Hi,

I'm pretty new to the game and I haven't much experience yet but I wanted to share some thoughts that are mostly based on background considerations and I'd like your oppinion on them.

1. Guardian armour
Having the Guardians with no armour save at all rubs me completely the wrong way. The 5+ paper mache armour in 40K is bad enough but no save at all? No wonder they are dying.
IMO a 5+ save could be justified with their good reflexes, advanced armour and psychic protection via Warlock powers (like Conceal). How would you balance this out? My idea would be to reduce the formation size by two stands and add the option for two additional stands at +50pts or so. Does that sound about reasonable?

2. Initative
Eldar are actually quite mediocre when it comes to Initiative. With most formations at 2+ and very few leaders around they quickly get into trouble activating. For an army that relies on speed and multiple formations working together this is quite an issue.
How do you like the following ideas:
a) Eldar ignore BMs for initiative tests
b) +1 bonus to favoured actions (like everything that always includes at least one move: Engage, Advance, Double and March but not Marshal)

3. Air superiority
Eldar seem quite troubled when it comes to dominance of air. Sure they have one of the best if not the best fighter in the game but those come in formations of 3 with initiative 2+ for a high price. Most over races get their fighters a lot cheaper which is in the end more reliable and effective IMO. Eldar also have precious few AA guns. Once again they have one of the best Flak tanks available but only few formations can take it and there are no dedicated AA formations at all. And taking them limits the formation at its original role. Eldar titans have AA which is a nice bonus though.
I guess I'd be happy if the Eldar aircraft were 1+ initiative so that they can reliably do their job.

4. Spaceships
There seems to be no point in the Wraithship. It doesn't allow for planetfall and has exactly half the firepower of the Dragonship for half the points. As the Dragonship isn't Slow and Steady, why would you ever take a Wraithship?
IMO this can be resolved by thinking about the BFG ships a bit. The Dragonship obviously has alsways the launchbay option and may choose between lances and weapon batteries. So what has the Wraithship? Only the option between lances and weapon batteries, so where are the torpedoes? If we'd add them to the profile let's say as 3BP MW then the Wraithship might be more desirable.
Also how would you think of planetfall for grav tanks like Falcons and their variants? Shouldn't they be able to do it?

5. Dark Reapers
IMO it's a bit odd that they have only 5+ save. This may be due to their 3rd ed stats but it doesn't represent them well. After all they are supposed to have the heaviest aspect armour. Would a 4+ save overpower them?

6. Howling Banshees
I'd really love to see them more at their specialist role of "anti heavy infantry" but I don't see a good way to represent that in EA. The best I could come up with so far was to give them CC5+ and against INF targets their CC is one better than targets armour and their attacks count as macro. (So against termies they'd hit at 3+ and ignore one of their saves.) Is a bit (too) complicated though.

7. Warp Spiders
How would you think about Disrupt for them? I mean the other monofilament weapons have it and theirs work similarily. It sounds very powerful though and I can't recall other units with Disrupt small arms, so not sure how to balance it.

8. Holofield
How would you like it if the Holofield save was depending on how many moves you have made? Like 4+ for no moves, 3+ for one and 2+ for two and more? IMO the Holofield should also count as Thick Rear Armour.
I'd also like to represent the Holofields on tanks with Invunerable save. This would also make the survivability gap between Falcons and Serpents a bit smaller.

That's it for now. I'm looking forward to your comments.

Remember that Epic covers a longer period of time.. a Space marine that gets hurt will be back in action quicker than an Eldar they are a lot more tougher.

1 thing to note the Eldar have had to be cut back in power since they were first released, they were overpowered. I think most people think they are about right. Almost all your suggestions are upgrades. However they take time to get used to, the reason they were overpowered to begin with was that a lot of people were finding them hard to use, so extra buffs were added. once everyone got used to them these last minute buffs were what made them too powerful.

Hey KalTaron, welcome to the boards and thanks for posting! I'll try to address some of your comments below.


Guardians are not frontline troops, as it mentions in the 40k Codex: "They are primarily a defense force". Using them as your spearhead will get them killed. Notice they have the word "guard" in their name? *laugh* For this duty, they are *fantastic*! Placed in cover to defend objectives, or manoeuvred to support Aspect Warrior assaults, they are *incredibly* fantastic for their points; and they will benefit greatly from those cover saves.

Using them on the offensive, for most armies, will be more of a desperate move than a common tactic.


Actually, Initiative 2+ isn't mediocre, it's practically standard. Guardians, and all Guardian driven/piloted units, are the Eldar *militia*, that they operate at the same military efficiency as trained Imperial Guard regiments is a testament as to how good they are. The elite Eldar, the dedicated army, Aspect Warriors have the 1+ that they need to get the job done.

That the Eldar get harder to use as a battle progresses is actually a design choice: as they face mounting casualties, their will to fight can be drained as the sorrow of loss begins to overwhelm them; especially for the common citizens called to fight.


Hmmm... for the same amount of points, Imperials get 4 fighter-bombers and Orks get 6; now Eldar fighters never have to "jink", as they always have a 4+ save over the 6+ the other two examples have, they always have full mobility when intercepting and ground attacking, and they have 30cm on both their weapons, with two AA attacks, which means they can "stand off" and hit with full effect on both other fighter types and many other bombers. With a 2+ init, odd are, over a 3-4 turn game you're going to get your planes the full game; of course, sending them into heavy harm will modify that, but that seems a reasonable risk.


I've never found adding a Fire Storm to limit the "original role" of my Falcons... in fact, it *enhances* that role, as it gives the formation a little bit of ranged anti-infantry fire as well, for cleaning up mechanized formations.

Since the majority of an Eldar army should be "on the move" as it's fighting, I've found the mobility and greater number of units in a Falcon Troupes to be an asset for AA activities, not a hindrance, over a smaller, dedicated formation.



Last question first: because I only want to spend 150 points on a non-scoring formation is the simplest answer.

I *love* the Wraithship! For low cost I can, potentially, 1) mess up another army's spacecraft assets, 2) force them to change their deployment since they don't know if a 4BPMW barrage is coming down, or 3) make an early anti-war engine strike against any one on the board. Since you don't decide the weapon load out until you know what the enemy has, it's a strong option, and has some nice psy-ops effects. Not bad for 150 points at all... *and* I can still fit a big Titan in the list with it.

As to planetfalling Falcon, etc, well, maybe in a variant list, but I don't think it's standard/normal/common procedure to hot-drop Falcons into combat... and option, certainly, but not one usually undertaken.


The stats for Dark Reapers are designed to reflect the, usual, 'smaller' sized squads they are often deployed in. So, the 5+ armour reflects not only their actual armour, but that there are only three Dark Reapers standing there instead of the, usual, five other Aspect Warriors.


Banshees have been discussed extensively in another thread and we're still no closer to a resolution. One Aspect, has to be the "worst", and, unfortunately, it seems to be the Howling Banshees, even if only by a little bit.


Disrupt in assaults is a rules oddity, and it has been avoided for that very reason. The first strike subsumes all the effects of both the Death Spinner and the Warp Spiders' ability to attack with surprise. Additionally, Death Spinners are no longer a "template" weapon, but shoot individual "bullets" of monofilament, so they're not *quite* as scary as massive webs of the stuff raining down.


I feel that such a rule simply adds more complexity with little benefit. And *no one* is going to want to see Eldar Titans with a 2+ invulerable save!


Could you explain what you mean by the "survivability gap" here?


I await your response!

Guardians have the same level of armour in 40k as imperial guard infantry, who also in epic get no save at all. Given that in 40k even a bolter is powerful enough to deny them a save, this is hardly a surprise. As Chroma mentioned, they can get great saves by being in cover.

I think he is referring to the 5+ vs 5+RA save factor. The fact is, Kal, that a) holofields are optional in 40k, and b) optional equipment is often excluded or abstracted out at Epic scale. Another point to make is that Falcons are MUCH more heavily gunned than Wave Serpents, and (with NetEA suggestions) no more expensive. The trade-off is the survivability.

My suggestions are to search for Eldar tactics threads. They have been nerfed since their release, and are still one of the most competative armies out there when played well.

Remember that Eldar excel at Engage, and especially the "Rolling Assault", where you move up with a formation to within 15cm, Shoot to lay BMs in prep for an assault, than retain and Engage with a second formation, with supporting fire from the first. Then the engaging formation can use it's hit and run move (35cm if in transports) to move within 15cm of a second formation, and a double retain allows a third formation to Engage, again with supporting fire. This can break large parts of a battleline if used correctly.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

First thank you for all the replies. I have to admit that my primary concern is a list that fits the background and only secondarily balance. I'm not saying that you can't have both of course.

@mageboltrat
But then SM don't have conceal. And their 4+ armour and TSKNF makes them quite resilient.

I know that Eldar were considered overpowered but weren't Spirit Stones and the old Pulsar rule the main contributors?

@Chroma
1. This is just fine and dandy but there are also those lists that rely heavily on Guardians (e.g. Ulthwe) and you can't always count on terrain for protection. Guardian formation are also quite short ranged. Nothing more than 30cm and the basic Guardians have only small arms.
And even with 5+ armour cover would be a great benefit because of the -1 to hit.

2. Some meanings of mediocre are "standard" but yeah the word has a negative taste.
The detoriating combat readiness isn't so much a problem for standard guardian formations but it seems a bit meh for tanks and flyers. I will try to deal with this though before changing it.

3. What do you mean with "jink"? I will try them at 2+ a bit but I really think 1+ would be justified.

I was somehow of the impression that Firestorms had 30cm range. My mistake. They are actually quite a good replacement for Falcons. You still won't have many in a typical 3000pts army so your AA coverage will be small.
How does this work out in your experience? What's preferable: large coverage with weaker weapons or smaller coverage with more potent weapons?

4. Yeah, I meant the planetfall for Falcons and their kind as an option for some lists not as a generic rule. IMO it would be quite nice for the more mobile lists like Saim-Hann and Yme-Loc.
I guess the problem for me is that in 3000pts you can "only" spend 1000pts for Titans, Spacecraft and Aircraft. Now the 300pts for Nightwings are IMO pretty much a neccessity and if you take a Spacecraft you can't take any Titans at all.
What I'm saying is: Would it hurt to make the Wraithship represents its BFG weaponry better? Even if it might have to cost 200pts or so then. A Devastation has 3BP orbital bombardement and 1 pin point attack for 150pts as has the Lunar. The Devastation can also planetstrike troops with droppods. A Strike Cruiser has 5BP orbital and tons of transport.

I guess the problem is the jump between BP3 and BP4. I'd like to represent the BFG weaponry better but I need to think about it a bit more.

5. But IIRC there are no rules on how many models go on bases. (Except the min and max of course.) So where comes the information that DRs represent less models from? Sure their 40K squad is smaller but that's all I can think of. Is there a balance reason to have them at 5+?

6. Thanks for pointing to that thread. I knew that the issue was somewhat problematic from an older thread at the specialist games forum IIRC. My problem with the CC2+ first strike solution is that it makes them quite good against vehicles and horde infantry. Two targets they aren't supposed to deal with. Still, it is probably the best solution for them within the EA rules and not resorting to special rules.

7. I don't care much about what 40K currently represents but after a bit of practical experience and thinking I can see that Disrupt and Assault don't mix well. First Strike is probably the best solution after all.

8. I expected this reaction. It's understandable and the variable Holofield isn't really needed. How about the Thick Rear Armour? I'm not even sure that Holofield saves should be modifiable in the first place but this would make it clear.

As Spectrar Ghost has said Falcons are armour 5+ and Serpents are 5+ with Reinforced Armour. That's quite a difference and not entirely justified IMO.

@zombocon
I know that they both have AS5+ in 40K and IMO it's stupid for the Guardians there as well. And don't forget that Guardians in 40K usually take Conceal which gives them a 5+ cover save.

@Spectrar Ghost
Optional equipment might as well be represented in the Epic rules if it is a) typical of the army and b) contributes to balancing the list. Not saying that anything of these is the case for Holofields and tanks (yet).

This "rolling assault" requires quite a few things though. You need Farsight (OK, you usually have it or you are in deep sh.. trouble.) You need 2 targets in range that you can actually handle. You pretty much need transports. You have to pass 3 initiative tests. Even with your supreme commander that is a bit of a risk and if you botch it you may have a problem.
If it works it is great, if not... not so.
Guess I'd prefer a bit less hit or miss.

Some other points:
Has anyone had success with the 4 strong Aspect troupes? They seem a bit too flimsy for their 175-300pts. The 6 strong version looks far more reasonable. I'm mostly asking because I'm interested primarily in Ulthwe and the other troupes look far more desirable than the Aspects for them. Maybe some Dark Reapers might be ok but everything else not so much.


I will certainly give the current rules a chance and the only thing I really want to change is the save on the guardians. Everything else isn't that important to me.

4 strong Aspects are really valuable. They fit in 2 Wave Serpents, allowing them to take advantage of very little cover. They are Initiative 1+, allowing them to retain easily. A troupe with 3 Dire Avengers, a Dark Reaper Exarch, and two Wave Serpents can throw out 8 FF4+ and 2 FF3+ into the edge of a formation. Keep them between 10-15cm, and the enemy cannot BtB, and few will be engaged.

Applying overwhelming firepower to a small portion of an enemy unit breaks them as well as a frontal assault. This 'clipping' assault is one of the ways to ensure that large formations can be dealt with effectively. It is also one of the tactics that makes the rolling assault so effective.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

A 5+ save would be way over the top for Guardians. That's the same as Space Marine Scouts, Imperial Guard Storm Troopers, and Tau Fire Warriors, all of which are significantly more heavily armoured in 40k than Guardians (and the scouts have better toughness). Ork Boyz are slightly less well-armoured (although the difference is minimal since even most small arms ignore both 5+ and 6+ saves) but they have better toughness and they only a 6+ save. They're also described in the background as being as tough as old boots, while Eldar are generally of a fine and delicate build. Having no save is correct for both their resilience in 40k (on a level with Imperial Guardsmen), their resilience in the background (flimsy as all hell) and fits their role on the battlefield as a defensive militia.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

Agreed - and there are so many ways to mitigate their lack of armour; by upgrades, use of terrain and staying off-table (using gates / vampires etc)

Eldar are designed to be Bubbles with Sledgehammer. Most units are very brittle due to their unit count. Guardians are in quite big formations, but have bad armour making them brittle.. however shove them in terrain and they become very tough.

Kal I understand your concerns about initiative, especially of the support formations. The point Chroma is making is that the background to Eldar makes them sensitive to losses, and this is reflected in their relative inability to remove BMs (since Spirit stones was removed). The main compensation is their speed which is reflected in the hit-and-run rule and their relatively strong assault capabilities.

IMHO, the only change I would make here is to allow Eldar to ignore BMs when trying to marshall - but then I would suggest that this rule be applied to all races.

@Axel
Sure, if you go by the 40K rules then they deserve no save at all (unless you count Conceal but most seem to be inclined to not do that). Not that their 40K rules make much sense IMO.
It is true that the Ork 6+ save may not be much but they've got other rules and units to deal with that. Like expandable Grots and the Mob Rule and Power of the Whaagh special rules. Orks may die more easily but they don't care. The Imperium is also not exactly known for his regard to the lives of its troops.
But for Eldar the live of each Guardian should be precious so why send them to the field of battle in paper armour if better protection is readily available?

@Ginger
Upgrades tend to make them quite expensive. And those upgrades aren't really tough either (except Ghost Warriors of course).
Terrain helps a great deal but that assumes that there is enough of it in a suitable position. And Terrain would still help them if they had a better save. One of the problems with sticking them in Terrain is their relatively short range of max 30cm. Sooner or later they will often have to leave their cover. And sitting in cover camping the whole game doesn't seem right for Guardians even. They are still Eldar.
I have to try Wraithgates and they are probably quite useful but isn't a Vampire a bit expensive to use on Guardians?

@mageboltrat
8 strong formation are only "quite big" in the Eldar army. Other formation with bad saves are bit bigger usually. Orks start with 10 (6 boys, 2 grots, 2 nobs) and go however high they want. Imps have 12 or 10 for Baran. Lost and Damned have 12.
I'm not asking to make them 5+ save, 8 strong for 150pts. There has to be compensation for the save, no problem with that. Like making the formation smaller.

I have to try them in bigger games as it looks like there are several force multipliers in place so that you really need to test the bigger picture.
If I was to test Guardians with a save, would making the formation 2 smaller and 2 additional units as option for 50pts sound about right for starters?

I'll try a game against Black Legion and maybe Orks. Against the CSM I'm a bit worried that their formations have better range and their demons are pretty nasty business. Esp. as he prefers the Slaanesh demons from the look of it. (Very characterful though.)
Any advice?

I was going to take the following: (no changes yet)
Ulthwe Seer Army

Wraithgate 50
Avatar

Black Guardian Host 500
2 Farseer
6 Guardians
4 Wave Serpents
3 Vypers

Black Guardian Host 500
2 Farseer
6 Guardians
4 Wave Serpents
3 Vypers

Guardian Host 250
1 Seer Council
4 Guardians
3 Heavy Weapon Platforms
3 Support Weapon Plattforms

Ranger Troupe 100
4 Rangers

Ranger Troupe 100
4 Rangers

Swords of Vaul Troupe 325
5 Fire Prisms

Shields of Vaul Troupe 175
3 Nightspinners

2 Revenant Titans 650

3 Nightwing Interceptors 300

9 Activations

I'd have liked some more activation but I'm also eager to try the titans. The Black Guardian formation are also quite expensive for my liking but at least they should be able to do a bit.
I just have to win the strategy roll when it counts and not suck as much at dice roling as last time and I might have a chance.

It's a valid argument, but one that applies just as readily to the Eldar army as a whole. Like it or not, the Eldar way of war is characterised by extremely delicate and fragile units across the board. Whether that makes any kind of sense for a dying race is open to debate. The closest you're likely to get to a justification is that the Eldar prefer to avoid needing armour by not fighting on their enemies' terms and by using their speed and manoeuvrability to take best advantage of the battlefield.

There are certainly aspects of the way Guardians work in 40k that make no sense whatsoever in the background and which I am glad are not reproduced in Epic (the fact that they are most useful as a meat shield being the obvious one), but their low resilience is in keeping with their role and with the overall style of the army, both according to the rules and the background.


Looks reasonable, but I'm only just starting to get the hang of the Eldar myself (and I use the Alaitoc list rather than Ulthwé), so I'm probably not the best person to advise you on list design. However, I would point out that I think you're using an old version of the army list. Under the current list, the Seer Council costs 100 points, not 50, and the Shields of Vaul troupe has reverted back to just a plain old Night Spinner troupe.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

The thing is Guardians should never be on the battlefield.. They are the equivalent of the Home guard, they are potters, bakers and bank managers. Warfare should be left to the Aspects that are the warriors of the Eldar. The fact that they appear on the battlefield at all is due to the pressure that the Eldar are under from all sides.

@Axel
I'm using the NetEA draft. The 250pts for the Guardians was a mistake when I translated my excel sheet. They cost 300pts of course. And yeah, they are called Nightspinner troupe again.

@mageboltrat
This is not true for all craftworlds. There are also those who rely heavily on their Guardians like Ulthwe.
And even though Guardians are technically militia they are still pretty good. Many of them will have decades of combat experience and often also Aspect training under their belt.
In EA they are roughly the equal to Guardsmen. The Guardsmen win on range, the Guardians have better AT and FF.

IMO a 5+ isn't out of their league and I want to try it.