Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Eldar 'Armour'
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=11980		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
I have long been puzzled by the Eldar background (probably one of the least consistant out there). In particular, in the current list, the use of the Falcon. I simply cannot see how these 'elite' transport vehicles would be used as standard armour in a Falcon Troupe. Using the transport tanks in this way just doesnt fit the specialist theme. Therefore, I am looking to expand my Craftworld list. Falcons are still available as a transport option, but the Falcon Troupe is replaced by the following:

Warhawk
Type: Armoured Vehicle
Speed: 35cm
Armour: 5+
CC: 6+
FF: 4+

Bright Lance : 30cm : AT5+ : Lance
Shuriken Cannon : 30cm : AP5+

Skimmer

These are fairly light tanks, and I am pitching them at about 150-200 points for four or five.

Comments?
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
I've never seen Falcons as especially elite.  What background do you think gives that feel?
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Sorry, perhaps 'elite' is the wrong word. What I mean is that this unit is turning into a 'jack of all trades', and is fairly expensive because of it - want transport, get a Falcon, want AT fire, get a Falcon, want a blitz tank, get a Falcon...

I would just like to see a dedicated AT tank in my Eldar list (and a use for the old wedge Falcons).
Author:  semajnollissor [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Well, I don't think that an Eldar player actually pays any points for the Falcons' transport capacity when he takes a Falcon Troupe. The points only "work" in GT scenarios, and in those scenarios the Falcons in Troupes can't use their capacity. Also, Falcons (and other guardian-based units) aren't supposed to be specialized, they are the generalists in contrast to the Aspect warrior's and (now) the EoV's specialist-ness.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with having a more specialized vehicle, but I'm not sure your suggestion would be all that attractive. Even at 150pts for 5, I think 5 Falcons for 100pts more would be a better deal, since they have more range, hit on a better roll, and typically get more shots. On the other hand, if the cost of your formation went any cheaper, it would risk being taken more for cheap activations than for any other reason.

I will also add that the Eldar don't really need another AT platform, they need a better AP tank. The Firestorm is okay, but it's AA ability means having too many is abusive. I'd like a firestorm-esque tank without the AA ability. Replace that bright lance of yours with a pulsed-scatter laser dealie and you'll be in business.
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Semaj!  Good to hear from you again.  Fancy a game any time soon?  I suspect the 13th will be a game night at the Pitts' place.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Well, I don't think that an Eldar player actually pays any points for the Falcons' transport capacity when he takes a Falcon Troupe. The points only "work" in GT scenarios, and in those scenarios the Falcons in Troupes can't use their capacity.


Looking at it again, and you are correct. The Falcons are 15 points cheaper when purchased as a Troupe with no infantry. However, there is still the background issue.

Also, Falcons (and other guardian-based units) aren't supposed to be specialized, they are the generalists in contrast to the Aspect warrior's and (now) the EoV's specialist-ness.

It is true that Guardians are not as specialised as Aspect Warriors, but the Eldar tanks are a different matter. The other vehicles have clearly defined roles, and the Eldar are the only race (as far as I can remember) which bundle their transports up and point them towards the enemy on hunter missions. It is not just that they are general-purpose, but that they are more general than similar units from other races. It just feels wrong.

Perhaps the suggestion is a little weak. My initial idea was:
45cm/AT4+/Lance
15cm/AP5+/Pulse

...using the vehicle as fire support.

I will also add that the Eldar don't really need another AT platform, they need a better AP tank. The Firestorm is okay, but it's AA ability means having too many is abusive. I'd like a firestorm-esque tank without the AA ability. Replace that bright lance of yours with a pulsed-scatter laser dealie and you'll be in business.

Are you sure about this? The Wraithlord is the only Eldar AV unit which doesnt have an AP weapon on it. You seem to be approaching this from the flip side that I am. I looked at the Fire Prism and wondered if this was really the best AT platform that the Eldar would field.  :cool:
Author:  semajnollissor [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Are you sure about this? The Wraithlord is the only Eldar AV unit which doesnt have an AP weapon on it. You seem to be approaching this from the flip side that I am. I looked at the Fire Prism and wondered if this was really the best AT platform that the Eldar would field.


Well, true enough, the Eldar have roughly the same number of AP weapons as they do AT weapons in a given army, mostly because many of the weapons either have a dual characteristic (scatter lasers) or are MW's, which are equally effective against both. That is fine most of the time, except that infantry stands (in general) are cheaper than AV units, and so can typically be taken in far greater quantities than AV formations. Such hoard lists are the most difficult opponents for Eldar armies to face, because the only effective way of dealing with them are through assaults. Even then, if it comes down to attrition, the eldar can't "out-hoard" the other guys, and will generally get beat.

That is the only reason I suggested an "AP specialist."

In the end, I think I should admit that I don't consider Falcons to be "transports" in the same way you do, any more than I consider Land Raiders to be transports. To me, both are AT platforms that happen to have transport capacity. The reason I make this distinction is because both are too expensive (because of their weapons/armour/speed) to be useful as transports. Regardless of their role in previous editions of Epic, the way the act in the current edition of 40k is the best guide to how they should be presented in E:A.



Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
The other vehicles have clearly defined roles, and the Eldar are the only race (as far as I can remember) which bundle their transports up and point them towards the enemy on hunter missions.


Land Raiders.

I see the Falcons as similar.  They are really MBTs, but have the ability to transport some troops.  Generally speaking, I think they are really fire support vehicles with transport as a distant secondary role.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
The point about Land Raiders is well made. However...

In the end, I think I should admit that I don't consider Falcons to be "transports" in the same way you do, any more than I consider Land Raiders to be transports. To me, both are AT platforms that happen to have transport capacity. The reason I make this distinction is because both are too expensive (because of their weapons/armour/speed) to be useful as transports.


This is a very good point. So, the Falcons are a transport vehicle (historically, since they were the only transport vehicle in the past, and because they are offered as transprt for Aspect formations). The fact is, I generally dont take these because I they are too expensive, at 65points for a transport for each unit, compared to 50points for a vehicle which can transport two units. If I have them as transport vehicles, then I dont really want them going on armour hunting missions. But, they dont really work as MBT's either.

That is fine most of the time, except that infantry stands (in general) are cheaper than AV units, and so can typically be taken in far greater quantities than AV formations.

:D  This is the same problem that I am having, but from the other direction. Finding myself often outnumbered, I tend to take infantry heavy forces - with a fair number of Guardians and Aspects. But, aside from grav platform upgrades, the only option to get any AT fire is to take Falcons as transports. I have already mentioned my aversion to this.

Anyway, this is drifting away from the issue. I will create an AT vehicle, and semajnollissor, you put together a grunt killer, and we can see how far we get!  :D

What kind of stats would I be looking at - are the second set too powerful?

Thanks.
Author:  MaksimSmelchak [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Hi Guys,

I really think the Eldar need a cheap bulk transport for Guardians (new unit).

Shabbat Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:27 am ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
The Falcon and L/Raider are more of a Heavy IFV, IMO ... nothing like that really exist today.  But it is Sci-fi ! :laugh:
Author:  Lion in the Stars [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
'Heavy IFV'? ?Bradleys... no, not really. ?The USMC's new AAAV? ?(an amphibious bradley, with a planing hull(!), roughly) ?Didn't the Russians make a couple IFV's with 75mm/90mm guns and respectable armor?

Considering that it took the 'most advanced race in the known galaxy' 20 years of game development to have any vehicles... :/
Author:  Legion 4 [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Hmmm ... the Eldar WERE the most advanced in the 40K Uni ... but now the Tau are ! :;):   But in the real world ... Bradley/BMP/BMD, etc. are the closest thing ... unless I missed something !?! :laugh:
Author:  Mojarn Piett [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 09 Jan. 2006 (18:08))
'Heavy IFV'?  Bradleys... no, not really.  The USMC's new AAAV?  (an amphibious bradley, with a planing hull(!), roughly)  Didn't the Russians make a couple IFV's with 75mm/90mm guns and respectable armor?

BMP-1 has a 75mm gun but it is low velocity. BMP-3 does have a 100mm gun.

EDIT: BTW, is MICV outdated term nowadays?
Author:  vanvlak [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:27 am ]
Post subject:  Eldar 'Armour'
Quote (Mojarn Piett @ 10 Jan. 2006 (09:11))
BMP-1 has a 75mm gun but it is low velocity. BMP-3 does have a 100mm gun.

Is it 75 or 76mm? (curious)
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/