Re: [5.0] Eldar Revision Part 1

From: ramospeter <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:02:26 -0000

Hi!

> +AC+ Still the free cards? Why not finally write some _real_ rules
to
> characterise craftworlds and get rid of these?

I wouldn't mind, I hate free cards anyway. Anyone got any
suggestions? You have some stuff written up?

> +AC+ Give them the Fire on the Fly special rule and remove all
> descriptions about their way of firing.

Agreed.

> +AC+ Just one thing: these are _not_ Exarchs, but Phoenix Lords.
> Exarchs are supposed boosting theri respective Aspect Warrior
squads,
> not joining together on the battlefield.

Agreed, change the name.

> +AC+ Why not remove this paragraph and give them Stealth?

Agreed, that is what the list summary of special abilities is for,
to avoid needless repetition.

> +AC+ Give them a 6+ fixed save for the Chameleoline Cloaks, drop
the
> CAF to +1 (they are NOT close combat troops)

I agree wholeheartedly with this, I always thought a +3 CAF for
these guys was WAY over the top, they are not equal to assault
marines!!

> +AC+ Lower their armor save to 6+ fixed, they are not so tough.

It was given to them more as justification for the high cost of the
unit. Isn't their armor more like marine power armor or better? If
its the same a 6+ fixed is better.

> +AC+ Give them a Shuriken Pistol, they have it!!! (25cm, 1, 5+, 0)
> +AC+ Shuriken Pistol-armed like the Banshees (25cm, 1, 5+, 0)

I think this would be appropriate and would not make them any better
than they are, since they are used in assault mode mostly.

> +AC+ Give them a 6+ fixed save from their Runic Armor
> +AC+ Give them a 6+ fixed save from their Runic Armor

Agreed on both

> +AC+ Why the 6+ save? He's still a Guardian

I think thats a typo, agreed should have NO save.

> +AC+ One thing: why they have -1 TSM? Should be 0 TSM like all
other
> bikes, they are not so heavy equipped.

Agreed, I thought it odd too.

> +AC+ These should fit more a support role than an assault role. I
> suggest lowering the CAF to +1, add a 6+ save and another weapon:
> Twin-linked Shuriken Catapult (15cm, 1, 5+, 0). The Shuriken
Cannon
> should have a 0 TSM.

I'm not sure about this one, although I think you maybe right. ANy
other opinions?

> +AC+ Same as other jetbikes: 0 TSM. Give them an ability
named "Laser
> Lance" working the same as Howling Banshees to represent their
> devastating charge.

Agreed.

> +AC+ I'll give that a +4 CAF instead of +2 and at least 2 Shuriken
> Catapults (25cm, 2, 5+, 0) mounted in the arms (to match the real
> model)

Are they really that good in close combat? They weapons upgrade I
think would be fine.

> +AC+ These should be Infantry, not walker (they are five a base)
so
> they can be transported. Why the 6+ fixed save? They are tough as
> Space Marines so go with a 5+ save. They are not so strong in
close
> combat (+2 CAF is better IMHO), but theyr Wraithcannon is deadly:
I
> suggest to change the stats to (35cm, 1, 4+, -2).

I agree they should be classed as infantry. I dont know why they
have a fixed save, perhaps its a hold over from earlier versions.

The weapons should be deadlier, but I'll see what other opinions
sprout up.

> +AC+ Give it at least a 6+ save...

Agreed, this thing is a little more resilient than that.

Peter
Received on Tue Jul 22 2003 - 14:02:26 UTC