Why the change in the list, what were the issues before hand?

Really dislike these changes sorry and this change would make me not play this list again possibly.

I might be blind
But I don't seem to be able to locate the text for the rule [i]Animated Construct[i/]. Warithguards and lords has the rule in their notes, but what does it do?

Thanks PFE100 for the battle report, I will be following suit with two games lined up next week.



Mate I am sorry to hear that, I would hope you give the list a run before stepping back however that's your call and I respect that.

Regarding the changes that have been made these have been made based off the previous Iyanden thread, consulting many of Australian epic community and working with the other Eldar ACs. In saying that they changes made weren't made without consideration. I am hoping further game tests will highlight any issues with the new structure and changes and we can adjust the list from there.

Blish may I ask what are the things about the list you don't like? Is there anything that you do like?



Borka you can find the rules on the first page just below farsight and hit and run rules.
"The Animated Construct rule applies to all Wraithguard, Wraithblade and Wraithlord and will subsequently effect any Eldar formation they are part of. Any formation containing units with the Animated Construct can only use the Hit & Run Tactics rule or issue a march order as long as they have an active unit in the formation with Farsight."

Cheers

Mic

Is the intention for the animated construct rule to be implemented across all the lists using wraithguard or will it be confined to Iyanden?

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Nice, now something is happening
Will have to try out some of the new possibilities but overall it looks good!

Some thought after my first read
1.Not sure the Wraithguard units were that good so they needed a points increase, a lower initiative and a "bad" special rule. Why the big axe? (will try them out but it looks like a big change to the core unit)
2. I really like the 1:1 ratio and the ability to add 0-3 units.
3. Animated construct, looks good. (but it should probably only apply to the core formations otherwise the Iyanden Guardians would be worse then normal ones...)
4. The Wraithseers special rule still mentions the Spirit Warrior formation but you have renamed them... (Not sure this needs to be fixed just noticed )

I'm with the Mordot. Why would I take them? Perhaps as an upgrade to Wraithguards but as a standalone formation? (Probably not even as an upgrade, the Wraithlord costs 10 points more but is much better)
They cost 10 points less and for that they:
loose the ability to FF so when on defence they will not be able to fight most of the time. The Wraithguards have 4+ FF which is very good.
They have +1 EA in close combat compared to +1 MW in FF. Normally FF is better then CC and MW is much better then normal attacks.
Wraithlords have 2x 5+ MW shooting attacks, Wraithblades have nothing...

Just play around with the idea of terminators loosing MW in CC, lose the ability to FF all together and loose their ability to shoot would the pricetag be lowered with 10 points and would you take them if they cost 300 when the normal ones cost 350...?
(And besides that I dislike 40 points costs and stuff like that, everything else, almost, is in nice 25 points multiples )

Will try and get some playtests done the coming week

Just for the Iyanden for present. But you know how these things work.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

I agree that the Wraithblades are probably sub par compared in general to Wraithguards, but as I say there are times and places for them. I would be tempted to either air assault them or mount up to the deep counter attack.

Plus I think that +50pts would be just as good as +40 in this list, unless you are going to push the boat out with 5 units.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Having skimmed the list, some comments

• Spirit Wraithguard warhost
  
  • I do like the drop to 4 units with the option to add others
  • They cost roughly 50-60points each if the earlier list is anything to go by, so 250 seems about right (allowing a premium for the higher activation capability). Lets try this at 275, but that may be a tad expensive.
  • The reduced cost of the WraithLord may compensate, and I do like the idea of buying them individually
  
  
• WraithBlade
  Like others, I am a bit sceptical on WraithBlades.
  • I am not sure why this was included in the first place, it certainly does not seem to be a good alternative to WraithGuard and there is no comparison with WraithLords. The main issues are the removal of MW and MW shooting.
  • I also think the unit will prove very hard to balance, 40 points each is too high when compared with the WG and WL, and does not have any usefull synergies with other point upgrades as the rest of the upgrades work in steps of 25 and 50 points
  On balance, I would recommend removing this unit altogether as an unnecessary complication.
  
  
• I dislike animated construct.
  • Hit and Run is a fundamental part of the Eldar list that should not be tampered with, and especially not in a single sub-list.
  • Animated Construct also causes complications without really helping the game, and worse it is written as a 'negative' in that it takes away something unless a condition is present (Farsight).
  • Finally, it is not something that could easily be applied to the Eldar formations as a whole, even if that were desirable (which it patently is not).
  Please remove this.
  
  
• Spirit Wraithlord Warhost
  
  • Arguably a little too expensive at 350, especially if you are making them 50 points each elsewhere. Suggest that 325 might be more appropriate
  • I am also unsure about making them a Warhost rather than a troupe, though I totally understand the reasoning which is the result of making the support troupes 1-1 with war hosts
  
  
• Warhost to troupe ration
  
  The original list had a ratio of 1:3. Presuming that you feel this to large, I would recommend reducing the ratio to 1:2 rather than 1:1.
  
  
• Latest Eldar changes
  
  I would be wary of adding the latest changes in this list, especially the reduced cost of the Phantom. I would suggest keeping in line with the various other Eldar lists, so that when / if these changes are approved, they can then be applied as a whole to all the lists. This approach also helps ensure that the list is balanced within the Eldar race as a whole

Hey blish,
Check out the old iyanden thread for the context. You played Iyanden at Heavy Bolter didn't you? Not keen on fielding them again this year?
We missed you at CANCON 15! Hope to see you at 16!

Regarding the animated construct rule I think it matches the fluff really well and provides a limitation on these total monsters which is thematically aligned. The fluff states they are almost blind to the world without the guidance of their seers.

I can see the utility of the wraitblades- especially when confronting CC orientated armies. Because they will just charge you and negate thee wraitguard mw attack. But that being said it would be nice if the blades had a BC MW attack to offset the loss of the other attacks.

But now to playtesting.

Cheers
Jim

1:1 warhost/troupe is pretty harsh. It’s a ratio that only works well in war engine armies, imo. I know it looks more elegant than keeping the The Living Few rule, but it probably limits the usability of this list to a couple dozen people in all the world.

I can live with Animated Constructs. I’d worry that it makes this army too sensitive to whether the opposing army has Snipers or not, but it does fit the fluff.

However, I also had trouble finding it. It’s just a formatting issue – the list-specific “May not Garrison” special rule is there with a bold header on the front page, but the Eldar-wide special rules are in the back (with differently-formatted headers). I think a summary of the Eldar-wide rules would be helpful on the front page (just the rule itself, not the full-blown explanation and FAQ in the back).

I like the idea of adding Wraithblades. As a new unit without an existing 6mm model it’s probably best that it’s a little underpowered so no one will actually take it.

Gents

First of all thanks for the responses I am happy that we are getting some healthy perspectives for discussion. I will do my best to answer questions and queries you have but some I might have to leave for Tiny-Tim and or PFE100 depending their nature.



Ginger I agree with you here and I am maintaining an open mind regarding this comment.



Ok I hear you and recognise that the introduction of the WB is viewed by many with scepticism. I feel that they are worth exploring in the list and what they can potentially offer the list given the other restriction. Yes, they may be underpowered when compared to WG and WL but I felt that this was an appropriate place in which to test them before further adjustments. I am hoping to read some battle reports with them in before exploring further ideas of those adjustments, but I am happy to keep hearing peoples thoughts on them.



Your point is valid. However I would like to trial this rule as part of the list. Jim's post above is an accurate description of my own point of view. From my research into Iyanden it seems that people were either happy with the previous list or felt it was over powered, no one was stating that it was sub-par. I was concerned to hear and read that gamers in some groups were not enjoying their games against the Iyanden list, there could be a number of reasons for this but it is concerning none the less. This is why I felt it appropriate to explore some themed negative restrictions that captures the history and style of Iyanden. I stress that state of flux the list in presently so lets game test it.



Yep, WL formations may be a tad expensive and I am open to see how they go, you could be on the money with 325. I do feel that WL belong in the troupe section for other craftworlds but not Iyanden, and yes it does help balance the one to one warhost to troupe ratio. On that topic of the one to one ratio, I don't feel the 1:3 or even 1:2 reflects the ravaged state of the Iyanden craftworld and skirts their dependence on wraith constructs. I am aware of the importance of having a delivery system for your WG/WB and Vampires come from WE, Wave serpents are an upgrade and Wraithgates don't count to the ratio. Its only Storm serpents that come into the ratio which leaves the remaining choices free to be used in whatever fashion a player wants to support their Wraith formations.



I am working with the other ACs and there will be a reflection of what happens in BT list for common units shared by the Iyanden list. I am sure Tiny-Tim and PFE100 could probably add more here.



Mate that's great feed back! I am keeping the formatting in line with the other elder lists however I will forward this on PFE100 and we will go from there.

Game test, battle reports, match results, After Actions reports I don't care what you call em, I just want them as they are key to moving forward from here Anyone got plans to give the list a whirl over the weekend?

Cheers

Mic

Ok I understand the concern that the Iyanden are slightly overpowered, which seems to be supported by E-UK stats and my recollection of posts. I suspect this is largely due to the Wraith Hosts as anything else. A 6+ strong formation of fearless 4+RA infantry is difficult to deal with and packs more punch than a similar termie formation. I also get your point about reliance on Wraith constructs. Some further thoughts.

• Make the Wraith host 4x WG or WL for 275 but 0-1 WG or WL for 50, or Spiritseer (see the E-UK list for stats and costs). This makes the largest formation only 5x units and is also slightly more expensive.
  
  
• Reinstate the Guardian warhost, but with the following revisions
  6 guardians with farseer plus either
  - 3 WG for 275
  - 3 WL for 300
  Allow Heavy weapons and transport upgrades but not extra WL or WG.
  
  
• Make Vampires two for 400

Please remove animated construct. Weakening the Wraith formations together with the Vampire changes should be sufficient.

I am still ambivalent about the 1:1 ratio but the above should at least make the list a little more playable.

I like the "animated construct" rule. Fits the theme and works within the current set of rules nicely.

Tried some builds and the 1:1 ratio might be a little bit to harsh and might make every build very similar but lets give it a try?
(Have the same issue with the Stigmatus list.)

Some of the wording could do with a little trimming. Like mentioning that a character can be fitted into a Waveserpent. And I believe that that the intent is that all units must be fitted into the Wave serpents. Like it's written now you could buy just one...

Also why is the 1st QA about the Avatar mentioned as a Iyanden specific question?

/Uven

Hope to find time for some games soon. Played a few, previously, with Iyanden.

I could not ever see myself taking Wraithblades in a competitive competition list.
What about changing them slightly to:
(1) make the extra attack a MW attack, and
(2) cost the upgrade at 75 points for two.

That might bring them close to consideration, and keep the 25 point price break.
It would still leave them far short of Wraithlords on a CC 3+ attack, AV to avoid
AP shooting, an actual FF value and a reasonable 30 cm shot.

The separate formation of Wraithblades is currently a slightly cheaper core option
that really only has a single strike utility that is highly dependant on the delivery
mechanism, all of which require you to get 15 cm closer than the alternatives.
Costing it seems very dependent on the success of those delivery mechanisms
rather than the formation itself (unless using Wave Serpents). The main cost
seems to be the fearless and RA4+, both very hard but defensive items.

Like the ability to put the variable number of Wraithlords into other formations.
Would the argument for smaller core formations not also apply to the Wraithlords?
I'd have thought that a WraithLORD would be a relatively rare beast and to
require them to come in groups of six always seemed heavy handed? What about
a group of four that would be increased in size?

OK, thinking out loud here, so please be patient, and forgive the long post.

Further to my last post, I believe we need to step back and examine the problem which has not been properly articulated (and I am as guilty as others). Also we need to remember a cardinal rule with list building, namely that the list / units need to have weaknesses as well as strengths.

The Problem
Seems to be that opponents generally have difficulty dealing with large formations of Fearless infantry with RA 4+ armour. This issue is actually caused by 'spamming' the Wraith units, albeit intentionally. It is exacerbated by allowing the player to add further units which makes it even harder for the opponent to break the formation, removing a key weakness.
As things stand, both this and the E-UK list allow a player to build entirely fearless armies, which are only limited by people's collections eg

• 6x formations of 6x WG @ 375 and a Phantom (and a gate if the Phantom is reduced to 700!)
  or worse,
• 8x formations of 4x WG @ 275, a Phantom and a ranger unit, which potentially gets around the other Eldar weakness of the 2+ initiative restricting movement.

These lists work more like Tyranids, occupying the centre of the table and ignoring the efforts of the enemy and the activation disparity is more than compensated for by the number and size of the fearless formations.

The current lists do nothing to correct this key issue, while actually providing ways to remove other weaknesses:-

• Adding WL to the formation gives the WG cover from shooting in addition to better firepower.
• Both WL and the new WB, when placed in front of the WG, remove the key weakness the WG have in assaults by hindering opponents from getting into B-B with them.
• WB do not make a good formation by themselves, but added to the WG they provide an ablative shield adding numbers and preventing shooting damage to the WG, which makes it hard to balance the cost of WB as I said earlier.

Possible solution
I am a 'fluffyphobe' so I do not know the Iyanden background, but is the large WG formation a valid representation, and indeed is it the only one?

If we agree with the problem as stated above, I suggest that a major part of the answer is actually to keep the numbers of wraith units per formation low (3-4), whilst ensuring that the player takes more of these formations to fit with the theme of relying on wraith units. One easy way of doing this is by retaining Guardian Warhosts (weakened by the wars), but requiring that WG or WL are attached to them (this approach has the added benefit of matching more closely the current collections of Eldar players).

Perhaps the Guardian Warhost formation might be altered to be :-

• 6x Guardians + 3x WG for 275
• 6x Guardians + 3x WL for 300

Permitted upgrades;
- Transport (Wave Serpents and Falcons +50 ea),
- Heavy Weapons +50,
- perhaps Spiritseer to replace the Farseer +25 (stats are a WB with Command and Farsight)
but no extra WG or WL.

The Warhost to troupe ratio should be reduced to 1:2, or possibly to 1:1 to ensure that there are higher numbers of Guardian Warhosts with the associated Wraith units, and Aspect warriors relegated to being troupes rather than Warhosts (as in the lists).

I suggest the Vampire changes be kept under review since they will prevent the Vampire from being used as a transport for the Warhosts. There are good reasons on both sides of the argument for retaining the current wording and for changing it


Note
The animated construct rule does nothing to resolve the above issues while it also sets a potential precedent for removing hit-and-run from the Eldar (which is the compensation for the other key Eldar weaknesses and should not be tampered with). Worse, it does not do what is apparently intended;

• The WG really only benefit from hit-and-run after an assault since they only have a 15cm range. This does not prevent assaults at all (in practice laying BMs is a far greater hindrance).
• I am not even sure that it matches the 'fluff' which apparently suggests that WG, WL (and WB) are not aware of things in this plane of existence and need a seer to help them target enemy formations, not just to keep them moving.
• It adds complications (what happens to Guardians when the last Wraith unit of the formation dies)
• It is adding yet another 'special rule' which we generally try to avoid, and really needs to be written as a 'benefit' of the seer rather than a 'penalty' for the absence of the seer (which would add further complications).

So please remove this. I maintain that Animated Construct is an unnecessary complication at best.