Featured Post

Analysis: Astra Militarum in 8th Ed, HQ Units

Let's analyse the HQ options available to Astra Militarum . Like all my reviews, this will be from a competitive play perspective, ...

Saturday, 18 April 2015

Analysis: Codex Eldar Craftworlds Preview


Enough of the forthcoming Codex Eldar Craftworlds has been previewed or leaked to send the usual internet crybabies into a new frenzy of failing. Let's take a look at what we know—or believe—at this point in time, with less hyperbole (but more sarcasm and arrogant disdain).

Jetbikes

The new rules for Windriders have been confirmed. Same price, same squad size, same profile and rules, but a significant change in weapon options: now every single model in a Windrider squad can upgrade their twin Shuriken Catapults to a Shuriken Cannon or Scatter Laser. This is a huge change from the one-in-three limit that's been around forever—the cynic will say this is GW's way of forcing established player to buy new models, but if you take one look at those sexy new models you will realise that nobody is going to need coercion to replace their venerable old Jetbikes.


This change is certainly a big boost to the offensive potential of Windriders—cue mass crying over Eldar spamming S6 shots (because they've never been able to do that before... dumbasses)—but let's turn to mathhammer to quantitatively assess this change:


Both heavy weapon options are viable, with the Shuriken Cannon better against exposed targets and the Scatter Laser better against targets with a 4++ cover (or invulnerable) save. The extra range of the Scatter Laser is nice, but I think you'll probably see both options in competitive lists—primarily driven by whether the old or new models are in use!

Importantly, both heavy weapon options are much better than the stock Twin Catapults option, and this will significantly change the way that Windriders are played. Instead of being relegated to minimised units that spend most of the game hiding, and are included in armies only to snatch Objectives, Relics and Linebreaker, we will likely see Windriders becoming mainline fighting units in many Eldar armies. This is a very nice change, and I'm a big fan.

What's that? The fluffy option is now viable for use outside a purely casual gaming environment? GW are giving players what they've demanded for years? OMG!!!1 TOO MUCH SHOOTY!!!1 RAGEQUIT!!!1

Now while the crybabies are ragequitting, and the crusty old veterans are frantically scrounging for Shuriken Cannons to convert their 20 year old models, the more astute players amongst us will realise that the new Windriders are by no means the auto-win button some are calling them. At 27 pts per model for what is basically a fast Space Marine with portable cover, you can't expect Windriders to face-tank serious firepower, and a big investment in Windriders will likely leave you with quite a fragile army. Have another look at that mathhammer table above to see how well Marines in 4++ cover stand up to the levels of firepower that have been the norm in 40k since late 5th Ed.

One option to buff the resilience of your Windriders is to invest a further 50 pts for a Warlock, whose Primaris power is apparently still Conceal, conferring Shrouded to the unit. A 2++ cover save when Jinking makes your Windriders tougher than Terminators against most shooting, although if your 330 pts unit is Jinking every time they get looked at then your army is probably suffering from the loss of offensive output.

At this early stage, I think MSU Windriders will be the way to go: five-man squads of all Cannons or all Lasers, who can do respectable damage for only 135 pts and retain all the VP scoring potential of their previous incarnations. Warlocks are probably not worthwhile to protect MSU squads, but you do have the option of spamming Warlocks as 'Warp Charge batteries' if you're including a Seer Council in your list.

Lastly, rumour has it that the Windrider Formation within the Warhost Detachment has a special rule that confers Shred to all Shuriken weapons once per game; if this is correct, Shuriken Cannons will obviously be the go-to option rather than Scatter Lasers.

Wraiths and D

Many tears have been cried over the change to Distort weapons, upgrading them to the 'dreaded D' that so many players still irrationally fear. But how much of a difference is there really between S10 and D?

Let's start with the much-maligned Wraithknight and its pair of Heavy Wraithcannon. These were S10 AP2 with Instant Death on a 6. In other words, they were already:

  • Wounding everything on 2+
  • Always one-shotting T5 and lower
  • One-shotting T6+ on a 6 (except Gargantuans and Eternal Warriors)
  • Taking a HP automatically from AV10 and AV11
  • Taking a HP on a 2+ from the very common AV12
  • Taking a HP on a 3+ or 4+ against the rarer AV13 and AV14
With the change to D, the Heavy Wraithcannon is now:
  • Still wounding everything on a 2+
  • Still always one-shotting T5 and lower
  • Still one-shotting T6+ on a 6 (now including most Gargantuans and Eternal Warriors)
  • Taking D3 HP on a 2+ regardless of AV
  • One-shotting vehicles on a 6 (except the most expensive Super Heavies)
  • Ignoring cover and invulnerable saves on a 6
So there is really not that much difference, unless you're a Gargantuan or Super-Heavy, or have a high AV or Eternal Warrior. In other words, the Eldar's big-expensive-killy-thing is optimised to kill the big-expensive-killy-things of other races, and is likewise vulnerable mainly to those same big-expensive-killy-things (instead of Venoms)—so why all the internet hate? That seems pretty appropriate to me...

Oh well, haters gonna hate!

I think the thing which gets players up-in-arms about D weapons is the ignoring cover and invulnerables on a 6. But when you consider that those same players likewise complain about rerollable strong cover and invulnerable saves, the argument loses all credibility. Every measure has a countermeasure. If you choose to invest heavily into a deathstar or expensive single model that is nigh-unkillable by conventional means, then you have to accept the risk that you will encounter an army with a 'nuclear option' capable of countering your strategy.

The Wraithknight fires two shots per turn. That means it can kill two models per turn. MSU and horde armies don't care. If you're bringing Knights, Riptides, Greater Daemons, Hierodules, or Wraithknights of your own, then you're complaining loudly all over the internet right now.

Look in the mirror before you cry, "cheese", retards.

Let's look quickly at the smaller Wraiths. Squads of Wraithguard are going to overkill their target if they get close, but that has always been the case. They are still slow and expensive. The template variant is rumoured to have -1 to its Destroyer rolls so they will be only a little bit better than they currently are. Webway Portal Wraiths are still going to be a threat, but if you haven't learn how to deploy defensively against Deep Strike then you deserve the butthurt. Suck less.

The Hemlock could be interesting, but we'll need to see its full rules before we can pass a fair judgement.

Wave Serpents

It looks like the shield is being changed to a 24" S6 Ignores Cover 2D6 shots one-use weapon. I think this is a very reasonable change, and I'm very glad that GW did not knee-jerk to the opposite extreme of the power scale. As a result, I think we will see more light and medium armour return to the battlefields of the 41st millenium, and we may end up moving back towards a Mech MSU metagame similar to late 5th Ed given the proliferation of D weapons; and eventually, the inevitable breakdown of tournament resistance to change. Adapt or perish.

I think three will become the optimal number of Serpents to run in a 1850-2000 pts army, down from five, and this will allow room for some more interesting list choices and greater diversity. I'm looking forward to running an Aspect Host Formation of three Fire Dragon squads with BS5, who can ride their Serpent 6", disembark 6", run 6" and then shoot thanks to Battle Focus—I'm not worried about killing Wraithknights!

Warhost Detachment

Pure awesomesauce.

GW have hit a gold mine with these new Mega-Detachment-of-Formations like the Warhost and the Decurion before it. Instead of using fluff as a stick, GW have figured out how to use it as a carrot; instead of Jervis crying about players building unfluffy lists (protip: only morons want to lose) the design team have offered powerful bonuses to players who build their lists around fluff archetypes.

Will there still be min-maxing? Of course there will, this is gaming for fuck's sake. Min-maxing is not a problem unique to 40k, get over it.

Rumour has it that the Footdar Formations pass around Preferred Enemy like candy, the Seer Council harnesses the warp on a 3+ (massive!) and the entire Mega-Detachment always Run the full 6" without needing to roll. Combined with Battle Focus, Footdar could actually be viable again for the first time in four Editions—nice! There are some other good Formation rules rumoured at this point, but we'll have to wait and see to assess the full rules.

But it does look like the Warhost will be a viable option for competitive games, which is really good for the game. People have been complaining that Unbound and the relaxed Allies table have resulted in 40k armies that are not recognisable as 40k armies, and I sympathise with this perspective to a degree. Seeing Eldar summon daemons always made me die a little bit inside, and Nids & Knights is just retarded. Now I am not a fan of artificial restrictions that stop players from playing by the rules however they like—but offering significant incentives to play recognisable, archetypal 40k armies is going to be great as we move further into 7th Ed.

Conclusion

My new codex is already on pre-order, and I'm eagerly awaiting the new book. Stand by for full analysis next weekend!

38 comments:

  1. Wow. This is the stupidest discussion about these changes I've seen yet. Congrats!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Look in the mirror before you cry, "cheese", retards.'
    'protip: only morons want to lose'
    'Suck less.'

    Was hoping for a more mature review of the new rules rather than the sounds of a powergamer finally being given the best tools to be a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you were looking for someone to tell you it's OK to be a scrub and fear every new codex then you've come to the wrong site. This is Elite 40k, not Failhammer Central.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Then I'm glad I'm not reading what you are! Fuckwit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rarely seen such an unobjective and retarded "review"...

    "Jet bike a fast space marine" - Jeah, because space marines troops have 3 S6 36" shots...

    Destroyer weapons can kill transports including the whole embarked unit with a single shot, smart head

    Wraithguard slow? You know "raiders"?

    And did you even notice that WKs changed to "gargantuan" and realize what that means for their damage output and survivability??!!
    Stomp attack? Firing at two different targets? Defacto immunity to ID and poison? Free FnP? For nearly the same points (after upgrades) as before? (Because they weren't severly underpriced already...)


    The quintessence of your "review" is:
    Eldar player says new Eldar codex isn't OP - believe him, he has to know!

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you want to debate, go learn the rules first.

    Wrecking or exploding a transport with a D weapon is no more dangerous to embarked models THAN ANY OTHER WEAPON. In fact, destroying an entire embarked unit with one shot has not been a rule SINCE 4TH ED. When you do not know fundamental game rules, you have no valid basis for argument. Go learn to play, then come back and try to convince me that D weapons are so scary.

    Regardless of how big a gun one carries, a T4 3+ model is very easy to kill. If you can't kill lots of models with that profile, YOU ARE BAD AT THIS GAME.

    There is no doubt the WK is better as a Gargantuan. And I am not arguing its points efficiency one way or another. But even with new defensive buffs, if you cannot kill a WK, you are still bad at this game.

    Since you don't know the rules of 40k, and are evidently quite bad at the game, I remain confident in my own capability to assess these changes more objectively than you.

    PS: "Unobjectively" is not a word. Try "subjectively".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not sure there's quite the need for that level of aggression in a post about a game.

    Charlie, great article as always. Very enjoyable read. Can't wait for the new book to download to my iPad on Saturday! Definitely looking forward to using the Warhost formations to form my new Ulthwe list!

    All very exciting changes / updates. When the dust settles I think this will be great.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Bhazakhain, you should have seen the pure abuse posts that I actually had to moderate to keep the site from going too R rated! It seems that some folks don't like being told their irrational fear is irrational!

    The key thing I'm seeing so far is that new Eldar are going to be really great at killing Eldar: Jetbikes vs Jetbikes, WK vs WK, etc. It will be interesting to see how people try to break the mirror-match.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the one thing people are missing is that, under all the cool new rules, they're still mostly T3. For me personally, with so many Guardians and sadly missing out on Dire Avenger fun, T3 with a 5+ save still means my hard hitting 'broken', 'OP' or whatever other lazy conclusion someone can come to, Eldar will evaporate quickly if not managed well.

    All this negativity I think is just people not being able to instantly win with tough power armoured armies anymore and realising they'll have to think to win a game. I can take all the D weapons or bumps to WS or BS under the sun - I still need to hide and keep moving because I'm Eldar.

    Haters gonna hate. The dust will settle and they'll get over it. Looks like they've added in flavour and - you're right - actually got fluffy lists working now. For me, it's all about a Guardian Battlehost with a Seer Council and some other bits. What are you going for?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Greetings!

    You've got some great Eldar-themed articles here. As a long-time Eldar player myself I greatly enjoyed this article as well as your earlier analysis of Harlequins and the Eldar-DE synergies. So good to meet a person who seems to be a devoted hobbyist with a good understanding of the game!

    Subscribed :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi SeekingOne, welcome to the site and thanks for the positive feedback! I hope you continue to enjoy my hobby and gaming articles. I'll start my full analysis series of Eldar Craftworlds once I have the codex in-hand this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not an Eldar player, but do play against two. One of them thinks the new rules are going to be too much the other doesn't, I am firmly in the wait and see camp. One thing about the WK I would say could change the way our gaming group plays is that one guy (who plays BA) always has 2 Stormravens (?) with a furioso and a full unit on board each. A flying gargantuan creature with D weapons could potentially ruin both of those as they float on the board. It's not a given, and I think that guy is going to have to rethink his tactics. However he is currently sh!!ting bricks. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wait and see is definitely a wise approach to take.

    But nothing I have seen indicates that the WK will be a Flying GC, just a Jump GC. So it won't have Skyfire, and your BA opponent shouldn't be too worried about losing those Stormravens :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Even though you have some points I must say your analysis is a bit tilted towards favouring Eldar.

    The amount of dakka from eldar armies have surely increased loads from the new "1 heavy weapon per bike" at the cost at survivability of the wave serpents of the previous codex.
    (If this is a step up or a more balanced way of playing eldar remains to be seen, I do believe however this made eldar skill requirement go up... But it might also have increased the armies effectiveness as a whole)

    Also strength D gives eldar a significant hardcounter to various other units in the game that was considered top of the line such as imperial knights a chain of the gorgon chapter master and so on.
    And I can only hope other armies follow suit, if not, Eldar will be the trumph card for the rest of the meta-armies.
    (a knight would normally survive a unit of wraithguard shooting at it. and so would a eternal warrior 3+ save character. Now if a singel 6 is rolled they both die. and for the normal d3+1 will be devastating if the character fails just one save and the knight will be hurting aswell.)

    The significant part I believe you overlooked is the strength D on the wraith knight and how it affects it's effectiv use.

    Before:
    the wraithknight could max do 2 wounds to the various monsters around with a 1/6(for not taking into account it having 2 shots here) chance of instant killing.

    and when it came to taking down a armour 14 vehicle at range it had to hope the dice was in it's favour

    Now:
    The wraithknights potential at monsterhunting quadrupled with quite reliably taking atleast d3+1 wound of a model per hit (and the same chance to instantly kill with a deathblow as before)

    While shooting at armour 14 you can almost(you have a good chance at hitting and a good chance at taking more than 4 hullpoints of it) expect to kill a landraider outright(especially if you've given it guide of some sort).

    you make it sound like you will be using your 2 D-weapons to shot at conscripts

    Overall I think this will lead to a new meta and I wonder if a Necron Decurion detachment, Grav-gun bikes, a tau gunline or even chaos daemons will be the same after the 25th.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Kendall, you make valid points, thank you for the well-reasoned input :)

    Let's have a look at the fundamental premise of why you (and many other players) consider D to be so good: many army lists include elite units or single models that pay a premium for 'conventional resilience', and D is very effective and efficient at bypassing those defences and 'wasting' that premium points investment. You provided some examples: tough characters, Knights, etc. plus the infamous 2++ reroll death stars.

    When D weapons are used against high-value or hard targets, they are awesome, and I do not refute that at all.

    However, when they lack high-value or hard targets to kill, then they are an epic waste of points. If a WK is only killing two Conscripts (nice example!) or Ork Boyz or Rhinos or Venoms each turn then the Eldar player is going to probably find himself pushing shit uphill!

    When a multi WK army faces a deathstar army, or a multi Knight army, or a mirror match against other WK, then they will be star performers. And yes the mirror match game will probably be a very lame roll for first turn, roll for Seize, then one player concedes exercise.

    But how well will the WK perform against a fit horde? Or mech MSU? Or flying circuses? Not very well. It is not an I-Win button. And that is actually the very definition of "balance". Yes 295 pts is cheap to kill Knights; it's very expensive to kill Conscripts.

    Whenever a new major codex is released, the metagame needs to adapt. Players who don't adapt will perish. This is not a rules problem! The game has become dominated by various 'big guys' over the last couple of years. This new Eldar release will probably push the balance in favour of MSU. This is a stagnation-breaker that is good for game health!

    Very briefly on Jetbikes, I reiterate that increased dakka does not make them any tougher than a Marine. And they are only S6, and now Serpents are only S6, so the overall Eldar arsenal well once again be 'weak' against AV13+. Lances are really not efficient enough to mitigate that gap. Access to D weapons does mitigate the gap; this is good internal balance. If that was missing then the internet would be crying about Eldar getting "Grey Knighted".

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your D-Weapon analysis is off. Result 2-5 still inflicts d3 wounds so they have a chance to kill any 3-wound eternal warrior regardless of what they roll on the table as long as it's a damage result.
    D-scythes are prevented from rolling a 6 on the table and even then they have a 1/3 chance of instantly fragging any model with 3 wounds and 2/3 for fragging any model with 2 wounds.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Paladins and Ogryns are hardly dominant units in the current state of the game, so I'm not sure what your point is? Bad units are still bad?


    And how is Wrecking Rhinos any sort of benchmark of power?


    If these are the things that concern you then you still have much to learn, padawan...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I choose those units based on alliterative power and despite all your denegrative comments it's you who have a lot to learn.


    There are all sorts of units that have their place in the game based on their percieved staying power either trough wounds, saves, feel no pain and hull points or a combination there of.


    D-weapons, and especially d-scythes counters most of those aspects. Models with less than 4 wounds models can die from just a single hit, denying saves and feel no pain in the proces, effectively cancelling the in built protection of that unit.
    If you want units that are more popular on the playing field it would be grotesques, talos, any tyranid monstrous creatures (even though most of those needs 2 d-hits to potentially dying), wraiths, etc.
    Of those units, only the wraiths really have a chance against a d-scythe as they have their famous 3++, the other units have to hope the opponent is unable to roll 3+ or 5+ respectively.


    Any vehicle with less than 4 hull points runs the risk of the same, one hit and die even without rolling an explode result.


    That's a level of destructive power that no other ordinary unit have. D-weapons have two chances of instantly wrecking a vehicle, either trough results on the damage chart by virtue of AP or by rolling high enough damage to strip the hullpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yea, I agree at eldar will be breaking up the "Titan" meta we have atm,

    My biggest worry isn't about the top tier tournament stage either though. people will play the top armies there shifting between codexes for whatever is most effective right then and there, if it will turn out to be a 50 different shades of eldar so be it

    there are other players in this hobby and I saw it happen when this kid decided to start up playing 40k with his friends some time into 6th ed.

    His 3 friends picked Eldar, Dark eldar and tau... while he picked tyranids.

    And at this level of play the dark eldar player never won vs the tau and eldar, while the tyranid player got his ass handed to him by all 3.

    So basically the eldar player was the most "skilled" player followed by the tau, dark eldar and the tyranid player was simply a bad player. (according to them)

    in the hands of someone who hasn't played hundred of games a year Eldar as they are in the upcomming book(and the current one) will award whoever starts out with eldar while other armies will have a higher experience requirement.

    We all can relate to wanting our favorite books being out tooled by some other book.

    Like realistically, what can a Dark angels, Space wolves, tyranid, Dark eldar, harlequin, mechanicum, grey knights, orks, khorne daemonkin, chaos space marines or tempestus
    do vs. a semi-potent(let say a less exp'd player copy pasted an internet list) Eldar, Grav-marines, tau broadside star, necron decurion etc?

    I have a feeling that eldar raised this bar even more being the trumph card to so much in just about any other army.
    Like you'd have to avoid 50% of the book not to be.

    it will be interesting seeing how eldar will change the meta and the normal games.


    I find the movement to "ban eldar players" is silly though.
    Just ask the eldar player to bring a less maxxed out army. if you play competively you need to be able to shift around, and sometimes not get to play your favorite codex.


    ... and on a complete side note... I do hope there is a chance for vortex grenades in the next marine codex :D

    ReplyDelete
  20. Having played 40k for a long time, I have seen the wheel turn many times. But some trends have held true over the last 20 years, and one of those is that offence trumps defence in 40k.

    This is fundamentally due to the D6 system; Terminators are nigh indestructible in fluff, but on the table you can just plink away with Lasguns and they week eventually die. No matter how well-defended something is, it can still generally be hurt by one or more 1-in-6 chances. And there is always a better offence somewhere in the ruleset than the best available defence.

    So no, tough units really don't have a place in the game in a competitive context. Occasionally the ruleset enables some units to be valuable based on their defence (e.g. 6th Ed Jetcouncil) but that comparative advantage never lasts, and the trend holds true.

    Most of the units you are listing are 'bad', in terms of not being popular in a competitive context, because they pay too much for defence that can be bypassed by a big enough (or numerous enough) gun. These units would still be bad even if Eldar (or others) weren't getting more access to D weapons.

    So no, D weapons are not a problem in the game. If you think that defence should be more valuable in relation to offence, I understand your frustration, but I doubt it will ever change while 40k is essentially a 1D6 system.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I understand your frustration, but inter-Faction imbalances are not a new issue in 40k! ;-P


    You have to remember that 40k has been around for 25+ years, and the ruleset is continuously growing for a couple of good reasons, and it is nearly impossible to balance such a broad and deep ruleset.


    GW rarely ever subtract from the ruleset, mainly for PR reasons; recall the uproar when Vect/Doom/Marbo/Pariahs were mysteriously vanished in codex updates in the last few years. Meanwhile, GW's entire business model is based on continuously drip-feeding new models into the market, with corresponding additions to the ruleset. Occasionally it is profitable to rejuvenate an old model (e.g. Jetbikes) but it is normally more profitable to release truly new models (e.g. Skitarii).


    With an ever-growing ruleset, the only way to inter-Faction balance the game would be a full reboot, a la 3rd Ed or what is rumoured for Fantasy 9th Ed (and look at all the negative PR that is generating!)


    Consider a balanced game like Magic The Gathering; you can only play tournaments with the 'current set' of cards, and I understand that a lot of social games will still follow similar guidelines on the 'age' of cards you may use. This allows MTG to reboot every year or so, and keeps the current ruleset constrained, and a constrained ruleset is MUCH easier to balance.


    Imagine the player reaction to multiple units, or even entire codexes, regularly being cut from the 40k ruleset to allow balance to be maintained? What if Centurions were just mysteriously vanished from the next Space Marine codex? The nerdrage would melt the planet!


    So unfortunately I don't think there is a solution to your problem scenario of players with affinities for lower-tier Factions being unable to defeat the top-tier Factions. Of course, the rules do enable players to build their army from ANY combination of Factions, so if a player CHOOSES to build pure Dark Angels then they have to take some personal responsibility for the consequence of that choice—regularly getting curb-stomped. I do recognise that some players only want to play certain Factions, or have constrained model collections, but ultimately if you want to stay competitive (or just avoid the curb stomping) in an ever-expanding ruleset then you do have to chase the meta to a certain degree, that's just the reality.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have no problem with the new Wraithknight rules as long as the eldar players that use them have no problem with me fielding my warhound with 2 turbo lasers. Lets face it with the rules changes to the wriathknight it should not be in regular play. Hell at least with knight titans I could run up and get lucky and roll two sets of 6's from my melta and watch it explode in a single round of shooting. In fact with it becomeing gargantuan I would argue the wraithknight is now stronger then the revenant titan which is a warhound equivalent.

    Eldar have never been a week army and they didn't need a excuse to have more access to D weapons then any other none forge world army in the game. I keep hearing the same defense about the D weapon proliferation in the eldar book that they aren't worth it if the enemy doesn't take super expensive units. How?, no army in the game just has griss units like conscripts. Realistically this thing will be targeting ever vehicle or heavy unit in the enemy army and simply ignoring troops and tarpits till it has to engage them. Hell if you get bored you can even double charge two units at once and break them safe in the knowledge that every wound you cause will automatically go against combat resolution as they won't be able to hurt you (I should know I do the same with my warhound all the time)

    Don't get me wrong I don't blame you for defending the army you love playing. I blame GW as they know for a fact that shifting the power this much will force people to drastically redesign their armies. In fact I feel sorry for a lot of eldar players as I can see many of them will have a harder time finding games after this codex. After all I already see people refusing to play against armies that use knight titans. So imagine the excuses people will come up with to avoid having to play against this monstrosity.

    Say what you want, but this is what is going to happen to the codex. It will be the new greyknights and over time every gamer will instinctively groan when they hear that so and so is bringing his eldar tournament list.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Kitsune, you sound like so many players with a rather inflexible view of what the game 'should be'. At some point you'll have to accept that 40k has moved beyond the 'infantry and armour' game it was 10 years ago and now encompassed a very broad 'combined arms' spectrum. And whether it fits with your view or not, players have just as much right to field their WK as you do to field your Titan. And if you—or anyone else—refuse to play games based on something your opponent is playing then I suggest the problem is your own closed-minded approach to the game, not anything your opponents or GW are doing. And if you maintain this approach you will soon find yourself lacking opponents altogether—nobody likes listening to the guy grumbling about the 'good old days' before flyers.


    I reject your premise that Eldar don't 'need' D weapons. With the exception of the now obsolete 6th Ed codex—which gave Eldar access to mass S7 for the first, last and only time—Eldar have long been characterised by being super-efficient at S6 firepower and inefficient above that threshold. Hard targets like T8, AV13+, and multi-wound good save models, have always been a challenge for Eldar to deal with. They simply don't do Poison and Lances efficiently like Dark Eldar.


    So something that can deal with hard targets, with reasonable efficiency, is essential to internally balance the codex. And while D weapons on all Wraithguard was probably pushing the design concept too far (although Wraithguard do have significant weaknesses) I think it is fine to have D on the WK. And I do not say that as an Eldar player, just a very experienced tournament player that thinks beyond first-order effects and actually understands the game.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Excellent post, subscribing. Lol

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks, and welcome to the site :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Great review, you actually looked at how everything fits in the metagame instead of just going "OMG D! DEEE!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks Andy, that's exactly what I was aiming to do. Too many folks review new codexes in the context of the pre-codex metagame. Eldar are a great example of a book that will significantly change the metagame, and many of those changes will actually keep Eldar under control.

    ReplyDelete
  28. lol please, to me wraith guard are overall less usefull now that I know I can stop their transport easier, who cares if the guns they don't get to use are stronger?

    They are also no longer troops

    And sure, the WK is powerfull with its added FNP and enhanced survivability but don't let us fool ourselves, we already hacked it down wound by wound, now we just know we can't get lucky and instant kill it but AP3 still fucks it over royally and rockets are ap3, are common, have good range and wound on a 4+, I'm not worried.


    People who are mad at the codex are getting mad at the completely wrong things

    if you think wraith units are good at killing tanks try falcons + firedragons.

    390 pts = 3 falcons with bright lance (3 s8 ap 2 shots each)
    that you can deep strik without scatter

    Fill em with fire dragons (use formation here too for 5 BS) for 360 pts ( 110 pts each + 10 for exarch exarch required in each unit)

    Now, firedragons have melta, hits on a 2+, ap1, adds +1 to the roll after a pen (they roll explode on a 4+) and the exarches have crack shot (let them reroll one to hit, wound or armor pen)

    that is a total of 750 pts
    I doubt any combination of wraith units can be more deadly than that.


    the wraith knight is used best with the suncannon + shield and to target medium strong enemies IMO, if you use either of the other options you could get more value from spending the points somewhere else but having the same task in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  29. people are mad because they have to adapt.

    They also focus too much on units on their own and how a single unit would do against another single unit in a duel instead of trying to think about the game as a whole.

    one notable weakness now that the waveserpent is weaker but still about the same in price is that Eldar still needs transports for things like wraith guards to be useful, that movement is easier to remove now, what good are those D strength flamers when the WS carrying them got popped 36"-48" away?

    ReplyDelete
  30. also, the change in how the game is played is to allow super heavies and GC's etc in normal games, they did not change it to make it not usable in normal games but because normal games now include these things.

    In my meta people have used titans, D weps, forge world units and super heavies for years, the only reason people have problems with it is because they are too butthurt about their current thing not working as intended because everything changed instead of trying to find out how to win

    ReplyDelete
  31. Good point fjuten. I don't know if I agree about the Serpent being strictly weaker as a transport, but I do think that we will see fewer Eldar tanks in lists and that will reduce their survivability due to loss of armour saturation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I would like to argue they are notably weaker, the serpent shied stacked with their cover so if the vehicle is more than 50% covered you will have a 3+ cover save WITHOUT jink, the difference between getting half your hits in and 1/3 of your hits in makes a huge difference, suddenly you need 9 shots instead of 6 to averagely take it out through saves. Jink getting the same benefit ofc.


    In all seriousness though it is far from weak, in several ways it is still the strongest transport in the game.
    It is fun to read the effects of D weapons and then consider the serpent shield for example.


    if you hit you roll on the "D table"
    2-5 cause a PENETRATING hit with additional effects, the serpent shield on the other hand says it negates pens on a 2+ making them glances and thus avoiding the D3 with hullpoints lost as that is an effect caused by the penetrating hit that no longer occurred.


    Technically a wave serpent's serpent shield can make a destroyer hit a single glance. ( doubt this is intended though but funny none the less) so yeah, weak? no. Weaker? sure :p


    On the other hand I guess you could argue they now have a save where none could be taken before (better with a 5++ than a 3+ cover if the enemy ignore cover)

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think we will see more variation of tanks but not necessarily less, 3 falcons for deep strike with an aspect host or DA shrine in them for example is very viable and not really that costly considering what you get. (750 pts for a full fire dragon aspect host inside falcons with bright lances, add 45 points to it and the tanks have a 5++ save)


    Nightspinners are very usefull with their monofilament shroud increasing the streangth by 1 for each other tank in the unit (starting at 7, could be 9 and AP2 on a 6) and it is barrage (hitting side armor I think?) and decent range (48") and that at only 300 pts, 345 if you want them to have that 5++ save


    everything is useful, lol

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes the Serpent Shield does work like that against D hits, you only lose 1HP :)

    I prefer having the 5++ over the boost to cover saves, since it helps you against Ignores Cover and assault hits where you previously had no protection.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I will certainly be considering triple Falcons and triple Spinners as the basis of some of my lists, but I expect this will not be a popular/common approach. Of course, this will actually make the build even better, as the metagame drifts away from anti-AV12.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Did not consider the assault hits, good point

    ReplyDelete
  37. Maybe my LGW group is unique, but Eldar players from pre-teens up have owned the game here for the last 2 years. The only army I'm aware of to ever beat them is Tau. In my case, I play Ultramaries. Even when I pod spam and just go for objectives I lose. Just last week I was up 17 VP's to 6, but lost due to being tabled, yet again, by an Eldar player. Call me a whiner, but why should I have to play allies (and buy other armies) just to have any hope of winning a game. I'm no General Patton, but I'm not an idiot either. Even when playing centstars I routinely get shot or assaulted off of the table. Anyway, everyone in my gaming circle was expecting or at least hoping the Eldar codex would nerf some of the OP, but instead GW went all in. Only the wavespam took a hit, but now it will be wraithDspam, falconspam, and WKs. All of our multi-army Eldar players have stopped playing their Eldar armies because it gets boring winning every single game by tabling your opponent.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I sympathise with your situation, because our roles were reversed for the seven years prior to the 2013 Eldar codex when they were pathetic and Marines were dominant.

    But your problem is not that GW made Eldar too good, it's that they've made Marines too bad. Hopefully the new Marine codex rumoured to be on the way will remedy that.

    That said, you do have the power to improve your army, by taking allies (e.g. Knights, Assassins, Inquisition). You chose not to, and the consequence is your army becomes weaker. So you do need to accept some responsibility for your situation.

    ReplyDelete