A slightly different take on guardians

[Hellebore]

I have advocated a return to the better technology of the eldar for a while now. The shuriken catapult plain sucks ruleswise and in use. It used to be better than a storm bolter etc. Eldar technology is supposed to be better than, not equal to or worse than but we still claim it's better etc.

I was thinking, what if storm/defender guardians worked differently?

Storm guardians are 'assault' guardians, but the only reason they really carry swords is because of the 40k mindset that assault=melee. But you can assault things using other weapons just as effectively.

So my idea, as much as I'd like the catapult to go back to its earlier days, is this:

Shuriken catapult
Range 12" S4 AP5 Assault 2*
A model equipped with a shuriken catapult counts as being equipped with two close combat weapons in melee**

**rationalise it anyway you want to - a carbine that is fired from the hip IN melee, the weapon is so light it can be wielded one handed etc.

Guardian Defenders
Wargear: Lasblaster (or whatever rumoured weapon option people have been claiming they'll get)

Storm Guardians
Wargear: Shuriken catapult


Now the shuriken catapult's current stats fit its actual role - used in close assaults by guardians that actually WANT to get into melee. It creates synergy between the weapon and the unit.

Personally I'd just like to see the catapult go back to at least an 18" range for no other reason than eldar technology should be superior to imperial technology which it currently isn't (what imperial tank weapons require two vehicles to produce a single powerful shot? None, because they can build a weapon powerful enough on a single tank and have two of them...).

But I do like the idea of the shuriken catapult guardian being the 'assault' guardian.

Hellebore

[Kal Taron]

It would invalidate a lot of models though and that's never a good thing.
You'd also need many new models for the Lasblaster Defenders.

Going from the current codex I'd do the following:

Guardian Defenders
Shuriken Catapult with 24" range, may take a platform for every 6 or so Guardians. Platform include all current weapon platforms and support platforms plus some kind of force field.

Storm Guardians
Shuriken Pistol, CCW, 4+ armour, Plasma and Krak grenades (and possibly still too expensive at 8pts), may take a flamer, fusion gun, power weapon or powerfist per 4 models or thereabouts.

Dire Avengers would get Assault3 18" catapults, pistols and ccw plus at least krak grenades.

[Hellebore]

I really don't care about invalidating miniatures. GW doesn't seem to either given how the Pariah models now no longer have an entry.

In the end though the only real difference would be that current defender units would now be storm units instead. they would however actually be useful because a defender guardian with a catapult is just a meatshield whilst a storm guardian with a catapult is an offensive assault unit. The only difference is a shift on what the unit does which is entirely in keeping with what they're actually armed with.

Any model with a sword and pistol is obviously an assault guardian, I don't think people would argue that.

This was just an idea based on what the shuriken catapult CURRENTLY is designed to ACTUALLY do as opposed to what the game is trying to make it do.

IMO all aspects should have 3+ armour minimum, guardians should have 4+ shuriken catapults should be 24" assault 2.

Every eldar gun should be at least as good as an imperial equivalent and in most cases better.

I wrote a list 5 years ago on here showing what I thought an actual high tech high skill force should look like - aspects with a max of 6 models, hardcore exarchs, dire avengers wielding S5 AP4 catapults etc.

Believe it or not the army turned out pretty balanced. Even if your scorpions have rending +1 strength chainswords and 2+ armour saves, when they're T3 and there are a max of 6 of them they still die pretty fast.

Certainly when I compare my army list the grey knight army list, mine looks restrained...

Hellebore

[Irisado]

The problem with your ideas Hellebore is that they don't work outside a complete redesign of the 40K rules as a whole, let alone the Eldar codex, so publishing the Guardians in isolation like this is bound to elicit a mixed, and/or negative response.

As you know, I don't favour your approach to redesigning the Eldar and 40K, as I think that it's going back to an era which has long since passed, but if it all fits together like a good jigsaw once you have put all the pieces together, then it at least makes sense.

I've play tested a revised codex extensively. It only has minor modifications, and yet makes the Eldar far more effective against a wide range of armies than is currently the case. They simply don't require the kind of overhaul you're suggesting to be effective in the current era.

Finally, on the Shuriken Catapult, just increase its range to 18", make no other changes, and the job is done. I've play tested this against lots of different lists, and in different Eldar army builds, and it's an excellent change.

[therisnosaurus]

I'm not sure I like your idea Hell, it's fine in isolation, but for one everyone has units of defenders that will now be obsoleted in that role by the new defenders. it's a different thing from pariahs, they just get used as lychguard, same basic role and gear.

the main issue though is that it doesn't do anything for the rest of the army's catapults. what about jetbikes? avengers (presumably their weapons don't get the boost as well, which you can justify but feels odd)? vehicle shuriken catapult sponsons? It seems an awkward fix to me, super focused on foot guardians alone, perhaps with some justification but still clunky.

I've thought since 5th edition made rending less godlike something like

Range 18", strength 4, ap 5, assault 1 rending would be a good way to go. give the avengerpult assault 2 rending as a consequence of superior craft/skill/tellytubbies and you're off.

[Hellebore]

EDIT: Never mind.

I'll just make a breakdown of points.

1: we are talking about rules not miniatures. Does the idea of assault guardians using catapults as they currently are work within the rules and background? Yes or no. I'm perfectly aware that half my army would turn into storm guardians. That's not the question.

2: Irisado you aren't the only one that can work with people to create a codex and play test. Your attitude of poopooing the ideas of other posters because they didn't follow Irisado's 12 step plan for perfect army lists is really tiresome. Your army list is one of many. It isn't the best, it isn't the worst. But your attitude of measuring everyone elses work against it is an argument from authority fallacy and just makes you look arrogant. I rewrote mordheim for my gaming club and we playtested it vigourously. Yet you don't see me in the mordheim thread telling everyone how to write their mordheim rules because I'm SOOO much better at it than them.

Everyone has their own ideas about what they'd like to acheive when writing rules. Rather than coming into someone's thread and measuring their work against your own, you should instead look at what they're trying to acheive vs what they've actually written. I don't think poster bloggs cares how you wrote your own codex, he has an idea and he'd like feedback on HIS idea, not whether you think it's worthy of yours. If you can't do that then you should really just not bother posting. When I'm commenting on other people's work I will mention mine as an example of what I've done, not hold it up as some kind of golden standard and then show how their work doesn't match up. AboveAllLogic is just one poster in a long line of many where you've come in to dismiss their ideas because they didn't use your's.

I've currently been working on supplements to the Dragon Age RPG. You don't see me in the Green Ronin forums telling people how they SHOULD be writing their weapon/beast/herbal rules. These are what I've done and if they're helpful to people then that's great. But I wouldn't presume to measure other people's work against them.


Hellebore

[therisnosaurus]

1: we are talking about rules not miniatures. Does the idea of assault guardians using catapults as they currently are work within the rules and background? Yes or no. I'm perfectly aware that half my army would turn into storm guardians. That's not the question.

it works fine, but giving a ws3 str3 basic trooper with no other assault options other than an attached warlock an extra attack is a pretty paltry benefit. In the current state of balance, that's... well, I wouldn't be taking many is all I can say, especially if they used the defender option set (no assault weapons). If this was the way they had worked when 3rd ed eldar came out it would have been great, but at the moment it's like giving infantry platoons extra attacks: not only will it not get many people to use them, but it doesn't really help those who do much either.

Pretty much anything that isn't utterly silly is easy to thumbs up in isolation. Whether something is or is not a good and valid design choice wholly depends on context. I appreciate when people poke at stuff you haven't specified it gets annoying, but there's basically nothing I can say on the concept alone: yes, it does not strike me as ridiculous (in fact in utter isolation it's quite a neat way of, as you say, making rules reflect background). I would not come over and torch your house just for having this idea.

But for the reasons I mentioned, putting it in context reveals a whole raft of immediate problems. When there's a choice between vapidly nodding and smiling in artificially isolated contentment and looking further to find problems with a concept, I'll do the latter.

[Son of Sanguinius]

I can see your reasoning on the catapults, Hellebore, but I find it difficult to justify this rule when the same reasoning could apply to any number of carbines.

From what playtesting I've been able to do, the following two changes both work well in very different ways.

The first is, like you suggested, 24" range and remaining Assault 2. This lets the unit function very well as a support unit, especially with a heavy weapon accompanying. It usually means that heavy weapon gets an extra turn of shooting which helps justify the points for it.

The second is remain at 12", but become Assault 3. Currently, a full phase of shooting for 10 Guardians against a unit of Orks will cause 5 wounds. At assault 3, that becomes 7-8 wounds and a denial of between 6 and 12 attacks in the subsequent assault.

Now, I will gladly concede the following points of my bias
- I hate Storm Guardians, both thematically and on the table.
- I hate shuriken as an ammunition. I see them as an excuse to have "SPACE ELF NINJAS!"

As for the lasblasters, I'm cool with that. You'd have to spruce up the already unloved Hawks in compensation, however.

Also, on a personal note, would you be open to exploring a collaborative codex where you and I flesh out your re-imagined eldar? Every time I've tried to do it, I remember that image you did of a guardian or aspect warrior in a suit of armor that resembled the visage of the titans.

[Irisado]

1: we are talking about rules not miniatures. Does the idea of assault guardians using catapults as they currently are work within the rules and background? Yes or no.

No, because close assault Guardians wouldn't be using Shuriken Catapults, and they don't work as you suggest. They are not a dual purpose weapon designed for hacking or slashing anything in close combat.

2: Irisado you aren't the only one that can work with people to create a codex and play test. Your attitude of poopooing the ideas of other posters because they didn't follow Irisado's 12 step plan for perfect army lists is really tiresome. Your army list is one of many. It isn't the best, it isn't the worst. But your attitude of measuring everyone elses work against it is an argument from authority fallacy and just makes you look arrogant. I rewrote mordheim for my gaming club and we playtested it vigourously. Yet you don't see me in the mordheim thread telling everyone how to write their mordheim rules because I'm SOOO much better at it than them.

So many assumptions in this statement, and I'm afraid that a lot of them are misplaced. I may not have helped myself by not explaining the redux issue enough, so I'm about to rectify that, but you could have sent me a PM asking about it before you jumped to conclusions.

I'm not responsible for the version of the Eldar codex I'm referring to, it's a team effort. I'm not the project leader either, so this idea that I've written it is not the case at all. The only reason that I'm the only person talking about it here is because nobody else from Warseer is involved in the project.

It's not my however many step plan. Plenty of my ideas didn't work, or didn't make the current version of the project, and as I pointed out in another thread in this section of Warseer, I don't have all the answers, but you obviously missed that sentence, so to prove to you that I wrote it:

Edit: Please note that this does not mean that I have all the answers. Some units, such as Swooping Hawks, are very difficult to fix, and numerous approaches may well be reasonable for such units. It's simply that you've really gone over the top in some cases, and this is detracting from the good work you've done elsewhere.

This addendum was made long before you posted your reply to me, in order to show that I'm not some kind of guru. I'm anything but . I do, however, have a grasp of what is overpowered from the play testing which I have carried out, and I am passing the benefit of that experience on. This, to my mind, is not arrogance (see comments below).

You accuse me of arrogance. This is a disappointing comment coming from you, and deflects from the point I was making to you. I repeat that the problem with your changes is that, viewed in isolation like this, they are a misrepresentation, because they belong within your wider set of rule changes which you referred to in your opening post. Posting them in isolation, therefore, does you no favours, because those who respond view them as part of the current 40K system, whereas you favour a re-write of the entire system to revert it to a more second edition style of power level.

Furthermore, so many of the ideas posted in this board for Eldar have not been play tested sufficiently. You know this as well as I do. As a result, it's rather easy to point out flaws, because they are clearly visible when you have conducted play testing. That's not arrogance, that's passing on the benefit of experience. If people don't wish to take the advice that's on offer, that's their right and their choice.

Now, in the case of your post above, I'm not saying you haven't play tested it, because I suspect that you may well have as part of your wider project, what I'm saying to you is that it's misplaced outside of your wider project for the reasons I've already given.

Everyone has their own ideas about what they'd like to acheive when writing rules. Rather than coming into someone's thread and measuring their work against your own, you should instead look at what they're trying to acheive vs what they've actually written.

Are we still talking about you? If so, I've already explained the issue. If you want your rules to be assessed on their merits, rather than in relation to fifth edition as it stands, then you need to post the whole thing. Remember, a lot of active members won't have seen the rules you're referring to, as you last posted them sometime ago if memory serves me correctly. The rule changes you propose take on a different perspective when combined with your overall design philosophy, and while I still won't agree with using Shuriken Catapults in close combat, it will at least be clear what it's being measured against, wouldn't you agree ?

I don't think poster bloggs cares how you wrote your own codex, he has an idea and he'd like feedback on HIS idea, not whether you think it's worthy of yours.

I give feedback on the ideas. Most of them are overpowered, or ill thought through. I appreciate that's not what people want to hear, but if you post on a forum, you're going to receive a critique. This isn't a blog where everyone just nods their head in agreement .

If you can't do that then you should really just not bother posting.

So, you're saying if you disagree with the revisions, you shouldn't post? No matter how you dress it up, this is what you mean when you make this statement as far as I can tell. I completely disagree with this statement, needless to say

When I'm commenting on other people's work I will mention mine as an example of what I've done, not hold it up as some kind of golden standard and then show how their work doesn't match up. AboveAllLogic is just one poster in a long line of many where you've come in to dismiss their ideas because they didn't use your's.

The reason why I oppose a lot of the ideas in his project is because the changes are overpowered, unnecessary, or require more thought. Changes can be made which are different, that's not the issue, the issue is one of balance.

If I see well balanced changes which differ from the redux I'm part of (again note that I'm part of a team, so these ideas you keep attributing to me are not solely mine, and in many cases were thought of by others), then I have no problems with that. There are also some units which are very difficult to balance, so there will be a variety of different approaches.

I see overpowred Eldar reduxes posted on Warseer on a pretty regular basis, and this is why I advise, recommend, suggest, and strongly encourage changes. If you read my posts properly, you will see that at no point do I say 'you will do this', 'you must do what I say', because that would be arrogant and over the top.

I hope that clears this issue up, and that you will consider withdrawing the charge of arrogance, now that I've explained things to you in more detail.

[Hellebore]

I can see your reasoning on the catapults, Hellebore, but I find it difficult to justify this rule when the same reasoning could apply to any number of carbines.

Absolutely. It actually struck me as wierd that GW didn't do this in the first place though, rather than making their 'tactical' guardians carry an assault weapon around. they used to have lasguns as well, it would have made a lot more sense if in the transition they just made defenders lasgun/blaster types and the storm catapult types.

From what playtesting I've been able to do, the following two changes both work well in very different ways.

The first is, like you suggested, 24" range and remaining Assault 2. This lets the unit function very well as a support unit, especially with a heavy weapon accompanying. It usually means that heavy weapon gets an extra turn of shooting which helps justify the points for it.

The second is remain at 12", but become Assault 3. Currently, a full phase of shooting for 10 Guardians against a unit of Orks will cause 5 wounds. At assault 3, that becomes 7-8 wounds and a denial of between 6 and 12 attacks in the subsequent assault.

Now, I will gladly concede the following points of my bias
- I hate Storm Guardians, both thematically and on the table.
- I hate shuriken as an ammunition. I see them as an excuse to have "SPACE ELF NINJAS!"

As for the lasblasters, I'm cool with that. You'd have to spruce up the already unloved Hawks in compensation, however.

Also, on a personal note, would you be open to exploring a collaborative codex where you and I flesh out your re-imagined eldar? Every time I've tried to do it, I remember that image you did of a guardian or aspect warrior in a suit of armor that resembled the visage of the titans.

Lol. I like storm guardians from a modelling perspective, it's the only time I get to paint all those taut abs. I understand the conceptual problem with them though and really think they're just a unit holdover from the 2nd-3rd ed era. I find it surprising that GW still keep them around when they've been willing to toss so many other things in the game. Maybe it's indicative of how very deficient the defenders are that people prefer using assault versions...

It's a shame you don't like shuriken catapults. They were the one weapon that caught my imagination in 2nd ed more than any other. bolters were just explosive bullets, but a shuriken catapult used a gravity engine to fire discs at absurd speeds really fast. It just seemed like such a cool image. But I can see the problem with the ninja star aesthetic.

if there's something you're keen to put together then I can help if you like. With collaborative works I always hate to dictate things because it generally means someone doesn't get to use their ideas. Working on the Squats for a few years made me realise that as something people were doing for fun subsuming everyone's work under a single person's vision or even a committe's guiding light still meant some people didn't end up doing what they wanted to. And the more that happened the less people actually worked on it (I wouldn't blame them, you're doing it for fun and someone else telling you what to do isn't fun).

So if there's something you've got an idea about i'm happy to help. I know at one point you were trying to rewrite every codex.

The idea with the battlesuit was to take the eldar philsophy and put it into practice. High tech equipment paired with the need to ensure their people were adequately protected.

Originally the image was a counts as project where i was going to make an entire army of jetbike guardians, but using converted battlesuit guardians. I realised that the T4 3+ save turboboost twin linked shuriken of the jetbike was pretty much exactly what the eldar tech should be doing to make efficient use of a guardian whilst also protecting them. All you needed to do was allow them to swap the cannons for other heavy weapons.

Anyway, if there's something specific you've got in mind start another thread and we can talk there. This thread has gotten far more airtime than I expected considering I was only talking about a single conceptual tweak (and one against my own opinion of how the eldar should work anyway).


@Irisado - my problem is that instead of working with posters on their own ideas you seem to keep pointing to the collaborative work you helped with.

In my opinion if someone says 'this is what I reckon a fire dragon should be' and lists them with 36" melta guns and a 2+ armour save, instead of saying 'well we playtested this instead, you should do that' you should say 'ok in order to make that work they should probably be 55 pts each and a max of 4 per squad'.

Helping people realise what they want to do, not telling them they shouldn't do it and use your idea instead. I may not agree with someone elses ideas about how they are representing the army in question, but if I'm going to actually talk to them and be constructive about their stuff I'll make an effort to help them balance their own work rather than trying to make them change it instead. If they wanted to make an army list like I'd do it then they could've just used my list instead.

Obviously if they think that a farseer should be X and I'm going to talk to them about it I'll try to provide feedback on how to make the farseer X. if I don't agree with it and feel I can't help them I just won't say anything.

I've talked to people about how to balance out their marine modifications despite me not agreeing with how they wish to represent them because I'm trying to help them match what they want with what they've actually written.

@thereisnosaurus. I really don't think something as small as ruleswise making stormguardians fire 2 S4 shots at 12" instead of their current 1 needs much context to be measured. It doesn't have knock on effects on anything else. Simply take the current army list as is and make storm guardians perform exactly the same except now they shoot twice before assaulting. They are now a more effective unit at their job and their weapon is utilised in the way it really should be. The army really doesn't change in any other way.

In fact you can ignore statements about defender guardians with othe weapons or vehicles with avenger catapults. Right now if you just gave storm guardians catapults with the ability to have 2 attacks in melee it would have little effect on the game (people already use storm guardians more than defenders anyway).

there were no assumptions on my part when i made this thread. I simply thought the current army list would work better and reconcile design choices if the storm guardians used the catapult.

I can definitely see that being such a minor idea it probably isn't really worth much discussion as you say. Perhaps it wasn't meaty enough to bother with a thread. But it just popped into my head whilst reading the eldar rumour thread and I wanted to see what other people thought of the concept, no strings attached.

Hellebore

[Irisado]

@Irisado - my problem is that instead of working with posters on their own ideas you seem to keep pointing to the collaborative work you helped with.

The reason being is because if they want a revised codex which is balanced within the fifth edition rules, then I think that what we have been working on is a good starting point. This does not mean that it should be identical though.

If they don't want a codex which works with fifth edition, then this needs to be made clear from the outset, because then I don't always reply.

In my opinion if someone says 'this is what I reckon a fire dragon should be' and lists them with 36" melta guns and a 2+ armour save, instead of saying 'well we playtested this instead, you should do that' you should say 'ok in order to make that work they should probably be 55 pts each and a max of 4 per squad'.

My approach is different. I would argue that for this to be viable, you would have to re-write the core rules, and all the codices. Note that there's nothing wrong with doing that by the way, but that's not what a lot of people who post here are seeking to do.

Helping people realise what they want to do, not telling them they shouldn't do it and use your idea instead.

That's not what I've done. I've strongly suggested and encouraged alternative options, and I have strong opinions about certain things being overpowered, but at no point have I said 'you must do this'.

I may not agree with someone elses ideas about how they are representing the army in question, but if I'm going to actually talk to them and be constructive about their stuff I'll make an effort to help them balance their own work rather than trying to make them change it instead.

Some ideas are beyond being able to be balanced within the confines of the fifth edition rules, and the other codices, which is why this idea of yours, while I agree with it in principal, can be rather too idealistic. You can't make some ideas balanced, simply because they are too over the top in the first place.

From where I'm sitting we just have completely different philosophies when it comes to offering advice. There's nothing wrong with that. I'll just remember never to post in any of your rules development threads ever again .

[Eidre]

The whole concept of guardian defenders having short-ranged shooting weapons seems somewhat flawed IMHO. Taking an example from real-world armies, I compare them to an activated militia; they are civilians who volunteer for military service and receive a nominal amount of training before going to war.

Losing these people in combat is a double-whammy because you've not only lost a soldier, but also a skilled professional once the war is over. Casualties to dedicated soldiers is tragic (especially in a diminishing race), but doesn't really hurt you in peace-time because they aren't contributing to other aspects of society.

In the armies of high-tech / casualty-averse countries in the real world (pick your favorite NATO nation), these militia-types are not the people you put in the front lines of the assault; the least-trained and most poorly equipped members of the military are the ones you give the support jobs; driving vehicles, doing admin/HQ duties, cooking, logistics, and (when under duress) long-range fire support. If you look at these sorts of real-world armies, the soldiers that are closest to the front lines with the shortest-range weapons are also the best trained, best equipped, and either heavily armored or very mobile (special forces, armored, scouts, mechanized infantry, air cav / air assault).

So back to the guardian defenders...assuming that the socioeconomic model above is valid for Eldar, the guardians should be specifically dedicated to long-range shooting roles on the WH40K battlefield (since the support and logistics aspects are ignored for the purposes of the game). Guardians should also be in smaller groups than the professional soldiers, making them less of a target for the enemy's front-line troops (rather than one Footdar tactic of spreading them into a max-sized thin line in front of the rest of the army as a bullet shield).

This makes sense for guardians as the vehicle drivers for Falcons, Fire Prisms, and so forth, and for defenders supporting heavy weapons platforms and artillery weapons.

It makes no sense at all for short-ranged shooting weapons (shurkats and especially Storm Guardians with pistols and swords).

Guardian jetbikes might legitimate since they are specifically engineered to protect the rider (Sv3+ and turboboost) and are fast enough to get out of harm's way when necessary. Forcing them to fight primarily with point-blank range weapons (shurkats) is almost justifiable because of the Eldar Jetbike assault move that can take them out of assault range after releasing their salvo. However, this goes back to the basic issue of putting your least professional troops in a very risky front-line role as a short-ranged shooter; slight errors in guessing distances will result in them being slaughtered.

Furthermore, I would think that a well-constructed entry in the Army List would be written such that it would be difficult or impossible to field them in a way that wouldn't make sense for their fluff.

Some thoughts to accomplish this:

- Make guardian defender shurkats a completely different weapon from the dire avenger shurkats, justified with some fluff that the guardians are issued weapons with a slower fire rate and a higher level of automation and stabilization, to compensate for their lower level of training and proficiency. Therefore:
** Guardian Shurkat: 24" S3 AP4 Heavy 2
** Dire Avenger Shurkat: 12" S4 AP4 Assault 3
NOTE: I like AP4 because it is vastly under-represented by the current basic weapon set, and (in my opinion) represents the small, low-mass, razor-sharp shuriken ammunition better than S4 AP5

- Change the guardian defender entry to make them cheaper (6-7 pts?), have a smaller unit size (3-9? 4-8?), give them Guardian Shurkats (above), and make them take a heavy weapons platform (perhaps 1 per 3 or 4 guardians). This will force them to be a small unit, guarantee that they will be put in the back row (to get some usefulness out of their heavy weapons), and remove any temptation to assault with them (since their shurkats are Heavy instead of Assault).

- Guardian jetbikes should be fine the way they are with the change to Guardian shurkats above; this will lend itself more to a mobile (Relentless) mid-range shooty unit, with the 1 per 3 shurcannons a more viable choice because it matches better with the 24" kats.

- Get rid of storm guardians altogether. Lightly-armored poorly-trained civilian suicide troops just doesn't make sense for a dying race. Leave it for the Orks and Tyranids.

Just my 2p.

[yabbadabba]

Hmm how about

Shuriken Catapult: Rg 18", S4, AP5, Ass 2
Shuriken Pistol: Rg 6", S4, AP5, Pistol, Eldar Tech

Elder Tech: Models equipped with this come with the following rule:
(I am not sure what so here are my thoughts, one of the following)
>Additional CCW (this could give some models +3A when charging!)
>Counter Attack
>Defensive and Offensive grenades
>Always count as in difficult terrain when charged

[therisnosaurus]

there were no assumptions on my part when i made this thread. I simply thought the current army list would work better and reconcile design choices if the storm guardians used the catapult.

For this I am in complete agreement. My only complaint is that, like the avenger pults as well, it's a really awkward fix since it doesn't touch jetbikes or vehicles etc.

What next? jebikeapults? falconpults? etc. I mean, again as with the avengerpults, you're doing no worse a job than GW. Personally though I'd be angling for a solution that made all shuriken catapults the one profile/ruleset if possible,

[Hedgehobbit]

I never liked the idea that shuriken catapults were Assault weapons. The advantage of Assault weapons is that you can fire and then charge, yet the guardians are the unit in the eldar army that you least want to be in HtH combat.

How about making them 24" Rapid Fire 2?

[Irisado]

I never liked the idea that shuriken catapults were Assault weapons. The advantage of Assault weapons is that you can fire and then charge, yet the guardians are the unit in the eldar army that you least want to be in HtH combat.

That's a narrow interpretation of how assault weapons work. They are also useful for mobile fire support at maximum range, which isn't possible when using a rapid fire weapon, and they allow you the option of support assaults, whereby the Guardians assault in conjunction with another Eldar unit, and even though they are poor in close combat, they can be useful in a support assault role against mediocre opposition which has already been depleted by ranged firepower.

How about making them 24" Rapid Fire 2?

This would make Guardians more of a static fire support unit, rather than a mobile one, which is not how they are meant to work.

[PAnZuRiEL]

The problem with making guardians viable in combat is that they're not supposed to be. They're civilians. Some of the suggestions in this thread seem to be trying to make guardians into combat monsters, but then either they're on par with the professional soldiers, the aspect warriors, or else aspect warriors need an upgrade putting them far ahead of space marine veterans. I agree that shuriken catapults as standard are terrible weapons and that guardian defenders are worse than useless (although storm guardians aren't so bad in their own right imo, only in comparison to aspect warriors), but really, what sane commander of a dwindling species sends packs of civilian conscripts into battle in the first place?

If used at all, guardians ought to be relegated to a supporting role -- vehicle crew, jetbike scouts, etc. In other words, exactly the things they're doing. Assault guardians, while by far the better option of the two currently, really shouldn't even exist as a unit (except maybe among Ulthwe forces, I suppose). Defenders need more long-range weapons; multiple weapon platforms per unit would be a sensible move on GW's part. I don't know about giving them rapid-fire weapons as it rather misses the point of the heavy weapons platforms in the first place (mobility), but their basic armament certainly ought to have at least an 18" range. They are never supposed to be in an assault. The best suggestion is probably to just make all shuriken catapults 18" across the board (no pun intended), because there's really no utility at all to being 12".

Alternatively, a warlock power could perhaps compensate (a worse solution imo as it strongly devalues other warlock powers). Enhance adds +1 WS and I, so maybe a ranged alternative could be provided -- +1 BS and +6" range, maybe?

[Son of Sanguinius]

While that power would work for Guardians, the potential it gives for Fire Dragons is insane. Far too much.

[PAnZuRiEL]

While that power would work for Guardians, the potential it gives for Fire Dragons is insane. Far too much.

Uhh ... if you mean the warlock power, you're forgetting that there's no way for fire dragons to benefit from a warlock power. Warlocks are upgrade characters for guardians and wraithguard, and retinues for farseers. They're not independent characters and can never join a unit of aspect warriors.

EDIT: And on that note, it is still far too good, but for wraithguard. BS 5 and 18" with wraithcannon!? D:

[Son of Sanguinius]

xD Wow. I've been working with house rules too long. An Eldar codex I have in the works allows more flexibility with the warlocks, and apparently it's all blending together.