make a major difference. It'll give aspects a bit of a boost in killing power, which is what they should get in my opinion, rather than a boost to survivability, else we're marines, or points drop, or we're sisters of battle. My point was to illustrate that it isn't game breaking, and obviously no more fluff breaking than some of the marine models that have been appearing.

Again, I'll point out that giving some form of special rules to Eldar units to emphasize their role may be the best way to differentiate them and increase their power in their specialization, based directly on the equipment they use rather than their skill, thus keeping people happy as they stay at marine level. However, aspects as they are are not sufficient.



EDIT: Sorry, I made a mistake. Any marine with 2 attacks is as good at killing a banshee as a banshee is at killing a marine. Therefore banshees are the equivalent of a marine with twice the attacks against marines. That makes my opinion and point less strong obviously, and does cast banshees in a much better light, though I still think they are lacking.

Irisado
09-04-2011, 00:00
You do realize that a standard chaos marine has the same number of attacks as a grey hunter, and the only combat difference is upgrades and counter attack?]

I do own a Chaos army ;). Upgrades and counter attack make a significant difference.


Therefore, a chaos marine is exactly as effective as a banshee against marines. In fact, any marine with 2 base attacks, whether from dual wielding or just an A2 stat (assault marines, veterans, scouts with bp/ccw even) are all exactly as effective as a banshee at killing marines in combat.

This is not the case though, as all the weapons in the Howling Banshee squad ignore armour, while this is not the case in the squads you cite above. In addition, being able to strike first benefits the Howling Banshees significantly, so again, I don't see the need to increase their WS.

If you want to make a case for improving their Exarch powers in the wishlisting thread, or make some other suggestion, be my guest, but nothing you're posting here is remotely persuasive that a WS increase is necessary in my view.


They don't have the shots. It can be useful, but it rarely is, and since our combat aspects are so vulnerable to shooting fleet will almost always be a better decision

Quite, but they are not supposed to have a lot of shots. This is also another good reason not to actually bother increasing their BS :).


Being Eldar specialists (meaning elite specialists, not horde ork specialists), then they should then at least be above average in their specialization as a counter balance, or else we are stuck without enough FOC choices, enough transports, and enough killing power.

This assumes that Aspect Warriors lack killing power, and for the most part, they simply don't lack killing power, and even those units which do have problems with inflicting enough casualties (e.g. Dark Reapers, owing to cover saves, and Swooping Hawks) is an increase in WS and BS the answer? No, because it's not a lack of hits which is the problem.

As for the FOC choices and transports, I don't understand how you're linking this to an argument about WS and BS skill increases for Aspect Warriors, so I'll leave that be.


I didn't intend to, as it's difficult to show. However, how is it right that a human assassin is more skilled than a Phoenix Lord? Training only gets you so far, and I'm fairly certain the Phoenix Lords have far more hands on experience with combat. I just don't think changing hitting on 4s to 3s, or 3s to 2s will make a major difference. It'll give aspects a bit of a boost in killing power, which is what they should get in my opinion, rather than a boost to survivability, else we're marines, or points drop, or we're sisters of battle. My point was to illustrate that it isn't game breaking, and obviously no more fluff breaking than some of the marine models that have been appearing.

It makes a huge difference in the sense that it shifts the parameters of the game. The game was set up with the idea that WS/BS3 was the average, the standard measurement. This is still the case in fifth edition, and the only reason why this is distorted is because there are a lot of Marine players, so people get the false impression that WS/BS4 is the average. It isn't, it is an elite stat line, Aspect Warriors are elite, nothing more, nothing less, so they don't need stat line changes.

As for comparisons between Aspect Warriors and some of the changes that have appeared in two Marine codices (Blood Angels and Space Wolves), we could debate whether those two codices are balanced until the cows come home, but, making poorly thought out changes to the Eldar just because some of the changes made to two Marine codices were, arguably, poorly thought through, is not good games design. Two wrongs do not make a right. (Yes, I'm ending on a cliché, but at this time of night, that's the best I can do :)).

Obrimos
09-04-2011, 00:13
I would be interested in reading an example or two to support the part of your statement I have put in bold.


I'd love to quote but I don't have the codex around at the moment. It was either the 3rd edition codex or the craftworlds expansion, where a farseer laments the overall situation.

chamelion 6
09-04-2011, 00:21
All I can say, is that "fixing" things in a codex by juggeling stats is a bad idea usually. And this thread has reinforced that belief for me.

Sarevok
09-04-2011, 00:33
TBH yes some aspect warriors could use some work, maybe WS5 but the changes should be made for game reasons not for eldar players with a superiority complex

TheLaughingGod
09-04-2011, 00:53
TBH yes some aspect warriors could use some work, maybe WS5 but the changes should be made for game reasons not for eldar players with a superiority complex

The problem with that statement is that, by fluff, Eldar are superior. Plain and simple. Obviously, this needs to be balanced in the game, but it deserves some consideration rather than a dismissive condemnation of Eldar players.

Sarevok
09-04-2011, 01:06
The problem with that statement is that, by fluff, Eldar are superior. Plain and simple. Obviously, this needs to be balanced in the game, but it deserves some consideration rather than a dismissive condemnation of Eldar players.

then the fluff should be changed because you need game balance thats more important

though superior to who? humans, yeah. marines? where does it say that? necrons? daemons? darK eldar?

theres more in the game than space marines and eldar

althathir
09-04-2011, 01:17
So are High Elf spearmen and archers in Fantasy. Swordsmen of Hoeth, White Lions, Pheonix Guard are comparable to aspect warriors. Archers are actually young elves so are BS4. Most young eldar will have been rangers at one point given their desires to travel and see the universe.

While Guardians are civilians, but this doesn't mean they don't have training. They're a citizen levy basically and they all receive basic and regular training based on my understanding of the fluff. Also in 40K WS4 BS4 is considered an average stat line, while in Fantasy WS3 and BS3 is the average. Taking into account that all Eldar live for hundreds of years (some die earlier, some die later but the average is probably over 500 hundred years), and they will have countless human lifetimes of experience under their belts as a result I agree with the OP they should be WS4 BS4. Aspect Warriors should be WS5 BS5.

Fantasy and 40k are totally different systems, BS is fixed in 40k there are no modifers so it makes a big difference. They also don't walk the path of warrior for the majority of their lives, there is no reason for rank and file guardians to be BS & WS 4. Black Guardians are a standing army so I could see them being better, but not the rank and file.

WS 4 and BS 4 are only considered average because of the amount of marine players, their level of ability is supposed to be above average. Guardians are not as well trained. For example if high elves were the most popular army does that mean the other armies should have their ws & bs set to that standard?


Incorrect. The 4th Edition Codex does not support Storm Squads as being any different from Defender Squads. That oddity arose from a single line in 3rd edition and has never been repeated before or since. It is safe to say it was in error and has been since corrected.


In addition.
1. All Eldar are Guardians.
2. Guardians having combat training.
3. They are not "Desperate civilians with no training."

I don't think they considered it an error, they just didn't want two guardian entries. Fluff doesn't seem to be that important to GW tbh, I kinda expect them to keep retconning stuff and it wouldn't shock me if Beil-tan style eldar (mainly aspects) become the norm. Guardians have been downplayed across the board our current codex barely mentions them, and neither does path of warrior (our fractions book series). Kids want super badass ass kicking units, not a dying race that is desperate enough that it needs its civilians to be ready fight.

I mean this thread shows that, guardians can't just be a bit faster than guardsman, they have to be better and more bad ass than them, so don't complain when a guardian beats a bloodthirster with his bare hands to prove himself to the ultramarines.


There is one thing I'd like to illustrate. A howling banshee will, on average, kill the same number of marines in combat as a grey hunter (assuming no charging). Obviously the banshee has more I which is a bonus. But is it really worth an extra point, considering banshees are less resilient, can't hope to hurt vehicles, and poor at shooting, as well as not being scoring? Obviously result of an old codex, but the point is some complaints at aspect warriors being poor at combat are justified, and shouldn't be dismissed as "they are supposed to be equals of marines." I recall reading a post long before where the OP argued that banshees should be weaker than marines, as long as they are costed appropriately. But due to squad size, that means Eldar are not only pushed towards a horde like army, but also that we would not be able to play at higher points do to FOC strangulation.



As I pointed out above, this leads to FOC strangulation. It works at lower points (at the moment Eldar scale rather poorly compared to other races. We can't get enough useful units at low points, and are restricted to only the strongest at high because we run out of FOC slots and our troops are all centered around anti-infantry), but at higher points, what are you going to do? If you face marines are you going to field 2 squads of banshees and only 1 squad of dragons, and pray you don't come up against a lot of armor? With the specialization of Eldar, yet their lack of strength, they run into a lot of problems:

If you lower the points, you don't really solve the problem because now our specialists aren't killy enough to stay around for more than 1 attack (without good positioning and the like. You're not keeping your unit safe every game). In addition, you can't field them in numbers because you're out of FOC slots. I think the only real way to get Eldar back to where they should be would be to increase their power, and a bit of a stat boost is a way to do this without really causing too much havoc. As another point, it's frustrating that a GK should be faster than an aspect warrior because he has a halberd, but that's me being annoyed.

If I recall correctly, basically anything (especially marines) that got in combat with a banshee (when the banshee was charging at least) in previous editions was dead short of really bad luck. There'd be other draw backs of course, but there was an element of certainty that the Eldar heavy infantry killing combat aspect warrior could, in fact, kill heavy infantry in combat. As it stands now, they aren't that impressive (they do .3 wounds to a grey hunter, the same that that grey hunter does to a banshee after armor).

Anyway, I don't want to be wishlisting or anything of the like in here. My main point is that eldar aspects at least, despite all their specialization and cost, are not much, if any, better than a marine in the same field. This is at the same cost, and with the drawback of losing effectiveness in every other field. Because of how the FOC is organized currently, reducing the cost of Eldar will sort of solve the problem, but will create many new problems. On the other hand slight stat boosts would not cause major issues as Irisado fears. However, another option would be going back to special rules (such as the turn a banshee charges the enemy may not attack back. Not a suggestion but an illustration as I believe that was one of the old rules), which goes into what one of my friends told me:

"An regular player is to read the main rulebook to learn how to play. An Eldar player will read the main rulebook to learn how everyone else plays, and then read their codex to see how they will play."

1) Banshees are now to my knowledge are the only unit that have 10 int on the first round of combat, and they also have fleet. A banshee squad with an exarch will kill about 6 grey hunters on the charge, those grey hunters will kill about 3-4, and the banshees should finish them off the next turn.

That damage output hasn't changed since 3rd edition when they were feared, the big difference is exarchs can't snipe sargeants now, and you can't consolidate into a new assault. I played a little bit in second (not with eldar) and can only go from the rules in the book, but i'll point out that it is widely regarded as the most broken codex ever (its been rumored they reset to 3rd to nerf them).

Craftworld Eldar aren't an assault army. A lot of players have this misconception I think the root of the problem was the 3rd edition craftworld supplement that was a poorly balanced PoS.

2) FoC - Part of the problem is that they changed what types of units scored, the eldar codex was in the horrible poistion of being designed before the changes from fourth to fifth were fully known. Honestly what kept the codex decent was a) phil kelly finding a balanced way for people to run their craftworld lists (gave us a lot of troop types), and b) troops being able to score within a dedicated transport.

For example swooping hawks were worth a lot more points in 4th because they could sky leap and steal a table quarter, same for a lot of other units, its impressive how well the book has stood up for almost five years now.That said nothing in the fluff suggests in any way shape or form that their WS & BS are too low. If thats how GW decides to give them a boost i'll be fine with it, but there isn't a fluff reason to give those bonuses.

TheLaughingGod
09-04-2011, 01:25
Craftworld Eldar aren't an assault army. A lot of players have this misconception I think the root of the problem was the 3rd edition craftworld supplement that was a poorly balanced PoS.


Yeah it's weird. They aren't a shooting army either, because all their ranges are short and their weapons are expensive. They aren't a vehicle army because all their armor is low, their vehicles inaccurate and expensive. They aren't a horde army because even though you can buy huge numbers of Guardians, they won't do anything except die in droves. They aren't an elite army because everything costs too much and does too little. They aren't a psychic army because every now has better power AND better defense to boot. They aren't a hero army, because most of their heroes lack the ability to go toe to toe with ICs or MCs. They aren't a speed army, because they can't assault or fire out of their over-priced transports...

So what exactly are they?

Tarian
09-04-2011, 02:14
They're elves, in Spaaaaaaaaaace! Though seriously, they're the specialist army, where each part is good at its role, but relies on their other members to function completely. They're the "team player" army.

Obrimos
09-04-2011, 02:16
@althathir:
The systems are not as different as you might think and I heavily disagree to that notion.

Comparative melee system is basically the same, except for not having rank bonuses. 40k compensates that with a finer resolution of superior numbers.
I don't know if you, in 5th ed., can still overrun an enemy unit after a lost melee but it used to possible to wipe out other units earlier.

When it comes to shooting, two points bother me.
Fantasy uses a unified system of to hit modifiers for everything.
40k either modifies the number of shots (fast firing range), adds alternative throws (cover) and otherwise relies on rerolls of all sorts.

While the differences are clearly shown by mathhammering, we shouldn't forget that most of the stats we have today, still are from 2nd edition, when to hit modifiers were still in the game.
And I do believe that little consideration was given to the fact, that the systems use different methods to represent adverse conditons for hitting the enemy.
I don't believe Terminators' and Wraithguards' WS and BS got nerfed from 5 to 4 for reasons of systemic game balance. They got nerfed because all Elites got nerfed.
The main proposition of 3rd edition was to make the troop choices stand out.
Nerfing IC's and Elites was part of the program.

There is indeed no reason why WS/BS 5 should be exempt from elites choices.
After all, the overall improvement is about 33,333% when compared to BS 3 and even less (16,666%) in CC, in most cases, because the system relies on stat comparison.

So, you hit on 2+ with your gun? No problem, you still need to wound me and I have an armour/cover/invul save to protect me. What are people afraid of, really?

Tarian
09-04-2011, 02:32
The poor saps who have a 5+ armor, no invuln, and who have to be in decent cover to have a chance to not die horribly to bolter fire?

Obrimos
09-04-2011, 02:34
@Tarian:
So does every other army.
A SM player that is worth his bones relies on the synergy between tactical marines, assault marines and devastators.
So does every Ork player with his lootas, stormboys and hardboyz.
And the Eldar have Dire Avengers, Banshees and Khaindhar.

But this isn't really a synergy. It's just rock, paper, scissors. :)

And the Eldar are not better in it than any other army.

Also, are you serious? If a space marine catches you in the open with fast firing bolters you have well deserved a horrible death. :P
Light infantry should hug cover whenever possible.

Spell_of_Destruction
09-04-2011, 02:35
The poor saps who have a 5+ armor, no invuln, and who have to be in decent cover to have a chance to not die horribly to bolter fire?

You mean Guardians then? :p



@Tarian:
So does every other army.
A SM player that is worth his bones relies on the synergy between tactical marines, assault marines and devastators.
So does every Ork player with his lootas, stormboys and hardboyz.
And the Eldar have Dire Avengers, Banshees and Khaindhar.

But this isn't really a synergy. It's just rock, paper, scissors. :)

And the Eldar are not better in it than any other army.

Another part of the problem is that recent codexes have really stepped on the Eldar's toes. That Guard (of all factions) all of a sudden have better AV12 skimmers and scoring troops to mount in them that are (point for point) better than ours is a bit of a kick in the teeth.

And I think that some people are perpetuating a myth that the majority of the current codex holds up well in 5th edition. There is no doubt in my mind that it is getting worse (or rather everyone else is just getting better). Most of the competitive builds are quite restrictive (reliant on DAVU and Fire Dragons) and are boring to play.

I think the main thing is that points costs need to come down because most games I play these days at 1500pts level, I always feel that I'm missing a squad. I'll sit there thinking "what this army really needs to work is a squad of warp spiders or another scoring unit".

althathir
09-04-2011, 02:44
@althathir:
The systems are not as different as you might think and I heavily disagree to that notion.

Comparative melee system is basically the same, except for not having rank bonuses. 40k compensates that with a finer resolution of superior numbers.
I don't know if you, in 5th ed., can still overrun an enemy unit after a lost melee but it used to possible to wipe out other units earlier.

When it comes to shooting, two points bother me.
Fantasy uses a unified system of to hit modifiers for everything.
40k either modifies the number of shots (fast firing range), adds alternative throws (cover) and otherwise relies on rerolls of all sorts.

While the differences are clearly shown by mathhammering, we shouldn't forget that most of the stats we have today, still are from 2nd edition, when to hit modifiers were still in the game.
And I do believe that little consideration was given to the fact, that the systems use different methods to represent adverse conditons for hitting the enemy.
I don't believe Terminators' and Wraithguards' WS and BS got nerfed from 5 to 4 for reasons of systemic game balance. They got nerfed because all Elites got nerfed.
The main proposition of 3rd edition was to make the troop choices stand out.
Nerfing IC's and Elites was part of the program.

There is indeed no reason why WS/BS 5 should be exempt from elites choices.
After all, the overall improvement is about 33,333% when compared to BS 3 and even less (16,666%) in CC, in most cases, because the system relies on stat comparison.

So, you hit on 2+ with your gun? No problem, you still need to wound me and I have an armour/cover/invul save to protect me. What are people afraid of, really?

You can still wipe out other units, the losing side tests leadership minus the number of wounds they lost by, and if they fail it roll d6 and add to i, if the winner scores higher they die, if the loser does they run.

Honestly if you don't know that how familiar with the system are you I don't mean to sound rude but it would be like me making suggestions for 8th edition fantasy which i've never played.

Part of the reason they reset the BS levels was that they wanted to make the system different than fantasy. 3rd tried to use a FoC to get away from hero hammer, before 1/2 your army could be characters. In 3rd you had too take two troops and could take as many as six, but they were more of a handicap til 5th edition to be honest.

CushionRide
09-04-2011, 02:53
UUUUUUUUUGGGHhh what is going on around here, this is just a repeat of the stupid tau thread,

ok. eldar having bs and ws of 3, hmm........ well for starters their elves in space. in most janras elves are mostly similar to humans in stature and strength. so taking that into account i can pretty much understand that their str and ws are 3's. elves are known to be pretty, and adept in mystic qualities.

the eldar efficently represent this in many ways. farseers, wraithlords, wraithguard, hightech alientech.

there is nothing wrong with their stats.

attributes of 4 are considered above average!!!!!
get over it!

Tarian
09-04-2011, 03:09
@Tarian:
So does every other army.
A SM player that is worth his bones relies on the synergy between tactical marines, assault marines and devastators.
So does every Ork player with his lootas, stormboys and hardboyz.
And the Eldar have Dire Avengers, Banshees and Khaindhar.

But this isn't really a synergy. It's just rock, paper, scissors. :)

And the Eldar are not better in it than any other army.

Also, are you serious? If a space marine catches you in the open with fast firing bolters you have well deserved a horrible death. :P
Light infantry should hug cover whenever possible.

Actually, I was referring to the Howling Banshees after they finish off a unit and are left stuck in the middle. :evilgrin:

althathir
09-04-2011, 03:13
You mean Guardians then? :p




Another part of the problem is that recent codexes have really stepped on the Eldar's toes. That Guard (of all factions) all of a sudden have better AV12 skimmers and scoring troops to mount in them that are (point for point) better than ours is a bit of a kick in the teeth.

And I think that some people are perpetuating a myth that the majority of the current codex holds up well in 5th edition. There is no doubt in my mind that it is getting worse (or rather everyone else is just getting better). Most of the competitive builds are quite restrictive (reliant on DAVU and Fire Dragons) and are boring to play.

I think the main thing is that points costs need to come down because most games I play these days at 1500pts level, I always feel that I'm missing a squad. I'll sit there thinking "what this army really needs to work is a squad of warp spiders or another scoring unit".

I agree with you, that said I feel that way regardless of what army im playing. The topic though is "low WS & BS" eldar are in need of a boost but ws & bs 4 aren't fluffwise too low. They can be a solution but they aren't the problem either.


UUUUUUUUUGGGHhh what is going on around here, this is just a repeat of the stupid tau thread,

ok. eldar having bs and ws of 3, hmm........ well for starters their elves in space. in most janras elves are mostly similar to humans in stature and strength. so taking that into account i can pretty much understand that their str and ws are 3's. elves are known to be pretty, and adept in mystic qualities.

the eldar efficently represent this in many ways. farseers, wraithlords, wraithguard, hightech alientech.

there is nothing wrong with their stats.

attributes of 4 are considered above average!!!!!
get over it!

It was meant to mock the tau thread and turned into this :shifty:.

CushionRide
09-04-2011, 03:22
is that so... ok im sorry, it looked like another exmarine whine thread that made me not wanna read it lol

Wolf Lord Balrog
09-04-2011, 03:43
UUUUUUUUUGGGHhh what is going on around here, this is just a repeat of the stupid tau thread,


If you had actually read much of 'the stupid tau thread', you would have seen there is at least as much substantive discussion going on there as here.

Tarian
09-04-2011, 03:51
Banshees have a 4+ armour save, since 3rd edition. That aside you will take losses from revenge fire yes. :D

@cushion ride:
You are certainly right when you say that a stat of 4 is above average. But that is not the point of this discussion.
Also typig in big red letters doesn't make you more credible. It just makes everybody even more agressive.

However, I do understand if so. temporarily goes insane when reading the Tau thread.

Blast foiled again from using guns that either ignore most things, or are ignored by most things!

chamelion 6
09-04-2011, 04:07
UUUUUUUUUGGGHhh what is going on around here, this is just a repeat of the stupid tau thread,

ok. eldar having bs and ws of 3, hmm........ well for starters their elves in space. in most janras elves are mostly similar to humans in stature and strength. so taking that into account i can pretty much understand that their str and ws are 3's. elves are known to be pretty, and adept in mystic qualities.

the eldar efficently represent this in many ways. farseers, wraithlords, wraithguard, hightech alientech.

there is nothing wrong with their stats.

attributes of 4 are considered above average!!!!!
get over it!

Because like Lake Wobegon, Min. everybody in the GW universe is slightly above average....:p

althathir
09-04-2011, 04:27
@SoD:
I coudn't agree more.

@althathir:
Concerning the big picture of 5th edition, I'm full aware of the main differences between 5th and 4th. This is because I hear people whine about them on this very forum every day.

In fact, the statement of wiping out other squads was not a part of my line of argumentation and my admittance not to know this detail is supposed to demonstrate my serious commitment to not talk any rubbish.

If they had really wanted to make the systems different, but the troops equal to 2nd edition, they would have reset all BS stats consequently, with IG having BS 2 and SM having BS 3.
But they didn't and that is why we are stuck now between throws of 4+ and 3+ for shooting for all armies except Orks. They just cut the upper ends.
40k does, in large parts, not make use of the full scale of the D6, while hitting on 5+ and 6+ is custom in Fantasy.
This has nothing to do with game balance. This is about game policy.
GW wanted to push troop choices (and sell more of them) and nerfing elites and HQ's was the way to go.
The introduction of the FoC had little to do with it.
1 HQ was a duty choice as well but that didn't change the fact that HQ's got nerfed hard and limited in equipment and thus were dirt cheap.

Yes, BS 5 was for characters only in 3rd and 4th ed.. But now there is a rule for models with higher stats and thus I predict stat inflation until we are back in 2nd edition or at least very close to it.

Concerning Eldar, Incubi are the first step.
And I would find it acceptable if aspect warriors were to catch up with their level in skill.
As for guardians I'm neutral. I just wanted to demonstrate that you could argue for a stats boost if you compare to fantasy high elves militia (assuming the systems are not as different as many on this forum propose). It would be new and certainly the army would be very different then.

Also, I find it hard to believe that a Kabalite warrior has +1 WS, BS, I, night vision, power from pain and a poisoned ranged weapon and costs only a single point more than a guardian.
That is quite a bit of a stretch, even when you consider internal army balancing issues.

I didn't mean to imply they did a good job of making the systems different. 3rd and 4th didn't really push troops tbh, it pushed elites, fast attack and heavy support. in 2nd 25% of your force had to be troops, in 3rd and 4th they spent much less. A lot of eldar players spent 180 (2 five man guardian squads with starcannons) regardless of point level wheras for a 1500 point game they would have needed 375 pts of troops.

The same BS rule (with rerolls) was in place it was just BS 6 was really rare. The main difference between the systems is the strength of the weaponary involved. In fantasy archers really don't deal too much damage, its more the magic phase and warmachines, and the units that they do hurt tend to be priced lower, units like reapers and fire dragons are gonna wound more than half the time and don't allow traditional saves so it completely different. My point is that there isn't a fluff reason to raise either stat, and the reason I asked about how familiar you are with the rules is because the difference between shooting weapons is a lot more pronounced then in fantasy where shooting tends to be str 3 - 4.

Ail-Shan
09-04-2011, 07:12
A banshee squad with an exarch will kill about 6 grey hunters on the charge, those grey hunters will kill about 3-4, and the banshees should finish them off the next turn.

And that's a huge problem actually. Yes, the banshees win, but what did you win? You killed an enemy squad, and gutted your own. Your specialist designed to hit heavy infantry in close combat, after fighting one squad, cannot do it again because they don't have the numbers (assuming you got them to a fight, and they don't take casualties from shooting). Obviously against normal marines you wont lost as many, but your squad still loses its effectiveness after fighting a single of its chosen target. Although this is probably because of defenders react, or else banshees could do the same damage as above without being attacked back.

As another point though, while banshees should kill 6 marines on average if they have an exarch, it is more likely that they'll kill 4 than they kill 8. More likely that they'll kill 2 than they'll kill 10, and similar. The distribution is scaled to the left, where it is more likely that the banshees will fall below average than that they'll exceed (it's averaged because they can get up to 15 based off of 15 hits, so they can exceed further than they can fail, but each extra fail hurts a lot).


Though seriously, they're the specialist army, where each part is good at its role, but relies on their other members to function completely.

I think that's a problem. They shouldn't be good at their role, they should be spectacular at their role. Space marines are good at everything, so it seems like a problem if our specialists are just as good, but only at one of those things, which is what it feels like right now.

More importantly, that reliance isn't offset enough. For example, if you need your banshees to take on a terminator unit, you have to 1) keep their transport alive, 2) position the transport well, while still keeping it alive (so the banshees can charge out, but wont be trapped by the termies surrounding the vehicle), 3) keep the banshees safe from bullet fire (a problem if you botch your fleet roll), 4) actually kill the termies. If any of those things go wrong, your unit you need to kill the terminators will fail, and now you're left with mass fire. Based on that, it seems that a guardian based Eldar list would be the best. Guardians (and war walkers, vypers, falcons) are the closest things to generalists we have, since losing any one unit isn't particularly painful. Having your dragons shot down against a mech army puts you in a horrible position though.

I do agree with TheLaughingGod though, it feels like Eldar aren't anything special anymore. Basically all our tricks have been taken by the imperium.

Poseidal
09-04-2011, 08:16
Actually, the main problem isn't the WS and BS stats, but the Eldar equipment.

They are described as having superior technology from many years of development but in game end up worse with some useless special rule. Other factions got improvements in weapons while the Eldar ones stayed the same, or got nerfed in 3rd edition.

When the Aspects were introduced, their armour saves on the whole were as good as or better than Space Marine power armour*1; only Swooping Hawk armour was worse. The description outright stated it was the Eldar equivalent of Power Armour. I won't even start on the Shuriken catapult, which is a famous example.

So all in all, it's probably the Eldar equipment that is in dire need of an update, which would stop the mindboggling stuff like why Guardians have to be pushed into someone's face to do anything, or why the Aspects are so ineffective on the whole, and the army is basically 5 man scoring avenger squads who never leave their vehicle with Fire Dragons (the only aspect warrior who actually leaves their transport) trading with a Land Raider.

*1: Note this isn't outdated Rogue Trader, this was printed in the exact same compilation that Marine Armour MK1-8 was introduced and their history in the modern Horus Heresy. The same compilation that started the Leman Russ and Lion El'Johnson (note it's not his original Lyyn Elgonsion name from Rogue Trader); it is not legacy Rogue Trader but the root of modern 40k.

Obrimos
09-04-2011, 11:57
I didn't mean to imply they did a good job of making the systems different. 3rd and 4th didn't really push troops tbh, it pushed elites, fast attack and heavy support. in 2nd 25% of your force had to be troops, in 3rd and 4th they spent much less. A lot of eldar players spent 180 (2 five man guardian squads with starcannons) regardless of point level wheras for a 1500 point game they would have needed 375 pts of troops.

Yes, some Eldar and Marine players were famous for their 2 five-man squads.
However, i met way more players with 6 of them, cramming as many cheap heavy and special weapons in there as possible. But apart from Chaos, Marines and Eldar noone did that. Genestealers, Ork boyz, IG and demons came in big masses of regular infantry and would try to beat you by attrition.



The same BS rule (with rerolls) was in place it was just BS 6 was really rare. The main difference between the systems is the strength of the weaponary involved. In fantasy archers really don't deal too much damage, its more the magic phase and warmachines, and the units that they do hurt tend to be priced lower, units like reapers and fire dragons are gonna wound more than half the time and don't allow traditional saves so it completely different. My point is that there isn't a fluff reason to raise either stat, and the reason I asked about how familiar you are with the rules is because the difference between shooting weapons is a lot more pronounced then in fantasy where shooting tends to be str 3 - 4.

Basic shooting equipment in 40k is S 3-4 as well and the rates of fire of basic weapons is almost identical (1 or 2 shots). Yes, things like devastator squads are rare in fantasy (with the exception of Skaven jezzails) but they still can be compared in effectiveness to artillery groups.

I agree that 40k in general is more focused on shooting than melee but that is more a matter of the availability of firearms on the battlefield and the lack of differentiation within the CC weaponry.

Also, there are pretty good fantasy shooting armies out there (Elves, Dwarfves, Empire) that are pretty devastating. I used to shoot down whole hordes of Orks with my Dark Elves.

Also not raising stats because more devastating weapons are available is not an argument in my opinion. Everybody has access to devastating weapons.
Following that line of argumentation, no WHF model should have more than WS 4, because you have lances, halberds and two-handed swords, which are devastating in melee.

Also, while I do agree that firedragon aspects with BS 5 are pretty nasty you should remember that their total efficiency increases only by 16,6 % total. And they will still be stuck in their role. If your enemy plays properly and backs up his tanks with infantry, fire dragons will stay a one shot unit. And BS 5 is not going to change that.

Irisado
09-04-2011, 17:10
Ail-Shan: The perceived issues which you continue to outline though have nothing whatsoever to do with stat lines. They fall into issues of the core rules, or the special abilities of Eldar equipment, as Poseidal alluded to.

If there is a serious problem here, and I disagree with you about the magnitude of some of the issues you highlight, although not there are some difficulties with using certain Eldar units in the codex, then it's not the fault of the stat lines.

Obrimos: Your argument fails to take any account of how the game was designed, so I'll repeat it to you again. WS/BS3 is the average, WS/BS4 is elite, WS/BS5 is generally for lower level characters or gained through enhancements from certain special rules, and WS/BS6 or higher is for army commanders, special characters, or other unique individuals, such as the Avatar.

This is how the 40K system has worked since third edition, and that classification of average and elite WS and BS has been there since Rogue Trader. Why should this change? It would require a complete readjustment of the rules mechanics and design principles for no good reason.

Your statistics are also misleading in my view. If you start having a five in six chance of hitting this makes weapons which have a high volume fire exceptionally dangerous. Think about the benefits to Dire Avengers and Warp Spiders, for example, and whether it is right that they should be so much more accurate than genetically altered humans (i.e. Marines).

I can assure you that the impact would be very significant, and where would it leave Exarchs? They are more skilled than Aspect Warriors, so they would automatically have to be upgraded to WS/BS6 if your proposal were to be implemented, which is their second edition status when they were characters. This is clearly not justified, given that they are squad leaders under the current system, so taking of all of these elements together, I don't feel that your idea is at all well conceived I'm afraid.

Starchild
09-04-2011, 17:55
Another part of the problem is that recent codexes have really stepped on the Eldar's toes. That Guard (of all factions) all of a sudden have better AV12 skimmers and scoring troops to mount in them that are (point for point) better than ours is a bit of a kick in the teeth.Agreed, with all the upgrades the 5th ed. codices offer, the Falcon should be restored to its former 2nd ed. glory.

For a start, the turret mounted weapons should count as firing one main weapon, not two, otherwise the Falcon becomes next to useless compared to other heavy support options such as the Wraithlord.

Too, the crystal targeting matrix should be reintroduced as an upgrade that adds +1 ballistic skill, with the Fire Prism equipped with one as standard equipment (much better than the current explanation, that they're the "Craftworld's finest." Why can't I have the Craftworld's finest pilot my Falcons and Vypers? :()

Obrimos
09-04-2011, 19:51
@ Irisado:

And you my dear don't seem to take into account, that an elites choice unit with WS 5 already exists in the game and has 2 basic attacks on top. Incubi.
Also Klaivexes have WS 6 and BS 5 and are still unit leaders and not IC's.
Being an elites choice, a DE player can field up to three units of these guys.
There is no 0-1 restriction; they are a regular elites choice and can be even fielded in fast assault vehicles.

And I do think this unit is well conceived, indeed.
They are presumably the lost aspect of Arhra/Drazhar and their lifestyle mirrors those of aspect warriors in rigidity and discipline. Their practices are crueller but I don't see why they should be more effective than the paths founded by the phoenix kings. Being evil doesn't necessarily make you better.

Gamewise, this is a precedent, yes. But it might indicate that having WS or BS 5 might be appropriate for dedicated Eldar warriors (read aspects) in general.

Bergen Beerbelly
09-04-2011, 20:02
I remember 2nd edition Eldar and how they were without a doubt THE most powerful army in 2nd edition. If you had a player who was anywhere decent at the game you could not win against them no matter what you did. Thats why they won all of the tournaments where people played them. And all of the top players played Eldar.

That being said, I doubt they will ever allow the Eldar to get to that power level again, especially considering how easy Space Marine miniatures are to make compared to Eldar. And as we all know, they do make this game to make money.

So I doubt you will ever see WS/BS 5 basic Aspect Warriors and to be honest I don't think they should be that level. I think they are fine where they are now.

Back in the 2nd edition days I remember Eldar Howling Banshees as being THE most terrifying close combat unit in the entire game. They could assult you, they strike first always, they had weapons which gave them Strength 4 or 5 (I don't recall which) and you could not attack them back. So they would sweep through your units and basically tear every single unit to shreds. The only way to stop them was to shoot them...good luck with that, they were usually very well protected on the way in and after they killed your unit.

Those days are long gone and now, thankfully, but I feel they have swung a little too far the other way. Would I love a stat increase on the aspects? my competitive side says " Give Banshees back Strength 4!", but my rational side says their strength is fine the way it is.

But I agree with Ail-Shan's assessment of their survivability. GW already gave them a way to survive better with the War Shout exarch power but I don't think they made that power work the way it should. I think it needs to automatically work in the first round of combat, then every round after that, it should work by having the opposing unit make a morale check. If failed, the power works again.

Looking over the codex, I agree with the poster that said most of the problem isn't with stat increases but rather the equipment. Do most of us remember the days of the minimalist attitude when it came to 40k and codex making? You should...the Eldar codex was made at the tail end of that so it still has a lot of that minimalist stuff going on inside it's pages. Thankfully that era is dead and gone and we are seeing a return to the slightly more powerful 40k.

We don't need stat increases, just a new codex with better gear and some of the cool type stuff we've seen in the newer codices.

Sarevok
09-04-2011, 20:02
And I do think this unit is well conceived, indeed.
They are presumably the lost aspect of Arhra/Drazhar and their lifestyle mirrors those of aspect warriors in rigidity and discipline. Their practices are crueller but I don't see why they should be more effective than the paths founded by the phoenix kings. Being evil doesn't necessarily make you better.


DE in general are better fighters than their Craftworld cousins.
Infact a DE Warrior should be better than an Aspect Warrior in terms of stats if not equipment.

DE Codex page 5

"Their athletic physiques are lined with whipcord muscle, honed and enhanced until they are superior even to those of their Crafworld Eldar Cousins...

...the Dark Eldar have better reaction speed and greater physical strength than other elements of the Eldar race.."


To get into the Incubi you need to kill an Aspect Warrior anyway, so why not let them be better?

MajorWesJanson
09-04-2011, 20:06
@ Irisado:

And you my dear don't seem to take into account, that an elites choice unit with WS 5 already exists in the game and has 2 basic attacks on top. Incubi.
Also Klaivexes have WS 6 and BS 5 and are still unit leaders and not IC's.
Being an elites choice, a DE player can field up to three units of these guys.
There is no 0-1 restriction; they are a regular elites choice and can be even fielded in fast assault vehicles.

And I do think this unit is well conceived, indeed.
They are presumably the lost aspect of Arhra/Drazhar and their lifestyle mirrors those of aspect warriors in rigidity and discipline. Their practices are crueller but I don't see why they should be more effective than the paths founded by the phoenix kings. Being evil doesn't necessarily make you better.

Gamewise, this is a precedent, yes. But it might indicate that having WS or BS 5 might be appropriate for dedicated Eldar warriors (read aspects) in general.

I agree that some aspects ought to trade 5s or 6s in one area for lower numbers, like 3s or 2s in another.

Stilton
09-04-2011, 20:49
WS/BS3 is the average, WS/BS4 is elite, WS/BS5 is generally for lower level characters or gained through enhancements from certain special rules, and WS/BS6 or higher is for army commanders, special characters, or other unique individuals, such as the Avatar.

The first problem here is that you're relegating 50% of the WS/BS-spectrum to "commanders, sc's or other unique individuals". The second problem is that you assume WS and BS should follow the same standards. BS gives a flat chance to hit. WS gives a chance to hit relative to the engaged enemy's WS, and affects how likely you are to get hit in turn. They are different beasts.

Saying that "WS/BS4 is elite" is a gross generalisation. I'd argue that a Vindicare Assassin is pretty "elite", but he's BS8. Oh boy. Given the quite substantial flat upgrade from BS4 to BS5, however, I won't make a case on whether or not shooting-oriented Aspect Warriors should rock the latter.

As regards WS, however, you're plain wrong.

WS2 (Fire Warriors, Conscripts) are poor. They are relatively bad at hand-to-hand combat and will be outmatched by...
WS3 (Guardians, Guardsmen) are adequately proficient. They will put up a fight, but are bound to fall short versus...
WS4 (Ork Boyz, Space Marines, Wyches) are fierce fighters, hardened by experience, who in spite of it all can't hope to match...
WS5 (Berserkers, Death-cult Assassins, Incubi) are expert warriors solely dedicated to martial perfection, who'll still be baffled by...
WS6 (Chapter Masters, Chaos Lords, Genestealers) are incredible warriors who whether by heroic status or alien enhancement dominate the battlefield, but will still be outdone by...
WS7-8 (Daemon Princes, Archons, Succubi, Assassins) are supernatural artisans of combat who dispatch lesser warriors with contemptuous ease, but who will find themselves hard-pressed by...
WS9-10 (Lelith, Bloodthirsters, Avatars) are legendary warriors whose supreme skill with arms render them veritable gods of battle.

Given this, I can't fathom how anyone would believe that melee-oriented Aspect Warriors should have WS4, like an Ork Boy or all-round-generalist Space Marine. They belong with the Berserkes, DCA's and Incubi at WS5.


This is how the 40K system has worked since third edition, and that classification of average and elite WS and BS (again with the "same WS/BS"-nonsense, as well as pigeonholing the very broad concept of "elite" to a single stat-point on a scale that cries for more variety) has been there since Rogue Trader. Why should this change? It would require a complete readjustment of the rules mechanics and design principles for no good reason.

Would you please explain to me how allowing Scorpions and Banshees to hit Orks/Marines on 3's and to go toe-to-toe with elite close combat-units would require a "complete readjustment of the rules mechanics and design principles". I honestly don't see it.


I can assure you that the impact would be very significant (with a pts-boost to 20-22 along with added goodies (they're hardly overpowered as is) I can assure you that such is not the case at all), and where would it leave Exarchs? They are more skilled than Aspect Warriors, so they would automatically have to be upgraded to WS/BS6 (enough of the "same WS/BS"...) if your proposal were to be implemented, which is their second edition status when they were characters. This is clearly not justified (melee-oriented Exarchs are ascendant beings bound to their warsuits, their minds an amalgamation of the dozens before them, combining millennia of experience in the art of combat into one unified purpose. Having them at the same level as Chapter Masters and Genestealers (not to mention Klaivexes!) is, on the contrary, very much justified), given that they are squad leaders under the current system (The Klaivex says "Hi!"), so taking of all of these elements together, I don't feel that your idea is at all well conceived I'm afraid.

Irisado
09-04-2011, 21:26
And you my dear don't seem to take into account, that an elites choice unit with WS 5 already exists in the game and has 2 basic attacks on top. Incubi.
Also Klaivexes have WS 6 and BS 5 and are still unit leaders and not IC's.
Being an elites choice, a DE player can field up to three units of these guys.
There is no 0-1 restriction; they are a regular elites choice and can be even fielded in fast assault vehicles.

Let's just clear up one thing. I'm not your 'dear', so please don't refer to me as such again :).

Incubi differ from elite Eldar Aspect Warriors quite significantly. They are a specialist duellist unit, whose background in terms of their combat ability puts them on a par with Harlequins, who also have the same WS. There are always some exceptions to the general rule I outlined above. Incubi are the exception for Dark Eldar, Harlequins for the Eldar, but the general principle of WS/BS4 for elites remains.

Klaivexes are an anomaly, I will give you that, however, one anomaly does undermine the point that I am making.


They are presumably the lost aspect of Arhra/Drazhar and their lifestyle mirrors those of aspect warriors in rigidity and discipline. Their practices are crueller but I don't see why they should be more effective than the paths founded by the phoenix kings. Being evil doesn't necessarily make you better.

Your presumption about their origins is of little help when forming views on unit stats. Remember, as I have pointed out to you before, stats are not generated solely by looking at the background.

As for the other points, Incubi focus on killing in the most efficient way possible. They are cold, calculating, ruthless, and are simply conveyed as being better duellists than Aspect Warriors by the background. If you want to use the background as an argument, then I think that it actually strengthens my point about Eldar Aspect Warriors being suited to their current stats. The background clearly suggests why Incubi would be better than Aspect Warriors in close combat.


Gamewise, this is a precedent, yes. But it might indicate that having WS or BS 5 might be appropriate for dedicated Eldar warriors (read aspects) in general.

There is no precedent here at all. Incubi had that WS in the previous Dark Eldar codex too, and there was very little comment made about it in relation to Eldar Aspect Warriors as far as I am aware. Anyway, my fundamental point is that there is no precedent for giving Eldar Aspect Warriors higher WS and BS.


The first problem here is that you're relegating 50% of the WS/BS-spectrum to "commanders, sc's or other unique individuals". The second problem is that you assume WS and BS should follow the same standards. BS gives a flat chance to hit. WS gives a chance to hit relative to the engaged enemy's WS, and affects how likely you are to get hit in turn. They are different beasts.

Saying that "WS/BS4 is elite" is a gross generalisation. I'd argue that a Vindicare Assassin is pretty "elite", but he's BS8. Oh boy. Given the quite substantial flat upgrade from BS4 to BS5, however, I won't make a case on whether or not shooting-oriented Aspect Warriors should rock the latter.

Yes, I'm making a generalisation, in fact I had already made that clear by my use of the adverb 'generally' in the post you quoted ;). There are always going to be exceptions, but the exceptions are few and far between, otherwise it would not be possible to identify a general pattern in the first place.

Assassins have always operated very differently to almost any unit in 40K, and they are individuals, not squads, so you're comparing apples with oranges there. Here we are talking about squads, and how they compare within the elite bracket.


Given this, I can't fathom how anyone would believe that melee-oriented Aspect Warriors should have WS4, like an Ork Boy or all-round-generalist Space Marine. They belong with the Berserkes, DCA's and Incubi at WS5.

Balance. The strength of the Ork is at close quarters, so it's a risk to engage them in combat. Eldar shooting is far more accurate, and so you play to your strengths when facing the Orks, not your weaknesses. A Space Marine, by contrast, is a high quality fighter in every department. He may not excel at any one role, but he is very good in that particular role, and is a match for elite units, such as Aspect Warriors, accordingly.

Where both Marines and Orks lose out is in terms of their weaponry and initiative. Eldar assault squads have far superior initiative, and, in the case of Howling Banshees, every weapon bypasses armour. This is how Eldar close Aspects overcome their opponents.

I've explained why I disagree about the comparison with Incubi above, and Berzerkers fall into the same category. Both they and Incubi are, effectively, 'born' killers. Eldar Aspect Warriors have to train to become killers, and this is reflected by the difference in WS.


Would you please explain to me how allowing Scorpions and Banshees to hit Orks/Marines on 3's and to go toe-to-toe with elite close combat-units would require a "complete readjustment of the rules mechanics and design principles". I honestly don't see it.

Because it skews close combats too far in favour of the Eldar Aspects, and puts them at the same level as Harlequins and Exarchs. Eldar Aspects are good, but they rely on their equipment and initiative to deal out damage, not superior WS. This is the way it has always been, and it is a key balancing factor in the game.

Eldar assault Aspects would have difficulty hitting a Marine, due to the similar skill level that a Marine possesses. This can be reflected not only by skill with the weapon, but reflexes, ability to parry, and other similar factors. Orks are meant to be, at least in the modern era, a fearsome close combat army, designed to deal significant damage in close combat. Eldar close assault Aspects fall into a similar category, so they would not be any better in terms of their WS.

Eldar have always been about superior speed and technology. If you want to see changes, that's where you need to look, rather than trying to alter fundamental stats, in my view.

Finally, shifting the WS/BS of elites, such as Eldar Aspect Warriors to five means that the same would have to be done to Space Marines and all sorts of other units for the sake of parity. In a world where Marine sales are GW's main source of income from 40K, do you really believe that they would allow all Eldar elites to have superior WS and/or BS to a Space Marine? Even if you don't agree with the other points I have made, marketing reasons mean that stat inflation for Eldar Aspect Warriors relative to Space Marines is exceptionally unlikely in my opinion.

althathir
09-04-2011, 21:32
Yes, some Eldar and Marine players were famous for their 2 five-man squads.
However, i met way more players with 6 of them, cramming as many cheap heavy and special weapons in there as possible. But apart from Chaos, Marines and Eldar noone did that. Genestealers, Ork boyz, IG and demons came in big masses of regular infantry and would try to beat you by attrition.



Basic shooting equipment in 40k is S 3-4 as well and the rates of fire of basic weapons is almost identical (1 or 2 shots). Yes, things like devastator squads are rare in fantasy (with the exception of Skaven jezzails) but they still can be compared in effectiveness to artillery groups.

I agree that 40k in general is more focused on shooting than melee but that is more a matter of the availability of firearms on the battlefield and the lack of differentiation within the CC weaponry.

Also, there are pretty good fantasy shooting armies out there (Elves, Dwarfves, Empire) that are pretty devastating. I used to shoot down whole hordes of Orks with my Dark Elves.

Also not raising stats because more devastating weapons are available is not an argument in my opinion. Everybody has access to devastating weapons.
Following that line of argumentation, no WHF model should have more than WS 4, because you have lances, halberds and two-handed swords, which are devastating in melee.

Also, while I do agree that firedragon aspects with BS 5 are pretty nasty you should remember that their total efficiency increases only by 16,6 % total. And they will still be stuck in their role. If your enemy plays properly and backs up his tanks with infantry, fire dragons will stay a one shot unit. And BS 5 is not going to change that.

The shooting aspects dire avengers, hawks, spiders, fire dragons average over str 5 (even with hawks current gear which is probably gonna change cause they are widely considered one of the worst units in the game), that 16 percent adds up. In fantasy the elite infantry seems to be the key to winning (well that and the magic phase), but their movement is more restrictive, your not going to be able to hide them in transport move 24 inches, then the next turn move less then 12 inches, and have them disembark and get all their shots.

Really from a game balance stand point as long as its pointed correctly its fine. That said there is nothing fluff wise to support bs 5, I don't mind if thats how GW tries to boost eldar but if they do it'll be based on a game balance decision rather then a fluff one, but in the long run I think it would lead to extreme stat inflation (there is no chance of eldar getting bs 5 and marines not getting it).



DE in general are better fighters than their Craftworld cousins.
Infact a DE Warrior should be better than an Aspect Warrior in terms of stats if not equipment.

DE Codex page 5

"Their athletic physiques are lined with whipcord muscle, honed and enhanced until they are superior even to those of their Crafworld Eldar Cousins...

...the Dark Eldar have better reaction speed and greater physical strength than other elements of the Eldar race.."


To get into the Incubi you need to kill an Aspect Warrior anyway, so why not let them be better?

This is fairly close to a legimate point, but 1) incubi have to kill an aspect warrior not a cc warrior. 2) Dark Eldar warriors are better than guardians just not the aspect warriors (and some of their elites are).

So you still could justify weapon skill 5 for the CC aspects, but in no way are the current values ridiculous, and I really feel that DE stats should be considered when updating the eldar codex..

Starchild
09-04-2011, 21:55
In addition to the points raised above, let's not leave leadership out of the equation.

Aspect Warriors have a very respectable Ld9. This is one point above normal SM Ld and two points above regular Guardsman or Ork boy, for example. They lack atsknf, but they are still very reliable on the battlefield. It's relatively rare to see Aspect Warriors lose their nerve to shooting casualties-- personal experience may vary of course.

Regarding BS5 on regular AWs, it will never happen because it would be too good. DAvengers, FDs, DRs, etc hitting on 2+? That would put the point cost per unit way too high.

As for WS5, I have to agree, unless there is adequate justification for it, there doesn't appear to be a need for it on AWs. Let DE have it on Incubi, that's the only thing DE anything like an AW and they're recruited from a culture in which killing is natural virtually from birth. AWs are recruited from the ranks of what we would call civilians, who even after arduous training can only equal the skill of other elite level infantry when they ritually don their masks and armour.

It's still a compliment to the Eldar that their civilian troops drafted into service (Guardians) are a match skill-wise to professional human soldiers (IG). What they need though is equipment to help them shoot more accurately from their vehicles, then imo they would be about perfect with access to BS4 (with points paid for the optional upgrade of course), making such units far more worthwhile.

xxRavenxx
09-04-2011, 23:08
Aspect Warriors have a very respectable Ld9. This is .. two points above .. Ork boy

Thats a very bad example to give. Ork boys are LD10 and fearless till the point where they're already mostly dead :P

Obrimos
11-04-2011, 21:50
I second that.

Also, it doesn't contribute to the WS/BS discussion.

@Irisado:
Beg your pardon; I didn't mean to belittle you.
You're not 'my dear', indeed. I will call you 'my expendable' from now on. ;)

I've just looked at the Incubi background and I don't find anything about it to be especially duellistic. They are portrayed as fine killers but they seem to worship Khaine in his aspect of the slaughterer. They long to kill as often as possible and do not care about the quality of their enemies, while paralyzing them with their tormentors, on top. I reckon wyches better duellists than incubi.

Also, I didn't try to undermine your point that WS/BS 4 represents elite units.
In fact, I agree on that classification of yours, I just fail to see why there shouldn't be elites of elites units as well.
And yes, Klaivexes are an anomaly. But they might as well indicate the rule in the future.

However, I'll concede 2 points to you.

First, aspect warriors of any kind are not meant to surpass or even reach the skill of harlequins, even though the harlequins are not a regular part of the craftworld's armies fluffwise. I'd rather see them as a seperate fraction. They are something like the Grey Knights of the Eldar, significantly different in lifestyle to both Commorites and Craftworlders.
Anyway, my suggestion to give aspects WS/BS 5 would imply harlequins having WS 6 and I do not know if I want to go that far. Phoenix guard in WHF has WS 6 (dunno about WE wardancers' WS) but I admit that it would be hard to digest at first.

Second, marketingwise you are absolutely right and I won't even try to argue with you there. Questions of fluff and balancing can be discussed but marketing policy is out of any possible debate for me. Also, I'm not interested in discussing stats on that basis.
Except for Marine Elites choices.
SM veterans, terminators and dreadnoughts used to have WS/BS 5. Now imagine the sales of these guys should they get those old stats back.
Terminators would be sooooooo awesome. :rolleyes:

Irisado
11-04-2011, 22:17
You're not 'my dear', indeed. I will call you 'my expendable' from now on. ;)

Much better, I approve ;).


Also, I didn't try to undermine your point that WS/BS 4 represents elite units. In fact, I agree on that classification of yours, I just fail to see why there shouldn't be elites of elites units as well.

Quite, but that's where Grey Knights, Harlequins and Incubi come in. They are the elite of the elites, which is why they have superior stats :).

Shamana
11-04-2011, 22:50
Hookay, this is going to be a long post... Irisado, I just think you and me might have different expectations of the army. I might be wrong - but then again, maybe not :D .


Incubi differ from elite Eldar Aspect Warriors quite significantly. They are a specialist duellist unit, whose background in terms of their combat ability puts them on a par with Harlequins, who also have the same WS. There are always some exceptions to the general rule I outlined above. Incubi are the exception for Dark Eldar, Harlequins for the Eldar, but the general principle of WS/BS4 for elites remains.

IIRC there was little about "duelling" in the Incubi background - they are killers, first and foremost, praising Khaine with their murders. Which, frankly, doesn't strike me as all that different from Banshees or Scorpions for all we know of then.. Yes, to be a full incubus you need to best an aspect warrior - but for all I know, there might be a similar test of mettle to become a "full" aspect either. And if the champions of Cegorach - the deity of guile and misdirection - have WS 5, you could make a similar case about the champions of Khaine, the deity of war. The bottom line is that no, I do not see just what makes incubi that much better than other aspects in their mastery of the killing arts. The combination of S4 and 3++ on one hand, power weapons and fleet on the other, and the unique PfP buff already makes them good enough for their points.



As for the other points, Incubi focus on killing in the most efficient way possible. They are cold, calculating, ruthless, and are simply conveyed as being better duellists than Aspect Warriors by the background...

Where IS that from, anyway? All I remember is a tale in the old DE codex how an incubi cult got the drop on and killed a scorpion shrine squad. Considering the differences in their gear and specialization, that kinda makes sense - scorpions being anti-horde specialists while incubi masters of cutting armored foes. It doesn't say anything about relative skill though.

Sure, there was precedent for incubi having WS 5. There was also no precedent for them - or most anything else with 3+ armor - having fleet, but that doesn't count anymore. Now they also have easy access to FnP, when is the last time any regular eldar (grotesques don't count :P ) had that?

I don't really agree with the premise that DE incubi or CSM berserkers are better because they are "born" with it. No, they work their asses off to become that good, and specialize in it. Which, really, doesn't strike me as all that different from the aspect cults. Or should I say "other" aspect cults, because the Incubi are pretty much that - an aspect cult of Khaine, started from a master not much different from the masters of the other cults. The only difference is that as far as we know, Incubi don't leave their "path" - and I'm not so sure if this is actually stated anywhere or not.


Where both Marines and Orks lose out is in terms of their weaponry and initiative. Eldar assault squads have far superior initiative, and, in the case of Howling Banshees, every weapon bypasses armour. This is how Eldar close Aspects overcome their opponents.

Ranged aspects, however, benefit little from their superior initiative, while close combat ones suffer from their lower strength (the toughness is a constant), so neither can take full advantage of their statline. As it is, aspects can cost as much as or more than the "Jack of all trades", space marines, and don't seem to have quite enough power to back their cost.

If Marines are the standard, I'd prefer to see eldar as an elite force that actually excels in certain areas to compensate for their inferiority in others, rather than a less elite force that is equal in its strong points, but poorer elsewhere. It is simply a matter of which niche the army should fill. I'd prefer the former so that it makes the army unique - just as elite as the SM, with lower defense but higher offense, speed, and often cost. We don't have anyone in that niche, while the point costs and overall statlines of DE and to a point Tau already fill the latter.


Eldar assault Aspects would have difficulty hitting a Marine, due to the similar skill level that a Marine possesses. This can be reflected not only by skill with the weapon, but reflexes, ability to parry, and other similar factors. Orks are meant to be, at least in the modern era, a fearsome close combat army, designed to deal significant damage in close combat. Eldar close assault Aspects fall into a similar category, so they would not be any better in terms of their WS.

Against SMs or orks, a WS of 5 means you hit somewhat more often, but are hit just as easily. It is not a radical change in fighting ability - just somewhat better accuracy, which fits well with the higher speed. Afterwards, the eldar have to cope with the fact that they have a harder time actually damaging their opponents, not to mention enduring the counterattack. Presuming it is calculated in the price, WS5 wouldn't make a big difference. On the other hand, as I've said, BS 5 would actually make less of an impact than increasing the rate of fire of the aspects' guns - and with their lack of CC equipment, the extra initiative is of little help to the ranged aspects if they do get in melee.


Finally, shifting the WS/BS of elites, such as Eldar Aspect Warriors to five means that the same would have to be done to Space Marines and all sorts of other units for the sake of parity. In a world where Marine sales are GW's main source of income from 40K, do you really believe that they would allow all Eldar elites to have superior WS and/or BS to a Space Marine? Even if you don't agree with the other points I have made, marketing reasons mean that stat inflation for Eldar Aspect Warriors relative to Space Marines is exceptionally unlikely in my opinion.

Err, why? The regular tactical Space Marines can be considered a jack of all trades - elite, and with all-around good statline. Why should it be a problem if a similarly (or more) expensive army with lower defense and toughness has higher accuracy and speed? It sounds like ok balance to me ;) . Terminators may have WS 5 - GK termies already do have it - but at the end of the day, it depends on how much they are willing to pay for it.

At the end of the day,if aspects can be made to be worth their points and reputation via wargear, I'd be content. However, in a setting where Death Cultists have way "superhuman" combat abilities, the Ultramarine chaplain is tougher than a necron lord, or an IG colonel can rip tanks in half because he has a prosthetic hand, I don't see eldar aspects as having WS or BS 5 as particular sacrilege. From a simple game balance perspective, the idea of a race with few, expensive models, high accuracy, speed and cost and lower defense than the "balanced" marines strikes me as an interesting niche that is worth pursuing and that has no current claimants. DE are kinda that, but their units tend to be a bit too cheap and fragile to be considered elite - with the exception of the incubi and a few others, but one swallow does not summer make. Eldar used to be the closest to that, but they might need a bit of a push to fill the niche.

Overall, I just wished I had an army no less elite than space marines, just in a different way. And yes, that occasionally includes being better in certain things :). Do I need to play marines of a certain color or spikiness for that?

Virulentus
11-04-2011, 23:23
From a simple game balance perspective, the idea of a race with few, expensive models, high accuracy, speed and cost and lower defense than the "balanced" marines strikes me as an interesting niche that is worth pursuing and that has no current claimants.

Is that what Eldar players really want though? To be low model-count, and very expensive?

I see many demanding "elite of the elite" stats, but none mentioning that they'd gladly pay for such increases.

Shamana
11-04-2011, 23:30
Personally, I'd say yes - if the price was good enough to be reasonable. Striking a balance between high offense, high cost, and effectiveness isn't easy, but it could be done. Remember, Eldar shouldn't be better than the Marines in everything - they would have their relatively weaknesses just as they have their relative strengths.

Irisado
11-04-2011, 23:55
IIRC there was little about "duelling" in the Incubi background - they are killers, first and foremost, praising Khaine with their murders. Which, frankly, doesn't strike me as all that different from Banshees or Scorpions for all we know of then..

There is a significant difference though, and this is that Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions are not killers from the word go. They have to train to be as good as they are, and follow a path. Incubi are pretty much 'born' that way, as Dark Eldar are killers right from the word go. It's one the major differences that I perceived from having read the Dark Eldar background and then comparing it to Eldar background. This alone explains the WS difference, even if you don't agree with the other points I've made.


Where IS that from, anyway?

The Incubi entry in the current Dark Eldar codex.


Sure, there was precedent for incubi having WS 5. There was also no precedent for them - or most anything else with 3+ armor - having fleet, but that doesn't count anymore. Now they also have easy access to FnP, when is the last time any regular eldar (grotesques don't count :P ) had that?

We are not talking about special rules, we are discussing stats :).


I don't really agree with the premise that DE incubi or CSM berserkers are better because they are "born" with it. No, they work their asses off to become that good, and specialize in it.

Really? They have disciplined training and follow a strict regimen like the Eldar? I haven't come across that. All it says is that Incubi lead disciplined lives, which is rather ambiguous to say the least. Incubi train by fighting as far as I can see, and already have a natural skill advantage when it comes to actually wielding a weapon in close combat. As for Khorne Berzerkers, they fear nothing, and are completely insane in close combat. These are characteristics of a Berzerker, neither of which have anything to do with training, rather they are to do with the make up of Berzerkers. This explains their higher WS.


Ranged aspects, however, benefit little from their superior initiative, while close combat ones suffer from their lower strength (the toughness is a constant), so neither can take full advantage of their statline. As it is, aspects can cost as much as or more than the "Jack of all trades", space marines, and don't seem to have quite enough power to back their cost.

Close assault Aspects do not suffer from low strength in my experience. It's actually sometimes better not to cast Doom on the unit you want to assault with Howling Banshees, for example, but you can read the reasons for that in the old Eldar tactica thread, as it was discussed a lot there.

As for ranged Aspects, giving them a BS bonus is out of the question. BS5 Warp Spiders, Dire Avengers and Fire Dragons would be overpowered without any doubt.


If Marines are the standard

They are not the standard, this is where your argument does not work at all. They are only perceived as standard because a lot of players field Marine armies. They are actually elite. Imperial Guard are the standard, or default race, so to speak.


I'd prefer to see eldar as an elite force that actually excels in certain areas to compensate for their inferiority in others, rather than a less elite force that is equal in its strong points, but poorer elsewhere. It is simply a matter of which niche the army should fill. I'd prefer the former so that it makes the army unique - just as elite as the SM, with lower defense but higher offense, speed, and often cost. We don't have anyone in that niche, while the point costs and overall statlines of DE and to a point Tau already fill the latter.

Eldar units already have lower defence than a Space Marine, as is reflected by their lower toughness, and most units having an inferior save. Eldar fulfil their niche perfectly well through the specialisation of their units. If you don't think that the specialisation is good enough, then that's an equipment problem, not a stat line problem.


Against SMs or orks, a WS of 5 means you hit somewhat more often, but are hit just as easily. It is not a radical change in fighting ability - just somewhat better accuracy, which fits well with the higher speed. Afterwards, the eldar have to cope with the fact that they have a harder time actually damaging their opponents, not to mention enduring the counterattack. Presuming it is calculated in the price, WS5 wouldn't make a big difference. On the other hand, as I've said, BS 5 would actually make less of an impact than increasing the rate of fire of the aspects' guns - and with their lack of CC equipment, the extra initiative is of little help to the ranged aspects if they do get in melee.

I agree that WS5 has less of an impact than a BS rise, as it's relative, a point which was made earlier on (not by me), but it still gives the Aspect Warriors an additional bonus they should not have. As it the case with others who have put forward this argument, I see no evidence as to why Eldar Aspect Warriors should have superior WS to a genetically enhanced superhuman, i.e. a Space Marine. It makes sense that they would be faster, and have more specialist equipment, but that's all. In addition, raising the WS treads on the toes of Exarchs and Harlequins, and giving them a WS boost would be completely over the top, as WS6 is character/monstrous creature level.


Err, why? The regular tactical Space Marines can be considered a jack of all trades - elite, and with all-around good statline. Why should it be a problem if a similarly (or more) expensive army with lower defense and toughness has higher accuracy and speed? It sounds like ok balance to me ;) .

For the reasons I've just given you above, and the fact that it would completely alter the entire way in which basic stats are generated. You look at Marines as being basic. They are not. Compare the Eldar to the standard human, the Imperial Guard, and they are clearly elite. In fact, if Space Marines were not a popular army, and Imperial Guard were the most popular force, I'll wager that we would not even be having this discussion about Eldar stats :).


Eldar used to be the closest to that, but they might need a bit of a push to fill the niche.

Eldar Aspect Warriors have never had WS/BS5, so you need to look elsewhere if you don't feel the Eldar are strong enough. There is no precedent to change their stats.

To conclude on a general point (so not aimed solely at you Shamana :)), there is far too much 'I want, I want, I want' coming from the Eldar community here at the moment in my opinion, and when challenged to give reasons the justifications are very weak, in my view, and seem to revolve around 'because I want', or 'because unit x has it'. This is not a good way to make changes to rules. I have been involved with a redux project on the Eldar codex, and we did not change a single stat for any Aspect Warriors or Guardians. Instead, we made a few minor alterations to other areas, and even some of those proved to be too effective. A complete overhaul of Eldar stats is simply not required.

Obrimos
12-04-2011, 00:36
Personally I'd prefer my guardians in squads of 10 max and my aspects in Squads of 6 every day (exception being DA which come in squads of up to ten).
I'd be willing to pay up to 13 pts for a guardian and 25 pts for aspects.
I'd pay up to 50 for each wraithguard model.

No problem at all.

althathir
12-04-2011, 00:48
Is that what Eldar players really want though? To be low model-count, and very expensive?

I see many demanding "elite of the elite" stats, but none mentioning that they'd gladly pay for such increases.

Yeah this is part of the problem, and in my mind its a big issue. Personally I like to play mech biel-tan eldar , and it wouldn't be too negatively effected by this. That isn't true for all the fractions though, foot heavy eldar would suffer expensive t3 models just aren't very good.

What bothers me about this debate is that eldar are still decent in my mind the main legitimate complaints are
1) Are troop choices are below average (not bad below average).
2) BS 3 on tanks (Though this had more to do with being a 4th edition codex).
3) are army doesn't scale well past 2000. Which wasn't an issue till after the codex was made
4/5) swooping hawks/shining spears suck.

Thats actually not to bad of list, just ask nid players for their list just be gentle and maybe buy them a drink afterwords (or maybe one for each carnifex)

@Obrimos
Thats a pretty bold statement from guy who isn't very familiar with fifth ;). Foot eldar would really struggle at the point level, or be OTT.

For the squad sizes if they did become more pricy elites I would want them to go back to squads of 3-7 cause that was the old unit size in 2nd.

Obrimos
12-04-2011, 01:07
True.
But I play Ulthwé. I have lots of guardians. My aspects are few and well placed.
No mass fire dragon spam.

If I get a guardian with 4+ armour, fleet, the equivalent of a shardcarbine (S4) and WS/BS4 and maybe a squad based minor psychic power that doesn't need a warlock, I will field 40 of them and die a happy man. Also, assault guardians with power weapons and assault 2 pistols. :D

Did I mention they are troop choces and can hold objectives?

Yeah, those would be definitely 15 to 18 pts, if not more.

althathir
12-04-2011, 01:17
True.
But I play Ulthwé. I have lots of guardians. My aspects are few and well placed.
No mass fire dragon spam.

If I get a guardian with 4+ armour, fleet, the equivalent of a shardcarbine (S4) and WS/BS4 and maybe a squad based minor psychic power that doesn't need a warlock, I will field 40 of them and die a happy man. Also, assault guardians with power weapons and assault 2 pistols. :D

Did I mention they are troop choces and can hold objectives?

Yeah, those would be definitely 15 to 18 pts, if not more.

Black guardians do seem like they should be better, and hopefully a new dex follows through, and gets them there, but your storm guardians would be around 20 points a model.

Vaktathi
12-04-2011, 03:00
There's only so much you can glop on to T3 4+sv infantry before they just become too expensive to field competitively. Stormtroopers have that problem now. On paper they sound like they have a lot of cool stuff. AP3 guns, pistols+CCW, all sorts of cool deployment methods and bonuses, etc. The problem is that they are then costed at 16pts each, about that of many Aspect Warriors. While having lower WS and Init, most of the other stats are about what an Aspect Warrior would have (BS, S, T, W, A, Sv). At this cost, Stormtroopers are a very rare unit on the table, because the troops just don't have the statline or survivability to really stick it out and make their investment worth it.

Aspects are already WS4 BS4, that's already on a higher level than highly elite human troops (who only get the BS4) and on par with genetically engineered super soldiers. I'd say that already makes them pretty damn elite, reflecting many years of training and sharper psyches. Any excuse used to justify these scores being higher could just as well be used for Space Marines. Eldar live many years, Space Marines do too. Eldar are physically superior to humans, so are Space Marines, etc ad nauseum.

Making these values higher, particularly Ballistic Skill, is not only unnecessary, but the marginal point cost increase for essentially halving the ranged miss rate would be very high.

Having awesomely skilled troops is cool and all, but when they have the drawbacks of both Space Marines and Guardsmen, their utility begins to decline the more you enhance them without enhancing their survivability.

Spell_of_Destruction
12-04-2011, 04:16
I honestly think that you're all p*ssing in the wind.

From a fluff to tabletop perspective it's a moot point whether or not a stat increase for Aspects could be justified. I don't agree with Irasido's staunch faith that it would go completely against the fluff and design principles of 40k and that it would lead to a slow implosion of the entire universe (certainly, many units that should be less elite that Aspects have been given WS/BS 4 so surely the design principle that has been used to justify those stat increases could be used to justify a stat increase for Aspects) but I have come to doubt that it is really needed to improve the effectiveness of the Eldar army on the tabletop and it does slightly wiff of "fanboyism".

I will soon be posting my fandex and the biggest change I have made is to seperate 'Aspect Powers' and 'Exarch Powers' as the distinction has not always been clear in the 3rd and 4th ed codexes. To me it would be a far clearer design concept for Aspects and Exarchs get their own skills.

It improves Aspects by giving them subtle tweaks that don't go the whole hog of a stat increase and makes them less reliant on an exarch chaperone. An example of this is making war shout an ability that simply halves the WS of the enemy squad in the first round of assault - it lets the Banshees hit on a 3+ in the first round of combat so is a more subtle boost than WS5.

Exarchs stay as squad leaders but get lots of nasty abilities that add a real punch to the unit (for a price) rather than being there just to give the squad x or y ability.

I don't want to elaborate further because such detail belongs on the Wishlisting thread. My point is simply that there are perhaps better ways to improve Aspect Warriors than giving them a stat increase - such as giving them the option of taking cool abilities that don't require taking an exarch. Let's keep an eye on the bigger picture and not get caught up in 'stat envy'.

Torga_DW
12-04-2011, 05:30
Personally i think, for BS at least, that the problem is the whole system. To say that a guardian can only hit a land raider at point blank range 50% of the time is rediculous. Innate accuracy (trained, supernatural and just plain horrible) should play a part, but range and size of target should too.

Just another symptom of a broken system imesho.

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 05:33
I honestly think that you're all p*ssing in the wind.

From a fluff to tabletop perspective it's a moot point whether or not a stat increase for Aspects could be justified. I don't agree with Irasido's staunch faith that it would go completely against the fluff and design principles of 40k and that it would lead to a slow implosion of the entire universe (certainly, many units that should be less elite that Aspects have been given WS/BS 4 so surely the design principle that has been used to justify those stat increases could be used to justify a stat increase for Aspects) but I have come to doubt that it is really needed to improve the effectiveness of the Eldar army on the tabletop and it does slightly wiff of "fanboyism"
QFT
When I read stuff here like "Guardians should cost 20 points" ... :wtf:
20 points is what Grey Knights cost (although they are ridiculously underpriced) - what gear do you want for 20 points on Guardians? Marine-Profile, Storm-Bolter and Force-Weapon? :shifty:

Seriously, this topic is totally out of order and I am so glad that GW is making the rules and not all those fanboys here in this topic as we would see lots of abominations with WS5/6, BS5/6, I7+, 3+ armours all the way, LD10, etc, etc.
If it was meant as a joke by TheLaughingGod, maybe he should consider to close it. It competes with the Eldar-wishlist-topic and many "suggestions" here are just ridiculous.


Aspects are already WS4 BS4, that's already on a higher level than highly elite human troops (who only get the BS4) and on par with genetically engineered super soldiers. I'd say that already makes them pretty damn elite, reflecting many years of training and sharper psyches. Any excuse used to justify these scores being higher could just as well be used for Space Marines.
^ this ^
People need to realize that WS4 and BS4 reflect an elite value already and NOT the average. The average is 2, highly trained human is 3, merely trained Eldar is 3. Elite human and elite Eldar is 4.
The only 5s are at DE, but damn, they do nothing else all day long for their entire live. Not even an Exarch can say that about himself.

Bergen Beerbelly
12-04-2011, 05:36
Thats true, but to be honest any thread of any kind that proposes improvements on a codex is doing that into the wind. Unless you are the game designer ;)

Torga_DW
12-04-2011, 05:42
True. A lot of what we do is done into the wind. Kinda depressing now that i think about it. :(

Spell_of_Destruction
12-04-2011, 06:08
Possibly true but I'd be surprised if the developers don't spend any time on community forums. Which is why it's important to propose ideas that are well thought out and have a consistent design philosophy.

I was advocating the return of 'Doom' for years prior to the release of the 4th ed codex. It ended up in the 4th ed codex as I had been proposing verbatim.

Probably a coincidence (it's a simple power if I'm honest), but who knows?

Vaktathi
12-04-2011, 06:20
At least some developers have been known to be around. In regards to the CSM codex, while controversial, Gav Thorpe was kind enough to respond to PM's regarding his thought process on the various changes to the CSM codex. I'm sure people at GW are aware of the major topics and concerns of the online communities. Lets be honest here, with the role electronic information plays in our modern lives, and the importance of social media and word of mouth in this hobby, how realistic does it seem that *nobody* in the design studio doesn't at least skim the largest online communities routinely?

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they glean all that we might we they would from such boards, or that they respond to the issues the community raises in the way that appeases many or most, but it's hard to believe they don't read forums and boards like these and aren't aware of the wishes, concerns, ideas, and trends put forth in places like this.

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 06:26
Well, skimming through yes. But this very topic here shows some very important things:
1) It turns very long very fast. Nobody of GW will probably read all of it as there are DOZENS of these topics every week and they all produce DOZENS of pages.
2) It includes fanboyism most of the time. Evil stuff like 20-point-Guardians...

I'm not gonna say nobody will care for all what we say. We know that at least Forgeworld does "openly".
But lets face it, most stuff in most topics is ridiculously over the top or proposing a totally different design (all 3+ armours to Eldar) which is not what GW has in mind at all and will not consider at all either.

Bergen Beerbelly
12-04-2011, 06:30
At least some developers have been known to be around. In regards to the CSM codex, while controversial, Gav Thorpe was kind enough to respond to PM's regarding his thought process on the various changes to the CSM codex. I'm sure people at GW are aware of the major topics and concerns of the online communities. Lets be honest here, with the role electronic information plays in our modern lives, and the importance of social media and word of mouth in this hobby, how realistic does it seem that *nobody* in the design studio doesn't at least skim the largest online communities routinely?

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they glean all that we might we they would from such boards, or that they respond to the issues the community raises in the way that appeases many or most, but it's hard to believe they don't read forums and boards like these and aren't aware of the wishes, concerns, ideas, and trends put forth in places like this.

This is very true. We know they do read these from time to time, however, unless something is EXTREMELY well thought out I doubt they listen to the ideas people give. And since we do not have all of the data that goes into making changes to the game and they do, it's kind of hard to make extremely well thought out changes. I'm sure there are design issues we can't even possibly think of when suggesting rules without that data.

Sure, we can suggest all day long and wish list all we want. We can say " This needs changed or that needs changed because it doesn't work very well or the way we like" but at the end of the day it really all is just our opinion and final say lies with the design team.

So in a big way it really is just doing it into the wind.

Eumerin
12-04-2011, 06:32
QFT
Not even an Exarch can say that about himself.

Er...

What else do Exarchs do, exactly? 'Path of the Warrior' seems to indicate that the closest thing they have to a social life is making courtesy calls on other exarchs. They typically hang around in their shrines 24/7 practicing combat styles that they've been teaching for thousands of years (remember that each exarch is a gestalt consciousness), and training the members of their shrines.

It's not as if they can go catch a poetry reading session when things get a bit slow.

Virulentus
12-04-2011, 06:44
What else do Exarchs do, exactly? 'Path of the Warrior' seems to indicate

It also seems to indicate that you can become an Exarch in little under a week. Just sayin'. :D

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 06:46
Er...

What else do Exarchs do, exactly?
They start practising war for the rest of their lives, but not FROM THE START of their lives as Dark Eldar do. That makes a big difference after all. So Dark Eldar practice war right from the start, from the childhood, their entire live. Exarchs only half of their live. Some more than that, some less. But none practices war right away from the start.

Ail-Shan
12-04-2011, 07:06
Exarchs only half of their live.

But if part of their consciousness/ability is from previous exarchs that were in the same armor, wouldn't that technically mean exarchs start training before their lives start? I don't think any Dark Eldar can claim that.

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 07:09
Exarchs may only claim it to a much much less extinct as Phoenix Lords may.
And it is questionable what "feeding from pain and souls" can cause to a Dark Eldar. After all, we do know that after feeding and during battle they turn to real monsters (Feel no Pain, Furious Charge).
However, it is off-topic.
The main point is that WS4/BS4 represents elite-values already and that a 5 needs a really really good reason to handed out. That reason imo is not granted for Aspect-Warriors.

Ail-Shan
12-04-2011, 07:18
I think I agree with that. The skill is fine, though I do think that improvements to wargear (making Eldar feel more like a technologically advanced race) should be made.

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 07:24
Well, yea, in general true. "Advanced technology" should feel like that and not the opposite - "Advanced in points, but thus less powerful".

SgtTaters
12-04-2011, 07:33
They start practising war for the rest of their lives, but not FROM THE START of their lives as Dark Eldar do.

Commoragh Eldar live a harsh life yeah, but it's not 'constant war'.
Kabalite Warriors we see on the tabletop are the elite of Commoragh, and even amongst Kabalite soldiers they are the cream of the crop that are picked to go on realspace raids.

The majority of Dark Eldar are the guys left back in the webway. They wake up, probably go do some uninteresting job for Kabalites, and on weekends take in the pain at a Wych Colosseum. Maybe they steal and cheat and murder each other on occasion but being a thug doesn't mean you're a trained soldier.

Craftworld Eldar on the other hand, each one is expected to go to war. It's not something you volunteer for or aspire towards, it's a fact of life that Craftworlders must be trained as Guardian Milita, and at some point in their long lives they will be tossed into the battlefield.
The average Commoragh civilian probably won't have to fight a tank battalion or face a tyranid swarm, the average Craftworld civilian will.

So I'd say for average citizens, Craftworld Eldar may actually have an edge on Dark Eldar!

For career warriors/soldiers though Dark Eldar edge ahead in terms of individual skill.
Wyches are gladiators seeking martial perfection, Kabalites are ruthless gangsters that strike in lightning fast raids.
Craftworlders though plan operations with specific goals and long, galaxy spanning campaigns.

functioning as soldiers... Craftworld Eldar are definitely ahead.
An Incubi can outfight a Scorpion, yes, but the Scorpion is a psychic commando who can sneak through any terrain. One is useful in a fight, the other is useful in a war.
When the fighting turns sour, the Incubi are also more likely to turn tail. For all his ws5, running-in-power-armor, armor crushing bad-assery, the Incubi's only as brave as a Craftworld civilian. The Scorpion is made of sterner stuff.


I guess this really shows in their HQ choices, the Archon is a better fighter but the Autarch is the superior commander (+1 reserves)

Virulentus
12-04-2011, 07:48
Craftworld Eldar on the other hand, each one is expected to go to war. It's not something you volunteer for or aspire towards, it's a fact of life that Craftworlders must be trained as Guardian Milita, and at some point in their long lives they will be tossed into the battlefield.

Yes, at some point, it's possible that they'll have to take up arms to defend their home.. but does that make them more dangerous than a cutthroat Dark Eldar who lives every day in a hostile environment? Living in a society where murder and treachery are lauded. Meanwhile, Craftworlders are casually following the path of "fishing" or "dreaming".

Dark Eldar live in constant danger; opposed to putting on a war mask once in a while, or being forced to defend the Craftworld once every thousand years.


So I'd say for average citizens, Craftworld Eldar may actually have an edge on Dark Eldar!

The gap between experience levels seems too large to me. Some Craftworlders are murderous Aspect Warriors, while others are bakers and artisans. You can't just paint a picture of all citizens being ninjas.


Functioning as soldiers... Craftworld Eldar are definitely ahead.
An Incubi can outfight a Scorpion, yes, but the Scorpion is a psychic commando who can sneak through any terrain. One is useful in a fight, the other is useful in a war.

I think you make the point best for me. Dark Eldar lost their psychic gifts, or at least do not actively use them, and now rely on cunning and superior martial skill.

That, and Dark Eldar don't make "war" like the Eldar do. They have no need to do so.


I guess this really shows in their HQ choices, the Archon is a better fighter but the Autarch is the superior commander (+1 reserves)

Craftworlders have to fight, for survival. Dark Eldar want to fight. Heck, they compete for positions on slaving runs, even knowing the risks.

The mind-state is as important as the training, in my opinion.

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 08:01
Sorry, SgtTaters, but if you wanna tell me that CWE see more fights than Dark Eldar, then you seriously should quit talking about Eldar entirely. That is plainly... wrong big time ... to say it with nice words.

"Being a thug" means more being a trained soldier than a gardener, cook, tailor, infinity-circuit-technician or bone-singer.

Haunter!
12-04-2011, 12:52
A Craftworld Eldar may do a bit of everything in their lifetime, serving in a militia may be part of that, but their day-to-day, hour-to-hour lives are not rife with as much danger and tooth and nail survivalism as an Eldar from Commorragh. Take an average Craftworlder and an average denizen of Commorragh and put them in a knife fight. My money's going on the one that's had to scrape by all his life, dodging unimaginable terrors in an impossible city.

While your average CWE -may- see a terror from a Hive Fleet, your average Dark Eldar has already seen (and escaped from) worse.

Obrimos
12-04-2011, 14:15
At this point I refuse to accept the generalisation of the Craftworlds per se.

First, the net of influence of a craftworld is large and Craftworlds constantly intervene in galactic conflicts to keep themselves alive. While Eldar society in general may be more restricted and ordered it is not necessarily more harmonious. Living on a craftworld is like living on a huge submarine. A submarine that is entangled in galactic warfare. Guardian service is required on a constant basis and every craftworlder is trained as a guardian and drafted at necessity.

Second, craftworlds differ in location and culture. There are craftworlds that are more martial than others. Saim-hann is very tribal and warlike, Biel-Tan is the most agressive and Ulthwé the most pressed. Hence, the militarisation of the populace differs on the craftworlds.

Also, the psychic potential that may be utilized by craftworlders for warfare is constantly underestimated IMO. The Commorites may biomodify themselves and do drugs but the eldar compensate this with their innate psychic abilities of precognicion, minor telekinesis and their psitech (gestalt and body/armour interaction), which are not available for DE.

On Incubi. They do not only train and participate in raids but also perform services outside of their temple. They are famous bodyguards, which often involves long hours of doing nothing but being attentive. In general, even wyches and warriors have a private life that they do not spend on improving their martial prowess. And even slave raids don't offer combat experience, ideally. You just go in, take as many innocent civilians as you can and escape.
Exarchs on the other hand do practically nothing else but training and fighting and additionally profit from all the other psiontechnical advantages of the craftworld and the knowledge of his predecessors. Even a Klaivex cannot hope to surpass that.

RandomThoughts
12-04-2011, 14:34
Is that what Eldar players really want though? To be low model-count, and very expensive?

I see many demanding "elite of the elite" stats, but none mentioning that they'd gladly pay for such increases.

Yes it is. And I'd gladly pay the extra points for truly amazing elite units. :)

Poseidal
12-04-2011, 14:39
I've always said an increase in points if fine along with a power increase.

I'd like to see 10 point (or more) Guardians, as long as they're worth the points you pay for them; then go up from there.

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 14:45
I've always said an increase in points if fine along with a power increase.

I'd like to see 10 point (or more) Guardians, as long as they're worth the points you pay for them; then go up from there.

Haha. Now the 10 points surely is true elite :p
Don't get mad, it's just a joke.

Poseidal
12-04-2011, 14:47
Well, Guardians are only the support civilians after all.

Shamana
12-04-2011, 15:03
Sorry, SgtTaters, but if you wanna tell me that CWE see more fights than Dark Eldar, then you seriously should quit talking about Eldar entirely. That is plainly... wrong big time ... to say it with nice words.

I'm not so sure. At the moment we are discussing the "iconic" craftworld and dark eldar, but things change if you look at it from the "average" level. See, the average Dark Eldar may well see much less fights - at least those represented in the 40k game. The vibe I got from the last codex is that the overwhelming majority of Dark Eldar will never, ever go to a real raid; this is a priviledge allowed only the elite of the kabal warriors - and the kabals are an elite unto themselves. Even the percentage of those strong enough to be local toughs would be fairly low. The majority are gutter dregs, happy to avoid a fight that would likely lead to danger if they could. Sure, they are malicious and cunning, they might wish they could be the legendary dealers of destruction, but they have a very good reason to avoid direct confrontation: they fear death. Unlike the "crafties", they don't get a luxury of a soulstone giving them an ounce of protection against Slaanesh. Once they are killed, they get to regret it for all eternity.

CWE might fight less often (though I'm not so sure if that holds for all craftworlds), but as I understand it pretty much every mature eldar has put in no small amount of time training. When it comes to fighting a war, the average craftworlder may indeed have an edge - it's just that those that make it to the DE codex aren't exactly the "average" ones. When it comes to experience in an actual war - where their enemies are actually trained warriors who shoot back? Even the elite of the kabals might not have as much of an edge as is claimed.

fidesratioque
12-04-2011, 15:14
Ulthwe is under such threat from the Eye of Terror that their entire craftworld is basically a camp of armed civilians. Try that on for size, dark eldar. Guardians, and craftworld eldar in general, are some tough sons of bitches, fluff-wise.

Shamana: I'm not sure Slaanesh eats the souls of the dead dark eldar. The codex states that dark eldar live in a way that Slaanesh consumes their souls gradually (either that, or their souls just waste away), so when the dark eldar is dead, there's nothing left. This is why the dark eldar 'sniff' the souls of the dead as they perish, to sustain themselves. Am I on the right track here?

Shamana
12-04-2011, 15:19
@ Fides: I don't think your theory holds, and even then it might be true only if they are killed by the soul-drain. If they are killed prematurely - and most of them are - they are quite juicy snacks and they know it ;)

fidesratioque
12-04-2011, 15:19
Yes it is. And I'd gladly pay the extra points for truly amazing elite units. :)

The Codex states that the eldar would gladly sacrifice an entire human world in order to prevent a single eldar from being put in danger. Yet in any given game I'll lose, on average, 10-15 Guardian models. :( I feel these losses so keenly. I toss and turn at night as I think of their soul-stones being embedded into the Eternity Circuit.

OK, I'm just messing with you.

And yeah, taking out 10-20 Space Marines in a game? That's like killing 1/5th of an entire chapter company. Also a pretty serious loss.

Sarevok
12-04-2011, 15:22
Exarchs on the other hand do practically nothing else but training and fighting and additionally profit from all the other psiontechnical advantages of the craftworld and the knowledge of his predecessors. Even a Klaivex cannot hope to surpass that.

Maybe but it is hinted at that the Klaivex powers are supernatural, so who knows?
old Ahra would have taught em some stuff


Ulthwe is under such threat from the Eye of Terror that their entire craftworld is basically a camp of armed civilians. Try that on for size, dark eldar.

Dark Eldar are physically innatley superior fighters to Eldar.

Vegeta can train all he likes but he will never be Goku

fidesratioque
12-04-2011, 15:29
Dark eldar are just drugged up. They're steroid-pumping mercs, eldar are deadly ninjas. ;)

Poseidal
12-04-2011, 15:31
IMO both the Klaivex and Exarch should both be stronger than they are currently, and more 'supernatural'.

Arhra is like Gouki to the other Phoenix Lord's Gouken.

Ba'al Starslayer
12-04-2011, 15:40
My feelings on the Eldar will never change: They're good as they are. They could do with some changes (Maybe more Wraith-constructs, and Aspects such as the Slicing Orbs, etc...)
The only things I see wrong with the Eldar are:
-They're too overpriced. Everything seems to be stat-lined well, but they cost a tad too much.
-I have NEVER EVER understood why the Eldar don't get Force Weapons... and I'd love to seem them included.
-The Falcon, as with the Fire Prism, should be BS4 (Since I see it as the generic work-horse grav tank. Although Vypers, War Walkers etc should stay at BS3).

Shamana
12-04-2011, 15:43
Dark Eldar are physically innatley superior fighters to Eldar.

Vegeta can train all he likes but he will never be Goku

Eh, source please? The only significant physical differences I've seen are the whole soul-munching/leeching and reduced psychic potential.

Sarevok
12-04-2011, 15:45
Eh, source please? The only significant physical differences I've seen are the whole soul-munching/leeching and reduced psychic potential.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5452111&postcount=100

Shamana
12-04-2011, 15:50
Yes, and the same place lists DE warriors as the elite of the elite of the kabals (themselves elite)... get the picture?

In fact, "honed and enhanced until they are superior even to those of their Crafworld Eldar Cousins..." basically says they are NOT innately superior - they are made superior by a ****aton of training and possibly some body modifications, drugs, etc. IIRC the codex talks about how DE warrior armor is laced with all matter of hooks, barbs etc to cause a lot of pain to the wearer, and thus boost their nerve reactions still further. Basically, the DE try to get any advantage they can.

fidesratioque
12-04-2011, 16:00
My feelings on the Eldar will never change: They're good as they are. They could do with some changes (Maybe more Wraith-constructs, and Aspects such as the Slicing Orbs, etc...)
The only things I see wrong with the Eldar are:
-They're too overpriced. Everything seems to be stat-lined well, but they cost a tad too much.
-I have NEVER EVER understood why the Eldar don't get Force Weapons... and I'd love to seem them included.
-The Falcon, as with the Fire Prism, should be BS4 (Since I see it as the generic work-horse grav tank. Although Vypers, War Walkers etc should stay at BS3).

The Eldar do have at least one force weapon! Eldrad's staff ignores armor saves. :P

Sarevok
12-04-2011, 16:06
The full quote says "Countless generations of physical conflict have ensured the Dark Eldar have better reaction speed and greater physical strength than other elements of the Eldar race"

It is evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest. When a DE is born they already have the traits their parents evolved, they dont need to learn them. You cant teach someone Night Vision.

althathir
12-04-2011, 16:11
Possibly true but I'd be surprised if the developers don't spend any time on community forums. Which is why it's important to propose ideas that are well thought out and have a consistent design philosophy.

I was advocating the return of 'Doom' for years prior to the release of the 4th ed codex. It ended up in the 4th ed codex as I had been proposing verbatim.

Probably a coincidence (it's a simple power if I'm honest), but who knows?

Im sure they look but more in general terms, more at units that people are unhappy with then lifting rules, but yeah with a consistent approach they see why we have a problem with units.


At least some developers have been known to be around. In regards to the CSM codex, while controversial, Gav Thorpe was kind enough to respond to PM's regarding his thought process on the various changes to the CSM codex. I'm sure people at GW are aware of the major topics and concerns of the online communities. Lets be honest here, with the role electronic information plays in our modern lives, and the importance of social media and word of mouth in this hobby, how realistic does it seem that *nobody* in the design studio doesn't at least skim the largest online communities routinely?

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they glean all that we might we they would from such boards, or that they respond to the issues the community raises in the way that appeases many or most, but it's hard to believe they don't read forums and boards like these and aren't aware of the wishes, concerns, ideas, and trends put forth in places like this.

exactly


It also seems to indicate that you can become an Exarch in little under a week. Just sayin'. :D

Path of the warrior is kinda weird with time,

he actually does spend a fairly significant amount of time on the path, its just that it happens there are only two fights before it happens granted he gets hurt in the first one and that may have something to do with it.

Virulentus
12-04-2011, 18:10
Basically, the DE try to get any advantage they can.

Regardless of how they gain said "edge", it exists nonetheless. ;)


he actually does spend a fairly significant amount of time on the path, its just that it happens there are only two fights before it happens granted he gets hurt in the first one and that may have something to do with it.

Meh, I found the book to be pretty lackluster and extremely rushed near the end.

"I was in two fights, one of which I was knocked unconscious.. I'm an Exarch."

Hendarion
12-04-2011, 20:28
I'm not so sure. At the moment we are discussing the "iconic" craftworld and dark eldar, but things change if you look at it from the "average" level. See, the average Dark Eldar may well see much less fights - at least those represented in the 40k game.
So if you take the "pure civilians" of Dark Eldar (which actually don't exist, they need to fight to survive in their own city), then also take the "pure civilians" from Craftworlds too. And there WILL be Eldar who will NEVER visit a single Path of the Warrior either. So all they have is basic training... I doubt the CWE will fight better than the Dark Eldar. No way.

PS:
What the hell are Gouki and Gouken? :shifty:

althathir
12-04-2011, 22:38
Regardless of how they gain said "edge", it exists nonetheless. ;)



Meh, I found the book to be pretty lackluster and extremely rushed near the end.

"I was in two fights, one of which I was knocked unconscious.. I'm an Exarch."

Not saying it was a great book, but gav is in charge of the fluff last I knew, and the really isn't a lot of fluff for eldar so its a fairly legitimate source.


So if you take the "pure civilians" of Dark Eldar (which actually don't exist, they need to fight to survive in their own city), then also take the "pure civilians" from Craftworlds too. And there WILL be Eldar who will NEVER visit a single Path of the Warrior either. So all they have is basic training... I doubt the CWE will fight better than the Dark Eldar. No way.

PS:
What the hell are Gouki and Gouken? :shifty:

Yeah dark eldar have it rough, Gouki and Gouken are dragonball z characters iirc. the most milked cartoon ever.

Shamana
12-04-2011, 22:48
So if you take the "pure civilians" of Dark Eldar (which actually don't exist, they need to fight to survive in their own city), then also take the "pure civilians" from Craftworlds too.

Sure... if such a thing existed :D .

I'd say DE commoners are much more likely to know how to avoid a fight with superior foe and use dirty fighting in numbers - basically kinda like how to survive a bar brawl. A lot don't manage that, obviously, but even those who do are much more likely to just know how to get away from danger. Overall, I'd expect them to know how to knife someone from the back, kick in the shins or the groin, and get the hell out of Dod'sje when it looks like trouble is on the horizon. The guys who are all lean, mean murder incarnate, as the DE codex says in the very front (page 5) are specifically said to be the "warrior castes". These are the guys whose muscles are "honed and enhanced" to near perfection. These are, quite simply, the only dark Eldar (sans specialists like the Haemonculi) that go to war. Their unit description in the codex pretty much says it - they are NOT the average Joes and Janes of Commoragh.

In contrast, the CW Eldar codex says about guardians that every Eldar is trained and ready to fight in the guardian corps, whether they had been on an aspect path or no. If the DE can't be said to have "true" civilians, then the same can be said of the craftworlders - only their training tends to prepare them for actual warfare against other species, involves advanced weapons and enough military tactics to put them on the level of trained guardsmen (which would probably mean a fair bit). Yeah, compared to the "corpse-fishers," the parched or the few unlucky souls in the Old City slave-puts, they might not be quite as bloody-minded - but can still be a lot more dangerous in a fight. To me, it's like comparing a urban thug from a nasty neighborhood (say, the worst slums in Rio de Janeiro) to a guy who served a year or two of compulsory military service in, say, the Finnish or the Vietnamese army.

Poseidal
12-04-2011, 22:59
...To me, it's like comparing a urban thug from a nasty neighborhood (say, Brazil
Don't leave me in suspense!

I love analogies and would really like to hear what this one is now...

Virulentus
12-04-2011, 23:11
Shamana, I'm curious. Just how often do you think guardians go to war?

You're making it sound as if they're on the front-lines in every engagement, and not reserved for only the most dire circumstances.

djhowitzer
12-04-2011, 23:22
it seems a bit unfair. that said, my eldar do fine.

Shamana
12-04-2011, 23:25
@ Virulentius: not very often, relatively speaking. It is said they are employed when an operation is vital enough that the craftworld is considered threatened, and the aspects just aren't enough. The fact of the matter is that we don't really know how often that is.

Then again, when's the last time the armies of, say, Norway or Switzerland went to war? It doesn't mean they don't take their training seriously, even if they have little reason to expect a genocidal wave of aliens to descend upon them and devour their souls. From what I have heard from friends, they still take their military service quite seriously.

althathir
12-04-2011, 23:25
@Virulentus - thats actually one of my problems with eldar fluff is that is a fairly murky point no one actually knows. In Path of Warrior that don't seem to mention guardians at any point, and going be the codex fluff they should. I've wondered if they are trying to move away from guardians fluffwise.

RandomThoughts
13-04-2011, 00:18
I've always said an increase in points if fine along with a power increase.

I'd like to see 10 point (or more) Guardians, as long as they're worth the points you pay for them; then go up from there.

I fully agree. 24" S4 AP5 Assault 2 Shuricats, 4+ armor, grenades, 1 heavy weapon for each 6 Guardians, and I wouldn't mind paying 10 points apiece.

Hell, I wouldn't mind taking mine off the shelf and playing them again for a change! :)

SgtTaters
13-04-2011, 00:33
"Being a thug" means more being a trained soldier than a gardener, cook, tailor, infinity-circuit-technician or bone-singer.
... and guardians are actually trained as soldiers. They drive tanks, warwalkers, pilot jets, crew support guns, and listen to the warlock barking orders from the Farseer.
Guardians ACTUALLY SEE BATTLE. That is my main point, you can field them on the 40k battlefield. They fight in wars.

the 'average Commoragher' is not fieldable on the 40k tabletop. Only the most elite kabalites are picked for realspace raids. The Warrior is not the average, and his craftworld contemporary is the Aspect Warrior, who has identical stats except for a higher leadership score.



While your average CWE -may- see a terror from a Hive Fleet, your average Dark Eldar has already seen (and escaped from) worse.
Yes, from the safety of being an arena spectator (the wych that just killed a giant monster? she is not the average dark eldar civilian). He then goes home, goes to sleep, and wakes up the next day to put some guns together or herd some fodder animals. Maybe he knife fights someone at a bar, maybe he mugs someone in a dark ally. He's a great thug, but that doesn't make him a soldier.

also as a footnote:
EVERY SINGLE ADULT ELDAR FROM IYANDEN HAS FOUGHT FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST HIVE FLEET KRAKEN, EVERYONE OF THEM HAS SEEN 83% OF THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY DIE HORRIBLY. ANY LIVING ADULT FROM IYANDEN IS A VETERAN OF HELLISH NONSTOP CITY FLATTENING WARFARE IN THEIR OWN HOME


I hope I made it clear that I don't consider Kabalite Warriors the average Commoragher, the Kabalite realspace raider is the ELITE TOP 10% OF THE KABAL ORGANIZATION. And that Dark Eldar elite warrior has the same leadership score as the Craftworld militiaman, ld8.

Morale is also very important. The average DE civilian is looking out for himself, he will not damn his mortal soul for anyone's sake and is absolutely terrified at the prospect of dying. Anyone giving him orders is similarly selfish.

The Craftworld Civilian is taught that he is fighting for the preservation of not only his friends and family, but the very future of his race. He is taught that the Farseers scry fate for the very best coarse of action, that when he is called to war it is with the force of destiny at his side and the cause of salvation in his hands. Courageous and obedient, an ideal soldier.

Put the two in an arena, I will bet on the Dark Eldar. I do not disagree with any of you on that.
Put a dozen each on the battlefield, i will bet on the guardians to watch each others backs and accomplish their task, while the Dark Eldar corpse fishers all run away.*

*that's why Kabalite Warriors are the elite of Commoragh. They actually fight with unity and are highly motivated and totally batshit crazy enough to risk getting their souls molested for eternity at the chance of seizing power one day.



Dark Eldar are physically innatley superior fighters to Eldar.
Vegeta can train all he likes but he will never be Goku
That's a terrible, terrible, totally backwards example you just used. I don't know how you could have watched/read DragonBall and come to that conclusion.
Born into royalty, Vegeta is innately superior to Goku. While kid Goku was fighting the red ribbon army, kid Vegeta was commiting genocide on whole planets.
Brolly was born the legendary Super Saiyan.
Goku was born with a very low power level and sent to a weak planet. Yes, Vegeta can train all he likes, but Goku is training even more
Goku is stronger than both because he's trained harder and has a lot of heart. This pisses off Vegeta to no end.





You're making it sound as if they're on the front-lines in every engagement, and not reserved for only the most dire circumstances.
grimdarkness, only war, dying race, etc. etc. etc. all the Eldar tragedy fluff has their civilians being tossed into the meatgrinder continuously.
Ulthwe's civilians see so much action that they've simply become skilled at it without shrine training.
The fact of it is, Guardians are a Troops choice, just as guardsman, space marines and ork boyz are. They see action, and are prepared for it. The galaxy is a very dire place. Iyanden got invaded by tyranids, and right after that got hit by a major waaagh too. Guardians see a good amount of action. Possibly more than Guardsman (in the sense that guardsmen often only see one confict: the one they die in, while Guardians live on).



Don't leave me in suspense!
I love analogies and would really like to hear what this one is now...
Ever watched City of God? A big part of it is gang warfare in Rio. One of the characters in it is named Knockout Ned. He grew up properly and avoided gang culture, joined the military briefly for education. Later on this docile, peace loving fellow gets dragged into the world of gang wars when his family is caught in the crossfire. Knockout Ned joins a gang. He does not have a thug background, he did not grow up killing people in the streets, he just had some proper military training one time.
Ned shoots straighter than any of the thugs and gains a reputation for his skills with a gun.


of course space elves in white and black hats are different, but I think that's a good example of what I'm going with.


From what I have heard from friends, they still take their military service quite seriously.

here is a picture of a Swiss fighterjet pulling sleds

big squig
13-04-2011, 02:40
What about marine's ridiculously low S and T? They should be S and T 6 to match the fluff.

TheLaughingGod
13-04-2011, 07:02
What about marine's ridiculously low S and T? They should be S and T 6 to match the fluff.

We already had that thread. It got locked and removed. Don't OT spam here, please.

Hendarion
13-04-2011, 07:37
Actually we also had the discussion about Eldar-stats being too low ;) Multiple times to be honest.

TheLaughingGod
13-04-2011, 07:58
Actually we also had the discussion about Eldar-stats being too low ;) Multiple times to be honest.

True, but this hasn't been locked yet, lets try to keep it that way. At the very least, this is worth discussing. No one can reasonably argue that Marines need a buff though.

Eldar definitely need something, stat boosts might be the way to go, might not. That's the point of this thread (and lampooning the Tau thread)

Lowmans
13-04-2011, 09:29
I don't think the 'by the background they should be better' argument really washes tbh. They ARE primarily civilians, however you cut it. The only CWE with a serious claim to higher than 3 (which is not ridiculously low) is Ulthwe and they used to have Black Guardians. I guess these went because on such a small scale the difference shouldn't translate to an extra point.
As others have hinted, even if it was justifiable from a fluff view, how does the argumen work when applied elsewhere!?
Aspect warriors are specialists and therefore clearly better than guardians so: BS/WS 5!?
Exarchs 6 or 7!?
Having done this, sad to say, you end up with 'movie eldar'. What you will get is 'movie marines' everyone will jump forward and ultimately stay in the same place!

Why!? Because there has to be some balance. Some of the suggestions posted thus far have been crazy.

WS/BS 4 armour save 4+
Effectively Stormbolter weaponry.
Unless Aspect Warriors were upgraded or cheaper they wouldn't see the table and as noted they should be 'better' by the background.

It seems a way to break the internal and external balance, to me and is based purely on a Elves should be better because they're Elves mentality!

Poseidal
13-04-2011, 09:31
To be fair, Exarchs should have that sort of higher statline.

The same goes for Choas champion statlines, who bizarrely aren't higher than their loyalist counterparts.

TheLaughingGod
13-04-2011, 09:54
I don't think the 'by the background they should be better' argument really washes tbh. They ARE primarily civilians, however you cut it. Except for the fact that they are all soldiers. Regardless of how you wish to call them "Civilians" or "Militia" we have real world examples of their equivelents being better equipped, better trained and more experienced than the standing army of some nations.



The only CWE with a serious claim to higher than 3 (which is not ridiculously low) is Ulthwe and they used to have Black Guardians. I guess these went because on such a small scale the difference shouldn't translate to an extra point.
Ulthwe and other Craftworlds LIKE Ulthwe. And also, Apocalypse formations have WS 5 Black Guardians in this edition... so... clearly, that's not the case. The official Black Guardian formation is better than 3.





As others have hinted, even if it was justifiable from a fluff view, how does the argumen work when applied elsewhere!?
Just fine, actually.




Aspect warriors are specialists and therefore clearly better than guardians so: BS/WS 5!?
Why not? Marines are elite Generalists. Aspect Warriors are elite specialists. Why should they not be better combatants in their chosen specialities? Are we really going to argue that Marines should be bigger, stronger, tougher, have better armor, better weapons AND be just as good at hand to hand as a Striking Scorpion or a Howling Banshee AND just as good at shooting as a Fire Dragon or a Dark Reaper? What is more ridiculous here?




Exarchs 6 or 7!?
Having done this, sad to say, you end up with 'movie eldar'. What you will get is 'movie marines' everyone will jump forward and ultimately stay in the same place!
Except that's not "movie eldar" that's hyperbole. Exarchs at 6 is really not that bad. If anything, it's fluffy and helps. Remember that Exarchs are 5 and 5 and Space Marine Captains used to be 5 too. Exarchs were on par with Space Marine Captains. And then Captains got a bump.




Why!? Because there has to be some balance. Some of the suggestions posted thus far have been crazy.
There IS balance. It's called "points"




WS/BS 4 armour save 4+
Effectively Stormbolter weaponry.
Unless Aspect Warriors were upgraded or cheaper they wouldn't see the table and as noted they should be 'better' by the background.
Well, they should be upgraded. Obviously.




It seems a way to break the internal and external balance, to me and is based purely on a Elves should be better because they're Elves mentality!
Or not. All this "breaking balance" talk is just silly. Did Long Fangs split fire "Break Balance?" No. Did Six Wound Trygons "Break balance?" No. Did 6 point Ork Boys "Break balance?" No. Did 'Power From Pain' "Break balance?" No. No. no they did not.

It's not based on some "Evles r bestest" mentality. It's the lore of the frelling game.

Long Fangs are excellent and well disciplined shots.
Trygons are very tough monsters.
Orks come in large numbers.
Dark Eldar gain strength from their victims.
And Craftworld Eldar are highly skilled veterans with incredibly advanced technology at their disposal. The rules should reflect this better.

Ivellis
13-04-2011, 09:59
I can understand people not wanting higher BS stats, however WS is a wholly different matter. Firstly unlike BS, WS is a 1-10 scale, while technically BS goes that high, in practice it hardly makes a difference after 5.

Secondly WS doesn't have much of an effect on the game anymore, almost always it is 4+ vs 4+

I've noticed more and more that some stats in 40k just don't matter enough, like WS, I, LD and unless you have a 3+ or better Sv. Guess what? Fluffwise those are some of the stats most important to none Space Marine armies.

Honestly I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, but 40k needs MORE stat differences, not less. However it's basically impossible for that to come to pass without some major rule changes, such as replacing the WS chart with the S vs. T chart, turning shooting into BS vs. I and overhauling morale, AP and cover rules. None of this is going to happen and I'm probably going to get fed up with it eventually and quit 40k, but for now I'll keep a little hope alive.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, more WS5/6/7 eldar!

TheLaughingGod
13-04-2011, 10:10
I can understand people not wanting higher BS stats, however WS is a wholly different matter. Firstly unlike BS, WS is a 1-10 scale, while technically BS goes that high, in practice it hardly makes a difference after 5.

Secondly WS doesn't have much of an effect on the game anymore, almost always it is 4+ vs 4+

I've noticed more and more that some stats in 40k just don't matter enough, like WS, I, LD and unless you have a 3+ or better Sv. Guess what? Fluffwise those are some of the stats most important to none Space Marine armies.

Honestly I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, but 40k needs MORE stat differences, not less. However it's basically impossible for that to come to pass without some major rule changes, such as replacing the WS chart with the S vs. T chart, turning shooting into BS vs. I and overhauling morale, AP and cover rules. None of this is going to happen and I'm probably going to get fed up with it eventually and quit 40k, but for now I'll keep a little hope alive.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, more WS5/6/7 eldar!

Totally agree. I really wish there was much more of a gradiant and certain stats actually MATTERED. But alas, probably not until next edition, and probably not even then.

Hendarion
13-04-2011, 10:24
Well, a System with 10 stats-points also needs D10 to roll. Else it just doesn't work out nicely as we currently see. Imo stay with 10 stats-points, but change to D12. That would allow to use finer granulated tables. That would also allow to make a better difference between humans, Eldar and Space Marines that do not impact too big, but not too less either.
But well... that's what I'd do if I had something to say in 40k ;)

Ivellis
13-04-2011, 10:41
I entirely agree that D6 is too small, and D12 seems like a good solution.

For example this chart would apply to S vs. T, WS vs. WS and BS vs. I:
7 vs 1 = Always hit
6 vs 1 = 2+
5 vs 1 = 3+
4 vs 1 = 4+
3 vs 1 = 5+
2 vs 1 = 6+
1 vs 1 = 7+ to hit
1 vs 2 = 8+
1 vs 3 = 9+
1 vs 4 = 10+
1 vs 5 = 11+
1 vs 6 = 12
1 vs 7 = Always miss

While I'm at it, I believe AP should reduce instead of totally negate the armour save, though if the AP is high enough it would negate it. Add in a movement stat and make morale more important and this would be a game I could love.

But I'm getting carried away and going off topic so uhh... meh.

Hendarion
13-04-2011, 11:20
Well, AP is a bad system imo. Armour Save Modifiers are not better either.

RandomThoughts
13-04-2011, 11:47
Well, AP is a bad system imo. Armour Save Modifiers are not better either.

I still think to wound and armor penetration should be one roll.

Easiest way to go would be AV-rules across the board: Defender adds Toughness + Reverse Armor (7 minus current save, so 4 for power armor) + 1 (for balancing with existing vehicles) giving Marines a AV of 9 and Space Marine Bikes the same AV of 10 that Marine Land Speeders already have.
Orks and Imps would both end up with a AV of 6, which sounds about right. Power Weapons would need a boost of some kind, but it really doesn't make that much sense anyway that a Banshee Sword will eat through Terminator armor like butter and bounce off a Dreadnought armor like it was made of rubber while a Witchblade works the exact opposite way.

And for multi-wound models, just make it one wound for each point by which the attacker beat the armor. :-)

Working in Invulnerable Saves and Fortune and the like would take some work, of course, but it could be done in a singe edition. Of course, GW would than have to commit to reworking base rules and codices as a whole, designing a system that actually works across armies, and not use new codices as a pure marketing tool... :rolleyes:

Cheeslord
13-04-2011, 11:50
While I'm at it, I believe AP should reduce instead of totally negate the armour save, though if the AP is high enough it would negate it. Add in a movement stat and make morale more important and this would be a game I could love.

But I'm getting carried away and going off topic so uhh... meh.

You should try playing the original Rogue Trader - I think it had all these things (not sure about Morale but it did have 4 stats that reflected the mental characteristics of every soldier)

Mark.

Shadowfane
13-04-2011, 17:32
CWE need SOMETHING - I think thats fairly clear - but I suspect it'll end up coming from their wargear rather than stat changes - I honestly don't think you'll see major stat changes to the CWE stuff, and as much as i hate to bring the argument back to this, its basically down to the DE codex. Bear with me, and I'll explain my thoughts (and this is all only my opinion, of course!)

Once the DE book was brought out, published and made available for us to get our sticky fingers on it, GW basically painted themselves into a corner with the DE/CWE thing. They went on record as saying that both CWE and DE had parts of the ancient Eldar shtick, but not all of it - CWE kept the psychic stuff, DE kept the warrior/fighty stuff, and they both had technology, but none of them had access to all three (I don't mean *literally* kept, for any pedants here, I just mean thats how they evolved)

What that basically means, is that they *can't* really increase guardian stats to equal the kabalite warriors without contravening their own admitted direction for the Eldar races this edition - but they *can* give them parity by way of outlandishly good tech - which, to be fair, the CWE should have - they should have better tech than anyone except the Necrons, since presumably the DE have regressed slightly there by not being able to psychically grow material and weapons and whatnot anymore (and I'm saying that as a DE player)
They've managed to extend this to the Aspects/Exarchs too - by doing everything short of coming out and saying "Hey, Drazhar is Arha, and the Incubi are his version of Aspect Warriors! Oh, and the Emperor? He's in Vegas" they've limited how far they can take stats for those troop types, since by their own lore they should be roughly equal with each other

Also, the whole "well, all CWE civilians are trained, whilst DE civilians are just thugs" thing, is kinda missing a point - it doesn't MATTER what the average DE civilian is like in a fight, as on the tabletop, the only Kabalites you see ARE Kabalite, and therefore the elite - who therefore SHOULD be better, statwise, than guardians.
Anyway, thats my opinion - CWE definately need something to change this edition, but I doubt it'll be stats - it'll most likely be wargear, weapons and tanks and whatnot (no doubt with even more stuff that ignores whole swathes of the rulebook...)

Sorry, I really should know better than to come into a joke thread thats turned into an actual discussion, but hey, I was bored :)

Aluinn
13-04-2011, 17:50
CWE need SOMETHING - I think thats fairly clear - but I suspect it'll end up coming from their wargear rather than stat changes - I honestly don't think you'll see major stat changes to the CWE stuff, and as much as i hate to bring the argument back to this, its basically down to the DE codex. Bear with me, and I'll explain my thoughts (and this is all only my opinion, of course!)

Once the DE book was brought out, published and made available for us to get our sticky fingers on it, GW basically painted themselves into a corner with the DE/CWE thing. They went on record as saying that both CWE and DE had parts of the ancient Eldar shtick, but not all of it - CWE kept the psychic stuff, DE kept the warrior/fighty stuff, and they both had technology, but none of them had access to all three (I don't mean *literally* kept, for any pedants here, I just mean thats how they evolved)

What that basically means, is that they *can't* really increase guardian stats to equal the kabalite warriors without contravening their own admitted direction for the Eldar races this edition - but they *can* give them parity by way of outlandishly good tech - which, to be fair, the CWE should have - they should have better tech than anyone except the Necrons, since presumably the DE have regressed slightly there by not being able to psychically grow material and weapons and whatnot anymore (and I'm saying that as a DE player)
They've managed to extend this to the Aspects/Exarchs too - by doing everything short of coming out and saying "Hey, Drazhar is Arha, and the Incubi are his version of Aspect Warriors! Oh, and the Emperor? He's in Vegas" they've limited how far they can take stats for those troop types, since by their own lore they should be roughly equal with each other

Also, the whole "well, all CWE civilians are trained, whilst DE civilians are just thugs" thing, is kinda missing a point - it doesn't MATTER what the average DE civilian is like in a fight, as on the tabletop, the only Kabalites you see ARE Kabalite, and therefore the elite - who therefore SHOULD be better, statwise, than guardians.
Anyway, thats my opinion - CWE definately need something to change this edition, but I doubt it'll be stats - it'll most likely be wargear, weapons and tanks and whatnot (no doubt with even more stuff that ignores whole swathes of the rulebook...)

Sorry, I really should know better than to come into a joke thread thats turned into an actual discussion, but hey, I was bored :)

I agree with this, as a player of both armies, though I think it would still be thematically fine if Guardians had something like:

WS3 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld8

That would still leave them feeling sufficiently inferior to Kabalite Warriors while giving them what they really need: Better shooting ability. (Switch WS and BS for Storm Guardians, though, of course.) That change, together with a slightly better basic weapon, would make them well enough worth their current points cost, IMO.

My problem with the current statline is that it makes an army with a lot of Guardians feel ... not like Space Elves, which, like it or not, Eldar still pretty much are. If you look at the Elven armies in Warhammer Fantasy, none of the three have a basic core unit with less than WS4, BS4, and I5, and that's for a reason--they just feel too much like humans otherwise, on the tabletop. I think some departure from that is fine, but not such complete departure that they have, essentially, a "human" statline.

Although I should say that I feel having Initiative: 5 matters a lot more in that sense than giving them higher WS or BS; ordinary humans just do not get I5, so more than other stats it serves to thoroughly differentiate them. So I suppose, if Guardians got that Initiative increase, I'd be okay with them staying at BS3.

Certain Aspect Warriors definitely deserve WS5, though, such as Howling Banshees and Shining Spears (and they both need it badly gamewise, too). Scorpions could be justified as staying the same by the idea that their training focuses a lot on sneaking around, and thus they have less time for pure swordplay; Dire Avengers adopt a far more balanced approach, so I don't feel they'd need a change to stats, either.

Shamana
13-04-2011, 18:11
Eh, "human" statline is a fairly vague term, as the DCAs show. IIRC they are still mostly human, but you wouldn't know it by their scores ;) .

I'm mostly fine with WS/BS 3 guardians with an optional upgrade to make one of their skills a 4 (a throwback to the Black Guardians), an option for 4+ armor, and a few other tricks such as better guns, option for defensive grenades, and minor move +shoot during the shooting phase (it might have fit DE better than FnP too, but they probably don't mind what they got too much either. I think it is fairly tolerable fluff-wise, and with good gear can make them a valuable, solid unit. Sure, it may mean that a fully tooled up guardian costs a bit more than now, but I consider that ok if it is actually worth those points :) .

SgtTaters
13-04-2011, 21:48
CWE troop choices are:

- Dire Avengers with ws4 bs4 i5 ld9 and 4+ sv's
- Jetbikes with t4 and 3+ sv's
- Rangers with bs4 and stealth
- Pathfinders with even better stealth and sniping
- Wraithguard with t6 3+ sv
- guardians of two varieties
*FW- a hopping dual heavy weapons platform with bs4


Our fixation with the guardian is an odd one, it would be like if space marines obsessed over whether scouts deserve 3+ sv's or ws/bs4 again.
Guardians are something like grots, you just herd them with the warlock when you need more raw bodies on the field. Yes grots are an ork troop choice, but you can take propa boyz instead, and that's fine. If you reeeaally want to, you can have them pilot walkers and tug around heavy weapons too.

Ultimately they are only one choice out of many Troops the Eldar have. All our wishes for high technology, supreme skill, cunning and armor are already there in the Ranger, the Avenger, the Wraithguard, the Jetbike, and the Wave Serpent.


They can stay as bullet catchers for weapons platforms, they can come in mobs of 30. As long as Avengers, Rangers, Jetbikes and Wraithguard can be good choices in a new codex the guardian can stay ws3bs3 and effect Craftworld theme very little.

Obrimos
14-04-2011, 00:00
*sigh*
Wraithguard and Jetbikes and Pathfinders really shouldn't be troop choices. They just put them there, so you can play Iyanden ans Saim-hann and Alaitoc style armies.
Wraithguard are the equivalent of Terminators and should be an elites choice for generic Eldar armies. Pathfinders are way better than rangers and should be elites too. Jetbikes, even when driven by guardians, are fast attack choices IMO.
Only the lack of a craftworld codex brings them to troop categories.

So that leaves only DA, guardians and rangers as 'proper' troop choices.

In total, regardless of FoC, about 50% of the actual army choices consist of guardians or guardian associated models for the average craftworld.
There is no overobsession over guardians. They practically reflect half of our army and they are the only ones that man heavy weapons (wraithlords being the exception).
The strenght of the guardian represents the strength of the Eldar race in general. The iconic Eldar trooper is not the DA, it is not the Ranger and certainly not the wraithguard. The iconic Eldar Trooper is the guardian.

Look at the army painters, look at the core rulebook, look at the artworks with mixed troops. The guardian is around everywhere.

Likewise, buffing guardian stats means buffing half an army and this is why people are so reluctant about this. It would change the army quite drastically. Giving guardians BS 4, for example, would mean a total increase of about 10 to 20 % of damage output for the whole army, due to the fact that heavy weapons contribute exponentially to firepower.

Aluinn
14-04-2011, 01:12
CWE troop choices are:

- Dire Avengers with ws4 bs4 i5 ld9 and 4+ sv's
- Jetbikes with t4 and 3+ sv's
- Rangers with bs4 and stealth
- Pathfinders with even better stealth and sniping
- Wraithguard with t6 3+ sv
- guardians of two varieties
*FW- a hopping dual heavy weapons platform with bs4


Our fixation with the guardian is an odd one, it would be like if space marines obsessed over whether scouts deserve 3+ sv's or ws/bs4 again.
Guardians are something like grots, you just herd them with the warlock when you need more raw bodies on the field. Yes grots are an ork troop choice, but you can take propa boyz instead, and that's fine. If you reeeaally want to, you can have them pilot walkers and tug around heavy weapons too.

Ultimately they are only one choice out of many Troops the Eldar have. All our wishes for high technology, supreme skill, cunning and armor are already there in the Ranger, the Avenger, the Wraithguard, the Jetbike, and the Wave Serpent.


They can stay as bullet catchers for weapons platforms, they can come in mobs of 30. As long as Avengers, Rangers, Jetbikes and Wraithguard can be good choices in a new codex the guardian can stay ws3bs3 and effect Craftworld theme very little.

First of all, if Guardians are bad, it is not made okay by the fact that other things are better. That is, in fact, the problem: There isn't much reason to take them because other options are better. And if you're going to try to tell me they aren't bad (for their points), I don't know what to say except that you probably haven't used them much.

As for them being "bullet-catchers", that absolutely violates the intended feel of the Eldar army. They'd probably be a viable unit if they were just reduced to 5-6 points per model, but that doesn't solve the fundamental problem that it feels wrong for Eldar to use anything as cannon fodder. Furthermore, even actual cannon fodder models like basic Guardsmen can do something while their heavy weapon shoots, in many cases, because at least they have 24" range and thus a reasonable number of chances to fire their basic guns. With First Rank Fire, they do this pretty well. Guardians on the other hand usually end up firing their basic weapons once per game (before dying), if at all.

As for the rest of the units, they either are also in need of help, or don't really meet the standard for a Troops unit of being versatile infantry that can form the core of an army.

-Avengers really aren't good either, overall. Some people will disagree, but the truth is, when they perform "well", they are being used in one of two ways, IME: As a vehicle upgrade for a Falcon, because they're the cheapest unit to throw in one and make it scoring, in which case it doesn't really matter what they are capable of in the traditional sense; and as a full unit in a Wave Serpent with Bladestorm, which is fine in a way, but a unit with an optional transport should not have to take one in order to be functional, nor should any Troops choice, really. Also, their upgrades are way too expensive for what they do, with the full squad coming in at an average of around 17 points per model once they have an Exarch with a weapon and powers. It's fine for them to have a purely anti-infantry focus--I'm not asking that they be given fusion guns and haywire grenades or something. But they should be a functional unit when fielded on foot, too, which their combination of short range and fragility preclude with their current rules, and again they're overcosted if you're using them as intended rather than as a vehicle upgrade/complete throwaway.

-It's very difficult to make an army with a serious core of Rangers/Pathfinders. Eldar can't viably do static shooting right now, so these units, while arguably pretty good, don't meet the Troops standard of being things that you can build an army around. If the army were changed in various other ways such that static shooty builds did become viable, I guess they'd be alright, but then again truly static shooting is not something that probably ought to be an Eldar strength. Moving 6" and shooting is fine, but actually camping out across the board is something that, much like cannon fodder mooks, violates their theme. It is very okay for these to exist, but they aren't and probably never will be the heart of an Eldar army.

-Jetbikes are good and you can base an army around them ... but not any sort of army. If you want to commit to a fully fast-moving force, they are a good core to that, but otherwise they're a sideshow.

-Wraithguard ... are you kidding me? Do you know how much the full unit of ten with a Spiritseer costs (in points)? If you base an army around these as Troops, it is even more of a niche army than Deathwing/Loganwing/Draigowing, because their function is even more specific than any Terminator's--they're both weak in close combat and lacking in any shooting with greater than 12", or that makes for effective anti-infantry. The option to build a wraith army is cool and I'm glad it's there, but from a design perspective, it is a novelty. It's not something you can expect or even really encourage the average player of the army to do, and thus there need to be other solid options, which means that Wraithguard are in essence irrelevant to the discussion of Guardians.

Vaktathi
14-04-2011, 03:11
-Avengers really aren't good either, overall. Some people will disagree, but the truth is, when they perform "well", they are being used in one of two ways, IME: As a vehicle upgrade for a Falcon, because they're the cheapest unit to throw in one and make it scoring, in which case it doesn't really matter what they are capable of in the traditional sense; and as a full unit in a Wave Serpent with Bladestorm, which is fine in a way, but a unit with an optional transport should not have to take one in order to be functional, nor should any Troops choice, really. While I agree with much of what you say, I don't necessarily agree here. I think it's perfectly fine to require certain units to take a transport or be used in conjunction with something else in order to be effective if it fits with the background and the theme of the army.

The only way Dire Avengers are ever really going to be useful without a transport is if the LoS rules suddenly become extremely restrictive and they become much faster on foot, or CWE get a Webway equivalent (which will then require another unit as well). Their innate low survivability means that they just won't make it to their objective in one piece in the face of significant enemy fire. They are the Eldar equivalent of Stormtroopers, elite shock infantry. As such, they shouldn't be footslogging everywhere, they should be hitting hard and fast as part of a mechanized Blitz.

Dire Avengers are much like IG vets. Neither unit is particularly good on its own, it's only when paired with a transport that they become effective. Yes, nobody takes Dire Avengers without a transport, they don't take IG Vets without a transport either. IG stormtroopers as well, nobody takes them on foot (or at all, but that's a different story) they take them either Deep Striking or in a transport.

It's the nature elite infantry that aren't any harder to kill than weeny horde units for the most part.

As to DA's costs, keep in mind the Eldar codex was costed to an entirely different metagame with significantly different Core rules, when Mech Eldar sporting Mech Dire Avengers were probably the most powerful army in the game for the last half of 4th Edition. The core rules and metagame have changed, and thus, the rules that such units, especially the transports, were costed to are out of sync.

Kalishnikov-47
14-04-2011, 04:30
Either their wargear should better represent their stats or vice versa, because I really think Guardians innate ability and training, as an Eldar is better than a Guardsmen. I know a lot of you can not swallow that. When they cite in the fluff that some Guardians have at some point been down the path of the warrior, it really makes me rethink on how their stats reflect their prowess.

Cheers

Aluinn
14-04-2011, 06:00
While I agree with much of what you say, I don't necessarily agree here. I think it's perfectly fine to require certain units to take a transport or be used in conjunction with something else in order to be effective if it fits with the background and the theme of the army.

The only way Dire Avengers are ever really going to be useful without a transport is if the LoS rules suddenly become extremely restrictive and they become much faster on foot, or CWE get a Webway equivalent (which will then require another unit as well). Their innate low survivability means that they just won't make it to their objective in one piece in the face of significant enemy fire. They are the Eldar equivalent of Stormtroopers, elite shock infantry. As such, they shouldn't be footslogging everywhere, they should be hitting hard and fast as part of a mechanized Blitz.

Dire Avengers are much like IG vets. Neither unit is particularly good on its own, it's only when paired with a transport that they become effective. Yes, nobody takes Dire Avengers without a transport, they don't take IG Vets without a transport either. IG stormtroopers as well, nobody takes them on foot (or at all, but that's a different story) they take them either Deep Striking or in a transport.

It's the nature elite infantry that aren't any harder to kill than weeny horde units for the most part.

As to DA's costs, keep in mind the Eldar codex was costed to an entirely different metagame with significantly different Core rules, when Mech Eldar sporting Mech Dire Avengers were probably the most powerful army in the game for the last half of 4th Edition. The core rules and metagame have changed, and thus, the rules that such units, especially the transports, were costed to are out of sync.

Well, actually, I think we are in total agreement: It is fine for them to require a transport to be effective, IMO, too, as long as they are not the only Troops choice worth taking. My problem, if GW really wants to go this design route (though I would not, but that's a completely different discussion) is that in that case they ought to be required to take a transport, like Tau Pathfinders (although that unit doesn't actually need one in order to function well, but again, different discussion :)).

The current entry says to the player: "Here are two choices. We won't comment on which you should take, but one is utterly bad while another works pretty well. Good luck figuring out which is which." And that is awful, awful game design. If the choice is there it should be a real choice, else it should not be there.

However, though again it is fine for a unit to require a transport (as long as it is truly required), the question I was obliquely suggesting in my previous post was: Would it not be better to change the rules so that DA could work without a transport? I would say yes; it seems better all around, IMO, for a Troops choice to be able to be fielded in various configurations and thus enable wider variety in overall army builds, because after all Troops are the backbone of the army (or at least ought to be). All I really think DA would need for that to happen is 24" range on their weapons and possibly for the Shimmershield to grant a 6++ save that works against both shooting and close combat attacks. 5++ probably wouldn't even be overpowered, but I don't know if it's necessary.

Let's look at the IG vets you mentioned: I think the fact that they "need" a Chimera is a metagame issue more than one of unit design, whereas it is one of unit design with Dire Avengers. For example, IG Vets with a heavy weapon of some sort and 3 plasma guns are a totally fine unit to field on foot, sitting in cover and shooting. (Can they still get Infiltrate and/or Stealth? If so, even better, but I can't recall.) Even if, regardless of metagame, the Chimera squad is a bit more powerful, it is not a huge difference and depends on the rest of the army, again if you discount metagame.

I think that is roughly the situation you'd have with Dire Avengers if you gave them 24" range and a modicum of additional survivability. They'd work on foot. It might not be the best way to use them, but it wouldn't be terrible, particularly in a very infantry-focused army. Meanwhile, with 18" range, it just really doesn't work. I can say this as someone who has tried, oh so very hard, to make it work, over the course of many games, and their range is just very slightly too short for them to perform well. Oh, they Bladestorm Doomed squads, they sometimes tie something up in combat, and they do kill things, but the times I have been forced to keep them in cover and just been outranged while they do nothing are many, many more, to the point where they aren't really worth bothering with in this config.

Again, if GW just wants to scrap that option, it's cool with me, as long as they make Guardians worth taking, too, but I just wanted to present an alternative here. Note 24" range wouldn't make them much more powerful as a mechanized squad, so I believe balance would be quite well maintained.

I also completely agree about their points cost, btw.

Codsticker
17-04-2011, 16:19
As this thread has long since evolved into a Eldar wishlisting thread and we already have one of those I am closing it.

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad