Tactica: Eldar 6th Edition

[GodlessM]

Ok I've been thinking for awhile now, are Swooping Hawks actually worth it now? Taking a squad of 5 is just begging the opponent to kill them off, super brittle, but taking 10 of them just seems to cost so much (3 points less than a Land Raider). I just don't see these guys as actually being worth it. Granted if they assault a vehicle it's dead, but majority of vehicles that we see are transports and what do they carry? Units. Almost all of which will be able to kill them via shooting and then assaulting them. What does everyone else think?

They are a suicide unit so if they die they die. With their movement it is easy enough to protect them though. A few things to note also is that not all vehicles are transports, though we won't see much of those I reckon. Remember also the likes of Land Raiders and Necron vehicles that are otherwise hard to hurt, these guys do it well. Note also that while general multi-charging got worse, multi-charging vehicles with Grenades got better, as you don't suffer any of the downsides of multi-charging, but you hit easier than you did before. Finally, not they won't draw as much attention as say a unit of Fire Dragons would.

All in all, they aren't a must take unit, but they will come in handy.

[Cthell]

According to the rules as written, you can bladestorm with your avengers safe in the knowledge that if you get charged, you can bladestorm the overwatch; the only thing you lose is your next shooting phase (which is probably not a problem if you get charged)

Couple them with a Prescience/Guide farseer, and you could potentially have each Dire Avenger getting 6 S4AP5 attacks (half at BS4 re-rolling, half at BS1 re-rolling) before the enemy even get to swing a sword in their direction.

[Stuffah]

According to the rules as written, you can bladestorm with your avengers safe in the knowledge that if you get charged, you can bladestorm the overwatch; the only thing you lose is your next shooting phase

Urgh... every time I see this and the 'Harlequins get cover save AND spotting distance' claim, I die a little inside. Yes, that's technically allowable by the rules. However, it is also clearly not what the rules intend, counter to what they're trying to represent and not something you should do to people just to get an advantage in a game of toy soldiers.

I should add that doing the decent thing can also work in favour of the Eldar... clearly, Banshees should be able to attack into cover with no penalty. So I guess if your opponent is a jerk about that, you're justified in being a bladestorm/harlequin jerk in retaliation. But then... why would you play with jerks? And why would you be using banshees?

[Loqe]

And why would you be using banshees?

Everyone lament's the position of the banshees, but there's something everyone's forgetting. With the changes to fleet you don't need to (read: can't) run before assaults anymore, so you can always fire your shuriken pistols!

I know, right? That's quite the buff. I know I'm going to be taking 30 of them in every list from now on.

[Radium]

... Yeah. I'll just stick to using resilient shooty Eldar units (wraithwall stuff), or my harlequin army if I want to have a laugh.

I do seriously think our monstrous creatures are now actually good in assault, being able to challenge and all that.

[eldargal]

Please explain how you know what the designers intend? Did they tell you? Can you read minds? What they intend doesn't matter, what is written down are the rules. Also it isn't 'technically allowable' it is EXACTLY what is written. That is slike arguing that having a Storm Shield 'technically allows' a 3++ save. Until the FAQ is updated to remove spotting distance, they have spotting distance. Not by a technicality, but by the explicit wording of the rule.

Urgh... every time I see this and the 'Harlequins get cover save AND spotting distance' claim, I die a little inside. Yes, that's technically allowable by the rules. However, it is also clearly not what the rules intend, counter to what they're trying to represent and not something you should do to people just to get an advantage in a game of toy soldiers.

I should add that doing the decent thing can also work in favour of the Eldar... clearly, Banshees should be able to attack into cover with no penalty. So I guess if your opponent is a jerk about that, you're justified in being a bladestorm/harlequin jerk in retaliation. But then... why would you play with jerks? And why would you be using banshees?

[Loqe]

Please explain how you know what the designers intend? Did they tell you? Can you read minds? What they intend doesn't matter, what is written down are the rules. Also it isn't 'technically allowable' it is EXACTLY what is written. That is slike arguing that having a Storm Shield 'technically allows' a 3++ save. Until the FAQ is updated to remove spotting distance, they have spotting distance. Not by a technicality, but by the explicit wording of the rule.

If you want to play that game, the FAQ tells you to replace the second sentence which originally read "It follows the same rules as Warlock powers". So the Veil of Tears psychic power is no longer an always active power and you have to cast it. With your 0 warp charge. Have fun with that.

[eldargal]

Perhaps you might like to actually read the Eldar FAQ:

Q: What psychic mastery level is a Shadowseer? (p49)
A: Mastery level 0 - Shadoseers don't need a warp charge to active their powers, they are always on.

[Loqe]

Perhaps you might like to actually read the Eldar FAQ:

You're missing the point. How about fortune doing nothing in Eldar vs Eldar games because it only lasts until the start of the next Eldar turn, or Spirit Stones doing nothing because Farseers only have a single warp charge per turn.

[eldargal]

How on earth is that at all related to someone claiming to know what GW designers intended for a rule to do? Yes, there are plenty of issues that need FAQing, that has no bearing on the fact that the wording for Veil of Tears is quite clear now, and them gaining Stealth and Shrouded while retaining spotting distance is NOT a technicality but the explicit wording of the rule.

[Radium]

I'm assuming they intended to remove the spotting distance, but for now I have to agree with eldargal there.

[Loqe]

How on earth is that at all related to someone claiming to know what GW designers intended for a rule to do? Yes, there are plenty of issues that need FAQing, that has no bearing on the fact that the wording for Veil of Tears is quite clear now, and them gaining Stealth and Shrouded while retaining spotting distance is NOT a technicality but the explicit wording of the rule.

The rules on Fortune and Spirit Stones are also quite clear.

It's an obvious mistake, unless you think they also intended to remove the entirely pointless fluff line "the Shadowseer uses her powers to confuse and terrify her foe".

If anyone tried that ruling against me, they better not plan on fielding any Farseers too!

[eldargal]

To be honest I think so too, but what we think they intended doesn't matter, it is what is written that counts because what we think GW intended is entirely subjective. We have no idea what they actually intended, we can only guess. I mean Harlequins are beasts in the fluff (read Atlas Infernal), this rule helps them towards reflecting that. Who is to say that wasn't intended? We just don't know. As I said, all we can go on is what is written. And that is quite explicit and in no way a technicality.

[El_Machinae]

Ok I've been thinking for awhile now, are Swooping Hawks actually worth it now? Taking a squad of 5 is just begging the opponent to kill them off, super brittle, but taking 10 of them just seems to cost so much (3 points less than a Land Raider). I just don't see these guys as actually being worth it. Granted if they assault a vehicle it's dead, but majority of vehicles that we see are transports and what do they carry? Units. Almost all of which will be able to kill them via shooting and then assaulting them. What does everyone else think?

I sometimes think about taking their Phoenix Lord in order to run Eternal Warrior cover on some of my faster units, and then using just him to drop grenades once he gets hurt too much.

[cynic]

Don't know if anyone has mentioned yet (i have read most of the thread ), but a Fire Dragon exarch manning a quad gun is a rather tasty combo, especially with tank hunters and crack shot.

4 st7 twin-linked shots, hitting on 2+
re-rolls to pen thanks to tank hunters
and no cover saves thanks to crack shot

112pts for the Fire Dragon unit, 100pt for the aegis defence line and quad gun. Its not cheap, but you can make use extra of the 4+ cover save by sticking a couple of vibro cannon behind the barricade too.

[Gwyidion]

I think I'll be manning the quad gun with a reaper exarch. That way the squad can multipurpose into another role if there isn't a good target for the gun that turn.

And as far as Swooping hawks go.... this edition made them better, but they're still T3 4+ 20+pt models which need to be in assault in order to be effective. I'm sticking with warp spiders. More mobile, tougher, better in assault, and I have a sweet conversion of an autarch in a WJG.

[Walls]

You DO realize all this silly arguing about Spirit Stones is wrong, right? People should read the psyker section sometime. If you have Spirit Stones you are lvl 2. Same with anything that gives you extra powers... you get a better mastery level.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned yet (i have read most of the thread ), but a Fire Dragon exarch manning a quad gun is a rather tasty combo, especially with tank hunters and crack shot.

4 st7 twin-linked shots, hitting on 2+
re-rolls to pen thanks to tank hunters
and no cover saves thanks to crack shot

112pts for the Fire Dragon unit, 100pt for the aegis defence line and quad gun. Its not cheap, but you can make use extra of the 4+ cover save by sticking a couple of vibro cannon behind the barricade too.

My buddy was talking about this the other day. Really cunning use... but also kinda... meh? It better be an Eldar Wraithbone fence with eldar guns.

[TheDoctor]

You're missing the point. How about fortune doing nothing in Eldar vs Eldar games because it only lasts until the start of the next Eldar turn, or Spirit Stones doing nothing because Farseers only have a single warp charge per turn.

*troll meter at moderate*

Again, as Eldargal stated, you should read the rules. Pg 66, BRB: "in older codexes, mastery levels may be written out longhand in the form of a special rule that allows the psyker to use more than one psychic power each turn- the number of powers that can be used per turn is their mastery level"

Edit: Also, as for actual tactics, anyone who claims that Harlequins are OP because of the super-cover and spotting distance has never been on the receiving end of drop pod(s) filled with flamers. And if I try to bubble wrap, now about 60% of my troops are gone (I also like rangers, running Alaitoc myself)

[Stuffah]

We have no idea what they actually intended, we can only guess

Indeed, but we're hardly guessing at random here. We actually have two ideas: (1) they wanted to add extra abilities to a unit by removing fluff from the codex, or (2) they wanted to replace the existing rule with a different one, but got the sentence numbers wrong.

The problem is these two interpretations are not equally likely. I don't think anyone, at all, will argue that the first is correct. Apparently non-English versions of the FAQ remove the rules text, leaving only the Stealth+Shroud, if you really need evidence about what was intended...

I do get where you're coming from, of course. You have to play by the rules as written, and trying to guess what they're supposed to do could lead to chaos. But I think this is so obvious that it constitutes a clear exception to this principle- it's like, I don't know... a misprint resulting in a model having WS4 and BD3, and you arguing that therefore it can't shoot.

Anyway, I just don't like the idea of claiming an advantage from a mistake in the rules. Doesn't feel worth it to me.

TheDoctor[/B]]anyone who claims that Harlequins are OP because of the super-cover and spotting distance

No argument there. Don't think the Eldar actually have anything close to OP... Eldrad could be, except that most of his powers buff and there's no OP units to buff...

[Grentain]

How on earth is that at all related to someone claiming to know what GW designers intended for a rule to do? Yes, there are plenty of issues that need FAQing, that has no bearing on the fact that the wording for Veil of Tears is quite clear now, and them gaining Stealth and Shrouded while retaining spotting distance is NOT a technicality but the explicit wording of the rule.

As I understand it, the German version of the FAQ mentions the second and third paragraphs, rather than sentences. That's a pretty strong indicator of the intention of the rule.