|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:57 am
no the diversity is still there you just now have to think for yourself abit rather than just taking an option that everyone else takes to be "differnt"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:48 pm
menoftanith no the diversity is still there you just now have to think for yourself abit rather than just taking an option that everyone else takes to be "differnt" What the hell are you talknig about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:46 pm
im saying that they havent made it more bland, you just have to make it differnt yourself
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:42 pm
Pontius Pirate Is it just me, or have a lot of the recent updates to Warhammer (40k) armies have blanded them up a bit? I don't really like the updates much but they do have their upsides. (you can use pathfinders and spirit seers and enhance {at least I think that was it} in the same army 0.o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:19 pm
Pontius Pirate Is it just me, or have a lot of the recent updates to Warhammer (40k) armies have blanded them up a bit?
So that and the eldar is only 3 armies, unless there are other armies your including in this, Im thinking of only 4th ed. ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:24 pm
menoftanith im saying that they havent made it more bland, you just have to make it differnt yourself
For example Alaitoc. 'Everyone' did not take the 'option' or more realistically chose that army. Also removing their defining feature, ranger disruption, and an increased amount of troops and lumping them into the regular eldar does not mean I 'just have to think' to differentiate. Ill differentiate with a theme and background and modeling skill, however Id like the rules my army used to not be so blatantly invalidated.
What of Iyanden players? They have spirit seers, however theyd still ahve to take regular troops, which does not fit the fluff of the army composition.
Ulthwe? You cant 'think' their gaurdians into having higher stats, they do or dont, and now they dont, whoch does not fit past rules and the fluff behind that army.
making an army 'different yourself' hasnt changed, that was the same before, gw limiting previouse armies or invalidating units or entire armies however is not something you 'think' out of existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:27 pm
King Kento menoftanith im saying that they havent made it more bland, you just have to make it differnt yourself
For example Alaitoc. 'Everyone' did not take the 'option' or more realistically chose that army. Also removing their defining feature, ranger disruption, and an increased amount of troops and lumping them into the regular eldar does not mean I 'just have to think' to differentiate. Ill differentiate with a theme and background and modeling skill, however Id like the rules my army used to not be so blatantly invalidated.
What of Iyanden players? They have spirit seers, however theyd still ahve to take regular troops, which does not fit the fluff of the army composition.
Ulthwe? You cant 'think' their gaurdians into having higher stats, they do or dont, and now they dont, whoch does not fit past rules and the fluff behind that army.
making an army 'different yourself' hasnt changed, that was the same before, gw limiting previouse armies or invalidating units or entire armies however is not something you 'think' out of existence. I agree. I'm pretty disapointed about my eldar. It's like I've lost a child. D: But not at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Yeah whenever I really hate the new rules I just use my old books, "I forgot my new one"^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:07 pm
I think some of the reactions here are a little strong. From what Ive seen I like the new rules. I think the eldar desperately needed some of these changes. Im just dissapointed to see some things go.
Same as the marines, Im happy with a lot of the changes made to the marine codex, just the loss of autocannons and individual chapter rules being replaced by the traits, rather than just leaving the chapter rules for say the salamanders, and adding traits for people to make their own chapters.
So as much as Ill miss my alaitoc, or wish i had been able to play a good iyanden while elgal, Ill adapt and make an army that fits my play style in these new rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:21 pm
haha! yeah we could try your way instead of just hating it. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:50 am
i think these new rules have really upset a lot of ppl who want particular craftworlds (y did they take away my option of taking aspect warriors as troops?!?!) but the rules now have their own advantages like having jetbikes as troops. coz i had a combat oriented army before the new codex, i was really glad they introduced the Autarch (all eldar HQ other than special chars have 4+ inv save basic!) and how i can now have a cheap HQ as support and have more infantry models. but some old eldar essentials are even better now, like the wraithlord, who now has an awesome model, and improved models like war walkers which ive never seen ne1 take in a game b4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:26 pm
I had seen plenty of people use warwalkers in 3rd edition. And wraithlords now suffer wraithsight, which i can live with, but just to counter the 'improvements' comment. And if you wanted jetbikers in a troop role you could just play saim hann which included soemthing kind of like an autarch on bike, somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:00 pm
King Kento I think some of the reactions here are a little strong. From what Ive seen I like the new rules. I think the eldar desperately needed some of these changes. Im just dissapointed to see some things go.
Same as the marines, Im happy with a lot of the changes made to the marine codex, just the loss of autocannons and individual chapter rules being replaced by the traits, rather than just leaving the chapter rules for say the salamanders, and adding traits for people to make their own chapters.
So as much as Ill miss my alaitoc, or wish i had been able to play a good iyanden while elgal, Ill adapt and make an army that fits my play style in these new rules. I agree, there were a lot of great changes, but I still mis my aliotoc. I'll have to re-evaluate my army. Actually, that will be fun, but Still. D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:20 am
Maybe I don't quite get the 300+ point Seer Council anymore and no more black guardians but otherwise Ulthwe hasn't really changed so much. Granted i'm now starting anew and i'll be including Eldrad in that twisted possibly with an Autarch as my secondary HQ, after all, one will need a bloody good commander if he wants to change the course of the future through war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:56 am
I REALLY like the new autarch's just because now noone can say our hq's are just pansy psychic users and monsters.+ I had always wanted a leader who rocked in close combat. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
