_________________

Fine by me. Which is a really big difference with: "nothing should change, lets keep the cobras on the shelf".

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

_________________

A long list, most of which are under separate discussions.

In general, I agree with most people's comments that the list plays well as it is and needs few if any changes, the main issue being that people need to adopt strategies and tactics that are appropriate to the formations in question rather than the other way round - in this Irisado, Moscovian and others are spot on !!

If, and I stress, IF some changes are needed, they are very small tweaks that should be applied individually rather than wholesale.

To your observations:

Spirit Stones

The E-UK version has some limited benefit. However, the whole idea of Spirit Stones is somewhat misguided. The issue is not with the removal of BMs (which is somewhat out of character with the Eldar), but rather the way the action of trying to remove them can make the Eldar rather static which is contrary to the way the Eldar should work. To this end we are trying to fix the wrong problem IMO

Avatar

Fine as it is. IF any tweak is needed, then the Avatar should have 4+RA rather than 3+ armour, so that it can take on MW armed opponents - but that is not what is being suggested here, and generally the ability to control where the Avatar is employed is sufficient compensation

Howling Banshees

Troublesome as others have said, and the subject of extended debates. The issues it suffers are down to the game mechanics as much as anything else.
Giving them extra attacks is not the way forward IMO as it treads into the roles of other Aspects (Striking Scorpions), quite apart from making them exellent tank killers, which is not the intention.
My preference is actually to improve the armour from 5+ to 4+. This represents their mobility which makes them hard to hit - but this has not been tried yet.

Rangers

The 'must have' formation of the Eldar. 200 for 8x is fine; especially if they arrive by Vampire or 'gate in a cross-fire location . . . .
If anything I think they should be nerfed slightly by taking them in higher numbers, so I would make Rangers minimum 5x (for 125) rather than the current 4x (for 100).

Warwalkers

No change needed.
As others say, this is a difficult formation to use, but highly effective when used correctly. Try doubling out of a gate in preparation for sustaining the following turn . . . . Against Leman Russ this is a highly effective tactic (even if it is somewhat suicidal):- 12x shots at 4+ to hit means an average of 3x normal and 3x lance hits, or ~ 2 dead tanks not to mention 4x BMs (from the previous and current shooting) reducing the effective firepower to 4x tanks (and potentially opening them up to being broken by other firepower or assault).

Jetbikes

A favoutirte for many reasons and definitely not underpowered - just don't get me going on the armour reduction
As with other formations, you need to use the right tactics :- Try two Bike formations moving together with a formation of Guardians mounted in Wave Serpents. By staying together the group is highly mobile, very hard to attack (due to mutually supporting formations), shooting casualties can be taken on the Bikes leaving the Guardians intact for assaultiing, and the Farseer can use 'commander' to get all three formations to assault which in the right circumstances can kill titans let alone smaller formations.

Scorpion

See the separate Pulsar debate. Weakened by the 'pulsar' rule change, these could do with 3x shots. Whether they also need a 75cm range is debatable. These need testing separately before decisions are made

Cobra

See the separate debate. IF any change is needed, IMO the only change worth considering at the moment is to increase the range to 45cm. Everything else would make them overpowered.

Pulsar

The one change worth considering.
Increasing the Titan and Scorpion pulsars to 3x shots is well worth testing IMO

Vampire

Though the weakest transport in the game, it is verry effective if used appropriately. For example at Britcon I used a pair to make 'eternal' assaults with my BTS to very great effect at the end of each turn. This meant that I could guarantee to remove at least three enemy formations every game which more than repaid the 800 points they cost (quite apart from the fact it kept my BTS out of harms way for the entire game ).

I tried a mix Scorpion + Storm Serpent once.
My opponents allways try to kill my Storm Serpents very fast. So I tried to reinforce the resistance of my gate-tank.

It does quite well : my Storm Serpent survived. But the Scorpion was bridled in its armour-destroyer role.

Trying to sort out multiple EoVs is not really going to happen quickly, because the Eldar work best with high activation counts thus an average formation value of ~225-250, or ~11+ formations in a 3K army. A two tank formation for 500 would make a very brittle BTS so the player has to pick an even more valuable formation, say 525 in value. This means that he only has 1975 for the remaining 9x formations or ~220 each.

Also, in general the EoVs do not work well together because they are designed for radically different roles:- Void Spinners, Scorpions and Cobras must all be paired together; the only potential variation that might work is putting the Storm Serpent with Cobra or Scorpion - though in practice a pair of Storm Serpents can provide the launch pad for a vicious assault.

Multiple EoVs will really only come into their own in larger 5K+ games, where the difference in formation costs between the various races already provides a healthy activation advantage for the Eldar.

500 for three EoV might be tempting, but would almost certainly be considered OTT; and this is the problem. I very much doubt there is compromise cost over 500 points for three EoV, nor one less than 500 for two.

^^ This.

There's no point pushing for multiples of EoVs because no matter what you do, it just isn't going to happen. Same with Howling Banshees.

Dunno. Rug had some pretty sound arguments for using multiple EoVs (maximizing the triple retain). I haven't played a lot of Eldar, but that's because most of my opponents play Eldar - so I've played against them extensively, although not at the level of somebody in a big meta like the UK. The Eldar are most succesful when they can rip the heart out of my army in a 2nd or 3rd turn opening triple action. I can see how packing as many points as you can into those 3 actions can be very efficient.

Maybe Rug can take some big EoV fms for a spin with the proposed changes and see if it works, or if the lowered activation count kills it in the setup turn?


As for Banshees, I think the exarch should at least be tested with FS on the EA. It's hilarious when they get two kills and I remove the ones in contact with the exarch to deny the EA, but it's also pretty ridiculous.

edit: wrote FF on the EA. Doh.

EUK exarchs already have that and it seems to work quite well.

There's no point not applying a discount for multiple EoV's in one formation due to pessimism that they'll ever be useful.
At least it'd help make them viable in 4-5k games.
At best they'd even balance for 3k.

Balancing *any* 450pt+ formation for 3k is a challenge - they've got to be *really* useful to be worthwhile taking. And multi-EoV formations just aren't "really useful".

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Meh. Give it a try if you feel it worth it.

It could come in handy in one of the more restrictive Eldar lists that only allow you 2 x Troupes per core fm. I could perhaps try reduced price cobras in pairs. It's hardly what I'd call a burning issue though.

I agree - but all the big issues got solved years ago!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter