I still think there's some potential for "War Walker Spam" with the minimum size of three for the Troupe.

You can do five Guardian Warhosts and then *fifteen* three-unit War Walker Troupes... and still have 625 points to play with!  *laugh*  War Walkers can actually be quite shooty, and their scout ZoC will make that many of them... plus other stuff as backup, quite nasty.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Well Saim-Hann has the Windrider Hosts and I wouldn't want to go into that. That is the defining feature of their list and I think it should remain uniquely Saim-Hann.

The bit about Falcon Hosts is intriguing, however I believe it's a defining trait of the Yme-Loc Craftworld. So again I wouldn't want to encroach into the "flavor" of another army.


Nice work on the list   .

If the Dire Avengers are supposed to be the most abundant aspect available to Iybraesil.
Would limiting the Aspect Troupe to maximum of 1 per Dire Avenger host be appropriate so we can't get lists with lots of other aspects but no Dire Avengers.


Regards lists being codex/generic/typical etc.,
When they are all inclusive lists where players want every formation/upgrade/option etc available to make any possible army,then I'm against that as to me it goes against the basic principle and design of EpicA.
To me though this list is great and what is needed for the development of the game .I see it as a variant list that can be used to represent many other Craftworlds.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

You're probably (read almost definitely) right Chroma. It's probably the bit in the list most open to abuse. Maybe you should do a batrep similar to the "Murder of Monoliths" one to show what would happen with War Walkers.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

One design concept I've tried to adhere to when working on the Eldar lists is "Two defining Warhosts" for each Craftworld/variant.  I find it allows one to quickly differentiate a list and keeps things focused.  It's not set in stone, but too many Warhosts starts to dilute things.

Keep up the good work, Malakai!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I agree. It's a good way to keep each army unique and separate.


Keep up the good work Malakai

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

A "Wave of War Walkers" report?  *laugh*

I'd love to try it, just for the novelty, but I don't think even my very reasonable and accomadating gaming group would want to face off against that.  *laugh*

I do have a "serious" question for you though: Why do you feel that Autarch should be mandatory?  Surely he/she wouldn't be at *every* battle.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

That is the one aspect to this army list that I admit to taking some personal liberty with.

Back in the day I always wanted a Guardian Commander to emerge, but GW never developed one. It was all about Farseers and Exarchs.

If memory serves I believe the Autarch was first designed for Epic. Later on the Autarch fluff has come into its own. Even Farseers defer to Autarchs on matters of military strategy.

So the idea of fielding an Epic sized Eldar force based around Guardians with only Farseers or Exarchs to lead them didn't sit very well with me. Surely the Eldar wouldn't invest such a large portion of its citizens to the field without having the benifit of the best individuals the Craftworld had to offer leading them?

That's why I thought that a mandatory Autarch would be fitting.

Of course like I said, this is just my interpretation and nothing that I've read in Eldar background suggests that this is so. I just thought it was cool and would be one more small thing to help differentiate between it and another Craftworld army.

Course if people have strong opinions on this I'd be happy to reconsider.


Edit: Note I am following the fluff laid out in the Codex Eldar 4th edition book instead of the Swordwind book.

In the Swordwind book it lists an Autarch as an Exarch taking up the mantel of Autarchy. In the Codex Eldar book it describes him as someone who has tread the path of the warrior, but never succumb to it. Instead he gets lost on the Path of Command, taking a "larger" view of the battle in a way that an Exarch, intent on only bloodshed, cannot.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

Most people will take an Autarch anyway. Making it mandatory even in small games is a little weird.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I'd be interested to see how many others feel this way.

Should the Autarch remain mandatory or would you guys prefer it to be optional?

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

I'd say leave it optional.

I rarely take any Epic army without the Supreme Commander as the re roll is normally worth its points and every time I've tried to run a list without I've regretted it.

It looks nice, but one thing feels strange: if you take 4 Guardian Warhosts, you can only take two Dire Avengers Warhosts... but you can purchase up to 12 Aspect Warrior Troupes, all of which can be entirely made up of Dire Avengers!  

Why is there a limit to the DA Warhost anyway? Surely even a "generic" Craftworld would be able to have an army consisting mainly of Dire Avengers, no?

If you read my notes on the first page I sort of addressed this. Guardians are the most numerous force of troops on this (and in my opinion most) Craftworld. This army is all about the Guardians.    

Still the Aspect Troupes are 6 unit strong, so one could include more Dire Avengers than guardians in the army if he felt inclined to do so.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

Why the Dire Avenger Warhost, then?  

If the army is all about Guardians, why not have Guardian Warhosts only? You could add some variety: regular Guardians Warhost, Heavy Weapons Guardians Warhost, Assault Guardians Warhost...

Well Dire Avengers are the most numerous Aspect type on any Craftworld so a good way to represent this is a limited number of Avenger Hosts.

If there were models for Storm Guardians I would definitely include them, but since there aren't they get left out.  

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

First, none of this is to discourage or say you can't do it.  Go crazy and make up whatever you want.  I don't intend to criticize; this is just my attempt to understand.  I'm struggling to see where this list is going to have an in-game flavor different from those that can be made from BT or Alaitoc.

The crux of it is that I don't see anything new that would allow a substantially different approach on the battlefield.  What strategy or tactics does it have that the other Eldar lists don't?  Without that, I can only see the "on paper" feel being different.

I do understand that it has a different feel from an "on paper" perspective.  That is not completely unimportant but I'm much more focused on the in-play ramifications.  I just don't get how it would make a difference on the game board, so I'm asking questions.  

From the other thread:
The Codex list should play fairly differently to the BT list. The core formations are made up of Guardians and Dire Avengers. Guardians can now be led by an Autarch (that's mandatory).

This is also the only list that has an Aspect type as a Host and a Troupe. Surely that should play differently...  I think it's a neat and unique (as far as other Eldar army types in EA goes) list to play...

_________________
Neal