What Do We Do With a Broken Codex?

What Do We Do With a Broken Codex?

What Do We Do With a Broken Codex?

What Do We Do With a Broken Codex?

Early in the morning!

(FULL DISCLOSURE: Though I’m writing this article for Frontline Gaming, my opinions here aren’t representative of FLG as a whole nor of what Reece- nor any of the others- intend to do for the ITC format. My purpose in posting it is just to raise what I feel are important points of discussion so that the players are better-informed about the types of options available when it comes time to make a decision, and the pros/cons to each of them.)

So we now have a full leak of the Eldar codex and… it’s a doozy. It’s got bikes with Scatter Lasers everywhere. It’s got Str D guns available on all sorts of platforms, including blasts and templates. It’s got a cheap gargantuan creature. It’s got an AP3 apocalyptic blast. It is, as the kids sometimes comment, cray cray.

Of course, not everyone believes or agrees with this, but I think the consensus from most of the strong tournament players is that Eldar are going to be completely out of hand if left untouched. 40K players like to complain about “broken” and “overpowered” stuff, but the reality is that the game has never seen a real broken unit before, not like many other systems have. Even during the worst of 5th Edition, when people bitched about Grey Knights and Space Wolves and Imperial Guard, none of those armies ever exceeded 33% rates of appearance at tournaments. And sure, when you’re there in the thick of it that seems like a lot, but games like Magic: the Gathering have endured 50% and even higher rates of single decks being played- indeed, there have been championships where almost every single one of thirty-two players were using one particular card. Can you imagine how much bitching that would draw in 40K? Well, if Eldar are left unchecked, I think that may be what you’ll see- they are just so superior to any other codex that you’ll see not just Eldar predominating, but Eldar as omnipresent at the top tables.

So. Something needs to be done- but what?

The Problem

The issues are actually relatively simple to pinpoint, although beyond that it gets tricky. Many of the things in the codex are potentially powerful, but not game-breaking; we already have Gargantuan Creatures in the game, we already have Stomp as a mechanic, we already have huge low-AP blasts, we already have powerful psykers, and we already have abusive Invisibility shenanigans. All of those things ITC has addressed already and, while I may have some issues with how they handle a few things, I think by and large their solutions work. So the first thing to recognize is that not everything needs to be fixed. In fact, very little of it does. In general principle, the fewer changes made the better. As tournament players, most of us have accepted a certain number of alterations for the sake of playability already- no Unbound lists, the ITC FAQ, etc. I think Adepticon’s example also shows that without the 2+ rerollable nerf, very abusive things will also happen on that front as well. So let’s be clear: these changes are not the first ones we’ve made to things.

The big issue, the one that needs to be dealt with, is the presence of Strength D weapons on so many- and so cheap of- platforms. The Wraithknight (with Heavy Wraithcannons), Wraithguard (with Wraithcannons and D-Scythes), Hemlock Wraithfighter (with Heavy D-Scythes) and Support Battery (with D-Cannons) all have Str D weapons available to them, and they can come as cheap as 32pts each. While some people might argue that having such guns around with discourage Knights, superheavies, and deathstar units, the truth is that it will also discourage the use of vehicles, MCs, and HQs of any meaningful cost- not something that most folks want to see happen. Str D is not just an anti-LoW option, but rather a gun that is superior against almost all targets short of basic infantry units- and VASTLY superior. The upgrade to Str D from S10 is an increase of anywhere from 2x to 5x the overall effectiveness, depending on the target; it’s one of the biggest changes in statlines that you can see in the game.

Compounding this problem is the fact that Eldar have extensive options to mitigate the problems these units might otherwise face; Webway Portals can bring them in precisely where they are needed and in range of the enemy, negating one issue. Twin-linking (via Prescience and/or Guide) can mitigate accuracy issues for the blast varieties. High rate-off-fire weapons on other platforms (including, but not limited to, Windrider bikes) render concerns about being overwhelmed by horde units pointless. While Str D weapons certainly have their limitations, the codex is set up such that those limitations can largely be bypassed by other means and thus multiplying the problem.

So, I think that unless we want the game to devolve into a game of “who brought the best Eldar army for killing other Eldar armies,” something needs to be changed. Unfortunately, I don’t think I have any kind of magical solutions to the problem that aren’t going to raise a lot of contention. However, a number of potential ones have been proposed, and I think it’s worth talking about them.


Solution #1: Ban all ranged Str D weapons.

This would be the most drastic and final of options, and one I really don’t like the idea of. While it certainly works- units can’t be a problem if they’re not in the game- it also cuts out a lot of options from the book without any recourse for people who want to use them and is heavy-handed at best (and tyrannical at worst.) While it does keep in line with the existing policy of banning Str D ranged weapons already in place, the policy specifically exempted non-superheavy units that had access to such weapons (via Vortex of Doom, Powers of the C’tan, etc) probably for this very sort of reason.

I think enacting this sort of a policy on the subject would result in some major splits in the community acceptance of ITC guidelines in addition to larger divisions in the 40K community as a whole. Of all the options presented so far, I think it’s easily the worst simply because of its absolutist assumptions and complete lack of consideration of any other factors.

Solution #2: Limit ranged Str D weapons to being a 0-1 choice in the army.

This is one that has been tossed around a number of times, and like the first possibility it has the advantage of being relatively simple: prohibit armies from containing more than one unit with a ranged Str D weapon. It doesn’t wholly eliminate the problem, but it trims it down to a more manageable size without outright-banning anything from play. Players who want to use any of the new units are free to do so- in moderation. It also avoids any sort of issues with altering statlines and whatnot; everything is still just as printed in the book, but with the caveat that you can’t have more than one of them (which is a pretty simple thing to remember.)

The downside here is that this very potentially doesn’t actually solve the problem, it just limits it. Like stanching the flow from a cut, you aren’t really doing anything to fix things, just trying to stave off the damage a little bit in hopes that something else will come along later and fix it for real. Str D weapons will still be incredibly powerful and I guarantee you that, even with this change, ever Eldar player will still field a squad of them in their army (and many armies will take Eldar allies specifically to get access to Str D guns), but it at least prevents the absolute ubiquity that would otherwise be the case.

Solution #3: Ban all Str D weapons that use a marker or template

This can essentially be considered a variant of the above; basically, it says that the real problems with Str D are not the single-shot versions (the Wraithcannon and Heavy Wraithcannon), which are subject to all the usual limitations of single-shot guns and that can’t affect more than one target, but rather that it’s the ability to strike multiple units and auto-hit (in the case of templates, at least) that make such weapons dangerous. So, the thinking says, don’t ban everything, just the problems, and let players continue to use at least some of the stuff they like.

The upside here is that it’s a less wide-ranging ban and allows almost every one of the units in question (excepting the Hemlock Wraithfighter) to choose at least one setup that doesn’t violate the ban, thus allowing people to use them if they choose. The downside is… well, I don’t think it really solves the problem. While it does remove arguably the worst offenders (D-Scythe Wraithguard and D-Cannon Batteries), I think that the single-shot guns are still very powerful options that will overshadow many other things. You’ll still see lots of people bringing 5-15 Str D weapons in an army, and I don’t think that’s a good sign.

Solution #4: Make Str D weapons roll at a penalty on the table.

Now we get into the slightly more complex solutions. The idea here is that Str D itself is not inherently problematic, but rather that it’s simply undercosted for what you’re getting- thus, the best solution isn’t to remove Str D from the game but simply to make its effectiveness more in line with its cost. Rather than trying to readjust all of the point costs of a bunch of different units and bicker and argue over a dozen little things, it’s easier just to change the Destroyer table itself. The real problem is the ‘6’ result, which auto-kills almost anything in the game without recourse; the typical proposal is to simply give Str D weapons a blanket -1 penalty when rolling on the Destroyer table, preventing them from ever getting the autokill result and making them slightly less effective as a whole. D-Scythes in particular, with their innate -1 on the table already, can find this quite painful. Some versions also limit the penalty to non-superheavy targets (so it’s still possible to vaporize a Knight, for example, but not a Land Raider- something of a way to limit the units many people dislike seeing around.)

Unlike the solutions presented thus far, this one is hard to evaluate- which, I think, is a good sign. Will this be enough to reign Str D weapons in? Does it make them too weak? It’s hard to say. But where all of the others have obvious flaws, I think whatever problems this solution has are at least subsurface enough to require a bit more thinking and discussion, which is itself a starting point.

Solution #5: Make Str D weapons function as S10 with bonuses

This was proposed a lot back during 6th Edition (when Str D weapons were even more broken, if you can believe that); essentially, it proposes to make Str D less of a “leap” from Str 10 by not treating it as its own special unique snowflake and making it play by everyone else’s rules. Typically the proposal was for something like Str 10, Instant Death, Sunder (reroll failed penetrations), and reroll failed cover saves- although in light of the “new” Str D the latter part might be dropped. This makes Str D still dangerous to heavy targets, but no longer has it penetrating them on a 2+ (and stops it from automatically killing them on a result of 6, regardless of defenses.)

The upside here is that this absolutely will solve the problem; it is a pretty drastic shift down to the power level and can hardly be argued to be much worse than existing units. The downside is that it’s complicated (requiring players to remember exactly what abilities replace the usual Str D rules) and arguably not an even change, as it hurts MCs a lot worse than it does vehicles. That will be the real problem with implementing something like this- getting people to agree which changes are “good enough” to solve the problem, as no two people are going to agree on exactly how severe a problem it really is.

Solution #6: Revert the Eldar weapons to their old profile

This is the other end of the spectrum from simply banning everything, albeit in a very similar way- to simply ignore what GW did with Distort weapons and revert them all to their 6E profiles, which were generally-agreed not to be particularly powerful. Unlike the above solution, this doesn’t give them any special bonuses above and beyond regular Str 10, under the assumption that they really don’t need it- Str 10 was good enough before and it’s good enough now.

The obvious plus side here is that it prevents Str D from being a thing in the normal game while not actually prohibiting anyone from using their plastic spaceman toys if they want to; the downside is that it’s a wholesale rejection of a new edition in favor of an old, which is not a good path to tread down. Like the ban-everything solution, it acts with such a heavy hand that there is very little grace to it and it will probably result in more than a little bit of community division on the subject.

EDIT: One of our commenters, Bellerah, has proposed an additional solution I think might be very valuable to consider: leave Str D the same, but change the ‘6’ result to be like the 2-5 results, but ignore saves (i.e. no extra damage, but unstoppable.) I think this is definitely a good idea, but I question whether it’s enough- it doesn’t stop Str D weapons from picking apart heavier targets (like tanks and MCs) of all kinds pretty horrifically still, though it does remove the “it just dies” problem.


What Do We Do With a Broken Codex (reprise)

So- we’ve seen the major categories of solutions presented thus far. As I said, I don’t think there are any easy answers to any of this, but there are more than a few concerns and priorities that we ought to be keeping track of. First of all, whatever we do we want it to be something that works and keeps the game as fun as possible for as many people as possible. That means not making games into one-sided murderfests where possible and not letting it devolve into a “play this army or build specifically to beat this army” scenario. But we also want for people to be able to use their expensive plastic toys- the Wraithguys aren’t some flash-in-the-pan unit that no one cares about yet, but rather a venerable part of their codex with a lot of history behind them. Lots of people like using them and I think they add something interesting to the Eldar faction as a whole, breaking up the similarity of their other units; to lose that is not just unfortunate, but is going to put a lot of people off. That brings me into the third point: whatever is done needs to be something with a strong community backing, or at least acceptance; ITC, though not a democracy, is also not something with any sort of authority or power over players to enforce itself- and if they don’t like it, they will abandon it for other solutions. Lastly, we want a solution that doesn’t require jumping through too many hoops- the simpler it can be made, the better, because it’s something that players will likely need to remember many times during play.

In light of these factors, I think that solutions #2, #4, and #5 are the most likely candidates for being feasible. All three are limited in scope enough so as to allow players some options, but also significant enough that they address the issue. While each of them has their individual quirks and potential hurdles, they do not strike me as insurmountable ones.

That leaves the final step in all of this: reaction from the community. Although there is a bit of time yet to get in some play experience with the new book (either in its pristine state or with one of the proposed alterations) before a really major event happens, I think gauging the initial reaction of folks is certainly worthwhile. What problems do you see, looking at the proposed ideas? How much do the potential changes bother you? Are there any solutions I missed that you think are viable?

Reece will, of course, be making a post of his own about this in the near future in a more official capacity, but I think some discussion before then is a good thing. So, have at it- but try and keep things civil.


About abusepuppy

AbusePuppy is the one who has been ruining 40K for everyone this whole time. He is also searching for the six-fingered man and is one of the three people who know the secret recipe for coke (not the soda, the illegal drug.)

181 Responses to “What Do We Do With a Broken Codex?”

  1. Hotsauceman1 April 24, 2015 7:19 am #

    I really don’t like it tbh. I think something needs to be done tbh.
    I think making ranged d str 10 with an extra d3 hull points is a sane solution.
    Still doesn’t matter, bikes are the real problem.
    And I want everyone to know. 4th is one or the few systems that is resistant to change for tournamenT. Even steamroller tournaments throws in some restrictions to balance things out.

    • OverwatchCNC April 24, 2015 12:27 pm #

      I really hate these types of responses from our community. A more appropriate response to perceived bad rules or codices would be to take a measured look at them. Try it all out, make sure it is broken then come up with a real response. All this conjecture and running about rubbing dirt in our hair over something that hasn’t been proven to be insanely OP is complete nonsense and really bad for our community as a whole. Then again, it’s the internet.

      I wrote a longer response to this on capture and control. Give it a click or not.


      • Hotsauceman1 April 24, 2015 8:32 pm #

        Im sorry, but I know Scatterbikes are good, people complain about tau, these things put out more shots than most ARMIES
        And No, What are we gonna do? Someone comes in with 40 bike with LAZERS that he was told he could have, painted them and played with them for 3 months. Then we say “SORRY TO OP, BANNED” after the ITC let him have it for 3 months? Stem this at the source.

  2. Cuddles April 24, 2015 7:19 am #

    This article is quite thorough and impressive. I appreciate what you have done, because it is an honest attempt at fixing what appears to be an anomaly. I think it will be difficult to impose, I offer these not as friendly solutions, as I think the new book is an abomination and an anomaly. All other things being equal, player experience, strategy, and intelligence, if one person shows up with an Eldar army, and another with something else, the eldar player will win more often than not.

    Solution #7: If you play Eldar, you use the old book, with the WS using the current rules.

    Solution #8: Create an Eldar Championship, where any armies that are all or part composed with Eldar play against each other. Other championships are everything else and players who voluntarily agree to use the old dex with WS nerfed.

    • Weidekuh April 24, 2015 7:51 am #

      While The Wraithknight and Webway Wraithguards are over the top and probably Jetbikes too, the Aspect Warriors are absolutely phenomenal fluffy. I would really hate to have them invalidated.

      Aspects Warriors have strong abilities, while still being T3 infantry and thus an easy target for any weapon in the game.

      • Cuddles April 24, 2015 7:57 am #

        Yeah. I don’t take the position that the entire book is over powered, but when you start nerfing more than one or two things it gets complicated in a way that is impractical. This is a simple solution(s) to what appears to be an incoming problem.

      • Reecius April 24, 2015 8:06 am #

        I am stoked on the Aspect Warriors, too, can’t wait to get my Scorpions on the table! Warp Spiders may be a bit much though, lol, but we’ll see.

        I personally don’t think any changes needs to even be considered for Aspect Warriors, myself.

        Really, for me at least, the D weapons and possibly Jetbikes are the only things that really need to be looked at. The rest is very powerful but in the realm of reasonable in my eyes.

        • greggles April 24, 2015 8:33 am #

          Banshee mask is awesome…immune to overwatch units…Best counter to D-scythe wraithguard! 🙂

          • fluger April 24, 2015 8:54 am

            I guess? But they still don’t hit very hard.

          • Nomeny April 24, 2015 8:57 am

            Lots of stuff is immune to overwatch: The dirge caster in the Chaos Space Marine codex, for example, cancels all overwatch within 6″ of the vehicle. Or simply anything that has cheap cannon-fodder to charge first before it charges, like Tyranids.

        • DarkLink April 24, 2015 8:52 am #

          You just need a copy of the new codex, old codex, scissors, and a gluestick. Kindergarden all over again.

          The wraithknight is absolutely disgusting even without D, too.

        • fluger April 24, 2015 8:54 am #

          Yes, I LOVE the Striking Scorpion’s new rules. They were passable in the last dex, but now they are actually quite scary for a wide variety of targets. The shrouded ’til assault/shoot is STRONG as well because it means they can infiltrate pretty close and not be too worried. 2+ cover and 3+ armor is hard to budge even with only being T3. They are also one of the aspects were I think an Exarch is a must, he’s a challenge nightmare!

          • gvcolor April 24, 2015 9:29 am

            and add in Karandras …

          • fluger April 24, 2015 3:31 pm

            Karandras is fun and all, but I prefer Maugan Ra for sheer ranged dominance.

          • PrimoFederalist April 25, 2015 2:21 pm

            Adding to your point: if you take any one of the three Warhost detachments, every model’s Run move in that formation is automatically a “6”.

        • Clover362 April 24, 2015 10:36 am #

          wraithnights are reasonable at 295?

        • tag April 24, 2015 1:08 pm #

          I generally agree for now. It feels like -1 to Ranged D, and 1 Special Weapon per jetbike unit has Eldar winning most of their games, and competing with Newcrons for most powerful codex, but that is fine. We are used to codex imbalance on that scale. Eldar have been a top dog codex for quite some time, and a more intensive rewrite or repointing of Eldar units would be too divisive.

        • Liberame April 25, 2015 2:12 pm #

          Why not just make the 6 result be like the 2-5 and cause d3 wounds, but have it keep the no saves of any kind allowed rule. So there is still a benefit of rolling a 6 but it doesn’t one shot everything. Could even make it like the 6th edition 2-5 so its d3+1.

          TLDR how about D
          1- nothing
          2-5 D3 wounds
          6 D3+1 wounds, nothing to stop it..

  3. Cowboy April 24, 2015 7:38 am #

    I support solution 5. I also think that Gardian Jetbikes should be allowed to take 1 special weapon per 3 bikes as it has typically been. No need to allow an already very undercosted unit to become one of the best shooting units in the game too. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to allow Space Marine bikes to have a 10 point assault cannon on every bike… that is basically what is happening now. Eldar are being given access to both hyper rate of fire Strength 6 weapons, and high volume of Strength D weapons for killing whatever the S6 torrent cannot mathematically hurt.

    This is a blatant cash grab by the studio. We the community must counter or our game will be subjected to ever greater examples of power creep.


    What sort of in-built weaknesses do they have?


    Check out time stamps: 3:37, 5:30 and 5:50, then ask yourself if you honestly think that GW is doing a good job as thoughtfully crafting a slightly imbalanced game, or if they are attempting to do this, but badly missing the mark because they don’t fully understand their game in the same way competitive players do.

    • Marsyas April 24, 2015 8:26 am #

      What, you think Eldar doesnt already have options to spam S6? We can get the same (with shuriken) or almost the same (with 1 shuriken cannon, 1 scatter laser) volume of fire out of vypers for 1 point cheaper, you know. War walkersalso have a similar output for a comparable cost (slightly more expensive and far less mobile, but they get a 5++).

      • IndigoJack April 24, 2015 10:14 am #

        Warwalkers and vypers are AV10 with 2 HPs. It’s hardly a strong comparison

        • Scotyknows April 24, 2015 11:22 am #

          They arent nearly as fast (36in flat out) and they are not a TROOPS CHOICE!

          • Sean April 24, 2015 1:22 pm

            Yeah, they’re slower, more fragile, more expensive, and don’t fill core requirements. Not really comparable at all.

          • Marsyas April 24, 2015 3:30 pm

            re: Sean
            Actually, they do fill core requirements, depending on the Guardian host you choose. (Combined Arms Detatchment? What’s that? Can you eat it?)

          • IndigoJack April 24, 2015 3:47 pm

            Not by themselves

  4. Cowboy April 24, 2015 7:45 am #

    Did we really need a new Eldar book? They are already the best codex, we were supposed to get a nerf to help fix the game. All we need is an FAQ to change the Serpent Shield and a change to Fortune to prevent re-rollable saves (which make no mathematical sense in a d6 system) and the old Eldar codex would be fine. Very good, internally balanced, an arguably approaching external balance. What is this new codex business?

    • Cowboy April 24, 2015 7:45 am #

      Codex: Sell the New Jetbike Models?

      • colinsherlow April 24, 2015 12:53 pm #

        The new book is great minus the wraithknight point cost, mass D options and the windriders all being able to take heavy weapons. If that stuff was a little different the book would get a big A++.

        I think if gw wanted eldar to have D weapon then maybe it could have been something more along the lines like how the prism tank works but for D weapons as well. Say X amount of guns combine to make a single shot St D or something of the sort

    • Weidekuh April 24, 2015 7:56 am #

      The “best” codex only if you spammed 2(3) mandatory units. Serpents, Wraithknights (and demon summoning Farseer).
      The rest was not tournament winning stuff at all.

      So for internal balance, I’m really happy to have a new codex. Sadly there will be even more hate coming our Eldar way. Really hate it that my beautifully modeled and painted Wraithknights won’t see the light of day anymore. 🙁

      • Sean April 24, 2015 10:56 am #

        Eh. Swooping Hawks, Warp Spiders, Fire Dragons, Night Spinners, Shadow Weavers, and arguably a few other things were all good enough to make tourney lists as well. Serpents and WKs were the core of things, but hardly the only options.

    • PrimoFederalist April 25, 2015 2:23 pm #

      Well, the answer is “yes” they did need a new codex. The problem is that this fixed the Serpent Shield but then added even more and worse shenanigans.

  5. Thomas April 24, 2015 7:58 am #

    If I would try to change Destroyer weapons I would just lower the damage output on the six. Maybe 1d3+3 or 1d6+1and allow reduced inv. saves. -1 or -2 on your saving throw or force rerolls on successful saving throws.

  6. Kwodd April 24, 2015 8:01 am #

    Great article Sean, I think #4 is the way to go. Still gives D an edge vs S10 and is simple enough to solve the problem with a sentence.

    I also think it’s time to revisit acceptable LoW options for other armies, the WK has set the bar and it’s time to let some decent options see table time. *cough* harridan *cough*

    Look forward to seeing you and your space elves at SoS.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 10:57 am #

      I don’t think that the Wraithknight should be a good measuring point for other Lords of War, just as I don’t think the (old) Wave Serpent was a good measuring point for what the power level of units in codices “should” have been.

      I’m hoping to make Storm, but it’s not a guarantee at this point sadly.

  7. Nomeny April 24, 2015 8:04 am #

    We count our chickens before they’ve hatched now, we count our chickens before they hatch now, we count our chickens before they’ve hatched now, before we’ve played any games!

    • Reecius April 24, 2015 8:07 am #

      Fair point, but I know a lot of folks have already played some games with the new Eldar, many people have had access to the rules a bit early through various means.

      • Nomeny April 24, 2015 8:23 am #

        Yeah, and these things usually take a few months to pan out while people react. Once the rules are widely available, and in general use, people will be used to them and calm down.

        I mean, I’ve read through the rules too. I think they’re remarkably balanced, and I’ve thought the same about all the 7th edition releases. I could be wrong I suppose, but it seems stupid to try and change them before we’ve gotten to actually know them.

        • rollawaythestone April 24, 2015 10:31 am #

          If a 5 man Tactical Marine squad got a free upgrade to switch their Bolters for Wraithcannons, would you accept that was unfair? What if it cost them 20 pts a model to trade for Wraithcannons? Even if it cost them 20 pts a model, they would be a worse unit than Wraithguard! They would cost more and have a worse statline, and have less effective range (as Wraithguard can grab Battlefocus).

        • Sean April 24, 2015 10:58 am #

          >I think they’re remarkably balanced

          Just like Escalation was remarkably balanced.

          • Nomeny April 25, 2015 6:55 am

            That’s my point: I didn’t see a problem with it. Apparently you did? I think you’re wrong about this just as you were wrong about that.

          • Sean April 26, 2015 5:20 pm

            Did you ever play in an unrestricted Escalation tournament? I did. Five of my six games ended on the first turn, either literally or functionally.

        • Wischfulthinking April 25, 2015 11:39 am #

          “I think they’re remarkably balanced”. Just had to highlight that statement. Good god.

  8. Cowboy April 24, 2015 8:04 am #

    Is anyone else annoyed that we are gradually being forced to play low points Apoc and call it 40K these days?

    • greggles April 24, 2015 8:34 am #

      There are lower point tournaments (and events at tournaments) but they tend to have less of a player draw. The general consensus seems to be 1850+ with lots of big fun toys. Lesser points and smaller games is the minority currently.

      • MVBrandt April 24, 2015 10:42 am #

        His point was D weapons and super heavies

      • Cowboy April 24, 2015 10:55 am #

        I got into this game a not Apoc to AVOID Apoc at all cost specifically because I did not want to have to try and deal with everyone’s big toys getting in the way of my games so I could focus on the smaller scale tactics. Things are getting cheaper and more powerful to the point where 40k is becoming mini-Apoc in a lot of ways. Why? There are very few practical restrictions stopping people from fielding their favorite 4 -8 big stompie models and calling it an army. If I go to a tournament even at 1500, I could easily be faced with such a list. A guy at my local even last week had 4 IK’s with Battle Cannons at 1500… How much tactical depth or variety could there possibly be in that list? Lots of the big toys over simplify the game into a matter of moving and shooting 3-4 things a turn. There is little value in using terrain and the player can essentially ignore the mechanics of spacing out their units, hiding special weapons within a unit, or setting up units to account for LOS spill overs. There are also no tactical decisions to make about going to ground, multi assaulting, etc. You can often individually shoot which ever weapons you want, at what every you need, there by removing the tough choices about what target you are going to shoot all your guns at like the rest of us. Everything scores so you don’t have to be as concerned about protecting your troops, you can just focus on killing things off… All this combines to make the game much simpler and predictable with less decisions in the hands of the players… why are we ok with this as a community? 7th ed has sucked the depth out of the game and the Eldar book is just the most recent example. Perfect example, Focus Fire was removed in 7th, one of the best tools available to a skilled player was randomly removed from play all in an effort to streamline and simplify the game. Not even going to talk about the FOC and how worthless that is now.

        • Wischfulthinking April 25, 2015 11:42 am #

          I feel exactly the same. I call big expensive stuff an “easy button” & I don’t mean easy win, just that in dumbs down the game.

  9. Culebras April 24, 2015 8:31 am #

    I think a #4 sounds best. it really is the 6 result that is the killer.

    Just throwing out a idea here. What if, instead of a flat -1, you steal a little from D&D and require a confirmation roll for 6’s just like confirming a critical hit. If you roll a 6 on the chart, you have to roll the dice again. if you get a second 6, you get the result, otherwise, its treated as a 2-5. this means the crazy results are still possible but the odds (1 in 36) are so low that it becomes unreliable.

    To make it fair, this need for a confirmation roll would not apply if you are attacking a super-heavy or gargantuan.

    Also, the -1 penalty from the d-scythe should also apply to blast templates, at least when shooting at non-super heavies and gargantuan creatures.

  10. Sierbhann April 24, 2015 8:33 am #

    The first couple of “solutions” in the comment thread above, while understandable reactions, don’t seem like real attempts to balance the Eldar as a faction – more like punitive measures directed at other players. Yes, I play Eldar, have for decades.

    The article, however, has a lot of merit. There are plenty of ways to go with balancing ranged D in competitive play. Whatever is decided, I’m good with it, although I’d prefer units not be banned entirely. #4 and #5 seem to be the most equitable in my opinion.

  11. Kartr April 24, 2015 8:40 am #

    Can we give the Codex a couple months and a couple tournaments before we start banning crap? Yes it sounds very powerful and very tough, but we don’t have any actual data yet.

    • pascalnz April 24, 2015 1:14 pm #

      yes please:)

    • tag April 24, 2015 1:37 pm #

      It is in our interest to head off the social consequences of months and tournaments filled with bad experiences and social fracturing.

      At this point we look at the codex. The codex is the enemy because units and upgrades are incorrectly costed by an unworkable amount. If we revisit this in 3 months, it won’t be the Codex that is the problem, it will be the WAC A-Hole who plays Eldar, and the social dynamic of the conversation will shit to a much more hostile one that leaves lingering wounds.

      • Sean April 24, 2015 9:17 pm #


      • Wischfulthinking April 25, 2015 11:43 am #


    • Nomeny April 25, 2015 6:55 am #

      It would be the reasonable thing to do.

  12. NickW April 24, 2015 8:40 am #

    I think a cool solution to undercosted Wraithknight spam would be to waive the bizarre 25% requirement for the Chaos Forgeworld Daemon Lords. They are fairly costed (if not overcosted) and Unique. They are terrible at killing super heavy walkers (funny how Wraithknights and normal Bloodthirsters get D attacks, and the super duper daemon lords don’t…), but they are very strong versus Wraithknights. Just a few of these at a big event would do a lot to discourage people relying entirely on Wraithknights.

  13. fluger April 24, 2015 8:40 am #

    AP, I agree with this whole article. If I had to pick, I’d go with altering the D chart. My thought is simple: Just change a 6 to be identical to the 2-5 results. So 1 is nothing and 2-6 are all the same.

    Frankly, and, as I’ve stated already, I am biased, I think the proliferation of scatter lasers is a bigger issue than the D weapons. What suggestions do you have to curb that? Personally, I’d like to see the old 1:3 ratio on the bikes. I think that would be sufficient.

    • Sierbhann April 24, 2015 8:50 am #

      +1 to this.

      I’d be down with limiting the heavy weapons on Windriders, 1 in 3 would be okay, but you could go up to a 50% of the squad maximum, works out to more points than a 3 War Walker squad with either SC or SL for a full squad with one less cannon, but way more maneuverability.

    • artfcllyflvrd April 24, 2015 8:54 am #

      The D is the far bigger issue, and the only one worth even considering addressing (I’m not totally sure it is worth addressing) because it invalidates a huge swatch of models from competitive play. Basically all superheavies are gone, most tanks are gone, any non flying MC is gone.

      People forget that the bikes, while powerful, are on what is by today’s standard a fragile platform. They are very vulnerable to tank shocks, psychic shriek, dominate, drop pods armies, and a bunch of other stuff. Again, super strong, but so are Flyrants, and Ad Lance, and daemons, and a million other things. People are freaking out about the damage potential before actually seeing if those armies can absorb a hit.

      • Nomeny April 24, 2015 8:59 am #

        This. Wraithknights are vulnerable to Fleshbane, Blinding Venom, Gauss, S5 weapons, and so on, and they lose the D ranged weapons if they take an invulnerable save.

        • DarkLink April 24, 2015 9:47 am #

          They’re “vulnerable” in that it is technically possible to kill them, so obviously they’re perfectly balanced…

          • rollawaythestone April 24, 2015 10:35 am

            Yeah, I hate the tired argument that “because they are killable, they are acceptable.” This is just clearly bad logic.

          • Nomeny April 25, 2015 6:57 am

            They’re not just kill-able, but they’re virtually forced to choose between survivability and hitting power. Not to mention that they can also be tar-pitted.

            The sky is not falling.

      • fluger April 24, 2015 9:00 am #

        I play horde orks and IG predominately (with Eldar as my other army). I couldn’t care two figs about D weapons, honestly. Massed scatterbikes is a HUGE issue IMO.

        Yes, they are *only* T4 and 3+ save and only Ld8. That is all true, but by that logic we should allow tactical marines to all have missile launchers for 10 pts. And, actually, the comparison doesn’t even work there because jetbikes are so fast and effective.

        Hell, people were including little 3 strong units in their lists for objective nabbing purposes. When you take a unit that is already so good at maneuvering that it merits inclusion and then put one of the most versatile guns in the game on it, you have a broken unit.

        • fluger April 24, 2015 9:00 am #

          Also, drop pods MIGHT have a jump on them if they deploy, why not leave them in reserve then?

          • artfcllyflvrd April 24, 2015 9:08 am

            Because my 40 marines and 6 centurions vaporize whatever you put on the table and you lose bottom of one.

            And say you get lucky and don’t get tabled. I have all of my marine army in your DZ. You’ll have to spend then turn you come on turboboosting away otherwise you’ll get eaten in assault. So that potentially leaves you as few as 2 turns to actually do any shooting during the whole game.

            People need to actually play these things out. The math is frightening for sure. But there are SO many qualitative aspects to the game the may reign the math in.

          • fluger April 24, 2015 9:32 am

            These theoretical debates are pointless. As you say, “People need to actually play these things out.”

          • wellspokenman April 24, 2015 10:43 am

            They are still as tough as Marines, so I think it is better to take them in numbers and weather the drop pod storm. Jink if necessary and extend to max range to pick them apart.

            The problem I have with the bikes isn’t just the weight of fire or the mobility. It’s the two of those combined with the range. Played well, these guys will never receive fire from any infantry weapon with a range 24″ or less except possibly that first turn. Similarly, they should never find themselves in assault range. This means that two of their weaknesses, weight of fire and close combat, are gone. 1:3 heavy weapons is a good solution, but I don’t think it sets a good precedent to start editing the individual unit entries.

        • Fagerlund April 24, 2015 10:38 am #

          So you have two excellent hard counters to Jetbikes available: Burnawagon and Leman Russ. Hellhounds can probably do a number as well. With the blobs you can also control his movement to make sure he goes where you want him to so his mobility doesn’t help him too much. Another solution is to simply assault them – box them in and charge. Yes, they’re fast – but if he has to turboboost to avoid your assault it means he forgoes a turn of shooting which means you’re doing well.
          Most armies has solutions like this, stuff that the bikes can’t hurt and are cheap enough for you to be able to focus on dealing with the WK that’ll be supporting the bikes. Dakkapreds for example are cheap and can’t be hurt by S6 while dishing out enough S5+ shots to cripple a unit per turn. Chaos loves playing bikes, the Heldrake eats a squad per turn. Flesh Hounds or Seekers are fast enough to catch them. I think it’s only Dark Eldar and Tyranids that really suffers from the jetbike-spam pretty much. But with smart deployment and movement you can avoid the brunt of the alphastrike and deal with them.

          • wellspokenman April 24, 2015 11:05 am

            Unless he is daft, he will never get in range of Punishers, Demolishers, Executioners, or Eradicators. He doesn’t need to. He can just strip away your bubble wrap while positioning for rear armor. Even if he doesn’t get it, it will negate what little mobility the guard has. He will most likely trash the Hellhounds in one turn of shooting, but if he doesn’t he can dance around them as well. Dakkapreds are only immune to S6 from the front, and with 4 shots per bike AV12 will fold fast. Gravbikes only have a 30″ threat range so they are avoidable as well. Keep in mind that he doesn’t need to outmaneuver these units for ever, just until they die. These Jetbikes are around 5 times more deadly to MEQs from 12″-24″ than bolterbikes and infinitely more dangerous at 24″-36″.

            They might not be unbeatable, but they are very powerful if taken in numbers.

          • fluger April 24, 2015 12:03 pm

            Burnawagon? Too expensive and situational.
            Leman Russes? Too expensive in general, at least the basic one is. I run the Eradicators personally, and they lack AP3.
            Hellhounds have too short of a range and a unit of 10 scatter bikes should kill one before it gets into effective range.

            Assaulting them is great in theory, but, they represent a fraction of the opponent’s army in terms of points (I think the standard is going to be 4 units of 5/6 personally which, if you’re playing 1850 is only 29% of the army) but can cripple my big infantry units with nigh impunity (even if I have 5+ cover, those 20 bikes wipe out 30 boyz a turn).

            For IG, my long range options are either relying on blasts (artillery for instance), but bikes can spread out really easily and make me hit only 1 at a time; or on heavy weapons in blobs, which, can work pretty well TBH, but they will be priority 1 for my opponent, and should present little in the way of issue for them. I suspect that if my opponent goes first with a normal 1850 Eldar list, wiping out 50 guardsmen won’t present too much of an issue.

            For Orks? My lootas and lobbas help a bit, but they should get mowed down pretty quickly. Assaulting as an option is hilarious because my BEST bet is turn 3 assaults, and that ain’t happening when I lose 30 boyz a turn to 29% of his army.

            Sorry, but even 20 scatter bikes is enough to tilt the scales towards this being a nearly unwinable prospect for me.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:00 am #

      I’m pretty sure an Ork player who fields no large models is biased in regards to whether Scatter Lasers or Str D is more scary, yeah. 😛

      But that solution isn’t unworkable, to be sure.

      • fluger April 24, 2015 11:55 am #

        Yeah, I admit my bias. 😀

        I just thought it was interesting you focused on D and not on the other thing that seems to be OP.

        • Sean April 24, 2015 12:21 pm #

          Scatter Bikes, stupid as they are, will not fundamentally change the meta. We already have massed high-strength shooting around and tough, cheap ObSec bikes are nothing new, either. Maybe they are completely broken and will ruin things- but I think that’s a lot less obvious than Str D weapons, which fundamentally shift a lot of the assumptions about the game and how units function within it.

          The original version of the article had a section on Scatter Bikes as well, but since it summed up to “i dunno lol” I ended up cutting it. If you don’t know what the problem is and don’t know what the solution is, it doesn’t make for a very good discussion.

          • tag April 24, 2015 1:52 pm

            I don’t think you appreciate how absurdly costed scatbikes are. It will change the meta in such a fundamental way that is probably bigger then the effect of the Big D.

            What is the basic example of a high amount of high strength 6 shooting? Flying Hive Tyrants? On a point for point basis Scat Bikes shoot 2.5 times as much. How about current codex Wave Serpents? On a point for point basis Scat Bikes shoot a little under 2 times as much. War Walkers? On a point for point basis Scat Bikes Shoot about 1.4 times as much, have OS, and greater mobility. Missilesides? Scatbikes outshoot them.

            There is nothing in the game comparable to what jetbikes can dish out.

            I’m not saying the D doesn’t need to be addressed. It definitely does, but you can’t flippantly dismiss jetbikes as something that won’t change the Meta. They will. They will change it in a deep and fundamental way.

          • fluger April 24, 2015 3:34 pm

            I don’t think they, by themselves change the meta, but you yourself acknowledge that in conjunction with what Eldar can bring elsewhere in the dex makes them game-breakingly good. Hell, even if you outright BAN all D weapon-wielding Eldar units, you still have enough anti-tank and other tools to completely DOMINATE most armies.

          • Sean April 24, 2015 9:27 pm


            Certainly so. I’m not arguing that Scatter Bikes aren’t good, aren’t absurd, and aren’t better than essentially anything we’ve seen before in terms of spamming Str 6 shots. There is a very good chance that they are so good they will require some sort of fix- but I think, at this point, it is at least a debate to have (are they going to ruin the game?) rather than the automatic given of Str D weapons that we can say without hesitation are going to ruin the game.

            Wave Serpents were powerful, even game-changing. Flyrants certainly are. AdLance and Firebase are as well. All of these things are unbalanced, in some cases even drastically so, but the game has been able to live with them. It may be possible that the game can live with Scatter Bikes as well- or it may not. My only concrete statement at this point is that it CANNOT live with Str D weapons flying around willy-nilly.


            >What is the basic example of a high amount of high strength 6 shooting?

            I would say that Broadsides are the best example of high-Str shooting available right now. They combine S5 and S7, which is _sorta_ like all S6, more so when you factor in Tank Hunters and Ignore Cover and Preferred Enemy on them. So, to run the numbers:

            A 65pt broadside puts out ~6 “S6” hits per turn, or just under 10pts per hit. A 27pt Scatter Bike puts out 2.66 hits per turn, or very close to exactly the same return per point on that. Obviously, both units have advantages- Broadsides are typically tougher and have more special rules, while the Bikes will be more maneuverable and potentially ObSec. In terms of raw firepower, however, they are actually rather close- so while Scatter Bikes ARE extremely shooty, it is not to an unprecedented degree.

          • fluger April 25, 2015 9:07 am

            Fair enough, I just think we should also look at curtailing scatterbikes. Honestly, a 1:3 ratio isn’t going to hurt anyone’s feelings and, as you mentioned with wraithguard, this isn’t a unit that’s existed for years and people are going to be hurt about banning it.

  14. Pax April 24, 2015 8:42 am #

    Amusing: 5 solutions, but at no point does the article even consider just allowing ranged D into the game.

    • artfcllyflvrd April 24, 2015 9:03 am #

      Because, based on extensive play testing of the new book it is just known that all this S D CANNOT be allowed. :0P

      In all fairness, I don’t like S D as it exists. Not because of the power level but because of the variance. I think it’s better game design to have something that averages the same over many shots but doesn’t have the wild swings.

      Something like an automatic 3 wounds/hull points and a hefty save modifier on all results would keep the power level over many shots the same but decrease the feel badsy’s when somebody 6’s your nice pretty centerpiece the first shot of the game.

      • punchymango April 25, 2015 8:09 am #

        I dislike S D and stomp for the same reasons. “6 lol ur dead” is shitty game design.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:01 am #

      You mean aside from the paragraph specifically dedicated to explaining why that isn’t really a good option?

  15. Raw Dogger April 24, 2015 8:51 am #

    Why can’t we just go down to a tournament standard 1500 points? It just seems that taking a 500 point unit would be more of a drawback when you only have 1k more to work with. Why is this never in the discussions?

    • Nomeny April 24, 2015 8:52 am #

      I get the impression that some people feel you can’t build an all-comers army at less then 1850pts, or something.

    • DarkLink April 24, 2015 9:39 am #

      Wraithknights are 300pts. Jetbikes certainly aren’t that expensive. Wraithguard aren’t any more expensive either, you.can fit a unit or two into 1500 no problem.

      This.isn’t an issue of game size. Simply put, point for point certain eldar units are just plain better than everything else.

    • Fagerlund April 24, 2015 10:26 am #

      I’m a fan of smaller sized games, 1500p tends to be my favourite. The big issue though is the undercosted hard to kill units like the Wraithknight – they become EVEN MORE powerful in smaller sized games where the opponent can’t afford a solid solution to them.

    • Clover362 April 24, 2015 10:42 am #

      problem with going lower in points is a) the most efficient units like scatterbikes get better and b) people want to play with more of their toys.

      I’m not disagreeing with you as I was a big advocate of 1500 pts in 5th edition, but I don’t think it solves the problem the eldar codex creates and people won’t do it.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:02 am #

      Wraithguard aer 160.

      The Wraithknight is 300.

      D-Cannons are 55.

      Playing 1500pts doesn’t stop people from bringing superheavies or Str D.

    • tag April 24, 2015 1:53 pm #

      Going down it points magnifies the undercosted nature of the new Eldar codex. It makes the problems worse not better.

    • z3n1st April 24, 2015 10:25 pm #

      +1 to this, smaller games

  16. zero-charisma April 24, 2015 9:02 am #

    undo invisibility changes?

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:03 am #

      So that, what, you have units with Str D weapons AND Invisibility? I don’t think that really solves things.

      • Zero-Charisma April 24, 2015 7:44 pm #

        well..i was thinking invis VS Str D, but that’s me trusting GW that they wouldn’t give all that stuff to one faction..would they?…WOULD THEY?!

        • PrimoFederalist April 25, 2015 2:29 pm #

          I never understood why one broken gimmick available to only a few armies has always been paraded around by those who like/us it as a viable solution to another broken gimmick available to only a few armies.

          • Zero-Charisma April 25, 2015 7:54 pm

            I totally agree Primo, i was just looking at what existed right now.

  17. Chalkybot April 24, 2015 9:08 am #

    The most logical solution to me is no ranged D and use the old rules – its not like they were bad and easy to remember

    If you really want some D only single shot weapons have D at -1 on the table

    • DCannon4Life April 24, 2015 9:15 am #

      So…a 1/3 chance to do nothing with what is one of the strongest weapons in the universe? No thank you.

      • IndigoJack April 24, 2015 12:30 pm #

        That’s fine, how about we increase that point of every unit in the eldar codex by 50% to represent how they’re a dying race? That way fluff matches the game

  18. DCannon4Life April 24, 2015 9:13 am #

    Going backwards is not a good idea. Insisting on playing previous editions of the game is fine if it is your group in your corner of the world. Insisting that everyone else (at tournaments, for example), play a heavily modified version of the game is also not a good idea.

    That being said, as long as you don’t touch my Wraithknight’s D-Sword and his D-Stomps, I don’t care TOO much what gets done to the ranged D. If it gets nerfed back to S10 Distortion, so be it–I’ll just keep my Fire Dragons (and their PLUS THREE on the pen chart) in my list. /shrug

    My suggestion for Ranged D: S10, AP2, Ordinance (just roll 2 dice to pen instead of rerolling failures–it’s faster and Gargantuan Creatures don’t care if they shoot Ordinance or not), Instant Death on a to-wound roll of 6. D3 Hull Points/Wounds per pen/wound. Rolling a ‘1’ to wound still does nothing. Provided people don’t try to say that if D becomes ‘Ordinance’ that it’s not possible to fire more than one of the Heavy D-Scythes on the Hemlock (it’s not, but that’s a discussion for another place/time), it will be fine.

    Don’t worry about making people reroll cover saves (only a ‘6’ on the D chart invalidates cover). Allowing for D3 HP/Wounds goes some way toward ‘averaging’ what a D weapon can do (it doesn’t really, but if it makes it easier to accept, so be it).

    The Template D for the Scytheguard would need to be re-written as well. Maybe: S4 (for Instant Death purposes), AP2, automatic D3 Hull Points/Wounds per ‘hit’. Still completely vicious.

    • DarkLink April 24, 2015 9:40 am #

      You can have your str d spam, I just don’t ever want to have to play you for it. I’ll find a game of infinity instead.

    • cuddles April 24, 2015 11:08 am #

      Other games have had to change themselves. Unfortunately, GW doesn’t give a shit about tournaments (though they should as it would free advertising and marketing). It’s up to the tournament community to modify rules to make things work. I see no issue with going back to previous codexes when new ones are absurd, such as this one. Until we get 2-3 more codexes that are on a similar level to this book, we are going to see even more singularity in lists than we have in the past. Eldar was alreay prevalent with the old book, and they could compete. Just go back to the old book until it becomes obvious that GW is going to change the game.

  19. Klr April 24, 2015 9:36 am #

    I support that d weapon use last codex distortien rule. Wraithknight is banned as garguant from most GT. Or wraithknight could use old MC profil. Bikes one heavy per third bike.

    I think we are seeing a shift in sloppy gw 40k balance. This is fantasy demons all over. Sadly it seems like 40k TO will have to go in and do more comp as a lot of fantasy gt are doing. Look at ETC fantasy compered to 40k faq/comp

  20. Deuce11 April 24, 2015 9:42 am #

    Honestly, I am not a big fan of any of the suggestions. IMO, D weapons are not the problem, nor are they inherently problematic. D weapon sprawl is the issue. Therefore we should not be looking to change all D weapons (since, for example, the Stomp mechanic is the only thing that makes Imperials Knights worth a damn), we should be looking at the offending unit entry(ies).

    (1) The WK is a problem. 300 points for a 400-500 point unit. Let’s discuss this.
    [I suggest adding 100 points to the unit’s base cost]

    (2) Guardian Jetbikes, all upgraded with scatter lasers, is a problem. 27 ppm for fast, durable, OBSEC, spammable, troop choices with unmatched offensive potential. Let’s discuss this.
    [I suggest limiting the heavy weapon upgrade option to 1 model for every 3 in the unit]

    (3) The (H)D-scythe is a problem. Destroyer template weapon carried by an entire squadron of models or mounted on a flyer is a terrible, terrible idea.
    [I suggest bringing the D-scythe in line with the 6E codex where it was viewed as a viable alternative to Wraithcannons]

    Are we going down a slippery slope? Yes. But the ITC isn’t Parliament! So what’s the real harm?! The goal is to have a fun game, with an even playing field, and no one, including ITC tournament organizers, are required to abide by ITC decisions. So let’s place our faith in the ITC to more skillfully reign in the Eldar Codex than GW ever will.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:10 am #

      >So what’s the real harm?!

      As I said, driving players away and ruining the community that has been achieved so far, that’s what.

      The solutions you’re proposing have two flaws: they are specific enough that they will be endlessly argued (“No, it’s not 100pts undercosted, it’s 200pts! No, it’s 50pts! No, it’s fine! No, it needs to be banned altogether!” Etc) and also that they fail to address the fundamental problem; D-Cannon batteries, for example, are still AMAZING under your proposed changes.

      You mention the slipperly slope and then immediately dismiss it, but I think that’s a very real concern here- if we are going to start changing points costs and unit entries of specific units, what’s to stop other people from demanding that the “broken” parts of other codices get fixed? Why only Eldar, and not Knights, Tau, IG, SM, Daemons, and every other book under the sun?

      Frontline’s changes to the game so far have been specifically broad and not codex-dependent for these very reasons: even when not necessarily equally effective, such rules DID affect everyone in the same way. The nerfs to 2+ rerollables and Invisibility, for example, are not different between the Eldar, Daemons, and Dark Angels codices, for example- they all must deal with the same set of rules. What you are proposing is very different- it is saying “I am changing the rules for THIS specific codex because I don’t like them,” and that is a wholly different step.

      • Cowboy April 24, 2015 12:04 pm #

        Sometimes you have to call a Spade a Spade. Most things GW puts out is at least palatable. Some the things they are trying to pull off now are way out there. If something is obviously broken, change it. I have much more faith in TO’s fixing things than GW

      • fluger April 24, 2015 12:07 pm #

        Also, it’s not just nerfing that you open the door to, it’s also buffing. Who here thinks that DA needs some buffs or point reductions? Or Chaos Marines? Hell, I know *I’d* like to lower the cost of shoota boyz.

      • Deuce11 April 24, 2015 12:30 pm #

        Oh, I completely agree with the entirety of your analysis- just not the conclusion. Again, the ITC’s rules state that they are not mandatory for all ITC events. They are well educated and voted upon guidelines. It seems to me that guidelines are necessary now (upon proper play-testing), more than ever, to address the most glaring codex foible since… well honestly I cannot think of anything since I began playing in 3rd edition that was so obviously mispointed as the rumors surrounding a 300 point gargantuan creature with ranged D weapons that strikes in CC at I.

  21. Skari April 24, 2015 9:52 am #

    I feel like we should see what develops first and then adjust rather than jumping to conclusions.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:11 am #

      That’s certainly going to happen to some degree at least (I will be attending at least one and probably 2-3 tournaments before any sort of changes to Str D rules are put into effect), but it’s also dangerous because even a one-time event can drive people away.

  22. Bud April 24, 2015 9:54 am #

    I concur with the above users on the 1 heavy weapon per 3 jetbikes. I also agree that it’s a BIGGER problem that even the ranged D.

    As for the D, I like the old weapon profile option. It was appropriately costed and still effective.

  23. Bud April 24, 2015 9:56 am #

    Also: PUT IT TO A VOTE.

    Then, when it gets changed, all these whiners saying “L2P Bro” will have no leg to stand on.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:13 am #

      Reece has already said that there will be a vote on what ITC plans to do, in order to test community opinion the subject in a somewhat more organized way. My article is what it says it is- an editorial designed to bring the subject up and attempt to discuss it in a somewhat more informed fashion.

    • Clayton April 24, 2015 11:33 am #

      Voting is the worst Possible idea; no matter how one panders to the concept of group concensus. Take the LVO exit poll as an example, by having 4 categories for the ranged D vote the poll designers shod have foreseen the result that no would win. It’s just a statistical law if the question is choose 1 From yes, no, no with X, or no with Y. We can also assume that any single question of banning any single item will always pass if the portion of the population that favors the item is less than 50% of the population polled.

      • Clayton April 24, 2015 11:39 am #

        If we’re really discussing votes, the total of votes cast that don’t want ranged D removed wholly beat remove it in the LVO exit polls, so again either think carefully about how a poll is constructed or accept that as the two Inhave seen

        • Clayton April 24, 2015 11:41 am #

          ^^ seen have been worded the outcomes were more or less predetermined.

  24. Bellerah April 24, 2015 10:06 am #

    Make the 6 result just like the 2-5 results but ignores saves. now still powerful but not instant remove.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:13 am #

      That’s actually not a bad idea- still gives you the chance to cut through saves and hurt things automatically, but not in a “anything I point it at dies” way.

    • Sierbhann April 24, 2015 11:36 am #

      That is a great idea. The 6 should still count for something with D weapons, regardless of faction.

    • tag April 24, 2015 1:58 pm #

      I would make it the same as 2-5 but you must reroll successful invul or cover saves.

      Unfortunately, that doesn’t fix the hilariously undercosted wraith Knight and Wraith Guard who are going to be the main distributors of D. Far better to just do a -1 on the chart.

  25. Bellerah April 24, 2015 10:13 am #

    For the Bikes, have them lose relentless. Still potentially powerful but now a lot less mobile with all that firepower

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:14 am #

      I don’t think Space Marines or Necrons would appreciate that change very much.

      • bellerah April 24, 2015 11:26 am #

        Well this change was specifically for the Eldar bikes, not bikes in general

        • Sean April 24, 2015 12:24 pm #

          The problem is that Relentless is a rule universal to all bikes, so you’re looking at modifying specific codices there- and that falls right back into the “if Eldar why not others” trap. Why only fix one broken codex when you could, by the same argument, try fix all the others as well?

          • Bellerah April 24, 2015 12:38 pm

            Well I am ok with all bikes losing relentless. I think it is silly that they have it for a motorcycle does not make a stable gun platform to begin with.

            They get a plenty other bells and whistles at their current point value.

            Though sadly this is probably not enough to bring the Eldar bikes into line.

            the limiting of heavy/special weapons probably needs to occur but as we all know this sort of opens up what about others. The Marine biker command squad can all get specials, why not random eldar bikes for half the points…

  26. John McCool April 24, 2015 10:36 am #

    I played the new eldar yesterday. They were pretty nasty. Noone has mentioned their ignores jink guys either. They have been given a solution to every list, it is scary. I still won, but that goes without saying. Orks rule. I think that -1 on the d table might be best. I also believe a D strength “template” weapon should have terrible consiquences. Like they get hot on a 1 or 2. Heck all d weapons could get hot on a 1 or 2. If it is twin linked, it still wounds you on the reroll. If you fail the reroll, that is a second wound. How are st7 plasmas more dangerous to fire than nukethrowers? The D template weapons could also explode if they overheat or a model dies. The orks should have had these nukethrowers long before the eldar. If you pop one nukethrower, you could chain reaction the unit.

  27. MVBrandt April 24, 2015 10:44 am #

    People need to play this stuff out more. There is an enormous rush to nerf from the community. Even if a nerf is necessary, and Eldar are a very convincing case for this by the way even without testing, folks need to play enough and talk through enough options that we don’t end up with 45% of tournaments going one way, 45% another, and the remaining 10% going all sorts of different ways.

    Not that we don’t kinda have that already.

    On a personal level, taking off the TO hat, I echo the sentiment that I’m getting real freakin’ tired of a badass large model count company-level wargame turning into a big-model skirmish game or, as another put it, low-points apocalypse.

    • cuddles April 24, 2015 11:02 am #

      Math doesn’t lie. Neither does the plethora of rules that go along with the units that are being questioned. All things being equal, such as two identical players, experience levels, and intelligence, someone playing with this army is going to have better chances of winning than with most, if not all, of the other armies. The bikes are nuts, the WK is absurd, and D weapons (even the modified ones), are going to level units that cost 2-3 times what it cost to destroy them. Not to mention that there are no real mitigating factors.

      I would really like to see some math on the other end of this argument. Something that shows the objective justification for think that people should hold their horses.

      • MVBrandt April 24, 2015 11:18 am #

        The math to kill the bikers is actually pretty bad for the bikers. There is a reason people aren’t running around with 60 marines in 12 squads. Also, people aren’t going to run 60 bikers in any orientation (as it’s somewhere between 6-12 units and a couple stripped down HQs to do that).

        There’s caution in responding too aggressively to any given … caution, honestly. I’m not suggesting Eldar are “fine.” I’m suggesting that coming to a reasonable and accurate evaluation of what needs to be changed requires more than kneejerking based off the basics and little else.

        There’s also a wide variety of issues to address in terms of who this impacts. Re-rollable 2+ jetbike stars are relatively manageable in armies that field them – most top tier players do not struggle with them. Yet, ITC saw fit to mod their saves down some.

        We’ve strongly considered banning Ad Lance at NOVA … not because Ad Lance won or threatens to win NOVA, but because it ran rampant over the midfield of players who don’t know how to deal with it.

        I’m not arguing that the math on jetbikes w/ scatter lasers isn’t rad tad. I’m arguing caution for all those who are kneejerking 100 different fixes, many of which bear no consideration for what GW might do next (i.e., not pondering edits that will carry over naturally to potentially equally or more abusive future releases).

        • dr.insanotron April 24, 2015 9:49 pm #

          Thats much easier to say for a event toward the end of the year. This codex is about to go buck wild with out that time to sit back and see whats whats for a lot of use

    • artfcllyflvrd April 24, 2015 11:05 am #

      Wouldn’t SD spam push the tournament scene back to a company level game? So your 20 S D shots will crush IKnights, WKinghts, Riptides, Baneblades, etc. They are massively inefficient against Boyz, Marines, Horrors, Guardians, Guardsman, etc.

      To echo your point, there is absolutely no way people can know the full implications of the book for at least a few weeks, and then only if you play A LOT in that time. But there are some potential upsides to “cheap” and accessible S D.

      • cuddles April 24, 2015 11:11 am #

        I doubt that people are going to spam all D. It will be a mixture of all the trash people are complaining about.

        But you are correct. The current counters to this book are MSU IG and Orks. Unfortunately, we can’t take double CADs, so a particularly strong MSU is going to be tough. If we could take double or triple CADs, then I’d take 6 wyverns, 3 basilisks, and huge platoons to deal with these shenanigans.

        • Jack Shrapnel April 27, 2015 7:15 am #

          By the actual rules, double CAD is fine. This is an example of how some restrictions initially put forth to supposedly “curb” one potential abuse, limit your options when dealing with the “next” potentially abusive unit. I’ve never understood the actual rationale as to what limiting detachments actually does other than make those armies with extremely strong single CAD options (Eldar for example) dominate.

    • Ghost Valley April 24, 2015 11:11 am #

      Agree with you completely on your last point. Low-points apocalypse is not the game I enjoy playing.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 11:17 am #

      As already mentioned, that’s going to happen by the sheer logistics of it (there will be at least a handful of tournaments that happen before bans can realistically be enacted), but I don’t think that EVERYTHING needs to be tested to know what its probable effect it. I don’t have to stick my hand into a meat grinder three days in a row to confirm that yes, it still mangles my flesh this time around.

      We already know what Str D weapons do. It is fairly trivial to guess at what sort of effect wide access to them for one codex- and one codex only- will have on the meta, at least in the broadest possible sense. And I don’t think that it will be good for tournaments in any fashion if it happens- but, of course, everyone is going to have their own opinion on that, hence the point of the discussion.

      • MVBrandt April 24, 2015 11:23 am #

        Biggest problem in terms of the impact is D platforms. Even with WWP, 12″ and 8″ range D wraithguard isn’t all that much scarier for non-vehicles than it was previously. It’s a bunch of accurate, high strength, low ap wounds that randomly ultragank things on 6s. They got meaner, of course. But all the things that made Wraith Constructs highly unreliable in the past are still problems. Wraithstars leveraging spiritseers and farseers and hit and run to do horrific damage back in 6th edition were not very common for a lot of very good reasons … and those still apply. None of those reasons were “their gun isn’t super reliable.”

        That said, 24″ artillery platforms … problematic. My own perspective by needs is NOVA focused, and unless I make a rule to BENEFIT just Eldar, Wraithknights aren’t legal. So my concerns are narrowed to the 3 (4) D fielding units (the 2 wraithguard variants, d platforms, and hemlocks) and EJB scatterlaser spam.

  28. artfcllyflvrd April 24, 2015 11:12 am #

    FWIW If S D did 3 wounds/hull points on a roll of 2-5 with a -1 to cover and invulnerable saves over hundreds of shots it has very close to the same killing power as current S D (slightly worse but very close). But this has the advantage of never one shoting a big centerpiece model and still rewards players for either paying for or making tactical decisions to get invulnerable/cover saves. That’s a change I think even Eldar players could get get behind.

    • artfcllyflvrd April 24, 2015 11:14 am #

      The previous post should say 2-6

  29. Iceman April 24, 2015 11:31 am #

    Slippery slop here we go……next thing you know, the next few codex will have things modified in the name of fairness for the cry babies who would rather lower the competition instead of think of ways to counter the competition. Just wait until your codex gets updated. Moreover, this is by far not the first OP units in the game. The minute your codex gets a few OP units, you will be all hush mouth about what is broken and defensive about people modifying the rules GW implemented for the game to be played.

  30. Deviousdonut April 24, 2015 12:10 pm #

    I agree that modifying individual units and codexes can start a very slippery slope. Having said that I strongly approve of the above comment to change all D weapons “6 result” to be the same as 2-5 with the added bonus of no saves of any kind allowed. It still gives the shooter the happy dance of rolling a 6 but can’t remove 1000 pts worth of models with a single roll of the dice.

  31. Brian April 24, 2015 12:41 pm #

    Can we just have the option where the ITC and any other format that will join them rewrite all the codexes? Think of it, everything balanced, rules writers that actually pay attention to the community and can fix problems as they occur, no more players feeling like they’ve been short shafted with their factions for years; ie. Sister’s and Chaos players. As a community, do we really trust GW to make the rules when they refuse to even talk to us? What company does that? According to them, they just make models, so I think that’s what we should use them for, since that is why most of us even play this game and leave the rules to people who actually have a much better understanding and more experience on how the codexes interact when hundreds of players get together to play or compete.

  32. colinsherlow April 24, 2015 12:54 pm #

    The new book is great minus the wraithknight point cost, mass D options and the windriders all being able to take heavy weapons. If that stuff was a little different the book would get a big A++.
    I think if gw wanted eldar to have D weapon then maybe it could have been something more along the lines like how the prism tank works but for D weapons as well. Say X amount of guns combine to make a single shot St D or something of the sort

  33. Black Blow Fly April 24, 2015 12:59 pm #

    Use the old rules for Distort and limit LoW to 0-1. I can easily see over 50% of the competitive players bringing eldar to major events which is bad for business.

    • DCannon4Life April 25, 2015 9:34 am #

      Perfectly fine with this. Didn’t ask for the Big D, don’t think I need the Big D.

  34. Den April 24, 2015 1:02 pm #

    There is a lot of good stuff in this post and I agree with some disagree with others. But that is not the point.

    What I’m wondering is, with the release of the new Eldar Codex, will the ITC be making decisions in regards to the new codex before or after play testing the new Codex?

    Will there be a review of units/models that are currently banned and modifying/lifting the ban on said units/models?

    I know the suggestions are for simple, easy to remember solutions. What is the ITC’s thoughts on perhaps the below suggestion? (Please keep in mind I am not 100% familiar with the D table)

    ———— Suggestion ——————-

    Change the D table from the following

    1 – miss
    2:5 – D3 + 3 wounds/hull points
    6 – D6 + 6 wounds/hull points no saves, etc (all the other rules for rolling a 6 on D table)


    1 – miss
    2:5 – D3 wounds/hull points
    6 – D6 + 1 wounds/hull points no saves, etc (all the other rules for rolling a 6 on D table)

    ———— Suggestion End ————-

    Thanks for the time and consideration. 🙂

  35. rollawaythestone April 24, 2015 1:49 pm #

    I think we are all in a really tough position if we acknowledge that there is a problem (which I think most people do). Obviously you don’t want to change things too much and you want to make everyone happy. I don’t really know that there is a good solution at all given the current tournament format. Personally, I would prefer a hard-line, ban on ranged D – even if it means Eldar players can’t bring several units from their Codex.

  36. frank April 24, 2015 2:29 pm #

    The truth of the matter is GW want us playing apoc, the rules are reflecting just that, if you look at the crons apart from stomp or D weapons some of their units are next to unkillible & now we have talk of new heavier imperial knights, there are many that can’t deal with the ones we have already.

    While you guys might get away with changing the rules to D weapons you’ll never get away with changing the rules for the bikes, because the moment you do that people will start looking at other unit in the game that have things they don’t like & point the finger.

    GW want everything in the game & that is what this dex is all about, D weapons, apoc ap3 blasts units that put out a silly amounts of bullets, but then as we all know it takes a silly amount of bullets to kill many of the things in this game, is having 40 S6 shots bad when your trying to deal with what players are now calling the lifestar ?

    BTW I don’t play Eldar & never will, but if I was a betting man my money would be on more of the same coming down the line & I feel sorry for anyone trying to fix things because what needs to be fixed & what doesn’t is all ways just from someone point of view.

  37. Bassface7 April 24, 2015 2:50 pm #

    In terms of D – i think i’d keep the current rules roughly the same, but adjust the odds by changing it from a 1D6 roll to a 2D6. Something like 1-4 Nothing, 5-10 Ouch, 11-12 you’re dead and there’s bugger all you can do about it.

    Windriders and a 400 points are the real issues in this codex though.

  38. Black Blow Fly April 24, 2015 3:03 pm #

    D Thirster is intitiative 1 and costs more points than the new Wraithknight… Pretty much shows some of the developers do not care about game balance between codices.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 9:30 pm #

      Yeah but it’s only fair because as a FMC, he also is worse at assaulting and isn’t immune to poison or sniper.

      • punchymango April 27, 2015 12:35 am #

        You’ll find the thirsters in a corner over there, crying into their beer along with all three C’tan variants over how much GW apparently hates them.

  39. Team Kazakhstan April 24, 2015 3:13 pm #

    Hey, there is another option to the D- problem.

    As a general rule, make it that so if the unit has the option of down grading it’s D- weapon, IT MUST DO SO.

  40. Mike April 24, 2015 3:40 pm #

    People saying to wait and see don’t seem to realize how much of an impact broken-things-that-make-the-game-only-fun-for-the-players-of-those-things have on the tourney scene.

    Given how badly the 7E book outclasses nearly everything else, I’d say your common 30 man tourney would be reduced to half a dozen eldar players, and a few masochistic non-eldar within a couple months. You would probably have a heck of a time just trying to hit 16 people attending.

    This is not a “wait and see” type of event. This is a “nukes are incoming, do you launch interceptors or not” event. Trying to fix things after they hit and damage is done is a lot harder, and leaves a lot of burnt ground.

    People who aren’t having fun because of game imbalance just won’t show up. Sure, it might be fun to try valiantly fighting the superior force a couple times, but the novelty WILL wear off.

    As for a solution, mine is thus:
    Eldar finish the current ITC season with their 6e book. (They already do amazing with that version, so Eldar tournament players shouldn’t have much issue with this.) at the end of the season, reevaluate the book as compared to the other books that have come out since then.

    I think that’s probably the absolute best approach that steps on the fewest toes.

    • Eldarain April 24, 2015 5:57 pm #

      This whole situation is made worse by an expectation (however misplaced) that the new Eldar book would reign them in not buff or discount (or both) everything.

  41. TinBane April 24, 2015 3:43 pm #

    1 in 3 biker weapons
    + 50pts wraith knight
    Wraithcannons and d-scythes fo to old stats, or cop a -1 to the D table.

    And call it a day for now?

    • TinBane April 24, 2015 3:44 pm #

      Oh, I forgot to say, awesome article and great, insightful thoughts and analysis!

  42. Sierbhann April 24, 2015 4:15 pm #

    Where was this call for restraint when Imperial Knights dropped? I seem to recall a general foaming at the mouth across the community to get all those giant robots on the tables ASAP, and at the time they were something for which a lot of players had no answer.

    Adjust the power of ranged D weapons, limit scatter lasers on bikes, fine, no problem. But if you ban the book outright, even for a season, it just looks like a desire to punish Eldar players for playing Eldar, and steps on a *lot* of toes, mine included.

  43. Bdub April 24, 2015 4:40 pm #

    I vote for solution #4.

    I think just a simple -1 penalty (-2 for D-scythes) will work the best in the end. Overall though, I don’t think the eldar dex will end up being as op as most people think. I actually don’t think that the jetbikes will really need a nerf. If my opponent wants to spend 100+ points on 4 sm equivalent dudes, dats ight with me 😉 though I am slightly biased because I play horde like orks who all have fnp xD.

    Maybe we should just wait a couple months to see how it all plays out.

  44. That Guy April 24, 2015 5:26 pm #

    >D-sythes and Heavy D-sythes only hit vehicles under the template on a 6+
    >Heavy D-sythes are torrent
    >Scatter lasers are 15pts for Jetbikes.
    >Wraithknight is 350pts
    Oh look I fixed Eldar!

    • Sean April 24, 2015 9:33 pm #

      You forgot the D-Cannon. Also a 50pt boost to the Wraithknight I don’t think actually fixes it. And if you nerf D-Scythes, people will just take D-Cannon Wraithguard instead (and cast Guide on them.) And I’m not sure that leaving Shuriken Cannons untouched would actually fix bikes.

      So, in short, no you didn’t and I’m sorry but game design is actually harder than you think.

  45. Hollismason April 24, 2015 7:04 pm #

    It’s not just Eldar though, if the rumours are true and there are Heavy Class Imperial Knights then they’ll most likely have ST D weapons. If there is a Admech book of some sort, I expect it to have S D weapons . So coming up with a solution now may further limit books in the future. Voted -1 on the chart. It hinders them in making them a 3+ but still gives them serious power.

    • dr.insanotron April 24, 2015 7:30 pm #

      So would that end up being -2 to the Scythe versions?

  46. colinsherlow April 24, 2015 8:46 pm #

    It is hard to say what the best option would be without domone bitching one way or the others. I don’t think eldar should be told that they aren’t allowed to use certain units, and the units should be minimally changed where possible. I like the -1 on the D table the most out of the options. Maybe even a -1 on the D table and a 0-2 units with ranged D no large blast limit for armies.

    • Hotsauceman1 April 24, 2015 9:00 pm #

      I say, -1 D for Range. And limit it to one D unit Per game.

  47. Archon-Kalafex April 24, 2015 9:31 pm #

    This is really good. I love the genuine look at the details of change. That said it amazed me after sharing this in my Eldar group how much back lash it received. I literally could not understand why people were so aggravated and offended by this forward, community oriented article. I defended it with my life basically and had supporters of high caliber thankfully. The only thing I could come up with is that people will just read what they want and ignore what is actually presented. It really made me appreciate this tournament culture over the “relaxed”, “fluffy” or “friendly” culture as they are just the opposite it seems. Thank you for writing this and I can’t wait to see where my Eldar sit after the smoke settles, as they will be good no matter what.

    • Sean April 24, 2015 9:35 pm #

      Well, I’m glad you liked it at least. Cross the fingers and hope that the rest of them come around, perhaps? I think a lot of folks’ opinions are gonna shift once they actually start playing with/against the new book, as the ridiculousness of it becomes unignorable.

      • Nomeny April 25, 2015 6:59 am #

        Alternately, it might be the case that people calm down and realize that it’s reasonable.

  48. TIber April 25, 2015 12:22 am #

    This is going to be an interesting one to watch.

    ITC now has to change ( maybe specifically eldar) ranged D, limit the number of wraithknights a person brings, and somehow change the number of special weapon jetbikes can take to make a more balanced game.

    It has to do this without alienating the eldar players, while making everyone else at least appeased.

    I don’t believe the points cost of anything is going to be changed. (This is fundamentally a problem in terms of how a tournament FAQ changes a game)
    I do believe they would rather modify the ranged d table (possibly specifically for eldar) than ban a bunch of the eldar units.
    I believe that the number of wraithknights your allowed to bring will be hampered in some way, the questions is, is it going to be specific or affect Imperial Knights as well. Say 0-2 non character LoW
    Lastly the jetbike changes are going to be the most contentious and probably the most important, limiting to 1 per 3 is my guess hopefully they keep some of the flavor and add a 4th if you take a full unit.

    My only wish is that none of the eldar specific changes are ever put up for a vote, If your changing game mechanics to try to balance the game that can potentially adverse affect everyone being polled fine ask people. But if your specifically targeting one codex or unit because it is inherently unbalanced or perceived that way, T.O.s should make that decision and stick to it, polling doesn’t work when a very large majority of the population is innately benefiting from voting a specific way.

  49. TheMCP April 25, 2015 12:41 am #

    So, Puppy, thanks for the writeup and adression of the problem you see.
    And, also thanks for correcting my image of you – i always saw you as an unscrupulous power gamer. That now stands corrected 🙂

    I will play once against the new Eldar, because my best friend has one such army – but that will be it. I think that a Codex full of really good Units with some outstanding choices no one else has breaks much of the fun for nearly everyone else.
    Most other armies are limited to one or two good builds, Eldar can have a dozen for a dime. Not only their basic troops, but also the character choices they can take without allying with themselves or the really hard hitting single models make this codex in combination to a slap in the face for nearly every other army.
    I would really be happy if everyone had a similar codex with lots of playable options and the possibility to field some great units everyone has to watch out for.
    I even thought about proxying other armies with the rules from this codex because you can field any type of army in many different flavours with it.

    And yes, i am quite angry because the releases before that seemed to be quite reasonable – Khorne, Skitarii – and then this bomb drops. D for everybody, ultramovable fire platforms for cheap and a nearly unstoppable mc. I would gladly pay 400 pts for the possibility to field even a single wk-equivalent.

    Ok, steams off. Sorry for ranting, but to say the new codex polarizes is just not enough. It hurts badly.

  50. xsquidz April 25, 2015 1:40 pm #

    I also thing S D is not as bad as the bikes. That many scatter bikes is just dumb. I totally agree that ranged D is terrible but I don’t think its as bad as people think. How are you going to deliver them? They can’t walk across the board, they are too fat for falcons which means they have to go into serpents, that just got majorly nerfed and can’t get better than a 4++ jink. I think Wraithknights are a huge problem, as are scatter bikes and the webway portal with no scatter are the 3 real issues.

  51. PrimoFederalist April 25, 2015 2:33 pm #

    Thanks for the article.

    The sad thing is, other than the severely broken jetbikes and the ranged D weapons, it’s a really good codex with solid internal balance.

    • punchymango April 27, 2015 12:51 am #

      It’s a good codex, alright, and I think they added a lot of characterful rules for the Aspects and such.

      That said, I kinda suspect that part of the backlash is all that characterful-ness. With all the “they’re okay, a lot of the flavor is gone” releases this edition I think everyone was expecting a toned down NewDar book, with a similar bland aftertaste but also more on par with the other 7e books.

      And then not only does most of their stuff get better, but they get all that flavor everyone else has been missing.

  52. DWH April 25, 2015 3:33 pm #

    I wouldn’t mind gettin tomorrow’s lotto numbers while you’re in the mood to make predictions without testing anything.

    When the prior Eldar dex released people complained it was as bad as Dark Angels and the Wraithknight was horrible. Then, after a couple months things changed.

    Now it’s a knee jerk reaction the other way, but because it’s assumed to be OP people won’t even give it time to actually test against it.

    Even more amusing is the reports I’ve read are pretty much “I won the game, but Eldar were tough to face and need to be nerfed.”

    In all honesty I think it’s time that the tourney community accepts that the dev team is playing a different game, namely pure maelstrom missions, which actually do a lot to diminish power gaps between lists.

    • TinBane April 25, 2015 6:47 pm #

      Five minutes ago everyone was worried about global cooling, how can we possibly take predictions of global warming seriously now.

      I’m sure some people thought wraithknights were bad. But it certainly wasn’t universally true. A lot of the people who are concerned about the new eldar, are the people who predicted the power of the wave serpent.

      As it stands now, the new dex doesn’t work with ITC format because of the blanked ranged D ban. Hence we have to start working out possible responses now. It will be tested, and we will see how it works out.

      • Sean April 26, 2015 5:23 pm #

        >Five minutes ago everyone was worried about global cooling, how can we possibly take predictions of global warming seriously now.


        • TinBane April 27, 2015 7:16 am #

          His argument is that we have made incorrect predictions, as a group before. And therefore whether you made those wrong predictions before, we must disregard your analysis until we reach some mythical burden of proof I’ve decided on.

          It’s the same shit you hear sometimes against climate change. Regardless of your views on it, the weakness of climate change is NOT that in the 70s and 80s there were about 28 papers published on global cooling.

  53. Hollismason April 25, 2015 4:01 pm #

    Can anyone point to one specific list that has won with ST D weapons at any of the ITC events, I keep seeing the Eldar Lynx mentioned but didn’t those not place in the finals..

    So maybe this is a moot point on tournaments and people are overreacting.

    • Sean April 26, 2015 5:25 pm #

      I don’t think the Lynx is as bad as people tended to think it was (although I know at least one did make it into the finals at LVO.) However, the Lynx is a rather different animal from the Str D weapons available in the new Eldar codex.

  54. jadedknight April 25, 2015 7:18 pm #

    Ok so here is an argument for #6, it solves the problem and sends a clear message to games workshop. We won’t let you break the game in order to sell models.

  55. TurboPenetrator April 26, 2015 2:09 am #

    I think D weapons could work as follows similar to number #4

    All Superheavy / Gargantuan creatures fire D:s as described in the book without any penalties as they’re supposed to have massive guns that do massive damage to anything.

    All other unit types fire D weapons with as -1 to the chart so you cant oneshot something with your peppergun. This would still make D weapons in example with wraithguard, very powerfull and with massed fire those tiny warp holes will tear anything apart.

    I’m sorry if someone has already pointed out this example before, I didnt have time to read all the comments above 🙂

  56. Scumlord April 26, 2015 8:35 am #

    So…we voted, “we don’t want strength D.” Then GW said, “hey, here’s a bunch of strength D.” And suddenly the question is, “should we allow A BUNCH of strength D in? People didn’t like it when it was available to nearly every faction, usually on only one model, but what if JUST THE ELDAR had it and HAD A LOT OF IT?” Yes, of course we want it now. It sounds way more fun.

    • TinBane April 27, 2015 7:17 am #

      did you read the article?
      Because, it’s hard to see how you reached that conclusion having actually done so.

Leave a Reply