BFG:R Eldar and Dark Eldar Revisions

[afterimagedan]

I have noticed that the Dark Eldar Eldar document's admirals need to be changed to reflect the point values of the BFG:R admirals of other fleets.

Archon
Consider the Dread Archon from the DE fleet compared to the Admiral of the Craftworld Eldar fleet. The Archon, with esentially a +3 to the Ld roll (considering the regular DE +1) is 75pts with no reroll. That would put it at almost guaranteed Ld10 unless a 1 is rolled. That's pretty awesome. Yet, the High Admiral in the Craftworld Eldar fleet will get a guaranteed Ld 10, get a reroll, and +1 to boarding, which is quite a nice upgrade. Considering it doesn't get a reroll or the boarding bonus, should be 50pts. The regular Admiral from the Craftworld Eldar fleet is 50pts and is Ld9 and has a reroll. The Archon doesn't have the reroll and yet is almost always 1 Ld higher. That's a good balance.

Incubi
We played a game yesterday and noticed that Incubi Bodyguard need to be reworked for a few reasons:
1. They add a +1 to the ship's H&Rs, but the original DE boarding bonus of roll 2D6 pick one has now become +1. So, it seems best to make the Incubi into the roll 2D6, pick one instead.
2. +2 to boarding is very powerful and probably too powerful for a 25pt upgrade including the H&R bonuses. Considering Aspect Warriors are 20pts in the Eldar list andare only +1, Incubi should probably be made +1 and made 30pts.

It would look likes this:

Incubi (30pts)
+1 boarding modifier
Roll 2D6 and pick your result in H&Rs
-1 to enemy H&Rs against a vessel with Incubi

Eldar Minimum Move
It has been mentioned before that the current BFG:R MMS Eldar document and the MMS 1.9 document do not have a statement about Eldar not having a minimum move. That needs to be added in.

Aspect Warriors
Considering the price of adding Chaos Space Marines to a vessel is 35pts and they get a +1 to boarding modified, an upgrade to an amazing leadership chart, and H&R bonuses, I think the Aspect Warriors upgrade may be a little too expensive. Consider this: in order to give a ship a guaranteed Ld 8 in the Chaos list, you either have to give the ship a Secondary Commander (30pts). Chaos Space Marines does the same thing but better when it comes to leadership plus all the other awesome upgrades for 5 pts more (though it is limited in make lists). While I do think this is a problem with the Chaos list that should be revisited (mainly secondary commanders), I do think that Aspect warriors, which don't get the leadership boost that CSM get, something that is otherwise a 30pt upgrade, I think this warrants a drop in the Aspect Warrior price to 15pts. However, Aspect Warriors should be made more into an upgrade that looks like Space Marines, considering they are the Eldar version of Space Marines and are equal in combat prowess, often better.

[Markconz]

Dark Eldar document also missing explanation of phantom lances I think.

[afterimagedan]

True. Question, why are the phantom lances in MMS Eldar different from the original Dark Eldar phantom lances? Shouldn't they be the same?

[Markconz]

I wasn't around for discussions on these so not certain what they are supposed to be in BFG-R.
It would be confusing to have "phantom lances" having different effects in eldar and dark eldar fleets though.

[Khar]

As for Incubi: I like this change, Currently they seem to overshadow Wytches in many cases...

As for phantom lance - Shadowhunter has a weaker version right now, I guess if it got proper phantom lance its cost should go up a few points.

Also, I just noticed that in Eldar list Hellebore is listed as having 1 hit. I thought 2 hits were agreed upon.

[afterimagedan]

Hellebore profile fixed.

Part of me things they just messed up on writing the Phantom lance rules in the MMS document and it should be fixed.

We have a second person affirming the Incubi anyone else?

Changes we should vote on list:
-Eldar clause amount no minimum move.
-Incubi (30pts)
  +1 boarding modifier
  Roll 2D6 and pick your result in H&Rs
  -1 to enemy H&Rs against a vessel with Incubi


What about Archons and Aspect Warriors?

[horizon]

The Eldar movement needs no vote, it just needs to be added.

Eldar Phantom Lance: since it is the Shadowhunter one: The DE variant with 5&6 for 2 hits is a lot of times stronger then the Eldar Pulsar Lance.
So, that is why we changed the values just a tiny bit.

[afterimagedan]

Khar, you must have a different document. It shows 2 hits here.

I think the Phantom lance should just be put back as the normal one from the Dark Eldar document.
Phantom lances do .8333 hits a turn and 1.25 while on lock on.
Pulsar lances do .875 hits a turn and 1.3125 on lock on.

[horizon]

We did not mess up. 

Non-Locked on (due Eldar mobility someting often happens)
Chance a DE lance does 2 hits = 66%
Chance a Pulsar lance does 2 hits = 25%

Then call the Shadowhunter lance Shadow Lance.


Khar is perhaps reading stand alone 1.9b.

[afterimagedan]

It's not about who can do 2 hits or not, its about the amount of hits it can do a turn. Try out 36 pulsars vs 36 phantoms and tell me when you get. Then try it locked on.

36 Phantom lances will do 30 damage.
36 Pulsar lances will do 31.5

Locked on:
36 Phantom lances will do 45 damage
36 Pulsar lances will do 47.25 damage

There was no need to nerf it.

[afterimagedan]

We did not mess up. 

Non-Locked on (due Eldar mobility someting often happens)
Chance a DE lance does 2 hits = 66%
Chance a Pulsar lance does 2 hits = 25%

Also, these numbers are not correct. The phantom lance should be 33%, not 66%, and that's not considering the fact that Pulsars can do a 3rd damage.

[horizon]

We did not touch the original DE lance for the DE, and the original Shadowhunter had just a regular lance. So we did improve, not nerf.

The 66% was a type, woops/...

A DE Phantom lance:
4 = 1 hit
5,6 = 2 hits.

Thus with 1 dice I have a chance of 33% of doing 2 hits.

A pulsar lance is twice 4+ in a row= 0,5 x 0,5 = 0,25. (25%)

But yes, a Pulsar has a 12,5% chance to do a third hit.
So a Pulsar has a higher maximum, but a Phantom more levelled.

The shadowhunter mms lance has a 16% chance to do 2 hits on 1 dice. So that is slightly weaker then the Pulsar as how it should.

So we did not have the intention to change the DE variant but give the Shadowhunter a slight more capable lance.

[Khar]

Let's just call Shadowhunter's weapon a Shadow Lance and be done with it. All seems well.

As for Eldar file - Dan, are you sure your blog links to the correct file, then? If yes, I really don't know what my problem is ...

[afterimagedan]

I'll go with that. Should we just call it Shadow lance then, Horizon?

[afterimagedan]

Other revisions:
-Dark Eldar Subjugation should be 45 pts. Compare to Shadowhunters and Aconites (we playtested these a few times too)
-Dark Eldar Corsair. We have playtested these tons of times and our game group here things we should either make them 65 (compare to Aconite) or we can make them 5+ armor and 1 hit at 60pts. We prefer the second option (1 hit 5+ armor). Another reason to make the 1 hit again is that they are limited to 4 in a squadron and there are no models for Subjugations which makes them less available.

Anyone have thoughts on Aspect Warriors or Archons?

Changes:
-Phantom Lance in the CWE list will be called the Shadow Lance
-Incubi (30pts)
  +1 boarding modifier
  Roll 2D6 and pick your result in H&Rs
  -1 to enemy H&Rs against a vessel with Incubi