Quote:
the wording in netea list could be changed, so that the exarchs got benefits of the weapons that the aspect used....
This sounds good, and would be the best solution if simple wording could be found for it IMO, but getting that wording right is tricky. After all:
Quote:
Exarchs added to units of dire Avengers howling bashees, shining spears or striking scorpions have an exarch close combat weapon and the abilities of that weapon. The same wording thats at the end of the sentence could be add to the range Exarch section in the note..
This is unclear. I'm not sure how far-reaching you intend for this to be, but it could be something along the lines of:
"Exarchs added to units of Dire Avengers, Howling Banshees, Shining Spears or Striking Scorpions gain the benefits of any 'Range: (bc)' weapons possessed by the Aspect the Exarch is attached to, with the additional rule applied to these weapons: 'EA+1' "
That's kind of awkward as it wipes out 'Exarch Close Combat Weapons' as existing at all, but it means the Exarch attack will definitely benefit from that weapon. It's also easy to adjust for the Small Arms aspects. I went with the wording of 'Range: (bc)' because I don't remember if close combat weapons are actually clearly defined anywhere in the rules (and don't feel like a rules search right now).
I had considered:
"Exarchs added to units of Dire Avengers, Howling Banshees, Shining Spears or Striking Scorpions gain an Exarch Close Combat Weapon, and the benefits of any 'Range: (bc)' weapons possessed by the Aspect the Exarch is attached to"
But that technically means the Exarch has two weapons- one with +1EA and no special rules, and one with special rules but no attack.
Other than being a bit of a long-winded rule, the issues I see arising from the above are:
Dire Avengers have no listed CC weapon, which technically means there's no weapon to add the '+1 EA' to, so no EA is gained.
Striking Scorpions have EA+1 from Mandiblasters- is it intended that the Exarch would gain these? Do two lots of EA+1 stack to EA+2? Is a single stand with 4 attacks intended?
Is it intended that Fire Dragons would have an Exarch with a MW attack? I know this fits the background, but it also clearly puts a FD Exarch a fair way above any other Exarch.
For Autarchs, it may be unbalancing for them to gain the Aspect ability, but just for completeness this would be my recommended wording for them:
"Autarchs gain the benefits of any 'Range: (bc)' or Small Arms weapons possessed by the Aspect the Autarch is attached to. Additionally, both of these weapons gain the EA+1 special rule, and the Autarch's 'Range: (bc)' weapon gains the MW special rule."
Problems from this are:
Dire Avengers, Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, Swooping Hawks and Warp Spiders all have no listed CC weapon, so the Autarch couldn't add his +1 MW attack to anything.
Is a FS 2+ MW too good for those points on the Banshees, or is it balanced by the fragility?
How does MW stack with Lance, as would occur on Shining Spears here?
When attached to Striking Scorpions the Autarch would gain 2 MW attacks thanks to the Mandiblasters.
Fire Dragons would again have an extra MW FF attack, if that's an issue.
Quote:
Geep, if you have read the various thread you will be well aware that I was heavily involved in those discussions
I read your earlier contributions, and hope the head-butting emoji is in reference to the stubbornly unchanging nature of things rather than any frustration I have caused you here. I found the earlier threads interesting.
You make a good point about clipping attacks with the Banshees, though I question whether it is that much different to the clipping attacks Eldar are already quite good at- FS would help, of course, but when there's very few enemy in range the decent armour of some aspects can already soak the few hits they do receive fairly well. I personally dislike that clipping is possible (it's too much of a 'cheap win'), but that is one extremely complicated rules quirk to iron out.