Thanks for the update!

Love the general stat changes - particularly to the two superheavies. The Phantom Pulsar change makes sense in the context of their points decrease.

Banshees seem much simpler with these stats. Powerswords haven't been terminator killers for the last two editions of 40k, so they're a unit known more for their first strike capability than their ability to cut through armour.

What's the rationale behind changing Firestorms from 0-2 to a 0-1 choice? I'm going to have to track down a few more Falcon models to field legal formations now...

Engines of Vaul upgrades - I'd change the wording to something like this, to avoid any confusion over the Void Spinner cost:

Iyanden notes: both characters are listed as "Iyanden" in the reference document - I assume the first should by "Iyanden Spiritseer" and the second is "Iyanden Wraithseer."

Was the intention to remove the +1 Initiative from regular Wraithguard formations, while leaving it on the Supreme Commander's formation? At the moment, the stats do the opposite - the SC doesn't have the Initiative boost, but the regular Spiritseer does.

not a fan of reducing the number of firestorms, makes them too easy to suppress.... given how many games have been played with this list, I think that change is quite a big one and I don't get where it's come from?

HBs with infiltrate are solid, no boost in air assault, but better out of a gate, I've championed giving them infiltrate for a long time, nice to see it on the table

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Oh, so the cobra is still a TK barrage weapon, not a MWx+ shot?
Gotta say I prefer the epic UK option currently... Though would like this more if it followed theUK model but had the stats above for the ignore shield shot.

Yes and what is the logic with the firestorm restriction? That has been fine for years... The bombers can come down to 300 and you prob still won't see them much...

Banshees with Infiltrate may work, but their weaker armour means they will always suffer unless they can destroy the opposing formation, which in turn relegates them to attacking smaller formations

Phoenix reduced to 325 is about right IMO - at 300 they are more capable of being spammed and they are better than Nightwings so should cost more.

I also dislike dropping Firestorms to 0-1

The EoV formation is unclear. Are you suggesting that Void Spinners cost 275 each, other EoV cost 250 for the first and 200 for others, up to a maximum of three EoV per formation? Or are you limiting Void Spinners to 0-1 costing 275 points?

The Wave Serpent always used to be able to transport Swooping Hawks, is there any reason to exclude them?

I like the Ignore shield alternative on the Cobra; it adds bite without removing the need to use several units, though my possibly prove a tad OTT.

Same here. Fluffy and gives them a reason to be taken. Glad this is been put to bed after all this time.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I think the downgrade to 0-1 Firestorm is good actually.

50 points each for a speed 35cm tank with 45cm 2xAP5+/AT5+/AA4+ & 4+FF has always seemed wrong. The ability to put two in a formation, even worse, simply because of the OTT AA. Maybe now they can be suppressed like everyone else's armies

Personally I'd like to see the individual Aspects costed separately. Warp Spiders are phenomenal compared to the rest, Banshees possibly the worst. This is the reason Banshees don't get taken, there's no need.

I think the aspects are pretty evenly matched - there's rarely a clear "best" unit to take when building an all-comers list as they're all so specialised. If Warp Spiders are performing significantly better than the others (is this borne out by tournament and playtest data?) you could reduce their save to 5+ to emphasise the brittle nature of an Eldar first strike unit.

The pick-and-mix Aspect formations have been a part of the Eldar lists since Swordwind, and I haven't seen one type of aspect dominate in any lists or battle reports so far. Mounted Dragon/Avenger/Reaper FF troupes, fast Hawk/Spear formations, teleporting Hawk objective grabbers and mixed assault formations all seem common - the only type conspicuously missing is the Banshees.

Comparing Firestorm stats against units from other armies is always going to be tricky. Unless Titans are in play, the Swords of Vaul is the only ground-based AA formation available to the Eldar, and their fighters are 300 point formations. You're also downgrading the overall firepower of the formation to get those AA shots...

Good to see this up Mostly very happy with the changes. Now that you've taken over and are shaping things it would probably be better to call it version 5 of the list?

Bit of a longer post - I suggested to PFE I could post up a list of the issues and possible changes I had in mind had I got the AC position, as there could be things he hadn't thought of or may want to consider and Greg was happy with me posting it up.

I like that Howling Banshees have infiltrate now, seems fitting for them. Personally I'd have kept the infantry only MW as that fitted the background very well for them, but dropped their CC to 4+ as CC3+ inf-MW was OTT. Straight CC2+ makes them excellent in CC against vehicles whereas any 40k Eldar player would know they shouldn't be – 8 Howling Banshees could charge a Defiler formation and have a good chance of wiping the deadly CC vehicles out before they're able to attack, whereas in 40K due to having only S3 HB wouldn't be able to damage a Defiler (or any vehicle) at all.

Guardians should definitely have Falcons as a transport option – please allow them to! It's a bizarre omission and list screw up that they don't have it, it would be the equivalent of the SM list having Razorbacks only available to Devestators for no reason. Falcons were Guardian's standard transport vehicle in every other version of epic and they've always used the Falcon in 40k Eldar codexes. Look:

Wave Serpents will probably be mostly favoured and used anyway, for their better cost and armour, but I expect the option of Falcons to be allowed. Players from older editions of epic will probably have large collections of Falcons but maybe only a small number of WS – even if a bit unoptimal to use them as transports it would be good for them to be able to use their collection as is without needing to convert or buy WS.

Some typos - the Biel-tann Aspect Warrior Warhost should be 8 strong, with the availability of 2 Exarches. The Autarch upgrade shouldn't allow a Wraithseer to be taken either, they're just for the Iyanden list. Engine of Vaul text should have a comma in place of the first or: “Cobra, Scorpion or Storm Serpent or Void Spinner”. Titan Powerfist is meant to say AND after the ranged attacks – it has to choose between the CC or FF boost, but gets these in addition to the shooting from it. You should remove the CC and FF from the SM Vampire Hunter, it was a mistake SG made on the reference (likely copy and pasted the Vampire stats and forgot to change them). It can't carry troops so isn't allowed to land or use them.

I dislike 4 strong War Walkers – please can we change back to a fixed 6 as in Swordwind and Epic-UK? I've played a 15 activation 3k Eldar army years ago that was a pain to play and allowing 4 strong War Walkers would have allowed an even higher activation count list to have been used. 6 strong War Walkers are a niche unit, but do see play and are fine.

Could we scrap the option of having a 6 strong Swords of Vaul formation please and return to the original fixed number of 5? Eldar are meant to be glass sledgehammers – deadly, but fragile. Having 6 makes the formation tougher to break and destroy and isn't needed.

Titans: I did some analysis of the Epic-UK Biel-tan lists all online on their site (they're way more organised than us and it's an excellent resource). 101 different Biel-tan lists have been fielded at their tournaments with a pretty balanced overall score of 38% wins, 35% losses and 27% draws. Of those 101 lists 26 took Warlock Titans and did considerably better than the Biel-tan average with 48% wins, 36% losses and 16% draws. Phantom Titans were only used by 6 of the 101 lists and they performed worse than the Biel-tan average with 38% wins, 46% losses and 15% draws. Going by the Epic-UK lists it looks like the Warlock is too good and the Phantom too weak.

Phantom – good call on the cost reduction and the TK2+ rather than TK3+. Phantoms are meant to be much more common than Warlocks whereas the opposite has been true in epic till now, hopefully this will change that. Phantoms are much more likely to be mobile now, appropriate for Eldar, rather than standing still to sustained fore.

Warlock Titans – they're a beast in assault and too good for their points. I'd probably leave their stats as is but bump their cost up by 50 to 900. Warlock based armies would still be viable and do well, but they'd have slightly less to spend on support formations.

I'd just do what Epic-UK did and split the Void Spinner off into a seperate entry and prevent it from taking other superheavies in it's formation. Do we really need the option to use 3 Void Spinners in a formation? 9BP Disrupt (on a skimmer that can't be clobbered easily by Terminators) could be a good formation for a bigger game.

Keep an eye on the Fire Prism, it used to be +15 over a Falcon but SG dropped it to free and it needs testing to see which is more appropriate.


Is this an actual change?? It's not in the army list pdf. I hope not and would very strongly advise against it. Falcons have always been able to take 2 Fire Storms and it works fine. It gives the Eldar good AA, but they need it with their fragility.

There are a couple of other things Epic-UK have done with their Eldar list that could be worth considering possibly trialing too (not sure what your opinion or others is on them):
Re-introducing Spirit Stones, but as a +25 point upgrade for vehicle formations (Falcons, Night Spinners, Engines of Vaul) that gives the formation leader, but is not tied to any particular model. This exact same thing is done in the Tau list with their Bonded Team upgrade, so there's Net-EA precedent too.
Represent Exarchs properly: give HB Exarches first strike, FD Exarches MW, SS Exarches Lance and Dire Avengers Exarch CC attack MW. From a background perspective you would expect them to have these and it would be characterful. Would it be overpowered or lead to people favouring some Exarches over others? I was a bit surprised when Epic-UK made the change and am not totally sure but cautiously like the idea myself. It might help to get the opinion of Epic-UK players on how these have been doing in their games.

Lastly Harlequins – I reckon it would be nice to add an option for these to Eldar lists generally. They regularly fought as part of Eldar armies in previous epic editions and old players with the Eldar War Host box will have epic Harlequins models but no use for them. Though not part of craftworlds as such they often fight alongside them as allies (just like titans aren't part of a SM list but often fight alongside them as allies) and they have been a unit option in the last few 40k Eldar codexes. I'd restrict them as they're rare and so as not to make it too big a change - have a single 0-1 formation of 4 (plus optional Venom transports – a transport variant of a Vyper carrying one stand), coming out of the allied 1/3. Stats, costs, ect could be discussed and worked out but I would aim them be a nice option that adds something different but not a must have. They could be available to Eldar lists generally as allies (and Harlequins ally with the Dark Eldar in 40k too so could be added as allies there too eventually should they work out here and the DE AC wish to).

Personally I think the only thing that limits Warp Spiders is that people have trouble getting hold of the miniatures. If they were readily available you'd see a whole lot more of them. 45cm First Strike FF engagement is a pretty powerful ability to have. Hands down better than most of the others. I don't recall ever playing a game vs Eldar that didn't take them in some form or other. I rarely see HB, DA, DR or even FDs on a table. It's normally WS and SS and occasionally SH.


I can see your argument, Morsla, except that Eldar Titans are almost always in play thanks to Revenants - even you take them

Marines also only have 1 ground based AA unit available to their formations and it hits half the number of times of even a single Firestorm. 2 Firestorms statistically guarantees 2 hits on any air formation passing by. If AA in Epic:A is only supposed to be about "mainly just putting BMs on aircraft", then the Firestorm more than surpasses this. Even versus WE aircraft, your chances of a crit double when you compare to all other lists. At some point you have to compare to other lists.

Also, you're downgrading the SoV troupe but only by AT fire. Versus AP you upgrade (gain range and more attacks). The FF value doesn't change. Keep 3 Falcons and you already have 6x AT4+, so "downgrading" to Firestorms is not that much of a downgrade to be honest given you still receive 4x more AT5+ from the FS. How many more AT shots do you require?

The fighters cost 300 points but I usually see them on a table too 6x AA4+intercept at 30cm (3x with Lance) usually guarantees the enemy air formation is non-existent following an intercept CAP. I think 300 points is a fair price for that.

I know these arguments have possibly been put forward before, but given the majority of changes to the Biel Tan list are upgrades I think a downgrade might be a fair balancer.


Well perhaps 6 falcons is the change to reduce fragility. I always laugh when I hear about Eldar fragility, try playing Tau!