Eldar Wishlist.

[Shamana]

Note: perhaps only some of the below could be implemented. I insist that any changes be priced accordingly, adjusting up or down to make sure units are balanced both internally and with most other codices. The rule of thumb is: Eldar units should be relatively expensive, and worth every point.

Farseers: Alongside with GK libbies and tzeentch Sorcerers/daemons, these should be the premier psykers of 40k. I'd like to give them the option of having 1 more power and some powers improved. Another upgrade (that you can't get if you cast 3 powers) to make them slightly better in combat would be nice to represent master warlocks, or master bonesingers, or whatever other farseer specialization you have for seers who had spent centuries on a certain element of the seer path.

- warlocks: taken and allocated as wolf guard. Make warlocks a bit more expensive and better in melee. Have the option for other seers - i.e. bonesingers and some other types like mini-farseers. Consider allowing them to join more squads, i.e. aspects. Make better psykers to reinforce the eldar's psychic superiority.

Autarchs: More special skills you can get AND a choice of better wargear. Just because they are commanders and leaders doesn't mean they can't get something better than a power weapon - ask IG officer, Tyrannid hive tyrants, GK masters and so on. If I want to make my autarch both a better leader AND able to pull his weight in a fight, and I get to pay, say, 160 points for it, why not?

Avatar: EW. Options to make aspects better in combat - it's their GOD, people. Lysander makes marines fight better because he's famous - that doesn't nearly compare to the kill-orgasm the avatar should give aspects. FC and FNP (the latter maybe only for exarchs) as a bubble could be nice - of course, we should pay for it. Something like the BA priests would be nice - after all, this is a 0-1 HQ unit so it's not like we can spam it. An upgrade turning the Wailing Doom into a low-AP flamer (eldritch/demonic flame > power armor, I'd say) would also be good.

Phoenix lords - 5++, 3++ for asurmen, maybe a minor cost adjustment. I'd like to see them make aspects of that kind scoring, if not troops (so you can have specialized lists)

Wraithseer: please include. Wraithwall armies can be fun. Also, they are expensive, which is good for GW.

More HQs: Harlequin avatars. Think harlequin meeting DE succubus. Murder on speed.

Wraithguards: slightly longer range on D-cannon, melee option, T5 W2. Cross between paladins and grotesques. Expensive. Include an option for FnP (it's freaking golems, people) - either via upgrade or via the wraithseer

Banshees: something that makes them kill things better (i.e. reroll misses on charge, FC, etc) . Priced accordingly, of course. Banshees are narrow specialists, they shouldn't need support to be darn good at the only thing they do well! Rule of thumb: in a close combat, banshees should beat any marines of equal points - S/T4 and 2/3+ means the marines are, if nothing else, a lot more resilient and thus less specialized.

Scorpions: see banshees. While they are imo better at banshees at their respective schtick, they aren't quite good enough - being specialists, after all. Consider giving them back haywires as optional, what with them being ambushers and showing up in the backfield, and/or making them fleet like incubi, some marines, etc To focus on the ambush specialty, have an aspect upgrade skill to make them better if they attack a unit that's been pinned or already in combat (i.e. scorps can reroll to-hit rolls)

Harlequins: adjust price slightly due to rending not being as good as before. 18-20 points with kisses, perhaps?. More wargear would be nice, as well as mimes being special infiltration meisters. Consider giving a WWP (harlequins are renowned as being skilled in using the webway, perhaps even more than DE)

Fire Dragons - maybe increase cost slightly. Give them the option to trade all guns for flamers: the theme is annihilation with fire from up close, no one says it needs to be only tanks

Avengers: better options to tarpit or torrent. Price accordingly. Give them plasma so they can actually do melee well (part of their schtick is defeating the enemy hand-to-hand if need be) and consider giving them defensive grenades or haywires as optional upgrades. Exarch option with shuriken cannons would be nice.

Guardians: 18 inches catapults, with Assault 3 lasblasters as upgrade. 6-12 per unit, can be changed into storm guardians (pistol+ccw, grenade). Option for up to 1 heavy platform, 1 support platform for every 6 or 1 special weapon for every 4 (introduce another SW option). Price accordinly -shouldn't be better or pricier than DE warriors. OPTION to upgrade into black guardians (WS or BS 4, Ld 9) or give 4++ armor for a price and with limits.

Jetbikes - make slightly cheaper. Pistol + CCW would be nice. Option to upgrade to "veterans" (wild riders => black guardians on jetbikes, essentially), again with limits.

Rangers - make slightly cheaper. Pathfinders get to reduce cover a bit, maybe have the option for a WWP (again, they are supposed to be particularly good at navigating it).

Vypers: multiwound jetbikes if hornets are in, otherwise make a bit cheaper and better.

Hornets: please include. Not-too-light-skimmer with high speed and firepower: that what eldar vehicles are all about.**** you IG with their cheap, fast, uber-gunned gunships, fast and hard-hitting skimmers that aren't 10/10/10 is our turf, so **** off. We don't get 50-model blobs, do we?

Spiders - options for templates (not cheap) or CCW loadouts. Exarch skill to make DS or jumps more reliable. Surprise attack to let them charge after DS or make their shooting more effective just after they come in? Rending would be nice. Yes, they shouldn't be cheap.

Hawks: Assault 3 lasblasters, pinning, can reduce cover saves. Make them a bit cheaper. They are the aspect that does some damage, but also weakens the enemy from afar - by pinning them, haywire grenade launchers, or just some weird rules.

Spears: a bit cheaper, a bit better. 35 points for T4 3+ is a lot. Allow them to take more models, i.e. up to 7 (guys, seriously, terminators can be up to 10, and those aren't exactly common either).

Most vehicles: either BS 4 stock or a decent-priced upgrade (i.e. 10 points). Brightlance either becomes 20-25 points as is or 25-30 with AP 1 (high tech => effective at blowing up tanks) so it stops being an almost universally worse lascannon. Starcannon becomes a bit cheaper (20-ish points) if S7 AP 2 or heavy 3. EML gets a bit cheaper too. Holo-field either means the enemy rerolls to-hits, that the vehicle always gets a cover save or the enemy BS 1 is treated as if 1 lower (the latter 2 should not cost 35 points). Vehicle defensive guns should NOT be 12 inches - so either improve catapults or give eldar vehicles something else.

Prism: focused shot loses blast, gains lance. Yes, it means 2 prisms focused should be insanely good at blowing up a single tank - considering that you need to buy 2 prisms and have them both shoot, what do you expect? That's a single shot and 2 prisms cost as much as a land raider, for crying out loud. For a single shot, S9 ap 2 lance isn't the end of the world. That's what the DE voidlance is: they have a craft that comes with 2 such ones, stock, and DE players tend to still choose the ravager over it. Hint: they have a reason to.

Serpent: becomes slightly cheaper, the energy field becomes an optional upgrade. A way to make the unit inside assault if the transport has moved (how exactly are marines better at mobile warfare than eldar?); whether by giving the aspect the rules or by an upgrade to the serpent. Yes, the eldar should have an assault transport. If BA could get a fast heavy skimmer, we can borrow something from them too.

Firestorm: I don't mind it being expensive, but make it good. This thing should be nasty against any skimmers or fliers.

Warp hunters: shorter-ranged than the prism, with a very powerful cannon; essentially the eldar version of the Vindicator. Yes, this should be in.

Wraithlords: cheaper guns, especially on TL ones: 40 points for a Bright Lance is ********, 80 points for a single TL one is beyond a joke. Option for better CC, i.e. if you take 2 swords (second gives +1 attack, +1 i) or a shield.

Reapers: slightly cheaper, slightly better guns. 35 points is a LOT for BS 4 T3. BA Devastators are 26 points for a marine with a missile launcher, and are still cheaper than reapers if they have a plasma cannon. Have the option for the unit to be bigger - i.e. up to 7 models.

Heavy weapon platforms - make the spinner large blast, the vibrocannon +1 S and the D-cannon +6 inches. Price accordingly and give them the option of having a larger guardian team of gunners or allow a single on in a guardian squad if it doesn't take either a support or a special weapon.

[Dwarf Longbeard]

I don't think the Eldar army really needs any new units with what it has available between the codex and Imperial Armour 11 book; as an overall upgrade it does need a few tweeks done to it.
I do think that the Avatar and the psychic powers need to be made more powerful and the Pheonix Lords are due a bit of an upgrade.

Guardians: Definatly agree with the 18" range for the shuriken catapults, as an extra bonus maybe add rending to all shuriken weapons to represent the "storm of blades" there supposed to do; keep them as an Assault 2 weapon keeps the unit mobile; give the option of defensive grenades.
Let the Guardians keep their support weapon platform, making a heavy weapon an assault weapon can be a really good bonus; I do like the idea of having Guardians taken in a similar manner to the Imperial Guard platoons, brings the heavy weapon platforms into the game more.

All Aspect Warriors: Allow the abilities to be purchased for the whole squad not just the Exarch, bit odd that the whole unit forgets how to do something when their leader dies, give the Exarch something as a replacement though.
Reapers: Give them the old reaper range finder, make it so they ignore the cover saves for moving flat out as they used to be.

Wraithguard/Wraithlord: Make their saves invulnerable, having the high toughness is fine but there's so many things in the game which can overcome that; the invulnerable save would give them better survivability and make them a rare anvil unit in an otherwise fragile army.
Agree with increasing the range on the Wraithcannons.

Fire Prism: Like the idea of it being a lance weapon, sure it makes it powerful but that's what Eldar weapons are all about. Being able to buy them in a squadron for one slot would make them more useful as well.
Grav Tanks: Give them all the option to deep strike, it's bizarre how a land speeder can do it and eldar skimmers can't :S

Bright Lance: I've seen a lot about this with it being a costly lascannon; to make it different in an over the top way how about making it heavy 2? This is a wish list thread

[jubilex]

One thing I would like to see is bladestorm as a basic rule for all shuriken weapons ...

[Shamana]

Bright Lance: I've seen a lot about this with it being a costly lascannon; to make it different in an over the top way how about making it heavy 2? This is a wish list thread

Heavy 2 might work better for EMLs, which in the codex are mentioned to be much faster to operate, since almost no reload is needed. I'm not sure how well they'd compare to Typhoon MLs, which fire a lot more missiles at once, but then would need a heck of a long time to reload. If EMLs become assault 2, though, the krak should be downgraded a bit so it doesn't step on the pulse laser's toes - for example it could be S7 Hvy 2. The plasma could stay S4, or even (depending on the price) get better AP - since, you know, it is a plasma warhead, not just some shrapnel. Of course, that would make the EML quite a powerful gun, and thus an expensive one.

For the poor lance, I'd like it if the bright (and dark) lance becomes a specialized anti-heavy armor weapon - efficient and streamlined. I'd say a bit lower cost and AP 1 could do that quite well. AP 1 essentially means that the gun is particularly capable against armor, and this is exactly what I expect from an Eldar anti-tank gun.

It once again comes to what should imo be the cornerstone of eldar units: expensive (relatively) and worth it. It's not an easy balance to achieve, but it shouldn't be impossible.

[Hendarion]

Again such a topic that makes me feel like: "Okay, if GW does what some people suggest, Eldar players will the guys that are looked at because they play a totally imba army. Kinda like GreyKnights players are looked at atm."

Surely there are things that have to be fixed. But making currently broken a unit broken again, just the other way round will not be good for the game. And who wants to crush an opponent just because the own units are utterly uber?

[RandomThoughts]

Before putting up any specific points, I want my Eldar to play as advertices: Small elite force through technological superiority and style/skill/speed.

So, start by fixing the tech:
- 24" shurican cats (and give the avenger cats a bonus if they are closer to the enemy, they are supposed to be the frontline troops and guardians are supposed to be the backline fire support troops, not the other way round, for god's sake)
- Brightlance better than Imperial lascannon, not the other way round, same for starcannon and everything else. Price it accordingly, if that's needed for balance, but having to pay more for inferior weapons is a joke
- Improve armor across the board. Yes, armor! T3 will always distinguish the Eldar from the likes of Marines and Orks and other tough races, but good armor enforces both the better tech as well as the dying people protecting every last man to the best of their abilities theme.

- Make aspect warriors worth their points. Scorpions could do with the infiltrate ability used by Y genestealers, as well as stealth (pure fluff), Banshees would return to their place of elite killers of heavy infantry with Warcry going off more reliably, Furious attack and arcane eldar technology that pybasses invulnerable saves. Reapers back to normal missile Launchers, currently their only use is against meq out in the open - run into Orks, Terminators, Space Marine Scouts in cover, regular Space Marines in cover, vehicles, imperial infantry, etc. and they are essentially useless. And that doesn't take into consideration that they are T3 1 wound 35p infantry...

- I actually love the idea of Jetbikes with special weapons (flamers and Fusionguns), would take a unit with pretty much no damage output or offensive capabilities and makes it useful for more than hiding and last minute objective grabbing. I mean, they are certainly predestined for that role, high speed without any melee capabilities certainly invites effective short ranged firepower. I wish I had thought of that myself.

Just my opinions, though, since I've been winning games with Eldar on a casual play level despite their codex, not because of their codex for quite a while. Two days ago I had a tournament player (begging me for a game because he needed to finetune his list) take a look at the best infantry list I can come up with with the current codex, look shocked, and then back down because "the game wouldn't help him"...

[Radium]

Again such a topic that makes me feel like: "Okay, if GW does what some people suggest, Eldar players will the guys that are looked at because they play a totally imba army. Kinda like GreyKnights players are looked at atm."

The problem with GK is that they are insanely overpowered and TOO CHEAP for what they do, next to being marines (ie: quite resilient). What Shamana and I propose is that Eldar become really powerful in their own right, but expensive and fragile as well, as they're supposed to be. That doesn't mean the army will become overpowered, because you have less of an army than your opponent, and losing one of your units will hurt you quite badly. We want the Eldar to become the masterful and synergistic army they should be, not GK++.

[Bubble Ghost]

What does that accomplish though?

Bad example off the top of my head. (although it would help if the 6th ed rules introduce some sensible changes to the objective system). But luckily it's not my job to come up with a better alternative, and even if it was, I'd have longer than a couple of seconds to do it! The point I was badly illustrating was that reaching straight for the assault ramps does not have to be the only way of thinking about this.

Basically there are three reasons why I don't want assault vehicle Wave Serpents.

1. I find the assault vehicle rule itself depressing. Frankly I don't think anything should ever be able to move itself from one position of absolute safety, inside a vehicle, to another [ludicrous] one, in close combat, without the enemy having a chance to react at all. It exacerbates a core weakness in the main rules - namely the enormous amount units can sometimes achieve before the enemy can respond, emphasising rather than hiding the stop-start nature of the turn sequence and making the inactive player feel helpless. But at least in most armies' cases, the vehicle itself is quite flimsy. And...

2. ...while the absolute safety of assaulting from moving vehicles is dumb, it does at least evoke what those armies who can do it are about. But I don't think it does that for Eldar. Shock and awe works for Space Marines, Orks and Dark Eldar because that's what they're about, but while the background talks about Eldar being fast, the emphasis is always on how evasive, not aggressive, that speed makes them.

3. I find the "someone else can do X! Outrage outrage outrage!! So WE must be able to as well!" attitude depressing. (I'm not saying that you personally have that attitude, but plenty of people do)

There you go, that's my manifesto here. Disagreeing with it is fine, obviously! I just absolutely refuse to accept that the boring assault vehicle rule is the only way close combat Aspects can possibly be viable. They're not that bad as it is.

how does banshees, and scorpions getting an ability that lets them treat a vehicle as an assault vehicle equate to that. We're talking about a vehicle with one access point located in the rear, and two units that don't splatter almost everything. Eldar aren't an assault army, having a couple elements that hit reliably doesn't break the game.

I must at your . Banshees may not be a mega-ultra-elite assault unit that completely overkills everything like most armies seem to have one of, but a) people seem to want them improved until they are, and b) even now they have enough kill to make this a problem.

Incidentally I'm with you on being able to shoot more guns while moving faster. Fricking Blood Angels skewing the curve...

[althathir]

The problem with GK is that they are insanely overpowered and TOO CHEAP for what they do, next to being marines (ie: quite resilient). What Shamana and I propose is that Eldar become really powerful in their own right, but expensive and fragile as well, as they're supposed to be. That doesn't mean the army will become overpowered, because you have less of an army than your opponent, and losing one of your units will hurt you quite badly. We want the Eldar to become the masterful and synergistic army they should be, not GK++.

I understand why you want eldar to be an expensive glass cannon army on principal, but it makes them very difficult to balance, and if you raise the offensive power to much then they become more point & click then synergistic.

Bad example off the top of my head. (although it would help if the 6th ed rules introduce some sensible changes to the objective system). But luckily it's not my job to come up with a better alternative, and even if it was, I'd have longer than a couple of seconds to do it! The point I was badly illustrating was that reaching straight for the assault ramps does not have to be the only way of thinking about this.

Basically there are three reasons why I don't want assault vehicle Wave Serpents.

1. I find the assault vehicle rule itself depressing. Frankly I don't think anything should ever be able to move itself from one position of absolute safety, inside a vehicle, to another [ludicrous] one, in close combat, without the enemy having a chance to react at all. It exacerbates a core weakness is the main rules - namely the enormous amount units can sometimes achieve before the enemy can respond, emphasising rather than hiding the stop-start nature of the turn sequence and making the inactive player feel helpless. But at least in most armies' cases, the vehicle itself is quite flimsy. And...

2. ...while the absolute safety of assaulting from moving vehicles is dumb, it does at least evoke what those armies who can do it are about. But I don't think it does that for Eldar. Shock and awe works for Space Marines, Orks and Dark Eldar because that's what they're about, but while the background talks about Eldar being fast, the emphasis is always on how evasive, not aggressive, that speed makes them.

3. I find the "someone else can do X! Outrage outrage outrage!! So WE must be able to as well!" attitude depressing. (I'm not saying that you personally have that attitude, but plenty of people do)

There you go, that's my manifesto here. Disagreeing with it is fine, obviously! I just absolutely refuse to accept that the boring assault vehicle rule is the only way close combat Aspects can possibly be viable. They're not that bad as it is.

I agree for the most part, its mainly banshees that I feel could really use the upgrade, (scorps could get fleet, or grenades and become more the aspect scout unit then another another CC unit). That said...

1) our vehicles are more durable but we have less of them, and I don't expect transports to stay as safe in 6th.

2) Its not quite the shock & Awe of the other armies you listed, DE and Orks have a ton of viable assault units in mutliple FoC slots, and space marines have an all purpose unit (TH & SS termies). For eldar it would mainly just make sure that our dedicated assault unit can get there.

3) I'm not outraged lol

I must at your . Banshees may not be a mega-ultra-elite assault unit that completely overkills everything like most armies seem to have one of, but a) people seem to want them improved until they are, and b) even now they have enough kill to make this a problem.

Incidentally I'm with you on being able to shoot more guns while moving faster. Fricking Blood Angels skewing the curve...

I don't want them improved as much as most players because I don't see eldar as an assault army, but they aren't very reliable. People want them to win that first assault and they do stall out quite abit due to 3 str. Personally I would just like for them to be harder to outmaneuver because thats the frustrating part for me (buffing fleet is also an option I'm not a fan of the run rule). That said my main hope for aspects is the ability to add a warlock to most squads cause I like the ideal of eldar being an army with a lot of buff support choices.

[megatrons2nd]

Despite the better save that Banshees have, they consistently lose to their Wyche cousins. Who are cheaper, and more numerous. The Banshees should be doing better as they are more expensive, and fill a similar role. So either Banshees need to get cheaper, or better. Scorpions are supposed to be along the same lines as Incubi, but the match ups I've played actually had the more expensive Incubi winning far more than the Scorpions. Which is as it should be.

I know some will say that it is the army balance issue. But on the balance of each force they fill similar roles and have similar profiles. Meaning they should balance overall with a slight edge toward the "better" unit. Incubi are better than scorpions, and are priced as such. Wyches are better than Banshees, but are not priced as such. The point difference between Banshees and Wyches should be much closer than it is.

[althathir]

Despite the better save that Banshees have, they consistently lose to their Wyche cousins. Who are cheaper, and more numerous. The Banshees should be doing better as they are more expensive, and fill a similar role. So either Banshees need to get cheaper, or better. Scorpions are supposed to be along the same lines as Incubi, but the match ups I've played actually had the more expensive Incubi winning far more than the Scorpions. Which is as it should be.

I know some will say that it is the army balance issue. But on the balance of each force they fill similar roles and have similar profiles. Meaning they should balance overall with a slight edge toward the "better" unit. Incubi are better than scorpions, and are priced as such. Wyches are better than Banshees, but are not priced as such. The point difference between Banshees and Wyches should be much closer than it is.

Banshees vs. Wyches isn't really a fair comparsion. Wyches are more a tarpit unit that gain some flexibility because of haywire grenades, banshees are an assault unit that specialize againist high armor targets. Wyches should be a nightmare for banshees there isn't much of a point to wyches if they aren't, IMO its ok for some units to have bad matchups. That said one of the reasons I keep bringing up warlocks is that they do add more flexibility to aspect squads like banshees for example a singing spear would provide anti-tank, and help vs. MCs.

If there is a reason to be offended by wyches its more because of how much better they are than our troop choices. Dire avengers should drop a point, and have the ability to pay 2 for haywires making them more flexible (or change bladestorm to rending instead of an extra shot). I'm not comfortable giving advice on our troops choices cause I've always played beil-tan style lists, but they're the source of most of our issues right now.

[Shamana]

1. I find the assault vehicle rule itself depressing. Frankly I don't think anything should ever be able to move itself from one position of absolute safety, inside a vehicle, to another [ludicrous] one, in close combat, without the enemy having a chance to react at all. It exacerbates a core weakness in the main rules - namely the enormous amount units can sometimes achieve before the enemy can respond, emphasising rather than hiding the stop-start nature of the turn sequence and making the inactive player feel helpless. But at least in most armies' cases, the vehicle itself is quite flimsy. And...

Vehicles in general got a lot safer in 5th, which is why the serpent - which is fairly pricey and had further upgrades to be hardier - was quite good in 4th edition. If you want to remove the "absolute safety" part, tweak the vehicle damage table for everyone.

2. ...while the absolute safety of assaulting from moving vehicles is dumb, it does at least evoke what those armies who can do it are about. But I don't think it does that for Eldar. Shock and awe works for Space Marines, Orks and Dark Eldar because that's what they're about, but while the background talks about Eldar being fast, the emphasis is always on how evasive, not aggressive, that speed makes them.

I don't agree with you here. Eldar are said to be evasive, because they always want to fight on their own terms - and when they want to fight, they can bring in concentrated force at an enemy's weak spot like few others. It's just that the books don't always show that, because a) generally, Eldar try to avoid battle with numerically superior forces (read: most who try to bring the fight to them) and strike at the poorly defended targets and b) in most recent (non-eldar) codices that give a battle in more detail (Codex: SM, Codex: Necrons, parts of IA 11) Eldar tend to be portrayed as a mass attacker, pushed back by a heroic effort of a numerically inferior force with superior leadership, nevermind whether that works for the Eldar fluff. Can't have the non-protagonists pull off the spec ops stuff now, can we .

. I find the "someone else can do X! Outrage outrage outrage!! So WE must be able to as well!" attitude depressing. (I'm not saying that you personally have that attitude, but plenty of people do)

Look, when I was getting into the game, here's how the eldar were described: elite force that doesn't have big numbers, but boasts very skilled warriors, great mobility, and arcane weaponry and psychic support. Here's how Games Workshop pitches them on their site:"If you like the idea of leading an army of elite warriors whose actions manipulate the fate of others, then read on to learn more of the Eldar". That concept, as well as the overall aesthetic, was what attracted me to Eldar in the first place.

There are a lot of things I don't want Eldar to be all that good at. Orks, Nids and IG should be the ones bringing loads of bodies (at least if they go that way), SM/CSM or Necrons should be hard to put down and have good shooting, Tau should be deadly if they can keep you at range... I don't want aspects that can outlast plague marines or 50-guardian blobs, but speed (especially heavier fast skimmers), synergy and psychic power should be areas where Eldar are the gold standard.

[Bubble Ghost]

I don't see what any of those perfectly reasonable viewpoints have to do with assault vehicles, unless you think "mobility" refers only to how fast you can charge into melee without being shot at.

[Cthell]

On the subject of mobility, IMHO this was actually the area where the Eldar got screwed the most in the switch to 5th Ed.

Back in 4th Ed, I ran a footslogging list; my usual tactics were to run my assault units (10 strong banshee and avenger squads) towards the enemy, while my firebase suppressed the most dangerous looking enemy units and infiltrating scorpions got up to shenanigans with the enemy firebase. Since my mobile portion all had fleet, I found that they crossed the board almost as fast as mechanised enemies, and actually in greater safety - the vehicle rules at the time being pretty unfriendly to transported models; while a judicious use of cover and fortune could generally get enough of my troops across the table.

At the same time, the Vehicle rules which screwed over most people actually buffed the Eldar transports; Being skimmers (and moving more than 6") all hits were glancing, so the only way to force the occupants out was to destroy the vehicle - something that holofields and vectored engines could make almost impossible.

Both of these mechanisms served to make the Eldar a highly mobile force - the only real opposition in that category came from Dark Eldar, Orks, and Tyranids; this fitted into the fluff pretty well too.

Then 5th Edition rolled in, and suddenly the fleet-footed Howling Banshees - whose fluff was all about how they wore lighter armour than Striking Scorpions in order to gain more mobility - found that they were able to be outpaced by terminators (with a bit of good rolling). At the same time, transported units became a lot more survivable and reliable, whilst the Eldar vehicles found that they were both less shooty and more vulnerable.

Sure, there were some upsides - I now run a wraithsword-equiped wraithlord as a cheap distraction unit, since it can keep pace with the banshee squad (well, nearly anyway) and outflanking adds a whole new set of tactics to Striking Scorpions; but the distinctive "feel" of the Eldar has been taken away.

Couple that with previously slow armies becoming faster than the Eldar (I'm looking at you, Guard and Necrons); a generous amount of psychic power creep (although even the latest "kill everything on a 2+" powers that seem to be popping up are still not as useful IMO as Guide, Fortune and Doom); and the brilliant new Dark Eldar Codex and models, and it's hard not to feel a bit hard-done-by

I'm not arguing for a GK-style Ubercheese 'dex, but I would like to see the Eldar regain their position as "masters of maneuver"

As for the "assault vehicle" argument, I've always imagined the Eldar approach to be "getting into position to launch an assault, then wait for the appropriate moment and pounce"; in other words, I'm against Eldar gaining an assault vehicle - that sort of tactic belongs to the Orks and the Dark Eldar (and to a lesser extent Space Marines). The problem at the moment is that if you drive up into a position to assault next turn, the enemy are able to run away faster than you can catch them (assuming that the unit in question is weak in assault; otherwise they'll assault you) - reinstate the Banshee's speed advantage over your average grunt, and the problem would go away.

[Shamana]

I don't see what any of those perfectly reasonable viewpoints have to do with assault vehicles, unless you think "mobility" refers only to how fast you can charge into melee without being shot at.

Well, you made two main points about how a) assault vehicles are too good as they provide a fast and safe way to close with the enemy, and b) other races have a style more suited than eldar for using such vehicles. I kinda agreed on the first, but the problem is transports in general are a tad too good (and cheap, in many cases); it's not just assault vehicles but the damage table in general that should be adjusted (imo). On the second point, I essentially meant that Eldar are just as likely to use aggressive tactics as SMs, Orks or DE - they are more often described as elusive simply because their doctrine stresses avoiding enemy concentrations and assaulting vulnerable targets, and they have the means to pull it off. From their description I'd say that when they commit to an attack, they can shock and awe with the best of them.

[Bubble Ghost]

I wasn't talking about the vehicles themselves, although that is a factor; I was referring more to the gap between being in the vehicle and starting the close combat. 40K allows a unit to move, to fire at the enemy, to move again, and then double their effectiveness in the ensuing fight, all before the other side can do a damn thing - it's the combination of this with the complete absence of reaction or defensive options in the rules that exaggerates this ridiculous sense that one army really is literally standing there and just allowing the other side to have a turn. That makes for unsatisfying gaming, and I think that anything that exacerbates it should be confined to those armies for whom it is a really fundamental part of their schtick. Yes, rationally, the background says that Eldar would be capable of this sort of thing, but there's theme to consider and I don't think it's crucial enough to them to translate to the tabletop in such a crude way. They ought to be different.

We seem to agree on our understanding of the background, just not the extent to which it should be represented in the rules, and I think we're just going to have to agree to differ there.

Even though I'm right.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

I'm going to wait for 6th ed to hit before i start wishlisting

I agree to some extent. A ton of salt has been dropped on the more substantial 6th ed rumours. Let's be honest about it - 5th edition boned Eldar in a pretty bad way. I think that it really exposed how 'over-balanced' Phil Kelly's book is and quickly showed up the marginal utility of many of the units, particularly the Troops choices. Maybe 6th edition will be a be a more favourable context for the current book.

It has been a problem since the release of 3rd edition - sub par Eldar units hiding behind a thin layer of overpowered ones. Eldar have consistently had some of the most broken units (3rd ed - Wraithguard, Starcannon spam, 4th ed - Falcons with holo-fields and harlequins) and the cries of cheese seem to drown out the protests of Eldar players who see the lack of choices available to them.

When the 4th edition book came out everyone else was complaining about how cheesy Eldar were and the 'flying circus' list. This makes it easy to ignore the slew of sub par units elswhere in the book.

If we look at the last two codeces, they are basically derived from the the 2nd edition book. Don't believe me? Just look at the units - they are pretty much all the same. The only things we have now that we didn't have then are grav tanks.

In the broadest terms, 2nd edition was very different from the current edition and yet very similar. When I say that, what I mean is that a units attributes and armament essentially conferred the same advantages and disadvantages they do today but certain game mechanics provided for very different tactics. It was a footslogging game for the most part and Eldar, with their highly trained aspect warriors and cheap but well armed Guardians, had an excellent balance of highly skilled warriors who could be screened by 'expendable' rank and file troops.

We're currently in an edition where there are numerous factors which work against the 'aspect warrior' model of unit design. They are all identically armed for starters. This means that the effectiveness of the unit declines with each casualty. Contrast this with many other armies who rely on a 'champion' model or someone armed with a special weapon to do most of the damage - these units can suffer damage and still retain most of their combat effectiveness. Throw in 5th editions 'only Troops can take objectives' (while giving other armies Troops choices who are as good if not better than our Elites) and you have the final nail in the coffin.

The current targetting rules are bad for T3 models. There's no place for them to hide (other than inside transports) and combined with the disdvantage I discussed in the previous paragraph is bad news for aspect warriors. This means that unless Eldar acquire some other means of delivery, they will be a mechanised army for the forseeable future (that is unless you choose to build an army composed of the few units we have that can operate without transportation). Our transports are effective and they are very good but no allowance seems to have been made to take account of the fact that many units need a transport to do their job.

I would like to see Eldar employ more shielding technology (i.e. infantry screening holo-fields - I'm thinking grav platform mounted). These could confer either the stealth or veil special rules. I like veil in particular because it means that the enemy can still inflict a lot of damage if it gets in close but offers a but of protection against ranged fire. I think we should also have the ability to utilise webway technology for deployment but this seems to be Dark Eldar's bag (and it's not as if many players see it as a competitive choice so I doubt that we'll suddenly receive similar abilities that also work better).

My big idea is to separate Exarch powers into 'Exarch Warrior Powers' and 'Aspect Warrior Powers'. This distinction already exists to some extent (in that some powers confer abilities on the exarch and some on the whole squad). I find it irritating though that if the exarch is killed the rest of the squad of highly trained warrior monks suddenly 'forget' their ability. A separation of the two would make Aspect Warriors more viable without taking an exarch while exarchs could be an option that you buy if you really want some extra killing power.

I also think that Aspects should get 2 attacks basic (rather than a WS/BS boost). This brings them closer to Incubi in terms of basic stats, makes the CC Aspects much better (Banshees would almost be as good as DCAs!) and makes CC options for non CC aspects much more viable (I'm looking at you Dire Avengers and Warp Spiders). If you think this is overpowered, do the maths - a tactical marine would still be favourite in a one on one fight with a T3 4+ save aspect warrior.

[Kuja]

Despite the better save that Banshees have, they consistently lose to their Wyche cousins. Who are cheaper, and more numerous. The Banshees should be doing better as they are more expensive, and fill a similar role. So either Banshees need to get cheaper, or better. Scorpions are supposed to be along the same lines as Incubi, but the match ups I've played actually had the more expensive Incubi winning far more than the Scorpions. Which is as it should be.

I know some will say that it is the army balance issue. But on the balance of each force they fill similar roles and have similar profiles. Meaning they should balance overall with a slight edge toward the "better" unit. Incubi are better than scorpions, and are priced as such. Wyches are better than Banshees, but are not priced as such. The point difference between Banshees and Wyches should be much closer than it is.

Wyches and Banshees have nothing in common... What are you talking about???

[Fable]

If we look at the last two codeces, they are basically derived from the the 2nd edition book. Don't believe me? Just look at the units - they are pretty much all the same. The only things we have now that we didn't have then are grav tanks.

Well, that's sort of true but not really. The Eldar actually lost a number of units from the second edition codex. Also both Fire Prism and Falcon Grav tanks were released during second edition and were codex approved at release (Also the Fire Prism White Dwarf had Eldar Vehicle Upgrades, whereas before that they were only allowed generic vehicle upgrades).

In 3rd they lost Harlequins, Exodites and Pirates, that's not even to mention the characters attached to Harlequins and squad leaders lost from Guardians and pirates or weapon options like D-cannons on vehicles and wraithlords (Eldar dreads) but gained the Wave Serpent.

In 4th they regained Harlequins (without solitaires) and have since had the Night Spinner added.

At this point we can make reasonable guesses and assumptions about what could be regained in the next codex or not, and seeing as this is a wishlisting thread this would be the place for that. Personally I'm less inclined to see Exodites added back to the core codex because I'd like to see Forge World give them a full list at some point like the Pirates got, but I would like to see the Solitaire brought back into the fold (and made available to Dark Eldar).

[Spell_of_Destruction]

Well, I think what you're describing is that the books after 2nd ed are more 'racially focused' (the 3rd ed book certainly). The Craftworld Eldar units have remained largely the same though. Pirates and Exodites (and even Harlequins) were really on the fringe of the codex - the first two especially as they had no models during 2nd ed (yes I'm aware that Pirate models did exist at some point). The pirate concept was really a big part of the inspiration for DE but the distinction has since been made between the 'piratical' Dark Eldar and the Corsair 'Pirates'. Other than that you're talking about a couple of weapon options and a few units that were actually released at the tail end of the 2nd ed lifespan (grav tanks).

I'm not so much saying that Eldar need to be reinvented from the ground up - clearly that isn't going to happen. Rather, I think that each unit needs to be looked at afresh in order to determine what its role in the army really is and whether or not their rules are fit for purpose - in other words, less design assumptions (a basic design assumption would be that a tactical marine will carry a bolter and wear power armour).