PDA

View Full Version : Codex Eldar first impressions/review?



Blutrache
14-11-2006, 12:07
Hi All,

Just bought a copy of CE. Haven't had too much time to go through it yet, however my first impression is that it's very disorganized. I got a severe case of hedache by flipping around the pages looking for special rules. Also, the unit entries are just listed after each other with all "special" information spread around the codex. One nice touch though was that the stats and weapon list was indexed with a page no. Maybe I'm too indoctrinated in the Imperial order, but the "flowery" language used to fluffwise describe weapons felt rather tedious (for the lack of a better word...)

Gamewise it looks fairly balanced. But I guess well see alot more DAv's on the table than guardians. Those poor guys got "meatshield" stamped all over them. Not an intelligent way to treat the last remnants of a dying race, if you ask me ;)

Anyone else has any input on this?

jubilex
14-11-2006, 12:22
As far as the layout is concerned, at first it is confusing. When you get used to it, however, it's far easier to use. The fluff section is where you find all special rules and wargear, the army list is just points and there is no armoury either. Much easier to use. I agree about the dying race idea though. It seems we now try to stave off extinction by making ourselves more vunerable (restricted holo fields, no ctm) but are cheaper, so more of us can get killed! I played it for the first time on sunday though, it was like clockwork, so no complaints from me. Yet.

Mojaco
14-11-2006, 12:32
Gamewise it looks fairly balanced. But I guess well see alot more DAv's on the table than guardians. Those poor guys got "meatshield" stamped all over them. Not an intelligent way to treat the last remnants of a dying race, if you ask me ;)
Yes. A 4+ save soldier on the field is a lot dumbed then 5+ save civilians doing most of the fighting....

I played with it over a dozen times now, though mostly in similar configurations (I'm still building my army) and I have to say I like it. A lot. Contrary to before, now every unit can be used without just doing it for the fluff or looks. When I make an army lists, I actually consider every unit. Every unit! There's not a single other codex which had me doing that (though Tyranids came close; I only ignore the biovore).

Before I disliked the Eldar fluff a bit. They seemed to have a lack of balls to put it bluntly. Arrogance and sadness fine, but sometimes they should just kick something in the nuts. Though not action heavy, I thought the fluff section made the eldar come across a lot more able, while also giving me a greater sense of "poor bastards" then before. And finally, I now think of them more of a treat then before. Before I always though the Imperium was stupid not to work with them, cause while arrogant, they were essentially good. Now I know they're the good guys only if you're eldar yourself.

And Restriced holofields? Did I miss something? And face it, CTM sucked.

jubilex
14-11-2006, 12:52
Wave serpents can't take holo fields. I liked ctm, but think it should have been reserved just for vypers (fluff about light grav vehicles). Like I said somewhere else, vypers would have been better as eldar jetbikes, save and toughness, used in the same way as marine bikes/attack bikes. It's happened before, the wraithlord used to be a dreadnought with armour values.
Overall though, the codex is a big improvement, particularly the balance of it. In particular, the moving of units within the foc charts opens up the list really well. If you thought eldar were good guys you didn't read the fluff properly. Eventually we will put all you mon-keigh in zoos were you belong!

Mojaco
14-11-2006, 13:06
If you thought eldar were good guys you didn't read the fluff properly. Eventually we will put all you mon-keigh in zoos were you belong!
I know, I didn't. But that was hardly my fault; 3rd edition Eldar codex wasn't too informative and BL doesn't publish (good) eldar books. Now I know what the Eldar are properly, without having to lay my hands on a 2nd edition book.

And I though Waveserpents weren't allowed holofields before either.

Sildani
14-11-2006, 13:08
They weren't, that's nothing new.

The new Codex has given FAR more than it has taken away.

AdamR
14-11-2006, 13:12
Hi All,

Just bought a copy of CE. Haven't had too much time to go through it yet, however my first impression is that it's very disorganized. I got a severe case of hedache by flipping around the pages looking for special rules. Also, the unit entries are just listed after each other with all "special" information spread around the codex.

Definitley agree with this - I've never liked how fantasy army books are layed out - it seems a backward step applying this template to 40k stuff too.

What annoyed me most of all is the order the aspect warriors were listed in, which bore no resemblance to their place in the FOC:mad:

Tzargotha
14-11-2006, 14:12
I have taken a look at the new Eldar and I am well impressed by the codex, have to admit better than the last codex (and I also have to say it is better than the 2nd edition one as it has only the fluff we need to know!).

Thanar
14-11-2006, 14:26
One thing I personally did was to take a 3H pencil and write points costs on the pages dedicated to each troop type. I also put in the weapon options.

It helped me to decide whether various upgrades and options as I can read the rules and see the points cost at the same time. The 3h pencil is light enough not to be intrusive on the page and is easy to erase

jubilex
14-11-2006, 15:09
No holo fields on serpents before? Oh oh, can't find my old dex so don't know. I hope not or else I have apologies to make. As far as giving far more than taking away, i'm not so sure. The benefits (talking about avengers here primarily) only make a virtually unusable troop type usable. The +1 save to reapers is good, but t3 + small squad size still = early grave. The ctm, while I admit was too much, should not have gone but been downgraded. I have stated my opinions on this here and elsewhere so will not repeat. My army was built around "sniping" vypers, so I am feeling this one a bit. By the way, nice name defenestratus. Defenestrate is my favourite word!!

Defenestratus
14-11-2006, 15:11
I have to agree with those griping about the layout, especially with respect to the phoenix lords and their powers.

The descriptions for their powers aren't given and you have to go find the proper aspect power somewhere in the book. Very very annoying.

Overall I'm less than impressed with some things, and really impressed with others. Two fireprisms and dark reapers guided with the tempest launcher against the necrons was absolutely redeeming.

^Thanks! I like my name too :P

Sildani
14-11-2006, 15:25
The benefits (talking about avengers here primarily) only make a virtually unusable troop type usable.

And that's all that should have been done. NO Uber-killy units of death that are no-brainers to take! Instead, we were given units that are all compelling and useful. The Harlequins come close to being a "Unit of Death" but they were tamed by their lack of a transport option. If you want to put them in a Falcon, you can't take a full unit. No, I think just the right balance was finally struck.

Sasquatch
14-11-2006, 17:06
I completely agree, the new codex is far superior than the 3rd ed one, at least from a game balance and playability perspective.

I have some gripes with how it is organized and there are some discrepencies with the page references. But nothing major and nothing that can`t be fixed with a pencil.

I play a Saim-Hann army and was really worried about how the new codex would alter my army list. SH was really out there with the 6 Fast Attack FOC. But with the jetbikes as Troop choices and opening up the options for HS and Elites, it makes for a much more diverse list.

My only problem is deciding which FA choices to take. I would have prefered if Warp Spiders had stayed Elites, but can't really complain about putting them in the FA section. They're about the fastest infantry unit out there.

Gaz
14-11-2006, 19:34
The organisation is a bit daunting at first, but I'm ok with it now. I am shocked at the lack of options for the Autarch though, being supreme commander surely if he wishes it he could have a scorpion claw or mirrorblades instead? :D

Brimstone
14-11-2006, 19:44
The organisation is a bit daunting at first, but I'm ok with it now. I am shocked at the lack of options for the Autarch though, being supreme commander surely if he wishes it he could have a scorpion claw or mirrorblades instead? :D

No because they are Exarch weapons held by the aspect shrines and the Autarch has never been an Exarch.

The Autarch is a mid level HQ choice.

Fanzay
14-11-2006, 20:40
IMO, an Exarch with WS 6 and mirrorswords would be insane. I'm glad that won't work, otherwise we'd se a lot of that.

I play Saim-Hann and I like the new changes.
No like the nerf on starcannon though. The new stats are alright, but I don't like the points cost. Otherwise it's fine.

...Except the Harlequins. What's the point? if you need assault troops, by Banshees or Scorpions.

chromedog
14-11-2006, 20:58
Probably because many eldar players still have harlies left over from 2nd ed & whined about it.

Last time I used my harlies, it was stll the RT days (when they weren't quite as uber-killy, but they had a full list). They're staying in the box for now. I have over 7500pts of eldar that I can field without them.

Overall, the new codex isn't too bad. A couple of errors that annoyed me. (Harly entry on p49 refs warlock powers p20-21 - Warlock powers are p28) and the usual grammar/spelling errors, but it is easy to navigate, once you figure out how.

Fanzay
14-11-2006, 21:03
you know, it's not that I don't like them, it's more like that there are so many more effective alternatives out there! It merely annoyed me that so many on these forums jumped on the bandwagon, if you get my meaning.

Asurnan-Ra
14-11-2006, 21:12
Codex is alot better, making units more viable. It does kill alot of the OTT tactics such as starcannon or Seer council armies. Units that were poor or broken have been fixed and made alot better.
Points costs of heavy weapons seems to be a little too high.
Layout is confusing at first but you get use to it.

Alot of the units sound alot better in theory than they are in practice though. Youll still get taunted with 'cheese' which really pisses me off.

Think the worst thing about the codex though is the unexplained or unclear rules of some of the units, Veil of tears vs ordanance, Vibrocannons with Los, Autarchs with two close combat weaposn and 1 two handed weapon getting extra attack for two close combat weapons. As well as some units incredibly high BS and seem to pay the points for it when BS5 is exactly the same as BS7 hitting on a 2+.

Fanzay
14-11-2006, 21:18
Alot of the units sound alot better in theory than they are in practice though.

Well, never heard that before, have we?:p
Anyway, I think it's just a matter of time before people get really used to the new 'dex.
EDIT:
I do agree though, BS of 6 and 7 is pointless.

althathir
14-11-2006, 21:44
I like it, they changed or took out a lot of choices that were abused before and brought up the units that were weak to respectable. Its kind of wierd though because the layout is really similiar to Fantasy armybook, with unit descriptions with rules being given in different part from where the point costs are given. I think a special rules summary like in the Wood Elf armybook would make this codex a lot more friendly when putting a quick list together.

WokeUpDead
14-11-2006, 22:42
I quite like the new 'dex - for the most part.
what makes me happy (playing eldar, eldar and -oh- eldar most of the times) is that cheesy CWs are out and you play your CW for fluff and fluff alone. also, StarCannons going down to A2 is rather nice and takes once more a piece of cheese that many abused.

What's rather annoying are point-costs on certain things for the most part. the sc-nerf was good, but the way too high price makes it pointless, also the bright-lance costs too much in some cases.

What's really bad is the FireDragons. hello..? the unit was perfectly fine before. now the gun gets massively buffed and I have access to tank-hunter, while the dragons become cheaper at the same time? great.. now I can't field my dragons without feeling "cheesy".
And guardians? well, phil: a missed chance, really. 3rd ed. strongly encouraged you to take hordes of them - 4th forces you to.
(and sorry: the 'take DAvs'-advice isn't working there; if you like to take units of guardians, you're forced to take a 'horde' and you can easily bring it up to 'swarm size', very unfluffy).
not to say that I had a simple, yet fluffy solution and could have done better, but still: the chance was there, and they let it go by. oh well..

other than that the best 'dex I've seen so far, very balanced and uncheesy with very few minor exceptions. oh, and from a game-perspective, I'm still smiling (laughing is such a misunderstood word) about all those 'prism stackers' and fielders of 'uberkilly-harlies-of-(mega)deth' :D