I think the new list does deal with some of the major objections to the previous Iylanden offers.

Wraithguard formations here do not get Init 1+.
The larger formation of 6 Wraithguard costs 25 points more.
Losing the Spiritseer or Wraithseer from a formation has an extra negative.

Finally the 1:1 ratio for support formations makes a much stronger constraint
than the previous "Living Few" rule.

Plenty of negatives there to balance out the Fearless, RA 4+, monsters.

Incidentally, am curious about how you think a Spiritseer (or Wraithseer) adds
themselves to a Wraithlord armoured walker unit, . . . . fluff-wise, . . . .

Really not sure that either list deals with the problem, as I tried to explain.

Both lists allow the player to create totally fearless 4+ RA armies, which are very difficult to deal with. E-UK lists already have WG and WL at 2+ initiative, which means that on average, two of the formations will fail to activate per turn removing BMs, but the others will move (marching initially) to contest the centre of the table. From this point they can assault enemy that get too close, their armour and formation size with judicious use of Marshalling makes them hard to break, Fearless makes them hard to destroy (since they have to be shot), and there can be up to 8x such formations.
(I believe the optimum might be 6x formations with 5-6 Wraith formations each containing 4x WG and 2x WL for 375, with the remaining 750 points used in other formations eg Phantom).
I believe the main hindrance to this is the lack of figures. These kind of armies will need approximately 30-36 bases of Wraith units which will be outside the scope of many collections.

To your other points

• The loss of hit-and-run is negligible to these formations since they won't be using hit-and-run; they do not shoot far enough to be able to make use of this, and will probably be within 15 of other formations anyway.
  
• The E-UK lists are already 375 for 6x WG, and have an impressive 52% win rate, albeit with only 3-4x wraith formations.
  
• Finally the 1:1 ratio has little impact on the above lists, which are probably better when using more wraith formations as I explain above

I have already said that I am a 'fluffyphobe', so have no idea about how the Spiritseer fits with a formation of 6x WL, though personally I would consider fielding mixed formations using the WL as cover for the WG. The downside is that WL permit the enemy to use AT fire, so I might just go with straight WG formations.

Andrew



Can roll it as a wraithseer

Some interesting changes, and it's good to see the list is once again getting active discussion and playtesting. Great start, Mic.
Regarding the Wraithblades, I agree with the consensus that they are less good than wraithguard to a degree that a 50pt discount doesn't fully represent. I do think they are a potentially useful formation (especially for air assault delivery).

Suggestions:
The obvious chnage of MW on their EA (may require a price increase?)
Close Combat could be improved to 3+ (probably fair for a unit which can carry dual ghostswords) at the current price point
I considered suggesting they could gain the force shield/ghostaxe combination allowed in 40K (Klaivaulch) in the from of an Inv save, but I reckon most opponents wouldn't want to see a 3rd roll after the 4+ RA



- 4 - 6 WG (275-350) Storm Serpent (250): Assault FM vs targets up to 105cm away.
One of my favourites.

4-6 WG with 2-4 Wraithlords (375-525): webway assault FM that brings both CC and FF pain. Scores bonus points as it can casually stroll around with WLs giving cover to WG that are in base contact.

Ginger:
I do not really see that 6-8 fearless units on foot would be such a big problem. The move and shoot 15cm, just stand 31 cm away and shoot them... (sure they can double etc but I hope you get my point )
The main issue people have had when I have played (and from what I can see the same is true for the EpicUK scene) is when they have air assaulted on +1 initiative. That issue is now somewhat dealt with. (2 less units emerging from the plane)

Fluffwise the "new" special rule fits well. Without the seers the Wraithguards become lost and "daydreams" so they should be slow like normal people or even slower...

I use the "hit en run" rule frequently after I have assaulted to move the full 15 cm to be able to support in the next engagement so this would be a "big" drawback for the Wraithguards. I never move-shoot-move though...

The 1:1 ratio have an impact on the list by restricting the number of activations. Compared to the previous list this is another "big" restriction, before it was more like a 1:3 or something.

And some general stuff:
Since we have already tampered with the Wraithguard stats, is there a real reason for them to have 4+ in CC. Perhaps by giving them 5+ the Wraithblades might have a home? (Even if my suggestion would be to just remove them. The Wraithlord would be my CC choise even with the all the suggested changes made. MW better CC etc...)

Will try this list tonight, my main concern is that the 1:1 ratio might make listbuilding "boring" and that the new 0-3 Wraithlords and 0-2 Wraithguards might be to flexible. There seems to be no way of pleasing me
Another thing that concerns me is that the have been made to "bad" as there have been several nerfs at once (vampire, 1+ initiativ, points increase, negative special rule) But time will tell.

Air assaults by this and any Eldar list should have still been on a 2+ initiative roll, no matter what the Vampire was carrying you still activate the Vampire not what is inside, so there is no change to the initiative roll for air assaults.
It does make the air assault a little weaker hitting.

Guys

Let me start by saying thank you to all for your feedback. This is my first gig as a sub-AC but I am really happy we have some health discussion and debate going. I recognise that there is a lot of passion for the Iyanden list which is fantastic. I really hope that the final 'approved' list is something that we all enjoy playing whether in the man cave with mates or at a tournie. In saying that I am aware the that final list may look very different from what's on the table now, I am keeping an open mind...

I would love to see some battle reports on the list as is stands at the moment. I know there are changes begging to happen but this will give us a bench mark and some further discussion points. Uvenlord I am looking forward to reading the report and hearing yours and your opponents thoughts.
Once we get those first round of reports through I will put on the table the direction I am thinking with the first round of changes based on reports and our discussion. I would ask for you guys to chime in here as well with thoughts on those said changes. It will be safe to say that the WB will be in the first lot of changes

I will set up a Iyanden v4.2 Battle Report thread and link it in to the top of this this thread so we might centralise our work. I have additionally conscripted the talents of Mard to write the code for Army forge so this should help your list building and scheming so watch this space.

For me personally I am hoping to get a game in this Friday night and 2 games on Sunday, providing the stars stay aligned.

Cheers

Mic

I will also fix up typos and some rules layout that has been raised soon.

So true!, we have probably played that one the wrong way then . Still the 1+ initiative have been upsetting when used correctly also. Especially when used together with tripple retain activations...

I have set up the thread for Battle Reports which will hopefully keep it easier to track change and progress.

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=29055

Mic

Plenty of things to consider.

One note for Ginger: The Iyanden have not been played much in UK tournaments following their increase in cost. One of the main players of them won't use them under 4k and I have mainly been using other lists as is my wont. Thus their Win ratio has not dropped from the previous costings.

Also E-UK have lists which can be all Fearless already at the moment if your reasoning is followed.

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

Thanks Tim

AFAIK there are very few all Fearless armies, precisely because they are so hard to deal with. Their presence is one of the key reasons for 'power creep' across the lists with increasing use of MW weaponry, which is another reason why 'Fearless' armies should be discouraged.

Finally I have to disagree with the view that the Automated Construct rule fits the fluff as presented on this board; it does potentially reduce the Wraith formations to 'normal' people, but it does not really affect the Wraith unit's speed or direction of movement.

However, what the rules *does* do is to provide grounds for nerfing Guardian formations across *all* Eldar lists, and it is this that I find unacceptable!

I generally agree. But see no real issue with this army as it will not be an all fearless army (unless you do the, in my opinion, sub optimal build in your example) But I'm with you about being careful. I have the same issue with AMTL, an army that is likely to be all fearless but by comparing Iyanden to the AMTL I'm just starting the power creep I guess

I think the special rule affects the movement. It takes away one of the eldar special rules that is supposed to give them mobility and it denies them the march order.

I'm with you on that the automated construct should not be across all armies, as I stated in my first post. It should be restricted to formations made up of wraithconstructs only.

What's all this talk about all-fearless Iyanden lists being the problem? I have never seen such a thing, and doubt I ever will.

Let's give the new list a chance before denouncing it and coming up with our own totally different structures.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Hi all.
I think you have not accurately defined the problem ginger.
The problem was that iyanden was seen as overpowered.
I also dont see any issues with the spamming lists you put forward as list breakers. I would love to face off against anyone daft enough to run those lists! Hahah

I agree that 4++ fearless MW totting units are tough mudders! But I think the list is well balanced out in terms of restrictions, unit size ans SR.

I personally love healthy debate - but id like to see suggestions for rule changes to be backed up by a body of games/playtesting rather than just opinion or feel.

Matt shadowlord - maybe you could give us a killer list to playtest with/against?

Cheers
Jim

Ok, perhaps someone else can articulate in which respect the list was 'overpowered' so these particular aspects can be addressed. I totally agree that we need to test a list, but I remain concerned that the restrictions presented in this latest attempt at the Iyanden are excessive.

Tiny-Tim's comments on the E-UK list shed an interesting light on the issue, if a small price increase is apparently enough to stop the list being viewed as 'competitive' at 3K. Equally Kyrt has also expressed other concerns in the battle report thread

I might agree with you, if there was a way of expressing this while keeping to the Wraithconstruct theme. But this is a statement about the Wraith units, not the formation they are in; they don't behave differently just because they are with Guardians. Basically we have to nerf both or neither.