Re: [40k] Proposed Codex Eldar: Troops


John Hwang wrote:
> pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > John Hwang wrote:
>
> >>For a race of master Psykers, it seems odd.
> >
> > Not really when you think about it - Farseers shouldn't really have
> > combat powers at all since they're diviners, and many of them won't
> > ever have been Warlocks.
>
> OTOH, they shouldn't be defenseless. And they do overlap somewhat.

They should have powers that assist combat, like Guide and Fortune, but
are thematically linked to their ability to predict the future rather
than being raw power - I'm thinking of adding Doom (may reroll all
failed to wound rolls against target unit for the turn) and some other
form of prescient power.

> >>Actually, I was OK with Spiders because they were Fast Sv3+ not on goofy
> >>Jetbikes.
> >
> > I thought you said they were useless with the v4 rapid fire rules?
>
> Oh, they're crap under V4, but they were marginal under V3.

Funnily enough the general feeling seems to be that they're improved
under v4, and they're used more often now. Something about an extra S6
shot per model being more useful than a couple of bog-standard S3
attacks.

> >>Imperial Guard are a tiny sliver of the GT crowd.
> >
> > They aren't the only low-T, low-Sv army out there. Okay, no Guard - too
> > many models. No Orks - too ineffective. Not many DE - a little of both.
> > But Tyranids are a capable horde army - do they see tournament play?
>
> Not as a tournament horde, I don't think. Hordes don't work under
> tournament conditions. Too many models and not enough time, so often
> you won't get full turns.
>
> Nids, like Eldar, are a mixed army.

Unlike Eldar fragile Gaunts make up a larger proportion of that army.
The Big Guys Only army might be a nice option, but it's pretty pitiful.
You need the little things to make it work.

I wouldn't characterize them as
> low-T, low-Sv for Warriors / Stealers,

Stealers? T4, no save Stealers?

> >>Depends on the usage. Sv3+ Marines can get away with fewer models and
> >>still survive, which is why the Razorback is a decent tank.
> >
> > The Razorback's a decent tank because it's a cheap gun platform - you
> > don't even need to use its transport capacity. Neither the Falcon nor
> > the Wave Serpent is cheap enough to be used that way,
>
> Which is why I want to cheapen them slightly, to a price of 125-150 pts.

To do that you need to get rid of your special Eldar skimmer rules as
standard at the very least. In any case the vehicles do fall within
that region at the moment.

> >> That is why it's Heavy instead of Transport. But I also note that
> >>it's named Transport for certain units (e.g. Termies, Inquisitors), so
> >>the Falcon can go back up.
> >
> > For which units? Warlock Bodyguard, possibly. Ties in with the E40k
> > Farseer Falcon for starters.
>
> Then that would be a fair start.

And a fair finish... Since my Warlock Bodyguard entry is 0-1 anyway
I'll allow them Falcon access as a transport.

It would probably also work for other
> Sv3+ units like Scorpions, Dragons, & Reapers.

No. The thing is, the Eldar are highly specialised - they wouldn't use
two different vehicles to do basically the same thing. The Wave Serpent
is the game's best assault transport - fast, tough, with enough space
for an offensive unit and the firepower to support it. That's why they
don't go the Marine route of using two or more transports; they go for
the more efficient option of combining both. Whyever would an Eldar
commander put Aspects in Falcons as standard policy when he's got
access to a vehicle more specifically designed to complement their
fighting style? If he puts them in a Falcon he wastes its potential and
restricts the fighting ability of the Aspect Warriors within, since
they're restricted to a lower unit size.

Philip Bowles

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tau Starter
    ... (Lord + retinue, Lieutenant + ... the Eldar Falcon originally got transport ... "technically advanced" race who couldn't invent a transport. ... The Falcon dates back to 1st Ed. ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: [40k] Proposed Codex Eldar: Troops
    ... too) - the new power Safeguard; the Eldar psychic hood. ... >>>With their Psychic Hoods, ... >>>negating Psychic powers. ... >> Falcons as transports because the Falcon isn't currently a transport, ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: [40k] Proposed Codex Eldar: Troops
    ... >> John Hwang wrote: ... Weapon platforms aren't fleet at the moment. ... Um, in Codex Eldar? ... I'd lose the Falcon's transport capability altogether ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: Tau Starter
    ... That's not very practical, for obvious reasons, but they can do ... They can form a retinue for the Lord and ... the Eldar Falcon originally got transport ... "technically advanced" race who couldn't invent a transport. ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: [40k] Proposed Codex Eldar: Troops
    ... >>>That's because the current powers aren't that good. ... It's Transport 6, last I checked. ... the Wave Serpent is cheap enough to be used that way, ... >> shouldn't be in the Troops section, why should the Falcon? ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)