Hello!

Please consider the propositions with an open mind. This thread os mostly to open discussion on the various topics, and perhaps end up with a more balanced and enjoybale Eldar list.

Considering the relative good welcome that my proposed changes have brought on this list, and the interesting debates, I would like to actually make a list of the proposed changes. Perhaps Chroma can look at it and validate what he would like to be tested for the 2013 Compendium.

Firstly, the reason I think some slight chnages should be done are twofold:

1) Internal Balance: Some units are never/rarely played simply because they don't deliver what their points cost, while other units in the list do the same job better.

2) External Balance: After countless games with the Eldar, both friends playing them and myself, whether with NetEA of Epic-Uk lists, it appears that some units have become must-have staples, where some others are played only in friendly games (note that all our games are friendly, but we have a tournament every six months too). The reason behind that is simply that some units just dont do the job. Also, and more importantly, if you are making a versatile Eldar army, there are only really 2 strategies that seem to work efficiently (Air Assault with Void spinner preps and Storm Serpent Assault). Pure land based Eldar armies seem to encounter the same problems as the marines, except worse due to the fact that the formations are much more brittle, they have no garrisons, and no leaders for morale resilience.

Taking these facts into account, follows the list of proposed changes:

Spirit Stones: 3 formations in the army may benefit from the leader special rule for 50 points.

Why: Leader is cruelly missing on the small Eldar formations. TBH I think the only reason why it was considered OP was because all the army got it for free. But no leader option is just too hard to handle on some formations (Nightspinnersa and Jetbikes for example, even Guardians when upgraded). Not having leader diminishes the tactical flexibility of the army and condemns the Eldar player to very few viable strategies. Also, 25 pts per formation (à la UK) is too expensive to be viable, not counting the fact that some formations on that list dont get the option, which is difficult to understand. Finally, the fluff supports Eldar leadership, which makes it bizarre that they are the only army that doesnt have help of some kind to manage BMs.

Avatar: 50 pts.

Why: At the moment, Guardians are totally a no-brainer because of the Free Avatar. Also, he is damn good when used right. A pt. increase would be a warranted change, especially if some of the propositions are considered. Also, this way Biel-Tan could field only Aspects without feeling bad about not having Guardians.

Howling Banshees: Change profile to CC 4+ and Base Contact extra attack +1 First Strike

Why: Something must be done for the proud banshees. With this proposition, they become viable alternatives to Scorpion Aspects, but they must choose their targets with care to overcome their lower save.

Rangers: 25 per unit, or 175 for eight.

Why: This would give a reason to field a large Ranger formation more viably. This could lead to interesting Garrison strategies for the Eldar.

War Walkers: six for 175

Why: As it is, they are too pricey considering how random their effect will be in the game.

Jetbikes: six for 175

Why: Six Jetbikes with 5+ save and no spirit stones are not worth 200 pts. Skimmer is powerful, but their role is often to initate engagements, and they have become a lot more vulnerable with the two NetEA changes.

Scorpions: profile change of main weapon to 3x MW 2+

Why: Honestly thats what they should have to compete with Revenants to bring MW, and with Void Spinners in sheer strength. As it is, their is no incetive to take Scorpions over Void Spinners, and Revenants are a lot more reliable to bring MW to the table. 3x 3+ could work maybe, but again the comparison with Revenants makes it difficult, and moreso with the Pulsar Phantom (see below).

Cobras: change main weapon profile to 3BP, IC vs WEs

Why: Please see dedicated thread. I would be more in favor of 2BP full IC and 45 cm range tbh, but I relayed Chroma's proposition. The point is that they are not viable today

Titan Pulsar: change weapon profile to 3x MW 3+ TK(1)

Why: Please see dedicated thread

Vampire Raider: 1 for 225 pts

Why: Tbh, all air assault transports are currently underpriced. I would welcome a raise to 275 pts with an extra DC alternatively.

Thats it. Quite a long list of propositions, but I have thought them through for a long while. I don't expect the community will agree with some, but I do believe that they adress real concerns on the list, and that they do not improve the Eldar "cheese" lists.

I would welcome your thoughts

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

You get 6 skimmers which inititate engagements, then pop over to support another with a big consolidate via Hit & Run. Compare with 200 for Marine bikes (5 with 4+ armour and ATSKNF and a short consolidate) and it's pretty much a wash IMO. These were changed for a reason a long time ago to de-power them and should remian as changed.

that's pretty potent and would push scorpions out IMO, if you hunt around, there is masses of debate on banshees, which normally ends with 'epic isn't great at representing infantry-shredding CC troops'

I think with CC2+ and first strike they are sub-par, but not terrible, I've seen them used well before, if you want to give them a boost, instead of an extra attack, I would suggest infiltrate being much more characterful and would differentiate them from scorpions in role and how they play

also Dobbsy speaks the truth, after being ripped to shreds by jetbikes initiating assaults then speeding a whopping 35cm (ignoring obstacles too) to support a rolling assault elsewhere, the thought of dropping the price of them makes me feel just a little bit sick.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Thank you for the answer!

My experience is that they initiate assaults and then die... Only low number of CC troops dish out too little damage to kill them. Sure once in a while with luck it turns out like you mention, but honestly Id'rather have SM bikes most of the time.

Concerninjg the change they had, I totally agree with it. If they were more resilient the scenario you describe would be something you could count on and abuse even against FF solid troops. However, the changes made have a made them a bit overpriced imho. At 200 they should have leader to compensate for the near guaranteed break at the first assault they initiate. Also keepmin mind the Staretegy of 4 and initiative of 2. Once they break, they rally on a 4, and usually still keep a BM, activating only on a 3. So when initating assualt, they either all die, or break and are pretty much unusable for the rest of the game as it is.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I have been reading the posts on this issue for years

And I am not really satisfied with just leaving the Banshees on the shelf.

Imho Scorpions have more reason to have Infiltrate than Banshees, considering they have it in 40k.

TBH I would take the Scorpions most of the time even with the proposed change. The Banshees would only be better against soft targets with little or no save (like infantry ), but against resilient targets Scorpions would be better, while still being very strong against soft targets.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I think it's about evens, with Biel-Tan, a formation of 8 banshees (with exarchs) would kick out 18 first strike attacks, with an average of 9 hits, against a formation of tactical marines that's 4.5 kills, with only 1.5 attacks back, or 1 dead aspect, leaving the formation in pretty good shape for being picked up by a nearby vampire and dropped again next turn

for scorpions you'd be facing 6 attacks back, which equals 3 dead aspects, leaving them just above 50% original strength

in both cases you would win the assault, assuming all other factors (outnumbering, prepping etc) but the banshees are in better shape afterwards, against smaller marine formations, odds are you'll break/wipe them out without suffering any casualties, and I would say that marines are far from 'soft' targets.....

on balance Scorpions are probably ~+1 combat resolution better off against stuff with reinforced armour, simply as they are a bit more survivable, but they're no better at damaging anything.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Nono, I perhaps didnt express myself well. Only the extra attack would have first strike!

In your scenario that would be 8 first strike attacks, and 10 regular attacks. Not the same thing at all!

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

bearing in mind that I primarily use EpicUK lists where the exarchs have first strike on their extra attacks, so it would be 10 FS and 8 regular, but yes that would be less potent

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Overall I don't feel Biel Tan need an adjustment in army balance.

Jetbikes: I'm not sure Dobbsy's comparison with marine bikes does him much good (arguably marine bikes are better with 1+ init, SR5, better in combat, and ATSKNF), but still I had not considered jetbikes to be a problem. Sure they aren't as good as they were with 4+ armour, but they are still regulars on the tournament circuit because they fulfill a niche - they're a relatively cheap fast formation that can claim objectives and support assaults. So I don't think a points drop is needed. Their 2+ initiative annoys me and they can be a liability because of it, but this and the armour is why I think they're better at supporting assaults: advance/double, place a blast marker with a vyper, then retain and engage with aspects/guardians. Next turn they do the same again or grab objectives.

Banshees: they are definitely the poor cousins of all the other aspects. I don't think CC4+ +1 EA first strike is as much of a boost as kyuss thinks, considering how extra first strike attacks interact with regular ones. I think I prefer CC2+ first strike though, probably because it is "cleaner" with only one attack, but TBH have not run it through in my head extensively.

Scorpions: not as good as revenants, but of course significantly cheaper. Not comparable to void spinners, they have completely different weapons and roles. In EpicUK they gained 75cm range which certainly helps, but feels weird to me. My problem with the tank is it doesn't have enough shots. 3x3+ puts it slightly better than 2x2+ on average whilst solving the problem of shots, but does encourage sustain fire and suffers on the double. I personally don't think that is important, it has sufficient range to not need to double too much anyway. It is a departure from the "pulse = 2x shots" erratum though.

Titan pulsars: I think just adding TK would be OK. Possible downgrade to the power fist too. It does beg the question though in your repeated comparison to revenants: are revenants too good? I personally don't think so (they are 650 points and no singles).

Avatar: hmm, I admit I feel compelled to take guardians when I don't necessarily want to, but costing the Avatar is a fundamental change and I worry about unintended consequences. You could argue it'd make balancing easier though. What might happen is, when given a cost, people start to think "well, 50 points isn't enough, maybe it should be 150". And all of a sudden you've added 150 points to every Eldar army that has ever run in the past. Arguably the free Avatar is more an army boost than a guardian one, so it's difficult to change without affecting the list on the whole.

Vampire Raider: I really don't think there are only 2 viable strategies with BT. I also don't think the Vampire strategy is a problem at all. Losing guardians' Farsight on a retain, and aspects' 1+ initiative, is a big big penalty for me. Plus you sacrifice activations. Fine at 200 for me. Even slightly too expensive.

Spirit stones: I feel like this is borne out of a desire to get rid of an Eldar weakness as it makes it easier to win, but I think the fragility is an important part of the Eldar list - for balance, and for "feel". When spirit stones first appeared out of the blue in Swordwind I was happy as an Eldar player, but really it was a bad thing. I personally don't think it should ever have seen the light of day. I only ever add it when I have 25 spare points that I can't spend on rangers.

Rangers: a must-take formation - cheap activations, garrisons, can use cover. It is true that I will never take a formation of 8, but this is the only number I will not take (I take 2 formations of 4 instead). Every other combination is fine for me (even maybe slightly too cheap, but it probably just seems like it due to the May Not Garrison rule). To approach this another way, you could just as easily change the formation to being "4 to 7 units at 25 points each". All 175 points would do is give you a free extra unit when you buy 7: not needed IMO.

War walkers: rubbish. Can't take cover, LVs, too expensive (both in terms of formation cost and per unit cost). They have weapons, but those don't seem to synergise well with how I'd want to use them. They'd probably have to be the same cost as rangers and have more flexible formation size for me to take them.

Cobra: my thoughts in the other thread. Really at this point of development I just want to see it get better so I can take one, any way that is possible.

Other units you never see: spacecraft, phoenix bombers

And now: if some units are to be boosted, what needs to be nerfed? Are Autarchs too cheap at 75 points? Are Falcons too good (overrated IMO but they appear in every list).

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Except Eldar don't have any other unit (save Storm serpent/air assault) that can engage defensive formations in the second turn. As it is you just wouldn't choose Jetbikes over the other two options, whereas with a cheper Jetbike formation, you could. As it is, jetbikes even compare poorly with Ork Motoboyz at the same price.



Banshees need to compare with Scorpions to compare at all. With only 1 attack, even at 2+ they are not as good defensively or offensively as Scorpions.




3x3+ and 75 cm would be an alternative. I am not sure what is more potent between the two though.



Pulsars already have TK(1). They are never picked.

Revenants are far from too good. They are just the only source of viable MW shots in the Eldar army atm, where Phantoms and Scorpions could indeed fit the bill if properly statted.




The idea behind 50 is not to charge the Avatar at value, but to force the Eldar player to commit to a strategy when using him in an army.



I am talking two versatile tournament strategies. When you know your oppment, Eldar can tailor a bit more.



SMs have ATSKNF, Orks have Mob rule and Nobz everywhere, Chaos has lords everywhere and countless Fearless units, Guard has Commissars, Tyranids have synapse, etc.

Eldar are brittle fine, but no BM management ability makes them played in only a way where they dont get hit at all. Whereas a point of my proposed changes is precisely to allow for alternative Eldar strategies, where you actually could play land based Eldar viably. Otherwise, sure the 2-3 Vampires, 2-3 Aspects, 2-3 Void Spinners, Guardians and Rangers to fill in strategy works fine.



You are probably right



I use spacecraft regularly to prep Air assaults. I find them particularly useful against mass AA defense. Sure Void Spinners can do pretty much the same job, but they are more expensive and BT limited.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I still find EUK Scorpions distinctly underwhelming to face, and easy to kill.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I use jetbikes as support for air, webway or ground-based assaults. I don't see them as either/or - they are cheaper ways to get more and more flexible punch in assaults, and to grab objectives. I don't really see how making them 25 points cheaper suddenly makes them interchangeable with an air assault.

That seems debatable. It very much depends on the target. But even vs tacticals, which have good armour:

banshee vs tactical:
kills = 5/6 * 1/2 = 5/12 = 30/72
losses = (1 - 5/12) * 1/2 * 2/3 = 14/72

scorpion vs tactical:
kills = 2 * (1/2 * 1/2) = 1/2 = 36/72
losses = 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 = 18/72


So they do! You can tell I never use them...

I'm inclined to agree actually, just want to ensure a balanced approach.

OK but it still affects balance in a difficult way.

All I can say is, I use ground forces quite regularly and don't find them problematic. Each of the three deployment methods has pros and cons. And to have three ways to deploy actually strikes me as a very flexible list. So I find it strange to see an argument that Eldar don't have enough viable tournament strategies, certainly in comparison to many other lists.

Again I think ground is fine as a strategy, and I have no problem in the "try not to get hit" way they play. The games normally work exactly this way, with Eldar being sneaky, striking hard and trying to avoid counter attack, with the opponent having to use suboptimal orders to chase them and managing to catch some of the formations. Of course you can't keep every unit combat effective and Eldar degrade fast, but ground formations have their advantages too(e.g. they can consolidate back behind terrain). The "they strike hard but can't stand a drawn out battle" feel works well and is balanced I feel.

Interesting. Do you use both types of spacecraft? Ever planetfall?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Me too, though last time I used them I at least got some enjoyment out of them. I had two, and stuck them on overwatch, which at 75cm range was actually effective deterrent. It was kinda fun to play them that way since it's rare for me.

Still not very good though

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Mounted guardian formations are a perfectly viable mobile assault formation; mounted aspects even better if more expensive. To say that Eldar are forced to use only stormseents or air assaults is disengenuous at best. Similarly, just because you don't like playing Eldar any other way doesnt mean there aren't other perfectly viable ways.

if they have 3 shots with the 75cm range they become effective when used with spaceships, Steve54 used fire prisms to snipe enemy units trying to avoid the bombardment, if the scorpion had an extra shot, it would be a viable alternative to a fire prism formation in this role IMO

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator