Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have this growing feeling that the new Eldar codex is broken, allow me to explain.

My first issue is that GW didn’t include craftworld specific lists. I know that you can effectively play any craftworld due to the way the choices are split and maybe I’m just showing my age here but Pathfinders should be limited to Altaioc, Wraithguard as troops should be Iyanden and Guardian Jetbikes as troops should be for Saim-Hann only. Am I alone? It is an invitation for players to play armies that are against the character of their Craftworld and to completely avoid Guardian squads (which are becoming an increasingly rare sight).

GW seem to have placed a great deal of trust in its players not to abuse the open nature of the codex, unfortunately this doesn’t seem to have been the case. I am seeing the carbon copies of the lists with Jetbikes galore and super-resilient Falcons filled with Harlequins. I have no complaints with people using these lists it is their hobby and they are allowed to play their armies any way they like, it just seems to me that a lot of the variety, depth and background of the Eldar race is not being represented on the tabletop.

Secondly Warwalkers, duplicate weapons that aren’t twin linked? I can’t think of another example of this in any other codex (admittedly I don’t own them all so I am happy to stand corrected). The chance to lay down 24 shots a turn was just too much for me to resist. I have searched but can’t find an explanation as to why these aren’t TL weapons.

Thirdly (and this is a personal bugbear more than the others) Eldar Farseers should have remained T4 they are slowly turning to crystal before they eventually take their place in the Dome of Seers.

My penultimate point would be that I read before the release of the codex that the Aspect Warrior squads were being changed to be valuable in their own right and not simply an Exarch delivery system. Whilst I can see that this has worked for some of the aspects some (and Striking Scorpions spring to mind) still seem to be just that. This could just be the way I have seen them used.

Finally I dislike the removal of the armoury I appreciate that this is the way the new codices are moving but I don’t feel it is a good move, this removal of choice will lead to a more streamlined game but also a game that doesn’t reflect the vast varied nature of the galaxy. Codices of this nature will in my opinion mean the inevitable demise of the SM traits and the IG Doctrine system which would be a great shame, but that is a thread for another post.

The first point is probably my main concern with regards the codex being broken, the rest are bugbears and probably matters of personal taste. I would be interested as to what other people’s opinions are.

Before the hate mail starts, I would just like to point out that I play an Eldar army, and enjoy playing it, I also enjoy the challenge of playing against the powerful new army combinations that the codex has brought to the fore; I just feel that the codex doesn’t really work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
I must admit fluff wise I dont like the new eldar codex as it does allow you to field unusual combinations.

Regarding Warwalkers I could not understand this at all, with the new codex they are phenomenal, and do not see any real downsides to them!!

To be honest I share some of the other bugbears with the list however I dont necessarily think it is broken. Its just not as interesting as the previous codex, besides on the armoury note, I always thought the the previous eldar armoury was too small anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
To correct a few points:

It is an invitation for players to play armies that are against the character of their Craftworld and to completely avoid Guardian squads (which are becoming an increasingly rare sight).
Guardians should never have been included in the numbers they used to be. They are a civilian levy that are used as a last resort. The majority of the fighting should be done by Aspect Warriors. This codex has put that right.

I have no complaints with people using these lists it is their hobby and they are allowed to play their armies any way they like, it just seems to me that a lot of the variety, depth and background of the Eldar race is not being represented on the tabletop.
There will always be some combos better than others in codexes. However in the new Eldar codex you have 3 more units available than before and a lot of them have been made better and more viable. Unless you're going full on tournament hardcore and want to netlist then you actually have more choice than before.

Secondly Warwalkers, duplicate weapons that aren’t twin linked? I can’t think of another example of this in any other codex (admittedly I don’t own them all so I am happy to stand corrected).
Er, maybe its race specific? I don't see anyone else getting Farseers either. War Walkers are hardly game-breaking units as it is.

My penultimate point would be that I read before the release of the codex that the Aspect Warrior squads were being changed to be valuable in their own right and not simply an Exarch delivery system.
The only true Exarch delivery system that used to be about was Swooping hawks and that has been fixed. Everything else just utilised the exarch wargear in the same way as marines utilise vet sarges, Aspiring champions, guard officers etc. That's a normal part of the game.

Finally I dislike the removal of the armoury I appreciate that this is the way the new codices are moving but I don’t feel it is a good move, this removal of choice will lead to a more streamlined game but also a game that doesn’t reflect the vast varied nature of the galaxy.
All of the option in the armoury can still be taken as options for the few units that had access for the armoury before. Nothing has been lost (apart from removing the options for boxing Warlocks which was needed), its just moved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Gotta agree with the man. The new Eldar codex is IMO the best one GW have ever produced and that's saying something really, as i think all the 4th ed codices so far have been really extremly good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
stormshroud said:
Secondly Warwalkers, duplicate weapons that aren’t twin linked? I can’t think of another example of this in any other codex (admittedly I don’t own them all so I am happy to stand corrected).
Ork Dread weapons, Tau Hammerhead burst cannons, Imperial Guard Leman Russ Heavybolters, Marine Predator Sponsons....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
anathema - Given that Guardians are civilian levies why are so many of them zipping about the 40K battlefields on jetbikes rather than delivering pizzas or some such?

Harlequins are travelling troupes that are a rare sight on a craftworld, why then are they appearing on every battlefield in such great numbers. If Guardians should be a rare sight surely so should Harlequins?

I totally agree that the variety is offered in the Eldar Codex but I haven't found that variety reflected on the battlefields. For example I have seen 1 unit of rangers since the new codex came out and all the rest have been pathfinders? I have seen a Biel-tan army whose troops where Pathfinders and Wraithguard, I suppose what I am saying is for me the craftworlds unique characters have been lost under the stamp of streamlining.


dakari-mane - Ork dread weapons are TL according to my codex, I will concede on vehicle sponsons though as I hadn't considered them.

To clarify what I meant on the Warwalkers. I agree they aren't game breaking, but I just find them a perculiar exception to the general streamlining that is going on atm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
anathema - Given that Guardians are civilian levies why are so many of them zipping about the 40K battlefields on jetbikes rather than delivering pizzas or some such?
So you'll see 6 jetbikes, thats a damn sight less than the standard 42 bodies protecting the starcannons you'd get last time out. The options are there to opt for the Aspect warrior troops in DA, Wraithguard if you are that way inclined or the Ranger/Pathfinders who are more likely to be about on battlefields according to fluff.

Harlequins are travelling troupes that are a rare sight on a craftworld, why then are they appearing on every battlefield in such great numbers. If Guardians should be a rare sight surely so should Harlequins?
Depends if you field a Harlequin troupe themed army, in which case you can take the full 30 and model other units accordingly.

I have seen a Biel-tan army whose troops where Pathfinders and Wraithguard, I suppose what I am saying is for me the craftworlds unique characters have been lost under the stamp of streamlining.
Not so, the background is still there and you can still follow strict craftworld structure if you want. Its just not enforced rigidly now.

I think what you're actually complaining about is seeing lots of identikit lists on the battlefield. This is not down to the codex, but down to players army selections. There are certain builds that are stronger than others, just as in any codex. However you actually have more flexibility than before. All of the old restricted Craftworld lists can be easily done with the new Codex, just that you can make them more flexibly than before if desired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
stormshroud said:
dakari-mane - Ork dread weapons are TL according to my codex, I will concede on vehicle sponsons though as I hadn't considered them.
Re-read. Only if you are buying 3 or more ranged weapons do they become twinlinked. You can just have 2 weapons & fire many many shots.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
From my POV, the Eldar 'dex is what the designers originally intended with the Space Marine 'dex. One standard list with the ability to customize an army to fit your particular style.

GW did ok with IG Doctrines, but they messed up just a bit with SM Traits. They did better with Eldar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
What's the problem with space marine traits? I think they're fine and have never, ever thought they were in any way unfair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Stella Cadente said:
*cough* 6 devastator squads *cough*
If someone wants to put that many points into 6 Dev squads I'm a happy man and can dance away from their static arses picking them off one at a time. If however they choose to put their points into pods and Predators, I'm a bit more worried.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Concur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
as i think all the 4th ed codices so far have been really extremly good.
Really? So DA/BA and the future they hold for SM's in general?

Having Special Characters crammed down the throat, everything useful more expensive giving nothing useful in return, etc- you know the drill.


As for Eldar being broken, of course not, it's so easy to kill tanks that are more resilient and mobile than Land Raiders for a fraction of the cost, or deal with Space Clowns that you can't shoot, ignore cover, etc, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
I dont know if I would say that its broken, But it is very good. I think the eldar in general have one of the better army lists, they have units that are good at shooting, and units that are good at assaulting. They have a railgun like weapon, and they all move fast.

as a Black Templar player I always find it very hard to compete with their common abilities like Defend and harlequins. The only strategy that Ive found that allows me to beat the harlequins is sacrificing a squad to them. but historically they always go first and they always slaughter my marines.

I don't know if the Black Templar codex is up to date, or if it is already outdated (especially compared to the DA codex) but I hope its as powerful as the eldar army in the future
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
BAs aren't so bad. I think DA was an experiment, and let's face it, it's not a mainstream codex. Codex Nids, marines, Tau and Eldar have all been pretty ace.

You know, i've never really struggled against Harlequins. I always kill them pretty good. I will admit falcons etc are pretty hard to kill but it's very easy to pull their teeth. I use 2 Fire prisms for fire support in my eldar and they never get to bloody shoot, which is quite annoying.

Wave serpents aren't particulary difficult to kill either and when that's 150 pts of none scoring transport and 150+ pts of very fragile aspect warriors i would say it all balances out, yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
BAs aren't so bad. I think DA was an experiment, and let's face it, it's not a mainstream codex. Codex Nids, marines, Tau and Eldar have all been pretty ace.
BA's are even more a one-trick pony than before. Now that they pay for Death Company, BA must now be a Death Company delivery system.
The only other 'powerful' things are Special Characters (there's a surprise) and taking Assault Marines as Troops (so not needed, at least Assault Marine sales will improve).

The thing with them not being 'mainstream' is that it is very likely Marines will have much of the BA/DA rules- the new points costs, Combat Squads, 5/10 man only, etc, etc.

You know, i've never really struggled against Harlequins. I always kill them pretty good. I will admit falcons etc are pretty hard to kill but it's very easy to pull their teeth. I use 2 Fire prisms for fire support in my eldar and they never get to bloody shoot, which is quite annoying.
How is it easy to stop Space Clowns charging out of a Falcon, anything short of Destroyed won't stop them.
It's such an easy tactic, hurl Falcon forward on a flank, easily weather enemy firepower, unleash Harlies- game won.

I'll agree that Eldar firepower can be stopped temporarily, but in a game based on objectives having unkillable Skimmers wins out everytime. There's always a Skimmer left to fly over and claim the objective, how many non-Skimmer tanks survive that long...

I'll clarify, 95% of the Eldar Codex is fine, the other 5% are Holofields and Space Clowns. The Skimmer versus Ground Tank is the bad design of the 4th Ed rulebook, not an Eldar Codex problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Aye, the over relience on special characters is a pisser. Enforcing the combat squad rules onto codex SM will be big mistake in my opinion too.

Land vehicles are ok, i think what needs to change on that front is the Hull down rules need to revert to what they used to be. That'd even the slight imbalance out.

I've been using a fair amount of predators and Guard tanks of late and have not found them too bad at all. You really do have to pay the 5pts for Dozer blades though. :lol:
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top