Well... I think it's a shame that the lore doesn't have enough depth to tell us the differences between the same kind of troops from Craftworld to Craftworld. Chapters and Legions differentiate because of different temper and traditions and so a Space Marine from one Chapter doesn't behave like one from another Chapter.

Have you thought about what could differentiate two Howling Banshees from two different Craftworlds?

Or could you list general skills/personalities for the known Craftworlds?

Remember, it's at troop level, not army level.

From what I remember I believe that the aspect warriors are more standardized then other Eldar warriors as the aspect shrines are a mostly seperate cultural group to the rest of the Craftworlds so it would make sence, especially if you factor in the psychological chages one goes though joining a shrine, that aspect warriors are similar across Craftworlds.

That being said it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for warriors to gain the temperment of the Craftworld they are from like Saim-heims brashness and aggressiveness or Ulthwes dourness.

Doesn’t even need to be between different craft worlds. If there are multiple shrines to the same aspect on one craft world, they could have different fighting styles. Ultimately, differences would come down to a few archetypes I think under something like the following categories:
- things bigger/smaller than the eldar
- multiple/single targets
- heavy/light armour
- fast/slow things

The sl’gsqush’r shrine of Alaitloc being famous for excelling against multiple small slow targets with no armour

I also get the impression that the nature of the Craftworld affects which Aspects are more common there. I am sure you will find proportionally more Shining Spears in Saim-Hann, for example. Especially belligerent Aspects like Fire Dragons might be more common in Biel Tan, and so on.

Ooh… thought of another thing for the list:
- more/fewer limbs/weapons than the eldar.

We can see some implied differences in fighting style with how the Exarchs are armed, though these differences may not be enough to matter at the level of granularity of the 40K rules.

For example, with Banshees we see the Exarchs armed with executioner, mirror swords, or triskele. These seem to be attempts to emulate their founding Phoenix Lord Jain Zar's Blade of Destruction, "Storm of Silence" moniker/storm of attacks, and Silent Death respectively. So each of the Aspect shrines may have a greater emphasis on one aspect of Jain Zar. Those where the Exarch is armed with an executioner may emphasize the power of their melee attacks, whereas one where the Exarch is armed with mirror swords may emphasize speed of melee attacks first over power. The Exarch powers too may suggest what they focus on. An Exarch with the power Nerve-Shredding Shriek and the relic Cronescream (or an equivalent one like it) may be from a Shrine that emphasizes the Banshee Mask's powers, honing the scream to the point where the Exarch melts people's brains with their screams.

Chaospling wrote:
Well... I think it's a shame that the lore doesn't have enough depth to tell us the differences between the same kind of troops from Craftworld to Craftworld. Chapters and Legions differentiate because of different temper and traditions and so a Space Marine from one Chapter doesn't behave like one from another Chapter.

Unfortunately, this is just a side effect of the sheer amount of attention that the marines get. Eldar lore was established a long time ago hasn't really changed much over the years. They added Autarchs in 4th edition and did the Ynnari stuff in 8th, but the basic template has basically been established since 2nd.

Have you thought about what could differentiate two Howling Banshees from two different Craftworlds?

No. I've thought about how to represent Banshees from two different shrines on the tabletop. I've also thought about how it would be cool to have rules that supported a build-your-own-warlock mechanic where you could outfit a warlock to show his path in the past. Something similar to how you can build an autarch with the various aspect weapon options and making the warlock eligible to join the relevant aspect squad. Afterall, the 2nd edition codex says that warlocks kept their helms in the aspect shrines and can only retrieve them from the exarch as part of a blood ritual.

Or could you list general skills/personalities for the known Craftworlds?

The craftworlds are generally differentiated by their signature units.

Saim Hann - Jetbikes
Iyanden - Wraith units
Alaitoc - Rangers
Ulthwe- Guardians
Biel tan - All the aspects.

Further differentiation of the already hyper specialized aspects is hard to support given what lore we already have. I think Iracundus has the right tack here by choosing different exarch loadouts to represent differences between squads from different shrines.

Well thanks guys. Didn't know about the Shrines, so that's great, thanks.

The thing is that I'm writing a Biel-Tan codex, so I was hoping to make the Aspect Warriors Biel-Tan special, not Shrine special. One idea was indeed to add Aspect upgrades to Warlocks, representing the Biel-Tan Craftworld devotion to the Aspects at every possible level... Maybe even something for the Guardians...?

Chaospling wrote:
Well thanks guys. Didn't know about the Shrines, so that's great, thanks.

I didn't know about them until I read Path of the Warrior, the first book in the Eldar path series. It's a good read and I recommend you pick it up if you want more information on aspect warrior shrines.

The thing is that I'm writing a Biel-Tan codex, so I was hoping to make the Aspect Warriors Biel-Tan special, not Shrine special. One idea was indeed to add Aspect upgrades to Warlocks, representing the Biel-Tan Craftworld devotion to the Aspects at every possible level... Maybe even something for the Guardians...?

Guardians is something I've thought about as well. Currently there's no representation of guardians who had previously walked one of the warrior paths. The lore doesn't go deep enough into how craftworlds mobilize for war. There's some of that in the Eldar path novels showing the autarch and exarch councils. But there's nothing about how guardians get organized. What do you do with eldar civilians who were previously on a warrior path? Does a former Dire Avenger put his war mask back on? He'd have to go to a shrine for the ritual. Or do guardians just not do any of that? Maybe some of this differentiation can be handled with the crusade rules where units earn bonuses during a campaign, because there's not a lot of room between the basic guardian "conscript" and the Dire Avenger professional.

I recall that Eldar that had previously followed the Path of the Warrior lead Guardian Defender squads or form Guardian Storm squads.

As others have mentioned the path of the eldar series shines light on this. In particular the path of the warrior. There are a multitude of differences between the various shrines. Without spoiling we get to see two striking scorpion shrines in path of the warrior. One is a swamp with extensive vegetation and dim light, awareness being key to fighting there. The other is a desert. Dunes of sand and plenty of light. There being sure footed matters way more. The two exarchs in charge of the shrines have different opinions on how a striking scorpion should be. There is talk of the “old ways” of doing things. A conflict that sadly isn’t developed.

As related to differences of warriors between craftworlds though the books bring up one particular thing. It’s a little difficult to explain without spoilers, but I’ll try. A craft world is kind of alive. There’s psychic echoes all over and certain events can be felt all across a craft world. Both by its inhabitants and the craft itself. Remember that every single eldar is a psyker. The craftworld is filled with the souls of dead eldar in constant circulation in it’s very walls. When the craftworld needs warriors many eldar will feel an urge to take on a warriors path. If a shrine that’s been dormant for long suddenly becomes active (for whatever reason) it’s usually filled with eldars very shortly. They simply feel a call in their psyche. Now it’s a little bit of a stretch but let’s say the craftworld is in need of stealthy warriors. It might have an influx in striking scorpions that would specialize in stealth. Let’s say it had a need for ferocious front liners. Again this could be filled by striking scorpions, but they might get better at fighting upfront rather then the stealthy approach. This is because the craftworld might prioritize the scorpion shrines that trains the warriors in a particular up front style. Instead of shrines that focus on a more stealth oriented one. This need might be because of particular fighting styles that’s dominant throughout the craftworld. As I said this phenomena is very difficult to describe. But I believe it might be what the OP is looking for.

I've always thought of the Aspect Shrines as a unifying part of eldar culture across Craftworlds.

They're universal parts of the path that keep eldar together as a people rather than refugee populations that could have splintered off in a dozen different directions.

Feeds into inter-service rivalries rather than intra-service rivalries as well. You really don't want your warrior cults to start sprouting heresies and schisms. That gets ugly.

The Shrines and the Path of the Eldar are a unifying force so that they all have common myths about Khaine and the Aspects, but at the same time there is still variation in how each Craftworld implements the Path system.

Saim-hann is described as having one of the loosest implementations (contrasted with Alaitoc which is one of the strictest) and the Eldar there still identify more strongly with their clan, with clan loyalty coming first, with the one exception being when they are on the Path of the Warrior.

On Biel-tan the Path of the Warrior is the first Path an Eldar there walks once they reach maturity.

The problem is specific Craftworld background has been very sparse and scattered as GW has dwelt endlessly on the Imperium and ever more newly invented Space Marine Chapters while even the big Eldar Craftworlds have languished in a void of little specific background written for them. The Iyanden supplement was one small attempt in that direction but it seems GW has given up on releasing more supplements for each Craftworld.

Iracundus wrote:
The Shrines and the Path of the Eldar are a unifying force so that they all have common myths about Khaine and the Aspects, but at the same time there is still variation in how each Craftworld implements the Path system.

Some of this conformity comes from the Phoenix Lords making "accreditation" checks of the various shrines around the craftworlds.

On Biel-tan the Path of the Warrior is the first Path an Eldar there walks once they reach maturity.

This would mean all of their guardians, if they even field any, should be better than the basic guardian stat line. In 3rd edition, the craftworld eldar book had rules for Biel-tan to field aspect squads as troops. I think guardians moved to heavy support.

.
The Iyanden supplement was one small attempt in that direction but it seems GW has given up on releasing more supplements for each Craftworld.

Forgot about that. I think that's probably a good reference for the OP to check out as a template for his Biel-tan effort.

Arschbombe wrote: (...) because there's not a lot of room between the basic guardian "conscript" and the Dire Avenger professional.

I'm not just writing codecies. I've also made new rules based on D10, so now there's much more room for granularity.

Nerak wrote:As others have mentioned the path of the eldar series shines light on this. In particular the path of the warrior. (...) This need might be because of particular fighting styles that’s dominant throughout the craftworld. As I said this phenomena is very difficult to describe. But I believe it might be what the OP is looking for.

Well seems I must read that book, if I really want that deeper understanding of Shrines and Aspects.

Arschbombe wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
The Shrines and the Path of the Eldar are a unifying force so that they all have common myths about Khaine and the Aspects, but at the same time there is still variation in how each Craftworld implements the Path system.

Some of this conformity comes from the Phoenix Lords making "accreditation" checks of the various shrines around the craftworlds.

On Biel-tan the Path of the Warrior is the first Path an Eldar there walks once they reach maturity.

This would mean all of their guardians, if they even field any, should be better than the basic guardian stat line. In 3rd edition, the craftworld eldar book had rules for Biel-tan to field aspect squads as troops. I think guardians moved to heavy support.

.
The Iyanden supplement was one small attempt in that direction but it seems GW has given up on releasing more supplements for each Craftworld.

Forgot about that. I think that's probably a good reference for the OP to check out as a template for his Biel-tan effort.

The Iyanden supplement, was that for 6. edition?

Chaospling wrote:


I'm not just writing codecies. I've also made new rules based on D10, so now there's much more room for granularity.

That should help. Current 40k suffers under the ancient D6-based framework.

The Iyanden supplement, was that for 6. edition?

Yes. It coincided with the release of the Wraithknight and plastic Wraithguard.

They key thing to keep in mind, is that everything the eldar do is based on various philosophical concepts and myths, not rigid dot point lists of rules.

The path of the warrior is a philosophy. The aspect of the scorpion is a philosophy. They are based on the myth of Khaine and his skills in warfare, which are all told in mythic cycles and themselves interpreted by the Phoenix lords into fighting styles.

Which were then reinterpreted by their students and their students' students down the line.

Debate and differing perceptions are central to philosophical discourse.

So imo it would be better if you saw each shrine as a proponent of specific philosophical aspects, than as implementing specific military rules.

Asurmen is Socrates and the other lords are his Platos. Karandras is an Aristotle to Arha's Plato.

All the other exarchs are descended from these schools of thought, but they are all coloured by their craftworld origins, personal experiences and the methods they were taught.

Now if GW gave the eldar a 10th of the time they give marines, you would see these distinctions appear in miniatures and rules.

The dark reaper is Khaine as the Destroyer but destruction itself can take many forms. Maugan doesn't even use the weapon chosen by the reapers to deliver destruction, but that doesn't make them more or less destroyers.

You can see the microcosm of this in the exarch weapons - the shuriken cannon is destruction as a storm of unrelenting fire, while the missile launcher is destruction in single might blows and the tempest is uncaring destruction from affair, aloof from those who it is visited upon.

The way the students of these exarchs fight will be different as well, but GW hasn't bothered to create any rules to reflect that.

Remember that the aspect is an all encompassing philosophy - reapers still know how to punch people despite being range focused. Their melee attacks would also reflect the concept of destruction, some using single deadly concentrated blows, others beating the enemy down in a whithering burst of strikes and so on.

Similarly, a banshee's shooting would not be trained the same as a scorpion's shooting, despite them using the same gun.

And then the culture of their craftworld will affect what philosophical focus each shrine is more likely to adhere to - you might see more tempest launchers in Alaitoc reaper shrines as the idea of striking from a distance unknown appeals to their secretive nature.

Lots of great posts in this thread, folks. I love a good eldar thread.

Chaospling wrote:Well thanks guys. Didn't know about the Shrines, so that's great, thanks.

The thing is that I'm writing a Biel-Tan codex, so I was hoping to make the Aspect Warriors Biel-Tan special, not Shrine special. One idea was indeed to add Aspect upgrades to Warlocks, representing the Biel-Tan Craftworld devotion to the Aspects at every possible level... Maybe even something for the Guardians...?

As others have pointed out, what makes your aspect squads unique probably has more to do with the specific shrine rather than the craftworld. So for instance, there's probably nothing unique to Biel-Tan aspect warriors that they all have in common that would need a special rule, but the difference between those swamp and desert scorpions probably would.

If we were to go back to making warlocks into sergeants for squads, I could see 'locks gaining some of their squads' mobility gear/training. So winged hawk'locks. Sneaky scorp'locks, etc. Spider'locks might be a bit too dangerous to warrant though; it's risky enough jumping into the warp even when you're not on the path of the seer. The tricky thing here is that some of the aspect gear/training is supposed to be tied to the alien hyperfocus they have on their shrine's philosophy. I'm not sure if it would be considered safe/proper for someone on the path of the seer to re-enter their warrior headspace that thoroughly; I figured warlock status was already the product of a seer taking a jaunt back onto the warrior path for a bit.

Voss wrote:I've always thought of the Aspect Shrines as a unifying part of eldar culture across Craftworlds.

They're universal parts of the path that keep eldar together as a people rather than refugee populations that could have splintered off in a dozen different directions.

Feeds into inter-service rivalries rather than intra-service rivalries as well. You really don't want your warrior cults to start sprouting heresies and schisms. That gets ugly.

Yes, but also no. Cultural drift does happen, and sometimes that translates into new, minor aspect shrines being founded. But the eldar on the whole seem to have a superhuman attachment to their cultural myths (possibly a warp phenomenon?) that seems to help them maintain common ground. Doubly so for craftworlds who share the path system as a defining part of their cultures.

Arschbombe wrote:

On Biel-tan the Path of the Warrior is the first Path an Eldar there walks once they reach maturity.

This would mean all of their guardians, if they even field any, should be better than the basic guardian stat line. In 3rd edition, the craftworld eldar book had rules for Biel-tan to field aspect squads as troops. I think guardians moved to heavy support.

Based on Path of the Warrior I think the idea is that former aspect warriors have their memories/mindsets from their time as aspects locked away so tightly that they don't really call upon that training much when they become guardians. So a Biel-Tan guardian might have a more advanced war mask (the mental construct; not the wargear) than someone who never served as an aspect warrior, but he's probably not full-on accessing his memories as a striking scorpion to pull off ninja maneuvers.

Guardians moving to the HS slot while aspects took up troop slots was more to change up the ratios of what units were in your army rather than an indication that Biel-Tan guardians were more powerful.

.
The Iyanden supplement was one small attempt in that direction but it seems GW has given up on releasing more supplements for each Craftworld.

Thank goodness, tbh. I'd love more lore, but I don't want to have to buy a bunch of splats like marine players do.

What do you do with eldar civilians who were previously on a warrior path? Does a former Dire Avenger put his war mask back on? He'd have to go to a shrine for the ritual. Or do guardians just not do any of that?

The Path of... series sort of hints at how this works. My understanding/headcanon is that there are different levels of war mask. There's an extremely bare bones version that everyone gets as part of their mandatory guardian training. Guardian training is (iirc) a mandatory part of growing up in eldar society, so presumably all eldar have access to this. Then you have a proper (generic) war mask that anyone who walks the warrior path obtains. Based on some lines from Thirianna, it seems like this version is better/sturdier than the basic guardian version. And then you have warmask+ that is your aspect-specific. So a former-warrior guardian might access the full non-guardian war mask, but he might not allow himself to fall all the way into his aspect-specific training when he does so. I don't imagine you have former scorpions crouch-walking through terrain while former banshees in their squad sprint forward screaming, for instance.

But that's just my take. Maybe former aspects do access all their former warrior memories. That would just seem slightly odd to me given that an in-shape space elf with full memories of his fire dragon training could presumably just become a full-fledged fire dragon while the craftworld is threatened.

No, because they are no longer on the path of the warrior. It may be a psychological distinction, but it’s how the civilisation functions. I think the guardian stat line represents an averaging of eldar who have never held a weapon before, other than whatever mandatory training they need to do, and the hoary old hands who have cycled their way potentially through several different aspects in their time. The fact that Guardians were always better than human-normal guard is partly down to that smattering of experienced ex aspect warriors. They may not be as boned as they were when they were actively practicing the aspect, but they will not have forgotten everything. I also thought that part of the path system was to bring experiences from other paths to the individuals practice of the path they were currently on. Hence why the main -Path character is insufferably shallow in their youthfulness

Wyldhunt wrote:
As others have pointed out, what makes your aspect squads unique probably has more to do with the specific shrine rather than the craftworld. So for instance, there's probably nothing unique to Biel-Tan aspect warriors that they all have in common that would need a special rule, but the difference between those swamp and desert scorpions probably would.

Yeah, I was thinking, in terms of the rules we have now, how to differentiate shrines of aspects and really it comes down to exarch gear and powers. So for example you could field three squads of Banshees like this:

Shrine of Deadly Grace - Exarch with Mirror Swords and Graceful Avoidance
Shrine of Whistling Death - Exarch with Triskele and Nerve-shredding Shriek
Shrine of the Spearing Blade - Exarch with Executioner and Piercing Strikes

Perhaps within Crusade there are more ways to make each shrine special.

Wyldhunt wrote:
If we were to go back to making warlocks into sergeants for squads, I could see 'locks gaining some of their squads' mobility gear/training. So winged hawk'locks. Sneaky scorp'locks, etc. Spider'locks might be a bit too dangerous to warrant though; it's risky enough jumping into the warp even when you're not on the path of the seer. The tricky thing here is that some of the aspect gear/training is supposed to be tied to the alien hyperfocus they have on their shrine's philosophy. I'm not sure if it would be considered safe/proper for someone on the path of the seer to re-enter their warrior headspace that thoroughly; I figured warlock status was already the product of a seer taking a jaunt back onto the warrior path for a bit.

What I really wanted back in the day was a way to embed a warlock in a banshee squad and not have him slow them down. But then it morphed into this desire for D&D character creation, which, of course, is far beyond the scope of 40k. Anyway, as part of this discussion I have been revisiting the fluff in the 2nd ed codex when most of this was originally codified/established. In looking at the issue of former warriors called up as guardians it says this:

Guardian squads are led by former Aspect Warriors, those who have trodden the Warrior Path but since left it. Their experience never deserts them, although without their Aspect costumes they cannot revive old skills.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Based on Path of the Warrior I think the idea is that former aspect warriors have their memories/mindsets from their time as aspects locked away so tightly that they don't really call upon that training much when they become guardians. So a Biel-Tan guardian might have a more advanced war mask (the mental construct; not the wargear) than someone who never served as an aspect warrior, but he's probably not full-on accessing his memories as a striking scorpion to pull off ninja maneuvers.

The above citation says they retain the experience, but their specific skills are tied to the gear, which also kind of handily ties in with Autarchs getting the cool toys and associated abilities.

Guardians moving to the HS slot while aspects took up troop slots was more to change up the ratios of what units were in your army rather than an indication that Biel-Tan guardians were more powerful.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that was the reason. I was wrong anyway. Biel-tan Guardians went to Elite. It's the Iyanden that moved Guardians to Heavy Support.

Thank goodness, tbh. I'd love more lore, but I don't want to have to buy a bunch of splats like marine players do.

I wouldn't mind if the fluff and rules expression of that fluff are good. But they'll never make one for Iybraesil so we're safe in any case.

The Path of... series sort of hints at how this works. My understanding/headcanon is that there are different levels of war mask. There's an extremely bare bones version that everyone gets as part of their mandatory guardian training. Guardian training is (iirc) a mandatory part of growing up in eldar society, so presumably all eldar have access to this. Then you have a proper (generic) war mask that anyone who walks the warrior path obtains. Based on some lines from Thirianna, it seems like this version is better/sturdier than the basic guardian version. And then you have warmask+ that is your aspect-specific. So a former-warrior guardian might access the full non-guardian war mask, but he might not allow himself to fall all the way into his aspect-specific training when he does so. I don't imagine you have former scorpions crouch-walking through terrain while former banshees in their squad sprint forward screaming, for instance.

But that's just my take. Maybe former aspects do access all their former warrior memories. That would just seem slightly odd to me given that an in-shape space elf with full memories of his fire dragon training could presumably just become a full-fledged fire dragon while the craftworld is threatened.

I think it just comes down to the Path. If you're not on that path, you're not on that path and you don't/can't revert to that path just because war is coming. Though I like the idea that a craftworld will kind of just create the force it needs when the seers determine war is coming and more individuals just feel drawn to the warrior path for reasons they can't explain. Anyway, wasn't there something about someone trodding a specific path multiple times in Path of the Warrior?

Flinty wrote:No, because they are no longer on the path of the warrior. It may be a psychological distinction, but it’s how the civilisation functions. I think the guardian stat line represents an averaging of eldar who have never held a weapon before, other than whatever mandatory training they need to do, and the hoary old hands who have cycled their way potentially through several different aspects in their time. The fact that Guardians were always better than human-normal guard is partly down to that smattering of experienced ex aspect warriors. They may not be as boned as they were when they were actively practicing the aspect, but they will not have forgotten everything. I also thought that part of the path system was to bring experiences from other paths to the individuals practice of the path they were currently on. Hence why the main -Path character is insufferably shallow in their youthfulness

That's a fair assessment, but the old fluff says former aspects serve as (unidentified) squad leaders.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Yeah, I was thinking, in terms of the rules we have now, how to differentiate shrines of aspects and really it comes down to exarch gear and powers. So for example you could field three squads of Banshees like this:

Shrine of Deadly Grace - Exarch with Mirror Swords and Graceful Avoidance
Shrine of Whistling Death - Exarch with Triskele and Nerve-shredding Shriek
Shrine of the Spearing Blade - Exarch with Executioner and Piercing Strikes

Yeah, that's pretty much how I express shrine-specific flavor at the moment. I just read really heavily into whatever power/gear combos/unit size/tactics I have in mind during list creation and use that to come up with a little backstory for them. It's not a bad amount of customization, really, though I kind of wish the exarch buffing powers were separate from the squad buffing powers.

In looking at the issue of former warriors called up as guardians it says this:

Guardian squads are led by former Aspect Warriors, those who have trodden the Warrior Path but since left it. Their experience never deserts them, although without their Aspect costumes they cannot revive old skills.

Nice! Thanks. Adding it to my eldar knowledge.

I wouldn't mind if the fluff and rules expression of that fluff are good. But they'll never make one for Iybraesil so we're safe in any case.

Hi, fellow Iybraesil player! Seems like there are more and more of us these days.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Hi, fellow Iybraesil player! Seems like there are more and more of us these days.

I think Iybraesil might be the most popular of the minor craftworlds.

OT question. What craftworld traits do you like to use? Children of Morai-heg seems the obvious fluff choice, but what do you like for the second choice?

 Arschbombe wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Hi, fellow Iybraesil player! Seems like there are more and more of us these days.

I think Iybraesil might be the most popular of the minor craftworlds.

OT question. What craftworld traits do you like to use? Children of Morai-heg seems the obvious fluff choice, but what do you like for the second choice?

At first, I was running Hunters of Ancient Relics both because I liked it in Psychic Awakening as a way to help out our banshees and because it seemed appropriate given Iybraesil's knack for plundering Crone Worlds. Recently though, I've kind of grown sick with all the bookkeeping of actions and secondaries, so I've been swapping out the second trait based on whichever units I happen to be fielding that day. Been leaning towards Diviners of Fate and Mobile Fighters, but none of the other traits really scream Iybraesil to me. :(

...No scream pun intended.

Wyldhunt wrote:

At first, I was running Hunters of Ancient Relics both because I liked it in Psychic Awakening as a way to help out our banshees and because it seemed appropriate given Iybraesil's knack for plundering Crone Worlds. Recently though, I've kind of grown sick with all the bookkeeping of actions and secondaries, so I've been swapping out the second trait based on whichever units I happen to be fielding that day.
Been leaning towards Diviners of Fate and Mobile Fighters, but none of the other traits really scream Iybraesil to me. :(

Headstrong, Savage Blades, and Vengeful would all serve to boost Banshees. That feels Iybraesil to me.

Most fluffy without any consideration of actual game effectiveness? Children of Morai-Heg and Hunters of Ancient Relics.

We know from what little snippets we have of Iybraesil that they identify strongly with the myth of Morai-Heg and her hand getting cut off for the sake of wisdom, to the point of the Craftworld symbol, Wisdom from Pain, being a reference to it. They are also explicitly stated as being focused on recovering the technology and artifacts from the Crone Worlds. Both of these map precisely onto those 2 Craftworld traits.

The list from 2019 from the previous trait list that I made for each minor Craftworld:

Altansar:

Grim
Warding Runes

Fairly self explanatory for having survived their ordeal in the Eye of Terror

Il-Kaithe:

Children of Khaine
Vengeful Blades

The second matches Il-Kaithe's hatred of Chaos. The first attribute I thought more fitting their increasing focus on bloodshed. I suppose one could argue the reference to their Bonesingers' skills could mean something like Expert Crafters or Student of Vaul or Superior Shurikens could apply.

Iybraesil:

Children of Morai-Heg
Hunters of Ancient Relics

The first attribute makes direct reference to Iybraesil's symbol so an obvious choice. The second is also explicitly describing Iybraesil's focus on recovering relics.

Lugganath:

Savage Blades
Webway Warriors

First attribute could also be Headstrong or Mobile Fighters. I settled on Savage Blades to reflect how Lugganath is seen by other Craftworlds as little better than a den of Corsairs. Webway Warriors is an obvious given Lugganath's focus on the Webway over realspace.

Mymeara:

Masters of Concealment

Had trouble thinking of a second attribute as Mymeara doesn't have too much of a clear defining characteristic beyond having concealed their Craftworld in a nebula.

Yme-Loc:

Expert Crafters
Students of Vaul

As the Craftworld most explicitly associated with Vaul, those two crafter attributes seemed most appropriate IMO. Yme-Loc's background constantly mentions bigger things like vehicles and Titans so I though Students of Vaul over something small scale like Superior Shurikens

 Arschbombe wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

At first, I was running Hunters of Ancient Relics both because I liked it in Psychic Awakening as a way to help out our banshees and because it seemed appropriate given Iybraesil's knack for plundering Crone Worlds. Recently though, I've kind of grown sick with all the bookkeeping of actions and secondaries, so I've been swapping out the second trait based on whichever units I happen to be fielding that day.
Been leaning towards Diviners of Fate and Mobile Fighters, but none of the other traits really scream Iybraesil to me. :(

Headstrong, Savage Blades, and Vengeful would all serve to boost Banshees. That feels Iybraesil to me.

Yeah. I'll probably start giving the melee buffs more playtime and see how they feel. Part of the weirdness is that I don't actually like fielding a ton of melee units in most of my eldar lists, so dedicating an entire craftworld trait to it feels like overkill. If I could field more than 3 squads of banshees, I'd feel fluffier and more comfortable leaning into the melee buffs.

Iracundus is spot on with those traits though. I'd be sticking with Hunters of Ancient Relics if I weren't in the middle of a childish rebellion against secondary objectives.

 Arschbombe wrote:


What I really wanted back in the day was a way to embed a warlock in a banshee squad and not have him slow them down. But then it morphed into this desire for D&D character creation, which, of course, is far beyond the scope of 40k. Anyway, as part of this discussion I have been revisiting the fluff in the 2nd ed codex when most of this was originally codified/established. In looking at the issue of former warriors called up as guardians it says this:

Guardian squads are led by former Aspect Warriors, those who have trodden the Warrior Path but since left it. Their experience never deserts them, although without their Aspect costumes they cannot revive old skills.

...

The above citation says they retain the experience, but their specific skills are tied to the gear, which also kind of handily ties in with Autarchs getting the cool toys and associated abilities.

...

But that's just my take. Maybe former aspects do access all their former warrior memories. That would just seem slightly odd to me given that an in-shape space elf with full memories of his fire dragon training could presumably just become a full-fledged fire dragon while the craftworld is threatened.

I think it just comes down to the Path. If you're not on that path, you're not on that path and you don't/can't revert to that path just because war is coming. Though I like the idea that a craftworld will kind of just create the force it needs when the seers determine war is coming and more individuals just feel drawn to the warrior path for reasons they can't explain. Anyway, wasn't there something about someone trodding a specific path multiple times in Path of the Warrior?

Flinty wrote:No, because they are no longer on the path of the warrior. It may be a psychological distinction, but it’s how the civilisation functions. I think the guardian stat line represents an averaging of eldar who have never held a weapon before, other than whatever mandatory training they need to do, and the hoary old hands who have cycled their way potentially through several different aspects in their time. The fact that Guardians were always better than human-normal guard is partly down to that smattering of experienced ex aspect warriors. They may not be as boned as they were when they were actively practicing the aspect, but they will not have forgotten everything. I also thought that part of the path system was to bring experiences from other paths to the individuals practice of the path they were currently on. Hence why the main -Path character is insufferably shallow in their youthfulness

That's a fair assessment, but the old fluff says former aspects serve as (unidentified) squad leaders.

So... Ingame... A former Aspect Warrior... (Don't mind the current edition of Warhammer 40k) How could such a model be represented, when we look at:

The physical model - parts from several models/convertions

Stat line

Wargear

Special rules

How close to the actual Aspect Warrior should such a model be?


From time to time questions pop up regarding how the Aeldari should be represented in a game, so maybe I should change this thread into a more general thread about the Aeldari...?

@Chaospling:
You're talking about representing former aspects as guardians, right? I feel like it's kind of just represented by the existence of special weapon options.

* Former avengers just go back to shooting catapults. Not sure you can make guardian squads more similar to avengers without stepping on toes.
* Former banshees, scorpions, and dragons become chainsword/powersword/fusion gun storm guardians.
* Former dark reapers probably get to man the heavy weapon platforms.
* Former crimson hunters/eagle warriors probably get to drive the skimmer vehicles.
* Former hawks/spiders/spectres probably just get to be normal guardians because the training probably doesn't carry over very well without the ability to fly/teleport. If GW had brought back lasblaster guardians, those would be your former-hawks, I guess.

Which, of the main aspects, just leaves shining spears. Who could probably pilot a vehicle, but I wouldn't mind giving windriders a 1 per 3 laser lance option. (Especially if they made them troops again and made all the special weapons on windriders 1 per 3.)

If you really wanted to do something different to represent former aspects on the tabletop, I guess you could just give guardian squads a generic +1 Ld +1Attacks sergeant with the option to take the gun/sword of a normal aspect warrior (not an exarch). But I'm not sure I actually want that. We're already plenty powerful without me being able to mix reaper launchers into a guardian squad just because. You could let the squad take some sort of training/command related upgrade where they behave a bit more like aspect warriors, but that just hurts niche protection and probably makes the former-aspect sergeant feel too much like an exarch for my taste.

Chaospling wrote:

So... Ingame... A former Aspect Warrior... (Don't mind the current edition of Warhammer 40k) How could such a model be represented, when we look at:

The physical model - parts from several models/convertions

Stat line

Wargear

Special rules

How close to the actual Aspect Warrior should such a model be?

The current (old) fluff is pretty clear that there shouldn't really have anything special about a guardian squad leader particularly in terms of aspect warrior characteristics or equipment. I think Ld8 would make sense for a former aspect warrior, but I don't see any way to escape the rest of the 3+ 3+ S3 T3 statline.

Maybe there's room for a custom craftworld that deviates from existing fluff. Maybe one that was an aggressive Biel-tan like world with lots of aspects, but they suffered some calamity like Iyanden and instead of wraith units, they have had to call up lots of guardians, very special guardians. Maybe more special than Ulthwe's black guardians.

Modeling-wise there's room to kitbash a special guardian. Maybe use a Dire Avenger body for the butt cloth, a plumed storm guardian helmet or one of the bare face heads and the pointy arms normally associated with the platform gunners. Maybe even use the back banner from the DA exarch. You could go crazy using autarch parts, but that seems like overkill.

From time to time questions pop up regarding how the Aeldari should be represented in a game, so maybe I should change this thread into a more general thread about the Aeldari...?

Possibly. You seemed to have a specific goal in mind even as the discussion has wandered a bit. I think most of us Eldar fans feel there is just so much potential in the existing material that could be expanded on to great effect if only GW would take off their astartes blinders.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
@Chaospling:
You're talking about representing former aspects as guardians, right? I feel like it's kind of just represented by the existence of special weapon options.

* Former avengers just go back to shooting catapults. Not sure you can make guardian squads more similar to avengers without stepping on toes.
* Former banshees, scorpions, and dragons become chainsword/powersword/fusion gun storm guardians.
* Former dark reapers probably get to man the heavy weapon platforms.
* Former crimson hunters/eagle warriors probably get to drive the skimmer vehicles.
* Former hawks/spiders/spectres probably just get to be normal guardians because the training probably doesn't carry over very well without the ability to fly/teleport. If GW had brought back lasblaster guardians, those would be your former-hawks, I guess.

Which, of the main aspects, just leaves shining spears. Who could probably pilot a vehicle, but I wouldn't mind giving windriders a 1 per 3 laser lance option. (Especially if they made them troops again and made all the special weapons on windriders 1 per 3.)

If you really wanted to do something different to represent former aspects on the tabletop, I guess you could just give guardian squads a generic +1 Ld +1Attacks sergeant with the option to take the gun/sword of a normal aspect warrior (not an exarch). But I'm not sure I actually want that. We're already plenty powerful without me being able to mix reaper launchers into a guardian squad just because. You could let the squad take some sort of training/command related upgrade where they behave a bit more like aspect warriors, but that just hurts niche protection and probably makes the former-aspect sergeant feel too much like an exarch for my taste.

No actually I meant leaders of Guardian squads besides Warlocks.

I will try to show much more of the background in the rules, than there already is, but I will not make a distinction between former-Aspect Warrior-guardians and Guardians who have never trodden the Path of the Warrior.

Are those former-Aspect Warriors a huge part of the background? I thought most Aspect Warriors stayed as such.

Anyway, in this Biel-Tan codex I'm giving the option to make the Warlocks former Aspect Warriors and I've got those rules covered, so... Should a former Aspect warrior just be like a Warlock but without the Psychic powers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arschbombe wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

So... Ingame... A former Aspect Warrior... (Don't mind the current edition of Warhammer 40k) How could such a model be represented, when we look at:

The physical model - parts from several models/convertions

Stat line

Wargear

Special rules

How close to the actual Aspect Warrior should such a model be?

The current (old) fluff is pretty clear that there shouldn't really have anything special about a guardian squad leader particularly in terms of aspect warrior characteristics or equipment. I think Ld8 would make sense for a former aspect warrior, but I don't see any way to escape the rest of the 3+ 3+ S3 T3 statline.

Maybe there's room for a custom craftworld that deviates from existing fluff. Maybe one that was an aggressive Biel-tan like world with lots of aspects, but they suffered some calamity like Iyanden and instead of wraith units, they have had to call up lots of guardians, very special guardians. Maybe more special than Ulthwe's black guardians.

Modeling-wise there's room to kitbash a special guardian. Maybe use a Dire Avenger body for the butt cloth, a plumed storm guardian helmet or one of the bare face heads and the pointy arms normally associated with the platform gunners. Maybe even use the back banner from the DA exarch. You could go crazy using autarch parts, but that seems like overkill.

From time to time questions pop up regarding how the Aeldari should be represented in a game, so maybe I should change this thread into a more general thread about the Aeldari...?

Possibly. You seemed to have a specific goal in mind even as the discussion has wandered a bit. I think most of us Eldar fans feel there is just so much potential in the existing material that could be expanded on to great effect if only GW would take off their astartes blinders.

As I'm making the Biel-Tan codex for a rule set based on D10, I have room for granularity, though I'm also inclined to invent just a tiny bit myself, if I can't find enough background information.

For example, som Guardians wield Fusion guns or chainswords, so if those Guardians weren't former Aspect Warriors, but just outfitted and/or inspired by the squad leader, then it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that the squad leader are even closer to the specific Aspect - the wargear as an example.

Yes I have a specific goal in mind and you are all helping me to move along nicely, which is greatly appreciated.

- And I don't mind when the discussion wanders off topic, I feel I can't get closer to the background than when observing the discussion of the Aeldari fans.

Chaospling wrote:

No actually I meant leaders of Guardian squads besides Warlocks.

Right. I think we're talking about the same thing.

Are those former-Aspect Warriors a huge part of the background? I thought most Aspect Warriors stayed as such.

Nah. If you "stay" on a path forever, it's considered tragic. That's what an exarch is. The intention is that you spend some time on the path of the warrior while that's where you "need" to be for your own self-fulfillment and mental health, and then you move onto whatever other path calls to you next once you're ready. Staying on the path of the warrior implies that you can't escape your bloodlust and you either end up becoming an exarch or an autarch (depending on how tied you are to a specific aspect.)

So with that in mind, ex-aspect warrior guardians are "huge" in that they're presumably pretty common, but their existence doesn't seem to be hugely impactful to the setting or the eldar way of war. It's implied that former aspects just kind of know what they're doing moreso than guardians that may have never been on a battlefield before. The former aspect squad leader just knows what to expect as far as giving/receiving commands, what being shot at feels like, etc.

Anyway, in this Biel-Tan codex I'm giving the option to make the Warlocks former Aspect Warriors and I've got those rules covered, so... Should a former Aspect warrior just be like a Warlock but without the Psychic powers?

Actually, all warlocks are former aspect warriors. That's the recipe for a warlock: be an aspect warrior, then a seer, then get called to battle while you're still on the path of the seer. I think (someone check me) that most non-farseer seers that haven't walked the path of the warrior usually get put in a room or command wave serpent during the battle where the act as psychic support for your most important farseers.

I'm not sure what a "warlock but without the psychic powers" would look like. Their invuln saves (rune armor) and witchblades are both psychic in nature. Take those and the literal powers away, and you just have a storm guardian with an extra point of Ld, right? Which, tbf, is pretty much what I picture a "storm guardian squad leader" being.

For example, som Guardians wield Fusion guns or chainswords, so if those Guardians weren't former Aspect Warriors, but just outfitted and/or inspired by the squad leader, then it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that the squad leader are even closer to the specific Aspect - the wargear as an example.

My concern would be: how much more similar to an aspect warrior can you make these hypothetical squad leaders without them just literally being aspect warriors? You can already give a guy a power sword. If you also give him a banshee mask, don't you basically just have cheaper, crummier howling banshees? If you give your fusion gun "sergeant" an extra point of armor and toughness, it won't really matter unless/until you start slow-rolling attacks against the last guy in the squad. Or you could give him Assured Destruction at which point he's basically just a fire dragon thrown into a storm guardian squad. (Which is fine, but it's going to feel like an actual fire dragon rather than a "former" fire dragon.) A former scorpion could gain mandiblasters to go with his pistol and chainsword, but I'm not sure how exciting people will find that.

But I'm not trying to yuck your yum. You do you.
Personally, when I think Biel-Tan, I think of an army that doesn't field (many) guardians in the first place because so many members of their population are actively on the path of the warrior. So a Vanguard detachment, basically.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Are those former-Aspect Warriors a huge part of the background? I thought most Aspect Warriors stayed as such.

Staying on the path of the warrior implies that you can't escape your bloodlust and you either end up becoming an exarch or an autarch (depending on how tied you are to a specific aspect.)

Autarchs are on the path of command. They will have trodden one or more warrior paths (which is how they get the cool gear), but they are not trapped like an exarch. If they ever got trapped on the path of the warrior, they'd never make it to the path of command.

Anyway, in this Biel-Tan codex I'm giving the option to make the Warlocks former Aspect Warriors and I've got those rules covered, so... Should a former Aspect warrior just be like a Warlock but without the Psychic powers?

Actually, all warlocks are former aspect warriors. That's the recipe for a warlock: be an aspect warrior, then a seer, then get called to battle while you're still on the path of the seer. I think (someone check me) that most non-farseer seers that haven't walked the path of the warrior usually get put in a room or command wave serpent during the battle where the act as psychic support for your most important farseers.

I haven't found anything that talks about seers other than warlocks and farseers as part of a warhost. A third kind of psyker, the bonesinger (technically on the path of the shaper), is introduced in the 4th edition codex with a limited-edition model, but rules didn't appear until years later. It's possible that there was a mention of civilian seers having some role in an eldar force in some article or novel, but I just haven't found it.

For example, som Guardians wield Fusion guns or chainswords, so if those Guardians weren't former Aspect Warriors, but just outfitted and/or inspired by the squad leader, then it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that the squad leader are even closer to the specific Aspect - the wargear as an example.

My concern would be: how much more similar to an aspect warrior can you make these hypothetical squad leaders without them just literally being aspect warriors? You can already give a guy a power sword. If you also give him a banshee mask, don't you basically just have cheaper, crummier howling banshees? If you give your fusion gun "sergeant" an extra point of armor and toughness, it won't really matter unless/until you start slow-rolling attacks against the last guy in the squad. Or you could give him Assured Destruction at which point he's basically just a fire dragon thrown into a storm guardian squad. (Which is fine, but it's going to feel like an actual fire dragon rather than a "former" fire dragon.) A former scorpion could gain mandiblasters to go with his pistol and chainsword, but I'm not sure how exciting people will find that.

I think he's making room by switching from the 40-year-old Warhammer D6 system to a more modern D10 framework that would allow for differentiation between basic guardians, special guardians, and aspect warriors. This way he might be able to find ways to make special guardians cooler and more flavorful with aspect-lite rules while still making it clear that the aspect warriors are still the high quality professionals.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Autarchs are on the path of command. They will have trodden one or more warrior paths (which is how they get the cool gear), but they are not trapped like an exarch. If they ever got trapped on the path of the warrior, they'd never make it to the path of command.

Fair, although I always got the impression that "path of command" might basically be a euphemism.
"What? Trapped on the path of the warrior? Of course not. He's uh. Walking the path of command! Yep. He walked that totally different path so well that they let him mix and match wargear and tell all the guys on that other path what to do!"

But I'm not sure about that one way or the other. Do we ever hear about former autarchs that went off to become poets or craftsmen or something? Are there non-autarchs on the path of command who just organize civil projects like who gets to reserve the Dome of Awesome Acoustics for a concert on Thursday? Is being an autarch sort of like being a warlock in that it's a sub-path of a non-warrior path that requires experience on the warrior path as a prerequisite?

I haven't found anything that talks about seers other than warlocks and farseers as part of a warhost. A third kind of psyker, the bonesinger (technically on the path of the shaper), is introduced in the 4th edition codex with a limited-edition model, but rules didn't appear until years later. It's possible that there was a mention of civilian seers having some role in an eldar force in some article or novel, but I just haven't found it.

Don't forget spiritseers! I'm mostly going off of blink-and-you'll-miss-it lines from Wild Rider and Valedor. IIRC, both have lines where someone in charge mentions that there are seers working with the seer council (not the old warlock+farseer unit; I think) to work out some important battlefield predictions. It's been a while since I read either of those, so I May be way off. Basically, I got the impression that most generic seers were too valuable to stick in guardian armor but too mentally fragile (lack of war masks) to send to the front lines, so they remained at the base camp adding divination support.

Maybe bonesingers are just valuable enough on the battlefield to occassionally get dispatched to rapidly fix up vehicles. I could see spiritseers without aspect warrior experience being seen as mentally "tough" enough to be on the front lines by virtue of having experienced war masks and deaths second-hand via the memories of the spirits they canonically help calm down.

I think he's making room by switching from the 40-year-old Warhammer D6 system to a more modern D10 framework that would allow for differentiation between basic guardians, special guardians, and aspect warriors. This way he might be able to find ways to make special guardians cooler and more flavorful with aspect-lite rules while still making it clear that the aspect warriors are still the high quality professionals.

Fair!

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

Autarchs are on the path of command. They will have trodden one or more warrior paths (which is how they get the cool gear), but they are not trapped like an exarch. If they ever got trapped on the path of the warrior, they'd never make it to the path of command.

Fair, although I always got the impression that "path of command" might basically be a euphemism.
"What? Trapped on the path of the warrior? Of course not. He's uh. Walking the path of command! Yep. He walked that totally different path so well that they let him mix and match wargear and tell all the guys on that other path what to do!"

But I'm not sure about that one way or the other. Do we ever hear about former autarchs that went off to become poets or craftsmen or something? Are there non-autarchs on the path of command who just organize civil projects like who gets to reserve the Dome of Awesome Acoustics for a concert on Thursday? Is being an autarch sort of like being a warlock in that it's a sub-path of a non-warrior path that requires experience on the warrior path as a prerequisite?

Yriel was an Autarch. Then he went to become a corsair, showing that an Autarch is not trapped on the Path of Command as otherwise he could never have left. We do not know what someone trapped on the Path of Command would be like.

The Path of Command seems to be a Path that does as prerequisite require previous experience on more than 1 Aspect of the Path of the Warrior. However it seems at least in some cases, that one can be declared/chosen to walk the Path of Command even while one is on the Path of the Warrior, and because of that, they get given their parting gift of wargear when they leave that Aspect. Normal Eldar leaving an Aspect don't get given wargear to take with them. Maybe they get to keep their Aspect rune as a keepsake, which I think one of Gav Thorpe's characters did.

Oh duh! How could I forget about Yriel?

Would any of you be interested in doing a short intro-text for my Biel-Tan codex?

The text should not be an introductional text about Biel-Tan - it's a direct "speech" to the reader from an Aeldari with high authority, showing that the reader is a young Aeldari newcomer to the Biel-Tan craftworld.
This ceremonial speech should be spoken like the most fanatical of the Biel-Tan way, giving the impression that the reader has just agreed to offer his/her life and soul to this Craftworld and to its ways.

It doesn't have to be long, but it should be made to inspire even the staunchest Slaanesh follower to leave the dark powers behind and build the greatest Aeldari empire, the galaxy has ever seen.

I've made one such "speech" myself for the Blood Angels, but I'm not sure, how to do it for Biel-Tan.

Also, besides Autarchs and maybe Farseers, aren't there other titles or ranks of army leaders?

I'm not sure about Autarchs, regarding the Path of the Leader and what this path actually implies. I mean shouldn't a Path lead to somewhere like the Path of the Warrior can lead to being an Exarch.

Maybe an Autarch could have several titles or ranks depending on how many Shrines or Aspects, the Autarch has mastered?

Exarchs are not an inevitable culmination of a warrior path, they are eldar trapped in a tragic addiction.

The norm is to move on to fresh paths.

It does raise the question of whether non-combat paths have Exarch equivalents, like Exarch of the flower-arranging shrine of Isha or something.

 Haighus wrote:
Exarchs are not an inevitable culmination of a warrior path, they are eldar trapped in a tragic addiction.

The norm is to move on to fresh paths.

It does raise the question of whether non-combat paths have Exarch equivalents, like Exarch of the flower-arranging shrine of Isha or something.

We know they do. Gav Thorpe's Path of the Eldar novel series makes mention of the Path of the Dreamer. Dreamers delve into their dreams and inner world, sometimes with the help of psychoactive drugs. Basically they daydream all day or are in a drugged out state, with sometimes someone watching over them to bring them back to reality to tend to their basic needs. Those that finish the Path leave with a pseudo-eidetic memory/mind palace skill. Those that become trapped on the Path of the Dreamer are no longer able to distinguish between reality and their dreams.

Bonesingers are those trapped on the Path of the Artisan and specialize in the Path of Shaping which seems to be a sub-path specialized in creating and shaping wraithbone. Think of it as analogous to how Farseers are those trapped on the Path of the Seer end up as Farseers, which is a specialization in seeing the future.

Iracundus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Exarchs are not an inevitable culmination of a warrior path, they are eldar trapped in a tragic addiction.

The norm is to move on to fresh paths.

It does raise the question of whether non-combat paths have Exarch equivalents, like Exarch of the flower-arranging shrine of Isha or something.

We know they do. Gav Thorpe's Path of the Eldar novel series makes mention of the Path of the Dreamer. Dreamers delve into their dreams and inner world, sometimes with the help of psychoactive drugs. Basically they daydream all day or are in a drugged out state, with sometimes someone watching over them to bring them back to reality to tend to their basic needs. Those that finish the Path leave with a pseudo-eidetic memory/mind palace skill. Those that become trapped on the Path of the Dreamer are no longer able to distinguish between reality and their dreams.

Bonesingers are those trapped on the Path of the Artisan and specialize in the Path of Shaping which seems to be a sub-path specialized in creating and shaping wraithbone. Think of it as analogous to how Farseers are those trapped on the Path of the Seer end up as Farseers, which is a specialization in seeing the future.

I'm glad they explored the logical extrapolation of that concept.

Are they viewed in the same tragic light as Exarchs?

 Haighus wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Exarchs are not an inevitable culmination of a warrior path, they are eldar trapped in a tragic addiction.

The norm is to move on to fresh paths.

It does raise the question of whether non-combat paths have Exarch equivalents, like Exarch of the flower-arranging shrine of Isha or something.

We know they do. Gav Thorpe's Path of the Eldar novel series makes mention of the Path of the Dreamer. Dreamers delve into their dreams and inner world, sometimes with the help of psychoactive drugs. Basically they daydream all day or are in a drugged out state, with sometimes someone watching over them to bring them back to reality to tend to their basic needs. Those that finish the Path leave with a pseudo-eidetic memory/mind palace skill. Those that become trapped on the Path of the Dreamer are no longer able to distinguish between reality and their dreams.

Bonesingers are those trapped on the Path of the Artisan and specialize in the Path of Shaping which seems to be a sub-path specialized in creating and shaping wraithbone. Think of it as analogous to how Farseers are those trapped on the Path of the Seer end up as Farseers, which is a specialization in seeing the future.

I'm glad they explored the logical extrapolation of that concept.

Are they viewed in the same tragic light as Exarchs?

No, because unlike Exarchs, these others can still be released into the Infinity Circuits upon death. Exarchs are eternally quarantined off into their own suit's pool of all previous Exarch souls. Even while living, Exarchs are meant to stay in their own shrines, save for when going to war or for ceremonial duties, which themselves usually relate to going to war.

I got the impression that being trapped on any path was still considered unfortunate/mildly tragic; just not as tragic as being stuck on the path of the warrior.

Farseers, for instance, seem to be viewed with respect and allowed to come and go as they please, but a fair bit of the mentorship we see in Path of the Seer revolves around being safe and trying to avoid becoming trapped.

Are bonesingers trapped on their path? I just thought they were a a subpath of the artisan that took up the art of singing wraithbone into shape and existence.

As those trapped on a path tend to exhibit above-and-beyond skill in their arts, I wonder what someone trapped on the paths of service, mourning, helmsman, etc. might look like.

@OP: In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, it's worth noting that some paths are easier to get trapped on than others. The path of the warrior, for instance, is highly addictive because it calls to your inner bloodlust and adrenaline junky in a way that most paths don't. The path of the seer is addictive because of the power that comes with it and because it grants you the use of a sense that has been intentionally suppressed for most of your life. Imagine suddenly being able to hear conversations a mile away and then being asked if you want to give that up again.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I got the impression that being trapped on any path was still considered unfortunate/mildly tragic; just not as tragic as being stuck on the path of the warrior.

Farseers, for instance, seem to be viewed with respect and allowed to come and go as they please, but a fair bit of the mentorship we see in Path of the Seer revolves around being safe and trying to avoid becoming trapped.

Are bonesingers trapped on their path? I just thought they were a a subpath of the artisan that took up the art of singing wraithbone into shape and existence.

As those trapped on a path tend to exhibit above-and-beyond skill in their arts, I wonder what someone trapped on the paths of service, mourning, helmsman, etc. might look like.

@OP: In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, it's worth noting that some paths are easier to get trapped on than others. The path of the warrior, for instance, is highly addictive because it calls to your inner bloodlust and adrenaline junky in a way that most paths don't. The path of the seer is addictive because of the power that comes with it and because it grants you the use of a sense that has been intentionally suppressed for most of your life. Imagine suddenly being able to hear conversations a mile away and then being asked if you want to give that up again.

Bonesingers are trapped. In Path of the Seer the main character talks with her father, who is a Bonesinger, and they touch on the fact he is trapped, though of course he does not see it as a problem.

Is that all bonesingers, or that particular bonesinger?

 Haighus wrote:
Is that all bonesingers, or that particular bonesinger?

If he is trapped then that by definition applies to all Bonesingers. All Farseers are trapped just as all Exarchs are trapped. One does not become a Farseer and then become trapped. One becomes trapped and therefore becomes a Farseer. The same sort of situation applies to Bonesingers

Iracundus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Is that all bonesingers, or that particular bonesinger?

If he is trapped then that by definition applies to all Bonesingers. All Farseers are trapped just as all Exarchs are trapped. One does not become a Farseer and then become trapped. One becomes trapped and therefore becomes a Farseer. The same sort of situation applies to Bonesingers

Why? Bonesinger could be the more generic wording? As in, equivalent to aspect warrior, not exarch. All exarchs are aspect warriors, not all aspect warriors are exarchs.

 Haighus wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Is that all bonesingers, or that particular bonesinger?

If he is trapped then that by definition applies to all Bonesingers. All Farseers are trapped just as all Exarchs are trapped. One does not become a Farseer and then become trapped. One becomes trapped and therefore becomes a Farseer. The same sort of situation applies to Bonesingers

Why? Bonesinger could be the more generic wording?

Except it is not generic wording, just as Farseer is not generic seer wording.

See Gav Thorpe's blog: https://gavthorpe.co.uk/2010/12/13/path-theory/

To become trapped on a Path is is give in wholly to the underlying emotional cause, rather than the physical representation. An Exarch is trapped in his or her anger. A Bonesinger is trapped in the creative moment. Others may become locked in selfless devotion or grief. The nature of this is that the trapped Eldar cannot see that they are trapped, because they are locked in a cycle of the same emotion without any context or self-awareness.

The trapped are aware they are trapped on an intellectual level, but they do not seem to see it as a problem or something to be sad about. Being trapped can seem like a form of enlightenment for the trapped. The Exarch character sees himself as shedding extraneous concerns and details that are no longer important for them.

Iracundus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Is that all bonesingers, or that particular bonesinger?

If he is trapped then that by definition applies to all Bonesingers. All Farseers are trapped just as all Exarchs are trapped. One does not become a Farseer and then become trapped. One becomes trapped and therefore becomes a Farseer. The same sort of situation applies to Bonesingers

Why? Bonesinger could be the more generic wording?

Except it is not generic wording, just as Farseer is not generic seer wording.

See Gav Thorpe's blog: https://gavthorpe.co.uk/2010/12/13/path-theory/

But Gav says this in one of the comments (to which you replied 11years ago ):

Gav Thorpe wrote:I think it is important to understand also that it is possible to spend a long time on a particular path without being psychologically trapped. That is, an Autarch or bonesinger, for instance, may spend several hundred years (probably the eldar’s last path) doing the same thing without the need to move on.

Which strongly suggests bonesingers are not trapped. However, in the body of the article:

Gav Thorpe wrote:To become trapped on a Path is is give in wholly to the underlying emotional cause, rather than the physical representation. An Exarch is trapped in his or her anger. A Bonesinger is trapped in the creative moment.

So clearly Gav isn't exactly clear whether bonesingers are trapped or not.

The logical conclusion is that some bonesingers are trapped, and some are not.

The logical conclusion is that Gav Thorpe made a mistake and did not remember he had just said Bonesingers were trapped. Gav has made major errors before. Gav Thorpe made a major chronological error in his Jain Zarr novel that I pointed out, and which was hard to recover from as it made a major difference to the plot. Within the Path of the Seer book itself, it is clear that Bonesingers are trapped Artisans.

Every single example we know of Eldar that become trapped, they take on a new title and role. Seers (of which Warlocks are a subpath) become Farseers. Warriors become Exarchs. It would break that continuity to suddenly have a special case for Artisans. Artisans becoming Bonesingers when trapped would not break the existing precedence. The preeminent practitioners of the skill of each Path are always trapped, and Bonesingers are clearly at the pinnacle of the Eldar Path of the Artisan as wraithbone is the most durable and hardest to manage of the psychoplastics that the Eldar use. Therefore if the main character's father is a Bonesinger, and is trapped, then the only conclusion is that Bonesingers are the role and title of those trapped on the Path of the Artisan.

At some point in the Path series (sorry I am not going to search all 3 books for this one reference), some Eldar debate the seeming hypocrisy or incongruity of talking about the Path and how Eldar are supposed to switch, yet have the masters and teachers of each Path be those that are trapped, which would seem to be elevating failure.

Iracundus wrote:
The logical conclusion is that Gav Thorpe made a mistake and did not remember he had just said Bonesingers were trapped. Gav has made major errors before. Gav Thorpe made a major chronological error in his Jain Zarr novel that I pointed out, and which was hard to recover from as it made a major difference to the plot. Within the Path of the Seer book itself, it is clear that Bonesingers are trapped Artisans.

Every single example we know of Eldar that become trapped, they take on a new title and role. Seers become Farseers. Warriors become Exarchs. It would break that continuity to suddenly have a special case for Artisans. Artisans becoming Bonesingers when trapped would not break the existing precedence. The preeminent practitioners of the skill of each Path are always trapped, and Bonesingers are clearly at the pinnacle of the Eldar Path of the Artisan as wraithbone is the most durable and hardest to manage of the psychoplastics that the Eldar use.

At some point in the Path series (sorry I am not going to search all 3 books for this one reference), some Eldar debate the seeming hypocrisy or incongruity of talking about the Path and how Eldar are supposed to switch, yet have the masters and teachers of each Path be those that are trapped, which would seem to be elevating failure.

Sure, he could have made a mistake immediately below the short article. That is possible. It seems more likely that he feels bonesinger is more flexible than exarch.

There are other precedents. Eldar who follow the path of the warrior are not just called "warriors", but also fire dragons, dire avengers, striking scorpions etc. As such, an individual eldar can be a warrior and specifically a dire avenger without being an exarch. So it is pretty straightforward to see how an eldar could be an artisan and specifically a bonesinger, without being trapped. Or to be an explorer/wayfinder and specifically a steersman, but not trapped.

Gav also specifically calls out bonesingers alongside autarchs, who have a specific title and explicitly have examples who are not trapped.

Are warlocks trapped?

I think we are at the point where further argument is futile.

The term is used inconsistently by one of the key creators, and this can't really be resolved until it is formalised in some way by GW.

Its also not necessarily that important... The concept of the path system is clear. Eldar can be trapped in the path of the material-creator. whatever term an individual chooses to apply to that role will be no less correct than the terms put out there by the actual background duder responsible for them.

 Haighus wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
The logical conclusion is that Gav Thorpe made a mistake and did not remember he had just said Bonesingers were trapped. Gav has made major errors before. Gav Thorpe made a major chronological error in his Jain Zarr novel that I pointed out, and which was hard to recover from as it made a major difference to the plot. Within the Path of the Seer book itself, it is clear that Bonesingers are trapped Artisans.

Every single example we know of Eldar that become trapped, they take on a new title and role. Seers become Farseers. Warriors become Exarchs. It would break that continuity to suddenly have a special case for Artisans. Artisans becoming Bonesingers when trapped would not break the existing precedence. The preeminent practitioners of the skill of each Path are always trapped, and Bonesingers are clearly at the pinnacle of the Eldar Path of the Artisan as wraithbone is the most durable and hardest to manage of the psychoplastics that the Eldar use.

At some point in the Path series (sorry I am not going to search all 3 books for this one reference), some Eldar debate the seeming hypocrisy or incongruity of talking about the Path and how Eldar are supposed to switch, yet have the masters and teachers of each Path be those that are trapped, which would seem to be elevating failure.

Sure, he could have made a mistake immediately below the short article. That is possible. It seems more likely that he feels bonesinger is more flexible than exarch.

There are other precedents. Eldar who follow the path of the warrior are not just called "warriors", but also fire dragons, dire avengers, striking scorpions etc. As such, an individual eldar can be a warrior and specifically a dire avenger without being an exarch. So it is pretty straightforward to see how an eldar could be an artisan and specifically a bonesinger, without being trapped. Or to be an explorer/wayfinder and specifically a steersman, but not trapped.

Gav also specifically calls out bonesingers alongside autarchs, who have a specific title and explicitly have examples who are not trapped.

Are warlocks trapped?

Anyone who does become trapped takes on a new title. A warrior, whatever the aspect, that becomes trapped becomes an Exarch, not a mere Aspect Warrior any longer. The main character of Path of the Warrior becomes trapped with hardly any real battle experience yet he does not stay as a Striking Scorpion Aspect Warrior but immediately goes to become an Exarch. Any seer, and that includes Warlocks, becomes a Farseer when they become trapped. The Trapped have different titles to the non-trapped follower of that particular path. Warlocks are Seers but they are not trapped. When the main character of Path of the Seer becomes trapped, she goes from Warlock to Farseer. She does not stay as "trapped Warlock". There is no such thing as one trapped on the Path of the Seer that remains a Warlock. They all become Farseers no matter what kind of Seer they were before. That just seems to be how the Path system works, with the masters having new titles and roles.

If a character is trapped and is called a Bonesinger, that means the only conclusion is Bonesinger is the title of those trapped on the Path of the Artisan. It cannot be otherwise as if Bonesingers were not the title of Trapped Artisans, then they would have changed to whatever is the title of Trapped Artisans as soon as they became trapped. It is also strange to somehow think that the pinnacle of Eldar materials crafting, those that shape their rarest material, wraithbone, is not the title of the Trapped when every other Path example we have has the pinnacle of achievement on that Path be Trapped. The positing of "What if it is a Bonesinger that is not trapped?" is akin to "What if it is an Exarch that is not trapped?" or "What if it is a Farseer that is not trapped?". All Farseers by definition are trapped, as that is the only way they can have become Farseers.

All those other Paths, that of the Mariner etc..., we do not have the title of the Trapped on those paths. A mariner or steersman is not trapped because if they were, they would be known by some other title. We know Autarchs are not trapped on the Path of Command, but we do not know what the title of one who is trapped would be called. Again, you seem to fail to understand the concept that for the Eldar Path system, all those that become trapped become something else. They do not stay in their old original role of a rank and file follower of that Path.

There are only 3 maybe 4 Trapped titles we know about as readers. Exarchs, Farseers, Bonesingers, and maybe Pathfinders if one views the Path of the Outcast as an actual Path.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but isn't it possible that only some paths provide fancy titles when you get trapped on them? It seems important to distinguish exarchs from non-exarchs because they scare people when not in their shrines and they seem to be constantly on the verge of violence. So identifying and isolating them is a safety concern. Identifying a farseer might be important because (iirc) they tend to develop greater divination skills quite quickly once they give in to the path; so their predictions likely warrant a greater degree of credibility than a standard seer. Pathfinders might be identified as such purely to avoid the frustration and awkwardness of people asking them when they're going to settle down and walk a respectable path.

But maybe it's less important to have those special distinguishers for someone on the path of service/the mourner/the artisan.

It's probably not terribly important either way, but it does sort of recontextualize bone singers if you happen to use them in your army or want to include them in your narrative.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but isn't it possible that only some paths provide fancy titles when you get trapped on them? It seems important to distinguish exarchs from non-exarchs because they scare people when not in their shrines and they seem to be constantly on the verge of violence. So identifying and isolating them is a safety concern. Identifying a farseer might be important because (iirc) they tend to develop greater divination skills quite quickly once they give in to the path; so their predictions likely warrant a greater degree of credibility than a standard seer. Pathfinders might be identified as such purely to avoid the frustration and awkwardness of people asking them when they're going to settle down and walk a respectable path.

But maybe it's less important to have those special distinguishers for someone on the path of service/the mourner/the artisan.

It's probably not terribly important either way, but it does sort of recontextualize bone singers if you happen to use them in your army or want to include them in your narrative.

Seems reasonable to me.

May also be very Craftworld dependent in how their own traditions manage this.

Hah… maybe it’s both. Bone singers sing to bone, while bone singers singe it

And best not to ask what bone sinners do…

Like the exarchs on the Warrior Path, or the bonesingers or farseers, the Everdreaming were trapped.

-Path of the Outcast, p. 33

I did a quick search of the Gav Thorpe novels and the title of those trapped on the Path of the Dreamer is the Everdreaming, so we have again an example of a civilian Path with fancy titles for its trapped. However once again, the novel itself calls out bonesingers as trapped.

That seems pretty conclusive then. At least on Alaitoc, "bonesinger" is a term used to describe someone trapped on the path. And as other terms for being trapped (exarch, farseer, etc.) seem to be universal among craftworlders, I'm inclined to think the term bonesinger is as well. Well huh.

It is a bit weird to think of all the DoWar video game bonesingers as been trapped on the path, but that also probably explains why mid-battle bonesinging isn't more of a thing; rapid repairs like that are something that only the best of the best can pull off. If bonesingers are roughly as rare as exarchs, you probably don't want to expose those guys to the battlefield any more than you have to.

Fair enough, point conceded.

Now I feel kinda bad for my Bonesinger. It is one of the few Eldar models I own, and it only has some Guardians for protection...

 Wyldhunt wrote:
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy.

Unfluffy for Aeldari or all factions?

I mean, shouldn't meddling with the Warp be risky business for?

Chaospling wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy.

Unfluffy for Aeldari or all factions?

I mean, shouldn't meddling with the Warp be risky business for?

Happy to answer the question, but JFYI that's part of my signature. It shows up below all my posts.

Honestly, psychic tests are pretty unfluffy for all factions except maybe imperial guard and whatever form R&H still exists in. The issue I take with psychic tests in general isn't that they're dangerous (but see below), it's that they can fail completely. In the lore, you never really see a psyker fail to make something psychic happen. Maybe he loses control and Perils of the Warp happen, sure, but you never see a librarian raise his hand to shoot lightning and just... not have anything happen. In the lore, even unaugmented mortal psykers are generally able to make their powers happen. Heck, in A Thousand Sons, we even see untrained psykers who have more trouble turning their powers off than on. So I find it really annoying that sometimes psychic powers just straight up fail to happen.

It wasn't such a big deal back in the day when passing a psychic test generally just meant rolling a 2-10 on 2d6; you could just headcanon those relatively rare failures as the product of stress/the psyker taking a bit to do the thing. But nowadays, psychic tests fail often enough for it to feel.. strange.

Now all that said, I do feel that eldar should be better at getting psychic powers off safely than most. Once upon a time, our warlocks' powers were just "always on" without requiring a psychic test because they were extremely competent psykers using extremely safe and practiced methods to use familiar powers. It was an excellent nod to the differences between an eldar psyker and something like a librarian. I love that we have ghost helms on everything again allowing us to avoid dying from random perils out of nowhere. So even if the current rules still make it possible for us to look silly by failing to cast powers, at least our millenia-old psykers don't randomly explode while doing it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy.

Unfluffy for Aeldari or all factions?

I mean, shouldn't meddling with the Warp be risky business for?

Happy to answer the question, but JFYI that's part of my signature. It shows up below all my posts.

Honestly, psychic tests are pretty unfluffy for all factions except maybe imperial guard and whatever form R&H still exists in. The issue I take with psychic tests in general isn't that they're dangerous (but see below), it's that they can fail completely. In the lore, you never really see a psyker fail to make something psychic happen. Maybe he loses control and Perils of the Warp happen, sure, but you never see a librarian raise his hand to shoot lightning and just... not have anything happen. In the lore, even unaugmented mortal psykers are generally able to make their powers happen. Heck, in A Thousand Sons, we even see untrained psykers who have more trouble turning their powers off than on. So I find it really annoying that sometimes psychic powers just straight up fail to happen.

It wasn't such a big deal back in the day when passing a psychic test generally just meant rolling a 2-10 on 2d6; you could just headcanon those relatively rare failures as the product of stress/the psyker taking a bit to do the thing. But nowadays, psychic tests fail often enough for it to feel.. strange.

Now all that said, I do feel that eldar should be better at getting psychic powers off safely than most. Once upon a time, our warlocks' powers were just "always on" without requiring a psychic test because they were extremely competent psykers using extremely safe and practiced methods to use familiar powers. It was an excellent nod to the differences between an eldar psyker and something like a librarian. I love that we have ghost helms on everything again allowing us to avoid dying from random perils out of nowhere. So even if the current rules still make it possible for us to look silly by failing to cast powers, at least our millenia-old psykers don't randomly explode while doing it.

Maybe this discussion belongs to another thread than an Aeldari thread, but I largely agree, and I especially agree that Aeldari, specifically, should be more safe than other races - but if we take away the risk of manifesting the psychic power and take away the risk of a catastrophic psychic incident, was is left to making this a risky business?

As you say, we could keep Perils of the Warp for some or all races, but it also feels stupid, that your expensive and lore-wise highly respected sorcerer dies or otherwise gets damaged.

It's a high priority for me to reflect the background as much as possible in the game, so I can very much see your reasoning behind your argument, I just don't think that getting a 100 % chance of something (maybe quite significant) happening.

Come to think of it... What if the psychic power always will be manifested as you say, but that the magnitude of the psychic power may vary?

What I've pitched in the Proposed Rules forum in the past is that Perils of the Warp can't remove the last Wound from a psyker, but a psyker brought to 1W by Perils (or who suffers Perils while at 1W) can't cast powers for the rest of the game.

So the idea is that your psyker can become too exhausted to keep casting, but Ahriman won't suddenly die because this happened to be his one big slip up after millenia of casting spells. Your warlock might burn out his runes, but he won't explode and take a bunch of nearby aspect warriors with him. It's a simple change to make that fits with the other existing rules of the game.

I don't really feel it's necessary to make powers have a chance of failing. We don't have that expectation of reroll auras or My Will Be Done from necrons. If the idea is that the power is OP unless it randomly fizzles out x% of the time, then it should be balanced in a way that is more consistent and fluffy.

I hope there are still some out there, who are following this thread, and who want to share their knowledge.

Regarding Exarchs, they're lost on their specific path. They can lead units from the same Aspect/Shrine - could they also lead smaller armies/patrols, which are too small and too many for Autarchs?

Am I right, when I say that Farseers usually were the army commanders but now are more of a support character like Librarians?
That'll mean that while you have Lieutenants, Captains and a Chapter Master and maybe even several ranks of Chaplains to lead Space Marine forces, Aeldari only have Autarchs?
That's why I ask if Exarchs could lead smaller armies.

Well late to this one…but….

You need to keep in mind that the Eldar Military is very, very different to pretty much any other 40K Military.

Guardians from any Craftworld are a Citizen Militia. Yes each may have its own peccadillo, but not to the point where they’re overly distinct in the way a Chapter, Traitor Warband, Orky Clan, might be.

The real distinction comes from the Warrior Paths. And even then, unless you get trapped and become an Exarch, it’s still a temporary profession in a way that a military role just….isn’t, for anyone else. At any point you can put down the Aspect’s path and tread another path. If you end up walking multiple Aspect Paths, you may end up an Autarch.

But the Citizen Militia thing isn’t, and in my opinion, shouldn’t, be as pronounced as Dedicated Militaries. Because every Guardian is merely wearing a mask. A physical and metaphorical way to protect their psyches from obsession. And if that doesn’t work, you can walk a Warrior Path to hopefully, and in most instances, get that bloodlust out of your system in a helpful and kind of, ish, healthy way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further thoughts. The Path system is a way not only to reign in the Eldar predilection for excess, but to stave off ennui.

Eldar live lifetimes far, far in excess of other races. The Path system allows one to properly study, master and excel in a given discipline. Each and every one is intended to be a healthy outlet, which helps stave off potential boredom. It helps you maintain focus, and allow you a certain level of single minded indulgement of the senses.

I mean, it’s entirely possible every Path has some form of Exarch. Path of the Seer? Regular folks come and go as Warlocks. Exarch equivalents become Farseers, and so on.

It’s a societal structure we in the real world will likely struggle to properly understand. I mean, I’ve posted this and I’ve semi-baffled myself!

Chaospling wrote:

Regarding Exarchs, they're lost on their specific path. They can lead units from the same Aspect/Shrine - could they also lead smaller armies/patrols, which are too small and too many for Autarchs?

Short answer: yeah, probably. It used to be that exarchs were an HQ choice in the 2nd edition codex (iirc). Later, they got moved into more of a sergeant slot. The impression I get from various bits of media is that exarchs can assume leadership roles for more than just their own squad/shrine, but that craftworlders tend to prefer not to use them in such roles if they can avoid it. My headcanon is that exarchs are considered to view combat situations through the lens of their own aspect/shrine teachings and thus might not be as quick to consider more efficient options. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So a striking scorpion exarch might constantly be reaching for a sneak attack tactic when a more direct assault is what's called for, for instance. Plus, exarchs would probably prefer to be able to indulge in their opportunity to fight rather than juggling a bunch of status reports and requests for orders.

Exarchs probably make sense as like, Combat Patrol level leaders.

Am I right, when I say that Farseers usually were the army commanders but now are more of a support character like Librarians?

Ehhhhhh. Sort of. Commanding is an autarch's specialty, so you'd almost always want him calling the command-level shots when possible. When you have both farseers and autarchs present, farseers gather information through divination. Autarchs will propose plans, and the farseers will scry the future to see how that plan is likely to go. So if you're on the battlefield doing the psychic equivalent of listening to vox reports, the autarch is probably the guy keeping troop movements in his head and ultimately calling the shots.

Farseers are extremely capable leaders in their own right because they can basically take quick peeks into the future to figure out if a given order is going to work out well or poorly. However, getting a clear picture of the future takes time, even for a farseer, so there are benefits to having a guy who's just really good at commanding armies through conventional methods. An army lead by a farseer will be fine, but ideally you'd rather have the farseers focusing on providing information rather than making decisions.

That'll mean that while you have Lieutenants, Captains and a Chapter Master and maybe even several ranks of Chaplains to lead Space Marine forces, Aeldari only have Autarchs?

Well, no. Farseers, spirit seers, and warlocks are all potentially perfectly competent leaders. It's just that they're not quite as good at leading armies as the guy on the Path of the Army Leader. Additionally, just because GW doesn't give us marine-level support doesn't mean that all eldar with a given datasheet are considered to be of the same rank or to have the same roles. It seems like craftworlds sort of rank their leaders based on seniority, consensus, or political factors. So you might have a "head autarch" that gets to lead the war effort as a whole but then also have less senior or less proven autarchs that are delegated control of smaller parts of the battle. You could see this as being comparable to a chapter master - captain - lieutenant relationship. Similarly, you might have spirit seers tending to wraith hosts or the dead of a certain detachment and warlocks babysitting your guardians in roles that are vaguely analogus to apothecaries/chaplains/librarians.

And then you have craftworld-specific arrangements. For instance, the Wild Rider novel gives us a peek at how Saim-Hann is arranged. Iirc, you have the Wild Host as a semi-distinct faction with their own leader, the Wild Rider. Which is a political title currently held by Nuadhu Fireheart. (I'm unclear on whether or not he's technically considered to be an autarch and if being Wild Rider requires you to also be an autarch.) And then you have the craftworld's Houses which are partly intertwined with the theoretically (but not practically) politically neutral seer council. Similarly, we know that being a noble of a house has some sway on Iyanden (even if that noble happens to be a ghost in a wraith construct). There's also the Matriarchy of Iybraesil which we know basically nothing about, but I'd be surprised if they're exclusively autarchs.

tldr; It's not that craftworlds "only have autarchs." It's just that GW doesn't give unique models and datasheets to every possible subrank of autarch/support character the way they do with marines. If you gave marines the eldar treatment, you'd probably see lieutenants, captains, chapter masters, company champions, etc. all rolled together into a single "Command Brother" datasheet or something.

I feel there is also a place for a kind of low-level Guardian leader unit, who would command a force roughly analogous to a platoon of Guardians, and would defer to any autarchs/farseers/etc. when present. Kind of a militia organiser. They could even be Eldar who had previously walked the path of command, but now do not.

Obviously nothing in the fluff to back this up at present as far as I am aware, but seems logical it would exist.

 Haighus wrote:
I feel there is also a place for a kind of low-level Guardian leader unit, who would command a force roughly analogous to a platoon of Guardians, and would defer to any autarchs/farseers/etc. when present. Kind of a militia organiser. They could even be Eldar who had previously walked the path of command, but now do not.

Obviously nothing in the fluff to back this up at present as far as I am aware, but seems logical it would exist.

Yeah. I could see that. The only thing is that warlock sergeants sort of kind of filled that niche back in the day, and I miss them. So I'd rather see sergeantlocks return rather than introduce platoon commander guardians.

Edit: I guess you could argue that HQ 'locks are the platoon commander warlocks to the sergeant'locks' sergeants.

In second edition there weren't HQ selections as we understand them today. Points were spent in percentages. You had to spend 25% of your points on squads (kind of like troops, elites and fast attack lumped together.) You could spend up to 50% of your points on characters. Characters included the Avatar, Farseer, Exarchs, Exodite Lords, Pirate Captains and Warlocks. There was a requirement to take either the Avatar or Farseer. The codex stated that if the Avatar was present in the army then it was the commander. I don't have a second edition rulebook so I don't know exactly what that means. From a fluff perspective it strikes me as absurd. This blood thirsty daemon is not really going to provide tactical guidance to eldar forces. You could still take a Farseer in addition to the Avatar, but the Avatar was always going to be the commander.

In some parts of the book it says Farseers led eldar troops in battle. In other parts it said things like "A Farseer does not normally fight in the Eldar's wars, but in times of desperate need his incomparable powers will be employed on the battlefield." So it's all a little muddy about how eldar organize for war.

In third edition we got the first FOC as we know it today with the mandatory HQ and 2 troop selections. The two primary choices for HQ were still Avatar or Farseer. A Farseer could take a Warlock bodyguard of up to 5 models. There were special characters you could use as a HQ choice as well - the Phoenix Lords, Eldrad, Iyanna, and Nuadhu.

In 4th the FOC was unchanged. HQ options expanded to include the Autarch that was introduced as a supreme commander option. Yriel appears. Iyanna and Nuadhu disappear. Farseers are described as guiding eldar forces in war. The Autarch is stated to be a master strategist who (because this is 40k) will also charge into the action at key points to lead spearheads, duel enemy leaders and whatnot.

And with all of that we don't know craftworlds really govern themselves or are organized for war. We tend to think in terms of modern military structures based around spans of control of 3 to 5 units. A platoon consists of 3 to 5 squads. A company consists of 3 to 5 platoons. A battalion is 3 to 5 companies etc. The 3 to 5 ratio is a limitation of the human mind. I don't know that the eldar mind has the same limitation. A craftworld could have just a single Autarch running whatever size warhost the craftworld summons for a particular battle. They may not need any intermediate levels of command to function well. Or maybe there are multiple layers of individuals on the path of command at various intermediate levels and it's just a function of the game's design that they aren't fleshed out more like the imperial factions are. 40k is not and has never been a simulation so trying to suss out how the eldar are really organized is probably just beside the point. Maybe one day Gav will add to the Eldar Path series with a Path of Command novel that is as illuminating as the other books were. That would be cool, but it probably wouldn't have an impact on the rules.

Khaine is the god of war, right? Not god of mindless rage.

I can see the Avatar having great commander skills as an aspect of war. It would be "leading from the front" kind of skills probably.

I think the advantage of small scale commanders is less "the Autarch can't handle it and needs to delegate" (as you say, we don't know that) and more to lead forces simply out of range of the Autarch's direct influence, like leading a small, surgical webway strike.

 Haighus wrote:
Khaine is the god of war, right? Not god of mindless rage.

Not mindless, but filled with blood lust. Definitely more Ares than Athena.

I can see the Avatar having great commander skills as an aspect of war. It would be "leading from the front" kind of skills probably.

To me it's just kind of a follow me thing. I can't see the Avatar stopping to consult with Exarchs, Farseers, and an Autarch to discuss options. It does make me wonder how the eldar control the Avatar. He is awakened, the craftworld is at war and then what? Do they give him a briefing? "Sir, we are conducting an assault on this planet because we have determined that one of the Mon-keigh has the potential to become a threat to us. It is heavily defended. We ask that you breach their walls here."

I think the advantage of small scale commanders is less "the Autarch can't handle it and needs to delegate" (as you say, we don't know that) and more to lead forces simply out of range of the Autarch's direct influence, like leading a small, surgical webway strike.

That's fair. I think it's entirely possible that a craftworld has multiple people on the path of command at any point in time. Actually they must have. Who trains the guy who starts the path today? So there should be more than one Autarch floating around. Each will have different levels of experience as commanders and also as warriors. So probably when they're planning they take that into account. "This mission should be led by Phil because he was once a Striking Scorpion and this mission requires utmost stealth. Betty has more overall experience, but she was only ever a Banshee and Hawk." So in larger operations, a craftworld could deploy multiple layers of Autarchs to command the troops.

 Arschbombe wrote:

I can see the Avatar having great commander skills as an aspect of war. It would be "leading from the front" kind of skills probably.

To me it's just kind of a follow me thing. I can't see the Avatar stopping to consult with Exarchs, Farseers, and an Autarch to discuss options. It does make me wonder how the eldar control the Avatar. He is awakened, the craftworld is at war and then what? Do they give him a briefing? "Sir, we are conducting an assault on this planet because we have determined that one of the Mon-keigh has the potential to become a threat to us. It is heavily defended. We ask that you breach their walls here."

Lol. But yeah, if I remember right, the Avatar sort of allows itself to be loaded up into ships on the way to the fight and then just kind of goes where it wants once it's planetside. I feel like I've seen at least a couple scenes where everyone just kind of goes, "Oh snap! The Avatar's here! Everyone follow that guy!" Maybe it's instinct/supernatural comprehension of where to go? Like, the Avatar always just happens to know the best place to go for the sake of the battle by virtue of being the manifestation of the concept of war. Which does make me wonder if avatars have ever been found keeping their distance to engage in guerilla hit & run tactics when a direct charge would result in failure. Maybe they just hang back and wait if they know charging in won't help the situation.

Although a couple spoilery points...

That's fair. I think it's entirely possible that a craftworld has multiple people on the path of command at any point in time. Actually they must have. Who trains the guy who starts the path today? So there should be more than one Autarch floating around. Each will have different levels of experience as commanders and also as warriors. So probably when they're planning they take that into account. "This mission should be led by Phil because he was once a Striking Scorpion and this mission requires utmost stealth. Betty has more overall experience, but she was only ever a Banshee and Hawk." So in larger operations, a craftworld could deploy multiple layers of Autarchs to command the troops.

We know that there are multiple autarchs. Not only does it make sense, but the Path series and Wild Rider both reference the existence of multiple autarchs on a given craftworld.

And yeah, I think they just sort of assign jobs based on a combination of the autarch's strengths and political considerations. Sneaky autarchs lead sneaky missions. Winter Court autarchs lead Winter Court-aligned forces (or whatever the Winter Court is called in Wild Rider). That one autarch everyone thinks is super cool and who has experience fighting this particular enemy gets to be the main commander. Etc.

Yeah. The title of Autarch isn’t particularly exclusive. It’s more what one is called if you’ve walked multiple Aspect Paths, then walked the Path of Command.

So there’s no particular limitation beyond personal preference to a given Craftworld’s number of Autarchs, as I’m not aware one needs to have walked the path of the warrior to walk the path of command?

I suspect there may be an internal Autarch Council of sorts. A meeting of minds for those of similar Path experience deciding the best strategy, and selecting from amongst their own number the one best suited to a given theatre.

I wonder how many Autarchs have also previously walked the Path of the Seer? If they’re in constant contact with their own Seers/Farseers about the potential pitfalls of their own orders, would it help to be aware of the seer mindset already?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I suspect there may be an internal Autarch Council of sorts. A meeting of minds for those of similar Path experience deciding the best strategy, and selecting from amongst their own number the one best suited to a given theatre.

I don't recall any mention of a formal body of autarchs in any of the BL novels, but I do get the impression that the council (consisting of autarchs and seers) does sometimes break up into smaller groups to work out details of a plan. So I could absolutely see the autarchs breaking off to have a little tactics chat where they sort out who's going to be responsible for which group of troops. I'm curious about what happens when you have more autarchs than you really need to coordinate the battle. Like, if you're breaking your overall force into a bunch of 2,000 point armies and you have more autarchs than armies... Does autarch Bob know that he's just helping out autarch Jeff because they didn't have anywhere especially important to put him?

Mr_Rose wrote:I wonder how many Autarchs have also previously walked the Path of the Seer? If they’re in constant contact with their own Seers/Farseers about the potential pitfalls of their own orders, would it help to be aware of the seer mindset already?

I imagine it's a bit like working with the tech guys at a corporation. They don't have to understand the techies' jargon or reasoning, but they can still listen when the techies say, "Don't do that. It's a bad idea."

So... An Autarch usually takes/gets with him some sort of weapon or wargear, when he leaves a shrine - could that be a weapon, which were wielded by Exarchs?

For example, would it not be following the lore, if an Autarch had an Executioner or a Triskele? Or is it only more mundane weapons like an Avenger Shuriken catapult or a Scorpion Chainsword?

It would be their personal weapon that they used/bonded with while wearing that aspect. So not an Exarch weapon. Apart from anything else I’m pretty sure the exarch gear is part of the suit and doesn’t work properly without the extra power of the trapped souls of the previous wearers.

What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

Well…..

The Exarch type weapons could very well be all the Warriors train with. They just take up their ritual weapons for war.

Of course, this just adds to the argument for the Aspects to have a choice of weapons. Not to change their overall role, but to give them the option to super specialise as a Temple.

Iracundus wrote:
What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

They walk multiple aspects on the Path of the Warrior. Every time they “graduate” they take home a memento.

Either the Glaive is taught specifically as part of the Path of Command (along with how to integrate all those warrior styles without breaking their brain) or there’s another Aspect out there that uses Glaives exclusively that we just haven’t seen yet.

Actually, now I think about it, it’s entirely possible that, what with everything Eldar make being psychic on some level, every Aspect Warrior keeps their complete suit and weapons after they step off that Path, because the gear is effectively part of them now.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

They walk multiple aspects on the Path of the Warrior. Every time they “graduate” they take home a memento.

Either the Glaive is taught specifically as part of the Path of Command (along with how to integrate all those warrior styles without breaking their brain) or there’s another Aspect out there that uses Glaives exclusively that we just haven’t seen yet.

Actually, now I think about it, it’s entirely possible that, what with everything Eldar make being psychic on some level, every Aspect Warrior keeps their complete suit and weapons after they step off that Path, because the gear is effectively part of them now.

I meant multiple pieces of wargear from the same Aspect as the ritual said they take one piece away with them. So does an Autarch with scorpion helmet and chainsword have to do Scorpion aspect, shift to something else, and then back to Scorpion in order to get that combo?

I’d assume so long as they’ve walked a given Warrior Path, their current Path allows them access to the tools of their previous Temples.

Chaospling wrote:
So... An Autarch usually takes/gets with him some sort of weapon or wargear, when he leaves a shrine - could that be a weapon, which were wielded by Exarchs?

No, I don't think so. The exarch weapons are tied to a given shrine and a given suit of armor. Exarch weapons are kind of like relic weapons in that they are centuries or millennia old. The codex rules that give you the freedom to choose a weapon for the exarch is an abstraction for your benefit. It lets you play what you want. But in the fluff an exarch, his suit of armor and his weapon are tied to his shrine. When he dies the suit and weapon lay dormant until a new exarch comes. That exarch dons the suit and his spirit merges with the others in the suit bringing the original exarch back to life. The exarch will always be known by the name of the first to be trapped on the path and will use the weapon he has always used.

I can't see how an Autarch can just borrow one of these weapons that he never used or was trained on when he was on the path of the warrior.

They can’t be assigned to a specific Exarch though, as Exarchs have no fixed number. No-one can tell when a given Eldar might become trapped on the path, and there’s no indication there’s anything like “one in, one out”.

Sure some will be honoured relics, but Eldar being Eldar, there’s nothing at all preventing a new one being made when needed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They can’t be assigned to a specific Exarch though, as Exarchs have no fixed number. No-one can tell when a given Eldar might become trapped on the path, and there’s no indication there’s anything like “one in, one out”.

Well we know what happens when a warrior falls and there are empty shrines. The new exarch finds his way to the vacant shrine, puts on the armor and becomes the latest iteration of the original exarch. We don't know what happens if someone gets trapped and all the shrines are occupied. Exarchs are shunned by the rest of their craftworld so they can't go ask someone to build them a new shrine. They can't just hang out in their old shrine waiting for another shrine to open up.

I'd submit that a craftworld functions like a living being in a sense. A craftworld on a path towards war will just start making more warriors. Nobody is making a decision to recruit more warriors, just more eldar will feel drawn to leave whatever paths they're on and start on the path of the warrior. Shrines will start to fill. A warrior on the path will become trapped and move to a dormant shrine. If all shrines are occupied, perhaps at that point an Autarch will ask the singers to start building new ones. Or maybe the singers feel drawn to start building new shrines on their own.

Sure some will be honoured relics, but Eldar being Eldar, there’s nothing at all preventing a new one being made when needed.

Sure, artisans could manufacture new suits and new weapons for a new shrine. How would an Autarch ever get trained on them given that the only eldar to ever use them have been those trapped on the path of the warrior?

Chaospling wrote:So... An Autarch usually takes/gets with him some sort of weapon or wargear, when he leaves a shrine - could that be a weapon, which were wielded by Exarchs?

For example, would it not be following the lore, if an Autarch had an Executioner or a Triskele? Or is it only more mundane weapons like an Avenger Shuriken catapult or a Scorpion Chainsword?

Reasonable people will disagree with me, but my take is that exarch weapons are considered inappropriate for normal aspect warriors. That is, you start walking the path of the banshee, and it's your exarch's job to guide you on that path and hopefully keep you from succumbing to blood lust and becoming an exarch yourself. Part of that process is teaching you the highly specific martial art that involves a shuriken pistol, banshee mask, and power sword. Handing you a triskele would be a deviation from that tried and true method and would thus put you more at risk of becoming lost on the path. There's a line from Jain Zar where she says something like, "Your exarch has done a good job of staying true to my teachings," and changing up the shrine's wargear (and all the symbolism behind the associated combat style) seems like the opposite of that.

Basically, letting students learn the triskele might put them at greater risk of becoming an exarch and is thus taboo. Or at least discouraged. You might have a shrine that does start experimenting with squads full of triskeles, but then you're not really howling banshees; you're "screaming spectres" or whatever. And only the major aspect warrior traditions get datasheets.

Iracundus wrote:What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

Some theories:
* Your shrine views the mandiblasters and chainsword as functionally part of the same weapon. If you're going to take one, then obviously you're going to take the other. You wouldn't take a bow without arrows, right?
* You studied under two different scorpion shrines, each with their own teachings and interpretation of the path. Despite both being "striking scorpion" shrines, you took very different lessons from each and very different weapons too.
* You took the mandiblasters as part of the ritual, but then you just asked some artisan to make you a nice chainsword.

As for star glaives, well, are we sure anyone really "teaches" how to use them? Eldar are pretty graceful, and an autarch has a pretty good grasp of martial arts. And a glaive is, to oversimplify, kind of just a sword on a stick. I feel like the autarchs could do alright with a glaive even untrained. Also, the glaive has a -1 to hit still, right? Maybe that's because their wielders don't learn how to use them as well as aspect weapons.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well…..

The Exarch type weapons could very well be all the Warriors train with. They just take up their ritual weapons for war.

Wouldn't that be kind of counter-productive? Building up muscle memories for reaching out and pinching a guy with a scorpion claw and then going to war with a completely different weapon?

Of course, this just adds to the argument for the Aspects to have a choice of weapons. Not to change their overall role, but to give them the option to super specialise as a Temple.

Narratively, see above about a squad of triskeles not really being "howling banshees." Mechanically, if you can take a squad full of executioners, how likely are you really to take a squad full of power swords instead? Either the executioners are worth their points or they aren't, and you'll only see people fielding the better option. If you want to see distinctions between shrines, I feel like the exarch powers are a much better way to convey that. Are you dire avengers trained in defensive stances to hold positions, or are they more dedicated to wringing out every bit of lethality with their shurikens? Etc.

Mr_Rose wrote:
Actually, now I think about it, it’s entirely possible that, what with everything Eldar make being psychic on some level, every Aspect Warrior keeps their complete suit and weapons after they step off that Path, because the gear is effectively part of them now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’d assume so long as they’ve walked a given Warrior Path, their current Path allows them access to the tools of their previous Temples.

I don't think that's the case. We know that there's plenty of craftworld tech that's psychic but not restricted to use by one person, so there's no reason to think aspect warrior gear would be an exception. We don't see Kelrandriel go out requesting personalized wargear the way Thirianna requests her personalized rune. Plus you have Thirianna who doesn't show up to her old shrine with any gear when she dons her warlock armor but does have a little charm (the kind that dangle off of the avenger guns on the models) that she took from her old shrine as a keepsake.

Plus, given the point of the path system and the eldar tendency towards obsession, keeping your old gear around your apartment seems like a bad idea. Don't want to leave the path of the warrior because you feel Khaine getting his hooks into you only to have your scorpion helmet staring at you from the wall every day.

Can I hear your opinion about this:
Exarches; As I see it, there are possibilities:

They belong to units, like they do now, leading them and stays with the unit throughout the battle.

Like in 2. edition, they are characters on their own, which may or may not join units.

I ask because, either way can be done, it's a technicality, but lorewise... Exarches aren't exactly leaders, are they? Aren't they just deeply lost in their Aspect, in which they may teach and inspire off the battlefield - on the battlefield... Well that's another matter...?

@Wyldhunt:
By the way, thanks. I never thanked you for you answering my last question.

Why not both?

I can see fluff justifications for both. An exarch trains his students and he leads them in battle. Exarchs can also serve independently if, for example, they have no students when war calls or their students are not ready. Also remember that in 2nd edition you had to have aspect squads in the list in order to take the independent exarchs though they didn't have to match.

There's a lot we don't know about their organization. The codices over the years always limited aspect squads to 10 members. This seems like a game limitation borrowed from the marines and codex astartes without a lot of thought. IIRC one of the Scorpion temples had more than 10 members in Path of the Warrior. There's also the matter of leaderless squads. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps they are there to represent part of larger shrines.i.e. 20-man temple split into 2 teams of 10, one having the exarch.

So include both and see how you like it.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Why not both?

I can see fluff justifications for both. An exarch trains his students and he leads them in battle. Exarchs can also serve independently if, for example, they have no students when war calls or their students are not ready. Also remember that in 2nd edition you had to have aspect squads in the list in order to take the independent exarchs though they didn't have to match.

There's a lot we don't know about their organization. The codices over the years always limited aspect squads to 10 members. This seems like a game limitation borrowed from the marines and codex astartes without a lot of thought. IIRC one of the Scorpion temples had more than 10 members in Path of the Warrior. There's also the matter of leaderless squads. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps they are there to represent part of larger shrines.i.e. 20-man temple split into 2 teams of 10, one having the exarch.

So include both and see how you like it.

But only one way to include an Exarch in an army is necessary - either as an Independent Character or as a permanent part of a unit of Aspect Warriors.

I have no trouble by going back to the way it's done in 2. edition, but I was wondering if people were too attached to the way, it has been all the editions post 2. edition.

Though, they way you put it, the Independent way seems closer to the lore.

Chaospling wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Why not both?

I can see fluff justifications for both. An exarch trains his students and he leads them in battle. Exarchs can also serve independently if, for example, they have no students when war calls or their students are not ready. Also remember that in 2nd edition you had to have aspect squads in the list in order to take the independent exarchs though they didn't have to match.

There's a lot we don't know about their organization. The codices over the years always limited aspect squads to 10 members. This seems like a game limitation borrowed from the marines and codex astartes without a lot of thought. IIRC one of the Scorpion temples had more than 10 members in Path of the Warrior. There's also the matter of leaderless squads. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps they are there to represent part of larger shrines.i.e. 20-man temple split into 2 teams of 10, one having the exarch.

So include both and see how you like it.

But only one way to include an Exarch in an army is necessary - either as an Independent Character or as a permanent part of a unit of Aspect Warriors.

I have no trouble by going back to the way it's done in 2. edition, but I was wondering if people were too attached to the way, it has been all the editions post 2. edition.

Though, they way you put it, the Independent way seems closer to the lore.

I personally hate the crappy sergeant they've become.

Don't look at them from a rules perspective, look at them from a background perspective. They are the high priests of Khaine, trapped on the path of the warrior (which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be stuck in one aspect). They are exemplars of their craft, walking sculptures of perfect warfare. They aren't trapped on the path of the teacher, teaching others their craft isn't the core of their identity.

They aren't there at their shrine waiting for other eldar to show up to learn from them like some NPC quest giver. 100 students or no students they are trapped on the warrior path, continually perfecting and practicing their art. They're an old kung fu master up on a hill who practices every day. If some young PC comes to beg for training, they basically just stand around imitating them while the old man goes through his moves.

Now it's clear the exarchs do actively teach when they have students. But they are still going to be 100% ready to go to war regardless.

Remember that it's the war mask that makes an eldar capable of fighting, not their squad leader holding their hand. The idea that a professionally trained eldar can somehow not perform without their teacher present is pretty stupid and ONLY came about as an assumption due to the rules - that it was generally always better to take the exarch upgrade than not to. I don't believe between 1-7th edition of 40k the exarch was a compulsory choice, but it was treated as one and now has been made so in the rules which has bled over into the perception of the background.

When Khaine stirs and the craftworld goes to war, the exarchs are drawn to it, students or not. They can no more stay out of a fight than a khornate worshipper could.

This quote: "Blood runs, Anger rises, Death wakes, War calls." Is basically the activation of an exarch.


So from a background perspective, you should be able to take exarchs separately and there could potentially be more exarchs on the table than aspects, as it's not like you can stop the exarchs joining the war. It's also not like every squad of trainee aspects is ready to go to war conveniently at the same time, so there'd be exarchs on the field who left students behind. THere'd also be exarchs who just prefer to stalk and slaughter alone, even if they've trained a squad. Just because you've shown other people how you fight doesn't mean you have to hang around with them all the time.



So as you can see, the concept of exarch+aspect is artificially intertwined by the rules and not by anything in the background. The only eldar that LIKE the company of an exarch are other exarchs due to their violent psyche...

 Hellebore wrote:

I personally hate the crappy sergeant they've become.
Don't look at them from a rules perspective, look at them from a background perspective.

Well, Chaospling is asking because he is writing his own codex for Biel-tan so the discussion will revolve around the rules presentation, but I take your meaning.

They are the high priests of Khaine, trapped on the path of the warrior (which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be stuck in one aspect). They are exemplars of their craft, walking sculptures of perfect warfare. They aren't trapped on the path of the teacher, teaching others their craft isn't the core of their identity.

In the absence of war, they train. You can interpret that as a form of ritual worship by priests, but training is a large part of their function in the craftworld environment. They don't get to travel the craftworld freely enjoying normal eldar life on a craftworld.

Interesting notion that an exarch could change aspects. How would that work? Perhaps someone who walked more than one warrior path has enough control to choose the aspect when they fall? I don't see a new exarch having much agency in that regard. The new exarch goes to the shrine, puts on the ancient armor and becomes the original exarch. That exarch is not going to change aspects after thousands of years.

They aren't there at their shrine waiting for other eldar to show up to learn from them like some NPC quest giver. 100 students or no students they are trapped on the warrior path, continually perfecting and practicing their art. They're an old kung fu master up on a hill who practices every day. If some young PC comes to beg for training, they basically just stand around imitating them while the old man goes through his moves.

That's not how it was depicted in Path of the Warrior, Korlandril falls, is refused entry to the shrine of deadly shadow, is told to find his own shrine. He goes to the autarch chamber, sees the runes of the shrines and finds the shrine of hidden death. He goes there, dons the armor and become Morlaniath, first of seven to wear the exarch armor in that shrine. Korlandril was the eighth, but his spirit is submerged under the first. Soon his gets his first student.

Your first pupil.
One to be taught.
So soon?
Always it is so. A new exarch needs followers. The shrine calls to them.

Now it's clear the exarchs do actively teach when they have students. But they are still going to be 100% ready to go to war regardless.

I think they always have students based on Path of the Warrior, but, yes, they are always ready for war even when some or most of their students are not.

Remember that it's the war mask that makes an eldar capable of fighting, not their squad leader holding their hand. The idea that a professionally trained eldar can somehow not perform without their teacher present is pretty stupid and ONLY came about as an assumption due to the rules - that it was generally always better to take the exarch upgrade than not to. I don't believe between 1-7th edition of 40k the exarch was a compulsory choice, but it was treated as one and now has been made so in the rules which has bled over into the perception of the background.

The rules for the aspects have always put the juiciest bits on the exarch so that aspect squads would feel like ablative wounds/delivery systems for the exarch much like mobs of boyz used to be wounds for the nob with powerklaw. Still, you could always choose to run a bare squad for something like DAVU. The exarchs being so much better than the rank and file was explained as coming from the spirits of the previous incarnations of the exarch.

Rules and list building aside, it is still the exarchs that determine when aspect warriors are ready. The aspect warriors don't get to determine that themselves. I can't envision a squad of warriors deciding to go to war on their own without their exarch, who has decided to sit this one out for some reason. There's never any mention of an aspect leader who isn't an exarch. I suppose you could have an autarch join a squad of aspects in lieu of an exarch.

When Khaine stirs and the craftworld goes to war, the exarchs are drawn to it, students or not. They can no more stay out of a fight than a khornate worshipper could.

I don't see exarchs as berserker equivalents and they absolutely can stay out of a fight when the craftworld leadership, autarchs and the council tell them to.

So from a background perspective, you should be able to take exarchs separately and there could potentially be more exarchs on the table than aspects, as it's not like you can stop the exarchs joining the war.

I do like the idea of having freelancing exarchs in a host, but I do also think you can keep them under control. If the specific mission requirements don't require their specific aspect or many of that aspect then the council will make decisions about who goes and who stays. They don't send everyone to every battle.

It's also not like every squad of trainee aspects is ready to go to war conveniently at the same time, so there'd be exarchs on the field who left students behind. THere'd also be exarchs who just prefer to stalk and slaughter alone, even if they've trained a squad. Just because you've shown other people how you fight doesn't mean you have to hang around with them all the time.

So as you can see, the concept of exarch+aspect is artificially intertwined by the rules and not by anything in the background.

I haven't seen anything to support these suppositions.

 Arschbombe wrote:


Interesting notion that an exarch could change aspects. How would that work? Perhaps someone who walked more than one warrior path has enough control to choose the aspect when they fall? I don't see a new exarch having much agency in that regard. The new exarch goes to the shrine, puts on the ancient armor and becomes the original exarch. That exarch is not going to change aspects after thousands of years.

In 1st ed it was called the Menshad Korum, the hunter in pursuit of himself. It was a rare thing that did happen. But otherwise you can walk the warrior path a dozen times before getting trapped on one specific aspect. That doesn't mean you forget all your warrior training from the other aspects though, so there's at least 3 'types' of exarch right there - mono aspect, Menshad Korum, multi aspect. The MK would be the most flexible, as they'd be wielding weapons from all the shrines and using all the skills. the MA would be one aspect with skills from the other shrines, but locked to their final shrine's weapons. The mono aspect is the one we get in the squads now.

 Arschbombe wrote:

That's not how it was depicted in Path of the Warrior, Korlandril falls, is refused entry to the shrine of deadly shadow, is told to find his own shrine. He goes to the autarch chamber, sees the runes of the shrines and finds the shrine of hidden death. He goes there, dons the armor and become Morlaniath, first of seven to wear the exarch armor in that shrine. Korlandril was the eighth, but his spirit is submerged under the first. Soon his gets his first student.

Your first pupil.
One to be taught.
So soon?
Always it is so. A new exarch needs followers. The shrine calls to them.

I mean that's not how I read that. The shrine calls them, not the exarch. The exarch just happens to be there. And as a priest of a god, of course he wants more followers in his shrine. But he doesn't stop functioning as an exarch just because no one answered the shrine's want ad. He's still a fully formed exarch, with the capability to fight by himself.

 Arschbombe wrote:

The rules for the aspects have always put the juiciest bits on the exarch so that aspect squads would feel like ablative wounds/delivery systems for the exarch much like mobs of boyz used to be wounds for the nob with powerklaw. Still, you could always choose to run a bare squad for something like DAVU. The exarchs being so much better than the rank and file was explained as coming from the spirits of the previous incarnations of the exarch.

Rules and list building aside, it is still the exarchs that determine when aspect warriors are ready. The aspect warriors don't get to determine that themselves. I can't envision a squad of warriors deciding to go to war on their own without their exarch, who has decided to sit this one out for some reason. There's never any mention of an aspect leader who isn't an exarch. I suppose you could have an autarch join a squad of aspects in lieu of an exarch.

That's the point though - it was a rules mechanic not a background one that created the perception that aspects needed exarchs on the battle field. I used to play 2nd ed with exarchs running around like assassins while their squads performed their combat role. The background didn't require them to be part of the squad for them to function properly. It's also pretty insulting to think that the elite eldar units are less capable than their militia, who can go to war without a teacher to hold their hand.

It's a bizarre scenario to consider that those aspect warriors could go to war as guardians, but won't be allowed as aspects because their teacher didn't go with them? This is one of the biggest problems I've had with the folding of exarchs into squads since 3rd ed, they've created the impression that an aspect NEEDS an exarch to fight. But the aspects are trained to fight, not trained to follow their teacher everywhere. If they lose an exarch in battle, they don't suddenly stop knowing what to do. And it would be a pretty poor teacher that taught them how to fight only while their around. Somehow I doubt the Exarchs teach that poorly. I can't imagine any other combatant in the real world or 40k that needs their teacher present to be any good.

 Arschbombe wrote:

I don't see exarchs as berserker equivalents and they absolutely can stay out of a fight when the craftworld leadership, autarchs and the council tell them to.

I do like the idea of having freelancing exarchs in a host, but I do also think you can keep them under control. If the specific mission requirements don't require their specific aspect or many of that aspect then the council will make decisions about who goes and who stays. They don't send everyone to every battle.

My point is that the exarchs' ability to go to war has even less to do with them having students as an aspect warrior's does having an exarch. An exarch, so long as the strategy says it's good, can be on the field, regardless of the status of their students/shrine.

They lose all their students, do they stop fighting on the field? Do aspects stop being trained warriors on a path they are mastering just because their teacher isn't present? The point of the path system is to personally master the one you've chosen, and mastery can't happen if you are required to have your teacher there all the time.

 Arschbombe wrote:

I haven't seen anything to support these suppositions.

Apart from the rules forcing you now to take an exarch in a squad, there's no background info that says they are obsessed with their students and never leave them either. As I said, the rules have created this impression that's never been their in the background. For 2 editions exarchs were independent characters that could choose to join an aspect, but didn't have to (and they had the statline of a marine hero). For 7 editions they were non compulsory choices. For 5 editions they were no compulsory squad sergeants.

The suppositions are logical inference - not everything lines up nicely. Aspects die, exarchs die, exarchs have no students, craftworlds are desperate. There are many logical reasons why exarchs aren't necessary in a squad, or that exarchs don't need a squad to appear on the battlefield.

It's the path of the warrior, not the path of being led through war by a psycho. Once they master the path, they look for another one to master and so on.

The rules creating crappy exarchs and forcing you to take them as squad leaders still doesn't reflect their background.

Just wanted to chime in and agree with all that, Hellebore.

Also, it occurs to me that a lot of the sub-optimal exarch wargear options we've had in the past would make a lot more sense on a lone exarch than as part of a squad. A powersword hawkxarch or dragon's breath dragonxarch both make a lot more sense if you're not bringing the rest of your swordless/flamerless students along to fight a suboptimal target.If 40k ever re-expands to make characters more customizable again, squadless exarchs could be a good way to do that.

Mostly off-topic: Poking at the oldschool (like, 3rd or 4th edition) Kill Team rules has made me wonder if exarchs would be good candidates for "special forces" type operations. Need to assassinate the chaos champion in the middle of his palace? Sneak a few exarchs past the guards, and let them use their specialized tools to make their way to the target.

 Hellebore wrote:

In 1st ed it was called the Menshad Korum, the hunter in pursuit of himself. It was a rare thing that did happen. But otherwise you can walk the warrior path a dozen times before getting trapped on one specific aspect. That doesn't mean you forget all your warrior training from the other aspects though, so there's at least 3 'types' of exarch right there - mono aspect, Menshad Korum, multi aspect. The MK would be the most flexible, as they'd be wielding weapons from all the shrines and using all the skills. the MA would be one aspect with skills from the other shrines, but locked to their final shrine's weapons. The mono aspect is the one we get in the squads now.

I had not seen that before. I only have the 2nd edition through 7th edition books. Thank you for attaching the image.

I'm still curious about how an exarch would go about changing aspects in a more current context. That text from 1st edition doesn't talk about immortality, soulstones, and spirits. It doesn't state things like "once put on the suit is never removed and becomes a permanent part of the Eldar, it's psycho-plastic form meshing with his tissues" like it does in 2nd. That would preclude switching aspect after becoming an exarch. It would seem to me that the idea of multiple warrior paths got folded into the Autarch in 4th.

I mean that's not how I read that. The shrine calls them, not the exarch. The exarch just happens to be there. And as a priest of a god, of course he wants more followers in his shrine. But he doesn't stop functioning as an exarch just because no one answered the shrine's want ad. He's still a fully formed exarch, with the capability to fight by himself.

Yes, the shrine calls them. Why does it call them? Why do they answer? I think it's to give the exarch something productive to do. "An exarch needs followers." What happens when an exarch does not have followers? Loose cannon with a single purpose? What does he do?

That's the point though - it was a rules mechanic not a background one that created the perception that aspects needed exarchs on the battle field. I used to play 2nd ed with exarchs running around like assassins while their squads performed their combat role. The background didn't require them to be part of the squad for them to function properly. It's also pretty insulting to think that the elite eldar units are less capable than their militia, who can go to war without a teacher to hold their hand.

That's fair. In second edition they were barely connected. The rules were very explicit in spelling out you had to have aspect squads in the army in order to take an exarch, but there didn't have to be any commonality between them. Which calls that requirement into question. Why tie the taking of exarchs to the taking of squads at all when no hand-holding is required?

It's a bizarre scenario to consider that those aspect warriors could go to war as guardians, but won't be allowed as aspects because their teacher didn't go with them? This is one of the biggest problems I've had with the folding of exarchs into squads since 3rd ed, they've created the impression that an aspect NEEDS an exarch to fight. But the aspects are trained to fight, not trained to follow their teacher everywhere. If they lose an exarch in battle, they don't suddenly stop knowing what to do. And it would be a pretty poor teacher that taught them how to fight only while their around. Somehow I doubt the Exarchs teach that poorly. I can't imagine any other combatant in the real world or 40k that needs their teacher present to be any good.

In the absence of the exarch, who is squad leader? Who is talking to the autarchs? In the 2nd edition book they talk about guardian squads having leaders drawn from the ranks of former aspect warriors, but those have never been differentiated in the rules.

My point is that the exarchs' ability to go to war has even less to do with them having students as an aspect warrior's does having an exarch. An exarch, so long as the strategy says it's good, can be on the field, regardless of the status of their students/shrine.

They lose all their students, do they stop fighting on the field? Do aspects stop being trained warriors on a path they are mastering just because their teacher isn't present? The point of the path system is to personally master the one you've chosen, and mastery can't happen if you are required to have your teacher there all the time.

Of course exarchs will keep on fighting even if they've lost all their followers in a combat action. Similarly, a squad can fight on after the loss of their exarch. Where I get hung up on the whole lone exarch thing is the shrines. Shrines without an exarch are dormant. Active shrines with exarchs attract students. Then there's the matter of Kenainath handing over his warriors of the deadly shadow to Morlaniath before battle because his body is too weak to lead them anymore. "Your squad is untested, your warriors unready, you cannot lead them. You need warriors, take on the deadly shadow, lead them in battle. They need an exarch, let them be the hidden death with you their exarch."

Apart from the rules forcing you now to take an exarch in a squad, there's no background info that says they are obsessed with their students and never leave them either. As I said, the rules have created this impression that's never been their in the background. For 2 editions exarchs were independent characters that could choose to join an aspect, but didn't have to (and they had the statline of a marine hero). For 7 editions they were non compulsory choices. For 5 editions they were no compulsory squad sergeants.

The suppositions are logical inference - not everything lines up nicely. Aspects die, exarchs die, exarchs have no students, craftworlds are desperate. There are many logical reasons why exarchs aren't necessary in a squad, or that exarchs don't need a squad to appear on the battlefield.

It's the path of the warrior, not the path of being led through war by a psycho. Once they master the path, they look for another one to master and so on.

The rules creating crappy exarchs and forcing you to take them as squad leaders still doesn't reflect their background.

So what do you think about how warlocks have been handled over the editions?

 Arschbombe wrote:

I'm still curious about how an exarch would go about changing aspects in a more current context. That text from 1st edition doesn't talk about immortality, soulstones, and spirits. It doesn't state things like "once put on the suit is never removed and becomes a permanent part of the Eldar, it's psycho-plastic form meshing with his tissues" like it does in 2nd. That would preclude switching aspect after becoming an exarch. It would seem to me that the idea of multiple warrior paths got folded into the Autarch in 4th.

Hmm. Are we sure that an exarch is completely incapable of changing aspects? My headcanon is that exarch weapons are basically the exarch "playing around" with weapons that don't symbolically adhere to the teachings of their aspect. So giving a whole squad of scorpions scorpion claws might make them more prone to being trapped on the path for whatever reason. I also headcanon that minor shrines (crystal dragons, slashing spheres, etc.) are the result of an exarch playing around/experimenting so much that his shrine is no longer recognizable as whatever aspect it was before. Ex: a fire dragon exarch is having so much fun with their dragon's breath flamer that they start using it almost exclusively and eventually decide to start teaching their students how to use flamers instead of fusion guns and start going by the name "crystal dragons."

Which is a long-winded way of saying I think exarchs might sometimes change up their style out of, basically, boredom/curiosity. I could see an exarch with no students perhaps going to an exarch of a different aspect for training and basically having the specialized systems of his armor swapped out or the stones in his armor integrated into a new suit.

In the absence of the exarch, who is squad leader? Who is talking to the autarchs? In the 2nd edition book they talk about guardian squads having leaders drawn from the ranks of former aspect warriors, but those have never been differentiated in the rules.

Presumably every aspect warrior has an exarch whose shrine they study at. I imagine that the exarch assigns squad leaders before his warriors are deployed. Then again, both the Jain Zar novel and that short story about the banshee squad shows banshees bickering over decision making when their exarch is no longer around, so... *shrug* It seems like the squad would basically be tuned into their assigned voice chat, and you'd just sort of figure out which guy in your squad gets to respond.

Also, quick reminder that exarchs weren't mandatory until, what? 8th edition? They used to be a purchasable upgrade. So the mandatory exarch is a new thing. Frankly, it's weird that they're not still an upgrade that costs points.

On exarchs changing aspects; remember that Asurmen taught all of the other Phoenix Lords; none of them are Dire Avengers though. So it’s not like individuals of one aspect are incapable of learning other martial arts (and teaching something is amongst the most effective ways to learn something) or anything; they just don’t necessarily use them, or don’t necessarily have the equipment to pull it off.
As for the armour being glued to the wearer… it’s made of psycho-reactive plastic and contains potentially dozens of psychic souls. I reckon if an exarch wants their armour to change shape/colour/thickness it absolutely will.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. Are we sure that an exarch is completely incapable of changing aspects?

I don't know where the fluff actually stands at the moment. We know it's changed subtly and not so subtly over the editions. Clearly in 1st edition they could, but 1st edition had a lot of weird stuff that got dropped or radically changed. I mean wasn't there a half-eldar space marine back then before the 8ft tall superhuman thing got going? Also clearly in 2nd edition they couldn't because suit bonding to flesh as I quoted. Somewhere in 3rd to 6th they could take off their armor. In Path of the Warrior we see two exarchs come to greet Morlaniath upon his return and they're in robes.

My headcanon is that exarch weapons are basically the exarch "playing around" with weapons that don't symbolically adhere to the teachings of their aspect. So giving a whole squad of scorpions scorpion claws might make them more prone to being trapped on the path for whatever reason. I also headcanon that minor shrines (crystal dragons, slashing spheres, etc.) are the result of an exarch playing around/experimenting so much that his shrine is no longer recognizable as whatever aspect it was before. Ex: a fire dragon exarch is having so much fun with their dragon's breath flamer that they start using it almost exclusively and eventually decide to start teaching their students how to use flamers instead of fusion guns and start going by the name "crystal dragons."

I like headcanon for filling in gaps, but not when it supplants established lore. With respect to exarch weapons they are always described as incredibly ancient, arcane or the extreme expression of their aspect. So I don't see room in there for them to be individualistic experiments. There's also the general theme of decline in 40k. The time for new developments and experimentation was always in the distant past. New models and weapons are generally retconned to have always been around. So there aren't any new aspects developing on some craftworlds that we'll learn about someday as they are revealed like primaris marines. If GW invents a new aspect it will always have been there the same way warp spiders, shining spears and crimson hunters got added.

Which is a long-winded way of saying I think exarchs might sometimes change up their style out of, basically, boredom/curiosity. I could see an exarch with no students perhaps going to an exarch of a different aspect for training and basically having the specialized systems of his armor swapped out or the stones in his armor integrated into a new suit.

Well this kind of points to my own headcanon about eldar autonomy. I think each individual eldar moves along the Path thinking that they have free will and they make their choices freely. But I suspect that a craftworld really functions like one giant psychic organism. When a craftworld is preparing for war, more citizens just get drawn to the warrior path. As more warriors are trained and the shrines fill up, there may be a need to reactivate a dormant shrine and so a warrior will lose himself to khaine and find his way to the shrine and become that ancient exarch. So perhaps a craftworld will need to augment its strength in one particular aspect and an exarch will feel drawn to change aspect. He might think of it as driven by a desire for change as you say, but really he's just responding to psychic stimuli pushing him that way.

Also, quick reminder that exarchs weren't mandatory until, what? 8th edition? They used to be a purchasable upgrade. So the mandatory exarch is a new thing. Frankly, it's weird that they're not still an upgrade that costs points.

I think this change is tied to the whole power level thing. Exarchs represent such a large chunk of a squad's power they decided to make them part of the basic cost because to do otherwise made the math hard. I don't think it was born from some deep analysis of eldar organization.

Mr_Rose wrote:On exarchs changing aspects; remember that Asurmen taught all of the other Phoenix Lords; none of them are Dire Avengers though. So it’s not like individuals of one aspect are incapable of learning other martial arts (and teaching something is amongst the most effective ways to learn something) or anything; they just don’t necessarily use them, or don’t necessarily have the equipment to pull it off.
As for the armour being glued to the wearer… it’s made of psycho-reactive plastic and contains potentially dozens of psychic souls. I reckon if an exarch wants their armour to change shape/colour/thickness it absolutely will.

I don't think they work that way. The psycho active stuff seemed to be generally about fit and function. A new warrior puts on an old suit and it resizes itself to fit him. Things like targeting reticles, mandiblasters, banshee masks etc are psychically activated. To me that's the extent of it. I can't see an exarch trying to change his armor from scorpion to banshee for example. In any case the whole one-with-the-suit thing was 2nd edition and has since been superceded.

 Arschbombe wrote:

I like headcanon for filling in gaps, but not when it supplants established lore. With respect to exarch weapons they are always described as incredibly ancient, arcane or the extreme expression of their aspect. So I don't see room in there for them to be individualistic experiments. There's also the general theme of decline in 40k. The time for new developments and experimentation was always in the distant past. New models and weapons are generally retconned to have always been around. So there aren't any new aspects developing on some craftworlds that we'll learn about someday as they are revealed like primaris marines. If GW invents a new aspect it will always have been there the same way warp spiders, shining spears and crimson hunters got added.

Eh. I see where you're coming from but don't totally agree. We know that the eldar have "recently" invented the hemlock specifically as a means of fighting tyranids, and it's canon that new aspects are a thing that happens. It would be easy enough to say that the new Zapping Armadillo aspect has had a small, dispersed presence across the craftworlds for millenia but that it's finally becoming popular enough to become a more common sight. The eldar don't seem to do a lot of inventing, but they also don't seem to be incapable of it.

As for the exarch weapons, I guess I don't see being arcane and extreme expressions of their aspect as being mutually exclusive with being the inspiration for a new aspect. You let a swooping hawk exarch spend enough time swinging his power sword around, and eventually he hands out a bunch of power swords and "sun pistols" to the class. And thus are born the Sun Hawks, blinding the enemy with volleys of sunpistol fire as they soar into the fray with their power swords. It also makes more sense to me that new aspects would be the result of an exarch wanting to shake things up rather than some guy just popping up out of nowhere.

Well this kind of points to my own headcanon about eldar autonomy. I think each individual eldar moves along the Path thinking that they have free will and they make their choices freely. But I suspect that a craftworld really functions like one giant psychic organism. When a craftworld is preparing for war, more citizens just get drawn to the warrior path. As more warriors are trained and the shrines fill up, there may be a need to reactivate a dormant shrine and so a warrior will lose himself to khaine and find his way to the shrine and become that ancient exarch. So perhaps a craftworld will need to augment its strength in one particular aspect and an exarch will feel drawn to change aspect. He might think of it as driven by a desire for change as you say, but really he's just responding to psychic stimuli pushing him that way.

Sure. That's the vibe I get too.

Mr_Rose wrote:On exarchs changing aspects; remember that Asurmen taught all of the other Phoenix Lords; none of them are Dire Avengers though. So it’s not like individuals of one aspect are incapable of learning other martial arts (and teaching something is amongst the most effective ways to learn something) or anything; they just don’t necessarily use them, or don’t necessarily have the equipment to pull it off.
As for the armour being glued to the wearer… it’s made of psycho-reactive plastic and contains potentially dozens of psychic souls. I reckon if an exarch wants their armour to change shape/colour/thickness it absolutely will.

I don't think they work that way. The psycho active stuff seemed to be generally about fit and function. A new warrior puts on an old suit and it resizes itself to fit him. Things like targeting reticles, mandiblasters, banshee masks etc are psychically activated. To me that's the extent of it. I can't see an exarch trying to change his armor from scorpion to banshee for example. In any case the whole one-with-the-suit thing was 2nd edition and has since been superceded.

While I agree it's a bit of a stretch, it also sounds pretty cool, so I want it to be at least partially true. More likely, I could see an exarch requesting a new suit of armor for his stones to be transferred into or having a bonesinger make adjustments to his current suit so that there's a port for swooping hawk wings or mandiblasters or whatever. I could also see things like tweaks to armor thickness, aesthetic elements, etc. being the sort of thing that changes gradually over time if an exarch has a big epiphany or something.

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/15 21:30:49

Post by: Iracundus

 Mr_Rose wrote:
On exarchs changing aspects; remember that Asurmen taught all of the other Phoenix Lords; none of them are Dire Avengers though. So it’s not like individuals of one aspect are incapable of learning other martial arts (and teaching something is amongst the most effective ways to learn something) or anything; they just don’t necessarily use them, or don’t necessarily have the equipment to pull it off.
As for the armour being glued to the wearer… it’s made of psycho-reactive plastic and contains potentially dozens of psychic souls. I reckon if an exarch wants their armour to change shape/colour/thickness it absolutely will.

A key detail though is Asurmen taught the idea of the Warrior Path, and from it the Path system in general. He didn't as far as we know teach the Dire Avenger aspect to the Asurya. At that time shortly after the Fall, the Aspects of the Warrior Path had not yet crystallized or taken on their current forms. So the Asurya learned the idea of the Warrior Path, the idea of the psychological war mask, and then developed their own Aspects. For a time it seems the ideas of the Aspects were still a bit fluid as shown by how Arhra and Karandras had differing ideas of what the Striking Scorpion should be. Since then however, it seems these ideas have hardened, which can be seen as part of the 40K theme of decline.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 00:43:49

Post by: Arschbombe

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Eh. I see where you're coming from but don't totally agree. We know that the eldar have "recently" invented the hemlock specifically as a means of fighting tyranids, and it's canon that new aspects are a thing that happens. It would be easy enough to say that the new Zapping Armadillo aspect has had a small, dispersed presence across the craftworlds for millenia but that it's finally becoming popular enough to become a more common sight. The eldar don't seem to do a lot of inventing, but they also don't seem to be incapable of it.

Yeah, but the hemlock is a wraith construct and we were talking aspects, specifically an exarch of one aspect changing his stripes. It's the same thing as when the wraithknight was invented in 6th edition. Those make sense in the context of desperation in a crippled craftworld. That whole release and the Iyanden supplement went all in on the wraith host concept. Still, I can see other new things being added to the eldar, variant war walkers, other kinds of grav tanks etc. At some point a few FW items might make their way to plastic and a codex entry, but they'll most likely be presented in the usual way as having always been there.

As for the exarch weapons, I guess I don't see being arcane and extreme expressions of their aspect as being mutually exclusive with being the inspiration for a new aspect. You let a swooping hawk exarch spend enough time swinging his power sword around, and eventually he hands out a bunch of power swords and "sun pistols" to the class. And thus are born the Sun Hawks, blinding the enemy with volleys of sunpistol fire as they soar into the fray with their power swords. It also makes more sense to me that new aspects would be the result of an exarch wanting to shake things up rather than some guy just popping up out of nowhere.

That's fair. We do get some mention here and there of shrines that deviate from the official doctrine and also that the phoenix lords periodically make the rounds to ensure everyone is holding to the standards. The first exarch of a new aspect must then become another phoenix lord in spirit if not in actual power.

While I agree it's a bit of a stretch, it also sounds pretty cool, so I want it to be at least partially true. More likely, I could see an exarch requesting a new suit of armor for his stones to be transferred into or having a bonesinger make adjustments to his current suit so that there's a port for swooping hawk wings or mandiblasters or whatever. I could also see things like tweaks to armor thickness, aesthetic elements, etc. being the sort of thing that changes gradually over time if an exarch has a big epiphany or something.

The mutating suit seems within the realm of possibility, but the exarch will still want/need the special weapons and those would come from the forges so a complete self-willed transformation would seem to be off the table.

Reply by: Wyldhunt - click to view full reply 

91640

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 01:43:48

Post by: Wyldhunt

Iracundus wrote:Since then however, it seems these ideas have hardened, which can be seen as part of the 40K theme of decline.

Mostly agree, although it seems like there's still a bit of wiggle room and variation within a given aspect. Which is what I understand the various exarch powers to represent. One swooping hawk shrine might emphasize the importance of evasive maneuvering or of making your lasblaster shots count or whatever. And whatever tactics they emphasize probably have symbolic or philosophical significance that calls to different needs for different eldar.

Arschbombe wrote:
Yeah, but the hemlock is a wraith construct and we were talking aspects, specifically an exarch of one aspect changing his stripes.

Fair. I was just trying to point out that craftworlders aren't completely stagnant even if they do tend to be set in their ways.

That's fair. We do get some mention here and there of shrines that deviate from the official doctrine and also that the phoenix lords periodically make the rounds to ensure everyone is holding to the standards. The first exarch of a new aspect must then become another phoenix lord in spirit if not in actual power.

Since I saw the term "asuryata" being thrown around, I've head-canoned that there are "asuryata" Phoenix Lords (the main ones we know from the codex plus maybe Drastanta) and non-asuryata Phoenix Lords. With the latter basically just being the founder of an aspect but not necessarily someone who studied directly under Asurmen and picked up some of that fate-bending weirdness that PLs apparently have. So Irrilyth would probably be a non-asuryata Phoenix Lord as he's clearly a phoenix lord but doesn't seem to make it to any of the team meetings we see in the phoenix lord novels. Lhykosidhe would maybe fall into that category too if you uh... like that particular detail of the Goto books.

The mutating suit seems within the realm of possibility, but the exarch will still want/need the special weapons and those would come from the forges so a complete self-willed transformation would seem to be off the table.

Oh sure. I'm picturing some slow, gradual changes to the armor; not a mid-combat transformation or something. Hmm. If exarchs do change aspects, I wonder how that impacts their shrine. Like, the physical location; not the students. Does the shrine terraform itself to be a better fit? Does the exarch control the "settings" of the shrine? And if not, can the shrine get upset with him and kick him out, forcing him to go find a more appropriate location? (And what kind of escort detail do you assign to the exarch wandering around the craftworld house hunting?)

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 07:16:47

Post by: Chaospling

 Arschbombe wrote:

In any case the whole one-with-the-suit thing was 2nd edition and has since been superceded.

I couldn't find anything about Exarchs in the 7th and 8th edition codices, but in 6th edition codex, it states that "... his spirit mingles with those Eldar who have borne it since the shrine's inception. It is the presence of the spirit-pool of raw psychic energy that gives the suit and warrior - for the two are indistinguishable - their special warrior powers."

Isn't this the same as it is now or have something happened about this subject since 6th edition?

About Shrines:
Are they unique or can the same Shrine be found on several/each Craftworld?

Reply by: Mad Doc Grotsnik - click to view full reply 

8725

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 07:46:46

Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik

Shrines are basically Dojos. Each one is independent of the others. Not all Craftworlds have Shrines for the most common Aspects, and some will have entirely unique Shrines.

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 09:01:27

Post by: Iracundus

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Iracundus wrote:Since then however, it seems these ideas have hardened, which can be seen as part of the 40K theme of decline.

Mostly agree, although it seems like there's still a bit of wiggle room and variation within a given aspect. Which is what I understand the various exarch powers to represent. One swooping hawk shrine might emphasize the importance of evasive maneuvering or of making your lasblaster shots count or whatever. And whatever tactics they emphasize probably have symbolic or philosophical significance that calls to different needs for different eldar.

Sure, but the idea of the Aspect seems to have crystallized. Different variations of the Striking Scorpion might emphasize the claw, chainsword, or mandiblasters more, as demonstrated or implied by their different Exarch weaponry and powers, but they don't differ so much as to suddenly pull out a fusion gun and call that the Sting of the Scorpion.

Chaospling wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

In any case the whole one-with-the-suit thing was 2nd edition and has since been superceded.

I couldn't find anything about Exarchs in the 7th and 8th edition codices, but in 6th edition codex, it states that "... his spirit mingles with those Eldar who have borne it since the shrine's inception. It is the presence of the spirit-pool of raw psychic energy that gives the suit and warrior - for the two are indistinguishable - their special warrior powers."

Isn't this the same as it is now or have something happened about this subject since 6th edition?

The helmetless Exarch models show that not all Exarchs have merged with the suit. Phoenix Lords still are animated walking suits. I suppose older Exarchs might get to that point once the spirit pool of energy grows strong enough.

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 09:30:58

Post by: Chaospling

Could I bother you for your creativity/knowledge of the Aeldari background?

I'm creating special rules for Autarchs, which will cost 0 points as whatever pros, they'll have, are outweighed by cons. They are there for giving your Autarch personality and a "title".

So what I need is grand titles, which are the names for those special rules.

Here are the titles for Blood Angel Captains to give you an idea of what I'm looking for:
Shield of Baal
Lord of Skyfall
Archangel
Lord Adjudicator
Soulwarden
Orator of the Priesthood
Repulsor of the Flaw
Caller of the Fires
Master of Sacrifice

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 15:20:21

Post by: Arschbombe

Wyldhunt wrote:
Oh sure. I'm picturing some slow, gradual changes to the armor; not a mid-combat transformation or something. Hmm. If exarchs do change aspects, I wonder how that impacts their shrine. Like, the physical location; not the students. Does the shrine terraform itself to be a better fit? Does the exarch control the "settings" of the shrine? And if not, can the shrine get upset with him and kick him out, forcing him to go find a more appropriate location? (And what kind of escort detail do you assign to the exarch wandering around the craftworld house hunting?)

I don't think the exarchs can control the construction of the shrines. I think the singers build them to exarch specifications. I don't think the shrines have an identity independent from the exarch. So if an exarch wanted changes he could arrange to have them made without any resistance from the shrine itself.

So, I don't think you'd have an exarch wandering around looking for a new home after getting evicted. This ties back to the psychic organism idea. If there isn't a vacant shrine, no one becomes a new exarch. New shrines would get built in advance because a Phoenix Lord will show up and tell the leadership that one is coming and request a new shrine be built. Then once the shrine is built, the new exarch will feel the call, go to the vacant shrine and get trained by the Lord becoming the first of that line.

Chaospling wrote:
I couldn't find anything about Exarchs in the 7th and 8th edition codices, but in 6th edition codex, it states that "... his spirit mingles with those Eldar who have borne it since the shrine's inception. It is the presence of the spirit-pool of raw psychic energy that gives the suit and warrior - for the two are indistinguishable - their special warrior powers."

Isn't this the same as it is now or have something happened about this subject since 6th edition?

This is basically how it's been since third edition. I found the same blurb in the 7th ed book. I think it's in a section about aspects or shrines. There's no section titled exarchs like the older books had.

Iracundus wrote:
The helmetless Exarch models show that not all Exarchs have merged with the suit.
Phoenix Lords still are animated walking suits. I suppose older Exarchs might get to that point once the spirit pool of energy grows strong enough.

The helmetless heads in the new plastic kits were included to represent ynnari forces. I don't think they gave it much thought beyond that. In Path of the Warrior, when Korlandril becomes Morlaniath he notes that the voices of the other spirits are strongest when he has the helmet on. He's not fully merged with suit, but putting it on the first time is what completed his transition to exarch. The other exarchs are also not fully melded with their suits as shown when they come to visit the returned Morlaniath in their robes. I think this can be interpreted as the suit is the repository for the exarch's spirits. When the physical body fails due to age (like Kenainath) or is killed in battle the spirits remain in the suit waiting for the next warrior to put the suit on. Korlandril was the eighth body to inhabit the Morlaniath suit so it would seem to take many more spirits before the suit can animate itself like a Phoenix Lord. Or maybe, it'll never happen because there can only be one Phoenix Lord for an aspect.

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 15:27:59

Post by: Iracundus

 Arschbombe wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
The helmetless Exarch models show that not all Exarchs have merged with the suit.
Phoenix Lords still are animated walking suits. I suppose older Exarchs might get to that point once the spirit pool of energy grows strong enough.

The helmetless heads in the new plastic kits were included to represent ynnari forces. I don't think they gave it much thought beyond that. In Path of the Warrior, when Korlandril becomes Morlaniath he notes that the voices of the other spirits are strongest when he has the helmet on. He's not fully merged with suit, but putting it on the first time is what completed his transition to exarch. The other exarchs are also not fully melded with their suits as shown when they come to visit the returned Morlaniath in their robes. I think this can be interpreted as the suit is the repository for the exarch's spirits. When the physical body fails due to age (like Kenainath) or is killed in battle the spirits remain in the suit waiting for the next warrior to put the suit on. Korlandril was the eighth body to inhabit the Morlaniath suit so it would seem to take many more spirits before the suit can animate itself like a Phoenix Lord. Or maybe, it'll never happen because there can only be one Phoenix Lord for an aspect.

No, the first helmetless Exarchs came before the Ynnari were introduced. Look up Jes Goodwin's sketches and you will see designs for helmetless Exarchs:

https://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Eldar_(Sketches_and_Concepts)_-_Collectors_Guide


That was 2004 and 2005 from the date on the sketches, and the first helmetless Exarch was in the Dire Avenger box which came out around 4th edition, long predating the Ynnari. If you can find the old Jes Goodwin talk video about it, his rationale was some Exarchs no longer need a physical helmet as symbolic war mask, while their head is protected by force fields that give as much protection as their old helmet.

It just more recently GW has tried saying that some Ynnari take off their helmets. However there is no requirement that they do so, nor is it said that non-Ynnari cannot use that helmetless option.

Reply by: Mad Doc Grotsnik - click to view full reply 

8725

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 15:29:38

Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik

Not sure merging with the suit ever involved discorporation? Just a merging of spirits/souls?

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 15:35:31

Post by: Iracundus

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure merging with the suit ever involved discorporation? Just a merging of spirits/souls?

Actually it did. The bit about merging with the suit said that the suit would be found without a body inside, as it would have since merged with the suit.

Phoenix Lords are like that. Gav Thorpe has written Karandras both in a WD article and in his Path novels as being severely, even "mortally", wounded. Through the gaping gash in the armor is seen a swirling galaxy of stars, basically the spirit pool of all those that have previously worn the suit, but no physical body.

Reply by: Wyldhunt - click to view full reply 

91640

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/16 21:52:41

Post by: Wyldhunt

More of my headcanon: I took the withering away inside the suit thing to be something that happens if you stay inside the armor non-stop long enough. Almost like plant roots digging in and siphoning out energy. Getting out of the armor might "tear up the roots" so to speak thus preventing complete physical subsumption. So exarchs whose bodies have been "eaten" are the ones who just haven't bothered to take their helmets off in a while. I pictured the suit not being truly empty but just having this husk of an elf inside that literally crumbles to dust when you damage the suit enough to "kill" the exarch. So by the time you pop off their helmet, the elf mummy has disintegrated. I imagine the vitality of the wearer being used to basically build stronger, more permanent connections between different parts of the suit. So the helmet doesn't fall off because psychic connective tissue has formed along the helmet and neck, for instance. But again, just headcanon.

Chaospling wrote:
Could I bother you for your creativity/knowledge of the Aeldari background?

I'm creating special rules for Autarchs, which will cost 0 points as whatever pros, they'll have, are outweighed by cons. They are there for giving your Autarch personality and a "title".

So what I need is grand titles, which are the names for those special rules.

Here are the titles for Blood Angel Captains to give you an idea of what I'm looking for:
Shield of Baal
Lord of Skyfall
Archangel
Lord Adjudicator
Soulwarden
Orator of the Priesthood
Repulsor of the Flaw
Caller of the Fires
Master of Sacrifice

Well a few quick thoughts:
* There probably aren't a lot of canon titles like that, so we'd mostly be making them up.
* It's hard to come up with titles for rules if we don't know the rules. I could throw out something cool-sounding like "Faolchu's Emissary," but it might not make much sense as a title for a non-falcony autarch, for instance.
* If they cost 0 points because they're not powerful and are just there to add flavor, why make them special rules at all? You could just include a list of cool titles as part of a heirarchy chart or something.
* Just autarchs? I don't think there are a ton of autarchs per craftworld,. And titles among craftworlders seem to usually be tailored to the person based on past deeds rather than a passed-down title. Iyanna Arienelle is the "Angel of Iyanden," for instance, but that seems to be unique to her; not a job title. Ditto Illic NIghtspear.
* Contrary to my last point, look at Nuadhu Fireheart. Pretty sure he has a title like "Master of the Wildhunt" or something due to being the leader of the Wild Riders. This particular title does appear to be passed down.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/17 01:16:42

Post by: Arschbombe

Iracundus wrote:


No, the first helmetless Exarchs came before the Ynnari were introduced. Look up Jes Goodwin's sketches and you will see designs for helmetless Exarchs:

https://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Eldar_(Sketches_and_Concepts)_-_Collectors_Guide


That was 2004 and 2005 from the date on the sketches, and the first helmetless Exarch was in the Dire Avenger box which came out around 4th edition, long predating the Ynnari. If you can find the old Jes Goodwin talk video about it, his rationale was some Exarchs no longer need a physical helmet as symbolic war mask, while their head is protected by force fields that give as much protection as their old helmet.

Yeah, I forgot about that DA exarch option. Funny that Jes chose the same concept that was used to explain away all the unhelmeted astartes characters.

It just more recently GW has tried saying that some Ynnari take off their helmets. However there is no requirement that they do so, nor is it said that non-Ynnari cannot use that helmetless option.

The connection is there though. Jes made some sketches of exarchs without helmets, but not the warriors. Apart from that one DA head, these exarch designs went unrealized until we got plastic banshees in 2019. When they did finally come there were helmetless options for all of them not just the exarch. This pattern was repeated with the new dark reapers and the warcom article specifically points out the unhelmeted heads as the ynnari option: "For the first time, you’ll also find unhelmeted options for each warrior for use in Ynnari armies." (with the caveat that the article writers are not the arbiters of the lore- they make mistakes) So again I think this is much less about any deep thoughts about how exarchs interface with their suits of armor and much more about a simple visual marker for ynnari armies.

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/17 02:13:54

Post by: Iracundus

Looking at the sprues, I think it is still only the Exarch that has the helmetless option.

I agree it is just a simple visual shorthand for possible Ynnari. I am just saying that helmetless does not automatically mean Ynnari however as the idea of helmetless Exarchs predates the Ynnari. A Ynnari army can also still use completely helmeted options as well.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/17 02:55:05

Post by: Arschbombe

Iracundus wrote:
Looking at the sprues, I think it is still only the Exarch that has the helmetless option.

I agree it is just a simple visual shorthand for possible Ynnari. I am just saying that helmetless does not automatically mean Ynnari however as the idea of helmetless Exarchs predates the Ynnari. A Ynnari army can also still use completely helmeted options as well.

You can see the head options for the reapers here. Each warrior has helmet and no helmet options. Exarch has three options: helmet, helmet+hood, and no helmet. It's similar to the banshee kit that has helmet and no helmet for each banshee and then the exarch has 3 helmet options and one no helmet option. One of the banshee exarch options has the pigtails from the sketches you linked to earlier.

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/17 03:50:55

Post by: Iracundus

 Arschbombe wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
Looking at the sprues, I think it is still only the Exarch that has the helmetless option.

I agree it is just a simple visual shorthand for possible Ynnari. I am just saying that helmetless does not automatically mean Ynnari however as the idea of helmetless Exarchs predates the Ynnari. A Ynnari army can also still use completely helmeted options as well.

You can see the head options for the reapers here. Each warrior has helmet and no helmet options. Exarch has three options: helmet, helmet+hood, and no helmet. It's similar to the banshee kit that has helmet and no helmet for each banshee and then the exarch has 3 helmet options and one no helmet option. One of the banshee exarch options has the pigtails from the sketches you linked to earlier.

I almost said I did not see it but finally saw the rank and file Reaper helmetless option.

Ultimately what the Ynnari need to be is a faction with their own models, and not just a faction that cannibalizes from others.

Reply by: Machs - click to view full reply 

106721

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/17 09:42:09

Post by: Machs

 Flinty wrote:
Doesn’t even need to be between different craft worlds. If there are multiple shrines to the same aspect on one craft world, they could have different fighting styles. Ultimately, differences would come down to a few archetypes I think under something like the following categories:
- things bigger/smaller than the eldar
- multiple/single targets
- heavy/light armour
- fast/slow things

The sl’gsqush’r shrine of Alaitloc being famous for excelling against multiple small slow targets with no armour

It would be interesting to create a whole Codex dedicated to a single Warrior Aspect.

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/17 11:45:23

Post by: Chaospling

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Well a few quick thoughts:
* There probably aren't a lot of canon titles like that, so we'd mostly be making them up.
* It's hard to come up with titles for rules if we don't know the rules. I could throw out something cool-sounding like "Faolchu's Emissary," but it might not make much sense as a title for a non-falcony autarch, for instance.
* If they cost 0 points because they're not powerful and are just there to add flavor, why make them special rules at all? You could just include a list of cool titles as part of a heirarchy chart or something.
* Just autarchs? I don't think there are a ton of autarchs per craftworld,. And titles among craftworlders seem to usually be tailored to the person based on past deeds rather than a passed-down title. Iyanna Arienelle is the "Angel of Iyanden," for instance, but that seems to be unique to her; not a job title. Ditto Illic NIghtspear.
* Contrary to my last point, look at Nuadhu Fireheart. Pretty sure he has a title like "Master of the Wildhunt" or something due to being the leader of the Wild Riders. This particular title does appear to be passed down.

Well it's perfectly alright to make cool-sounding titles yourself. It's not a job title given because of rank or hierarchy, it's a title/name which is earned because of their personality, deeds and achievements. I will write the rules based on the titles.

The 0 point cost is not because they are not powerful, but because there are pros and cons, when taking the special rule. Could be that a characteristic gets a bonus, but another gets a penalty.

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/19 08:46:41

Post by: Chaospling

My mistake.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/19 13:40:25

Post by: Arschbombe

Chaospling wrote:

Well it's perfectly alright to make cool-sounding titles yourself. It's not a job title given because of rank or hierarchy, it's a title/name which is earned because of their personality, deeds and achievements. I will write the rules based on the titles.

The 0 point cost is not because they are not powerful, but because there are pros and cons, when taking the special rule. Could be that a characteristic gets a bonus, but another gets a penalty.

I've been thinking about this a bit. We don't know much about eldar organization. From what we do know there really isn't any kind of formal structure with slots to be filled like the marines have. The number of autarchs a craftworld might have would vary from time to time depending on who felt drawn to the path of command and how long they stayed on it. I have the impression that the path of command is one that is entered into late in an eldar's life after accumulating experience in a number of other disciplines. It kind of feels like it would be their last path, but that is probably a human projection because most of our leaders are old people. Maybe an autarch could retire after some time to take up other pursuits towards the end of their life, but I suspect they don't.

Anyway, we don't know how many autarchs a typical craftworld might have and whether they have any kind of specializations like mass surface battles, covert actions, fleet actions, sieges, defense etc. They might have an autarch who is a fleet admiral like Yriel, for example. What title would he have and how could you make it relevant to the tabletop? Eldar don't do dropships or drop pods. Reinforcements come from the webway. So the obvious route of making his title influence friendly reserves is out. What about interfering with enemy reserves? Promising, but much too powerful for a 0 point bit of flavor I think.

One idea that keeps coming to mind is a title of Hidden Hand. This autarch specializes in clandestine operations, infiltrations, assassinations, sabotage etc. I don't know much about 9th edition rules so I'm weak on how to implement this in a neutral way. Perhaps he can increase the power level of units kept in reserve for a given CP cost?

Reply by: Mr_Rose - click to view full reply 

101214

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/19 21:37:11

Post by: Mr_Rose

I can totally see a gung-ho young Eldar of barely a century or so choosing the warrior’s path as their very first and their parent’s despairing that their precious gift was going to become an exarch before their third century. Meanwhile, kiddo has a Plan; learn the best three aspects (because of course they have an Opinion on that. Teenagers) then go Outcast for a decade or three to see the wider galaxy. Come back and make moody Wraithbone art of the horrors of the Imperium/Orks/whatever then jump into the path of command because there’s no way those old fogies have had a new thought in the last millennium and they totally need some fresh ideas to kick mon’keigh posterior.

Reply by: Wyldhunt - click to view full reply 

91640

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/19 23:07:09

Post by: Wyldhunt

Chaospling wrote:
The 0 point cost is not because they are not powerful, but because there are pros and cons, when taking the special rule. Could be that a characteristic gets a bonus, but another gets a penalty.

Friendly game design reminder that penalties in stats that you weren't using aren't real drawbacks. So if I have an autarch that I intend to keep in the backfield buffing dark reapers, penalties to things like WS, Wounds, and Attacks are kind of "fake" drawbacks. Especially if you still have the default version of the autarch around as an option; power armor librarians aren't made worse by the option to take a terminator librarian. Just something to keep in mind while you come up with your rules.

Arschbombe wrote:Maybe an autarch could retire after some time to take up other pursuits towards the end of their life, but I suspect they don't.

Well, as discussed earlier in the thread, autarchs aren't trapped on their path, so the option to leave it must still exist. And iirc, Yriel technically isn't an autarch any longer. Technically.

Eldar don't do dropships or drop pods. Reinforcements come from the webway.

Pretty sure eldar use wave serpents and falcons as "dropships". Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that either the tanks were void capable or that the carrier spacecraft they use are capable of dipping into a planet's atmosphere to release the grav tanks into the sky. Thus you get things like the "cloudstrike" rule. I'm pretty sure one of the (out of print?) FW flyers was also a dropship. If the eldar didn't have void-to-planet transportation, they wouldn't be able to land forces on planets without active webway portals.

Mr_Rose wrote:I can totally see a gung-ho young Eldar o P.S. barely a century or so choosing the warrior’s path as their very first and their parent’s despairing that their precious gift was going to become an exarch before their third century. Meanwhile, kiddo has a Plan; learn the best three aspects (because of course they have an Opinion on that. Teenagers) then go Outcast for a decade or three to see the wider galaxy. Come back and make moody Wraithbone art of the horrors of the Imperium/Orks/whatever then jump into the path of command because there’s no way those old fogies have had a new thought in the last millennium and they totally need some fresh ideas to kick mon’keigh posterior.

Could totally see an eldar having that sort of plan, sure. But I get the impression that changing paths is more about feeling a "calling" than plotting out the perfect life or resume.

Reply by: Hellebore - click to view full reply 

551

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/20 00:22:02

Post by: Hellebore

Eldar tanks can fly and drop from orbit. But they're not fast enough to protect themselves so wouldn't do it often.

The main drop ship for the eldar is the Vampire Raider.

1

Reply by: Flinty - click to view full reply 

3309

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/20 22:23:15

Post by: Flinty

Is that not a bit of a dichotomy? Orbital speeds by definition are quite fast.

Reply by: Wyldhunt - click to view full reply 

91640

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/20 22:57:17

Post by: Wyldhunt

 Flinty wrote:
Is that not a bit of a dichotomy? Orbital speeds by definition are quite fast.

Is it? Drop pods are known to get shot down before they land, so I could see wave serpents being targets for the same guns that go after pods. Granted, serpents would presumably be better at taking evasive action.

Reply by: Nevelon - click to view full reply 

59054

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/20 22:58:03

Post by: Nevelon

I think the issue is that they need to do a gradual enough descent from orbit so they don’t turn their cargo into paste/explode/burn up. And by doing so are more vulnerable to anti-air/anti-space defenses. Versus dedicated landing craft designed to come in hot.

In my own head cannon at least. Difference between being good for a combat drop vs. just landing from space.

Back on the topic of titles/ranks for autarchs, the captains’ jobs from the SM crusade section would make a good template. And keeping them on the crusade system gives them a nice balancing aspect. Most of the benefits are out of game perks depending on the specialty for between mission army-organization stuff. The stuff in game works out to discounts on strats, but as having the title costs half a command point to start, having a restricted rebate is fair.

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/22 08:18:51

Post by: Chaospling

Do you know the difference between a Star Glaive and a Power Glaive, other than they are wielded by different persons?

Reply by: Hellebore - click to view full reply 

551

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/22 08:54:16

Post by: Hellebore

Chaospling wrote:
Do you know the difference between a Star Glaive and a Power Glaive, other than they are wielded by different persons?

Do you mean technologically?

Culturally one is an exarch weapon of the dire avengers and the other is a weapon available to autarchs, which might make it a badge of office?

So to the Eldar the power glaive is a tool of khaine as the avenger, while a starglaive is a commander's weapon.

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/22 09:06:51

Post by: Chaospling

 Hellebore wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
Do you know the difference between a Star Glaive and a Power Glaive, other than they are wielded by different persons?

Do you mean technologically?

Culturally one is an exarch weapon of the dire avengers and the other is a weapon available to autarchs, which might make it a badge of office?

So to the Eldar the power glaive is a tool of khaine as the avenger, while a starglaive is a commander's weapon.

Yes I meant technologically. They look very similar, but there are rule differences; so are they different "just because", or do we know anything about them, other than you've mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, how do you picture a Fire Dragon in a close combat against a Space Marine, Fire Warrior, Guardsman etc.?

Reply by: Wyldhunt - click to view full reply 

91640

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/22 17:55:47

Post by: Wyldhunt

I don't know of any official explanation for the differences. IIRC, the star glaive became a thing around the same time that autarchs (temporarily) lost the option to mix and match aspect equipment. So the glaive seemed like it was attempt to give autarchs a high strength beatstick weapon to make up for their loss of equipment synergies. However it works, it apparently gives the wielder -1 to hit, a penalty normally associated with sluggish weapons like power fists/klaws. So with that in mind, I soft-headcanon that star glaives somehow amplify the force used to swing them meaning attacks with them usually involve big "windups" that are relatively easy to dodge. Or maybe the -1 is there to reflect that they simply aren't used by any common aspects, so the autarch doesn't have the same level of training he does with a scorpion sword.

Regarding dragons in melee... First of all, they're still martial artists with superhuman speed/dexterity (WS 3+). Their guns look too bulky to make good clubs. In one of the Fantasy Flight RPG books, there are stats for dire avengers, and they apparently have combat knives. So put all that together, and I picture dragons pulling out knives (from... somewhere) and using their speed to go in for simple melee katas. But that's if they have to do melee. If they have some banshee/scorpion friends around, I imagine they mostly focus on defensive stances (lots of dodging, maybe blocking with their guns) and simply trying to make space for the melee aspects to sweep in and save them. That's the points of the bahzekain after all, right?

If they have the exarch power that lets them treat their fusion guns as pistols, I imagine them using dodges/blocks while they give ground to stand shoulder to shoulder (to avoid shooting each other), firing their fusion guns at pursuing enemies, and then using resulting disorder to apply pressure and keep the enemy from regaining momentum.

If the exarch has the burning fists power (no longer a thing), then I imagine them delivering a small number of devastating lava-fisted attacks to ensure the enemies they attack die in one hit. Basically applying fusion gun logic to their punches. If the exarch has a fire pike, I picture them using it like a club/quarterstaff. If there are flames on the battlefield (possibly from a dragon's breath flamer), I picture them trying to guide the melee into the flames where their armor gives them protection but more flammable enemies would burn; again mostly trying to disengage to make space for another volley of shots.

Basically, fire dragons are amazing martial artists, but they don't like relying on punches, kicks, and knives to kill things. So their melee style is mostly about creating space so they can use their extremely lethal guns. Some exarch powers and weapons seem to be designed to address dragon weaknesses (melee, hordes), so I kind of see exarchs who take those options as "watching over" their squad and focusing on the enemy's retaliation.

Reply by: Hellebore - click to view full reply 

551

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/22 21:36:14

Post by: Hellebore

Something I will always come back to is that the aspects are total combat philosophies. More than any other army, the eldar shouldn't be taken at face value rules-wise, as they have so much philosophy and myth behind everything.

Reapers aren't the aspect of the reaper launcher, they're the aspect of Khaine as a destroyer, so their total fighting philosophy reflects that.


The best way I think about it is the scorpions and banshees both carry shuriken pistols, but they wouldn't use them the same way. Because their philosophies are different. I imagine the scorpions use a bit of gun fu and pistol whipping, striking quickly at close range.

The banshees on the other hand might synchronise their fire at a distance, using the combined volley as a shrieking wave they washes over their enemy as they close in.

That's me making things up based on the philosophies both aspects train in, but it illustrates the distinction between a weapon and a whole fighting style.

I imagine, as Wyldhunt mentions, the burning fist exarch power reflects the kind of melee attack the dragons make. They concentrate their rage into destructive fiery blows.

The reapers might train to use their launchers as heavy clubs, striking with single devastating blows rather than lots of quick ones.

There is so much more to the eldar and their aspects that GW have never bothered to explore because they've been too busy inventing justifications for different colours of marines.

IMO it would be great for the aspects to have distinct rules for their entire philosophy rather than just the aspect weapon they carry.

Some really basic ideas, using the current unit rules and adding the following:

Reapers: Strike at 2xS in melee
Dragons: strike at AP-2 in melee
Avengers: strike with +1A and use the shuriken special rule on their melee attacks
Hawks: Use their lasblaster rule on their melee attacks
Spiders: enemy suffer -2 to charge due to web weave
Scorpions: make 1 additional attack with their shuriken pistol in melee
Banshees: any unit they shoot that they charge in the same turn suffers -1Ld


Stuff like that. The exarchs show the more extreme end of an aspect's philosophy when they're channelling all their psychic might into combat, but IMO I think it would be worth the aspects also having the whole philosophy shown in their rules.

YMMV

Reply by: Chaospling - click to view full reply 

40076

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/23 07:16:50

Post by: Chaospling

Wyldhunt wrote:Regarding dragons in melee... First of all, they're still martial artists with superhuman speed/dexterity (WS 3+). Their guns look too bulky to make good clubs. In one of the Fantasy Flight RPG books, there are stats for dire avengers, and they apparently have combat knives. So put all that together, and I picture dragons pulling out knives (from... somewhere) and using their speed to go in for simple melee katas. But that's if they have to do melee. If they have some banshee/scorpion friends around, I imagine they mostly focus on defensive stances (lots of dodging, maybe blocking with their guns) and simply trying to make space for the melee aspects to sweep in and save them. That's the points of the bahzekain after all, right?

If they have the exarch power that lets them treat their fusion guns as pistols, I imagine them using dodges/blocks while they give ground to stand shoulder to shoulder (to avoid shooting each other), firing their fusion guns at pursuing enemies, and then using resulting disorder to apply pressure and keep the enemy from regaining momentum.

If the exarch has the burning fists power (no longer a thing), then I imagine them delivering a small number of devastating lava-fisted attacks to ensure the enemies they attack die in one hit. Basically applying fusion gun logic to their punches. If the exarch has a fire pike, I picture them using it like a club/quarterstaff. If there are flames on the battlefield (possibly from a dragon's breath flamer), I picture them trying to guide the melee into the flames where their armor gives them protection but more flammable enemies would burn; again mostly trying to disengage to make space for another volley of shots.

Basically, fire dragons are amazing martial artists, but they don't like relying on punches, kicks, and knives to kill things. So their melee style is mostly about creating space so they can use their extremely lethal guns. Some exarch powers and weapons seem to be designed to address dragon weaknesses (melee, hordes), so I kind of see exarchs who take those options as "watching over" their squad and focusing on the enemy's retaliation.

I must look up Fantasy Flight then!

Also, pretty funny about that Exarch power - I made up a rule, where Fusion guns are treated as pistols and I haven't heard about the Exarch rule. I also pictured them as fighting in pairs, where one Fire Dragon holds the enemy at a distance or have them pinned down, and the other one using his Fusion gun even in close combat.

I would love to implement more rules about fire and flamers to distinguish them from Dark Reapers.

Hellebore wrote:Something I will always come back to is that the aspects are total combat philosophies. More than any other army, the eldar shouldn't be taken at face value rules-wise, as they have so much philosophy and myth behind everything.

Reapers aren't the aspect of the reaper launcher, they're the aspect of Khaine as a destroyer, so their total fighting philosophy reflects that.


The best way I think about it is the scorpions and banshees both carry shuriken pistols, but they wouldn't use them the same way. Because their philosophies are different. I imagine the scorpions use a bit of gun fu and pistol whipping, striking quickly at close range.

The banshees on the other hand might synchronise their fire at a distance, using the combined volley as a shrieking wave they washes over their enemy as they close in.

That's me making things up based on the philosophies both aspects train in, but it illustrates the distinction between a weapon and a whole fighting style.

I imagine, as Wyldhunt mentions, the burning fist exarch power reflects the kind of melee attack the dragons make. They concentrate their rage into destructive fiery blows.

The reapers might train to use their launchers as heavy clubs, striking with single devastating blows rather than lots of quick ones.

There is so much more to the eldar and their aspects that GW have never bothered to explore because they've been too busy inventing justifications for different colours of marines.

IMO it would be great for the aspects to have distinct rules for their entire philosophy rather than just the aspect weapon they carry.

Some really basic ideas, using the current unit rules and adding the following:

Reapers: Strike at 2xS in melee
Dragons: strike at AP-2 in melee
Avengers: strike with +1A and use the shuriken special rule on their melee attacks
Hawks: Use their lasblaster rule on their melee attacks
Spiders: enemy suffer -2 to charge due to web weave
Scorpions: make 1 additional attack with their shuriken pistol in melee
Banshees: any unit they shoot that they charge in the same turn suffers -1Ld


Stuff like that. The exarchs show the more extreme end of an aspect's philosophy when they're channelling all their psychic might into combat, but IMO I think it would be worth the aspects also having the whole philosophy shown in their rules.

YMMV

I very much agree about the combat philosophies! I really want to dig in and understand the background so to creating a satisfying codex, where Aeldari fans really enjoy putting an army together.

Thank you very much for your input. The Dark Reapers would be the next Aspect Warriors, I would ask about; how they would fight in a close combat and how they differentiate from Fire Dragons.

Some times it feels like that GW themselves don't know exactly what they want, or what they have created - like they haven't thought it through.

For example Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers are all about "Destruction" - well... Yes, every aspect of Khaine wants to see the destruction of their enemies. Okay but the Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers believe in the single powerful blow. Okay but what's the difference then? The difference is how they deliver the blow.

And then it comes down to implement the destruction practically. I think the difference between "Destruction", "infiltration" etc. is more interesting than how those Aspects are carried out on the battlefield - I think that the difference between how those Aspects are carried out should be defined by the shrines.

But that's another discussion - right now I'd like to hear, how you picture Dark Reapers in a close combat.

Reply by: Iracundus - click to view full reply 

47893

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/23 07:36:16

Post by: Iracundus

 Wyldhunt wrote:

So put all that together, and I picture dragons pulling out knives (from... somewhere) and using their speed to go in for simple melee katas.

Eldar Fire Dragons by Adrian Smith, from the Epic Space Marine/2nd edition 40K era. Notice the Fire Dragon in the back with a curved knife. The other now anachronistic detail is the chainsword held by the Exarch along with the firepike.

Reply by: Mr_Rose - click to view full reply 

101214

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/23 09:15:12

Post by: Mr_Rose

That was when Exarchs were independent characters with armoury access and not glorified sergeants.

Reply by: Wyldhunt - click to view full reply 

91640

Almost anything Craftworld Aeldari @ 2022/09/28 18:11:08

Post by: Wyldhunt

But that's another discussion - right now I'd like to hear, how you picture Dark Reapers in a close combat.

Reapers are noted as having more cumbersome armor than other aspects due to the stabilizer systems that help them brace while they shoot. Plus, looking at the stabilizer(?) arms connected to their reaper launchers, it doesn't seem like they can set down their guns. The "heavy" rule on reaper launchers combined with their physical size suggests that they might be literally pretty heavy. We know that some eldar (mostly thinking death jesters) use grav suspensors to wield their heavy weapons more easily.

So take all those things together, and I imagine that reapers in melee might basically use stabilizers/grav suspensors to use their guns as a sort of club/tonfa/staff. Picture, if you will, a reaper unlocking his stabilizers and activating his suspensors to swing his hefty launcher with way more force and speed than he should be able to. Then, seeing an enemy swinging a sword at him, he activates his stabilizers to lock his arms and legs into a solid defensive stance, blocking the sword with his launcher while the worst of the force is dispersed by his stabilizers. I picture their attacks relying on attacks with big "windups" to make the most of their suspensor/stabilizer supports. These attacks have obvious disadvantages (easy to read and block/dodge), so the reapers would have to predict how their opponents will move in order to land their big, slow strikes; not unlike how they have to predict their opponent's movements when preparing to fire a ranged salvo.

Alternatively, I could see them pulling out knives to use in one hand while they use their stabilizers to perform one-handed blocks with their launchers. Which would make sense if their melee style emphasizes blocking and staying alive long enough for some friendly scorpions or banshees to rush in and save them. I imagine reapers are very aware that outrunning the enemy isn't likely a reliable option.

The exarch briefly had a power called something like the "Death Touch" where to-wound rolls of 6 did mortal wounds. That's the sort of mechanic that usually corresponds to extremely price attacks to critical spots, and the exarch's attacks otherwise being low strength with no AP kind of doubles down on this idea. So I picture a Death Touch exarch basically having an uncanny sense for where his opponent's most important nerve clusters, arteries, etc. are and utilizing katas designed to let him land an attack there. So where a banshee can get away with cutting off your arm, a reaper exarch is going for your jugular.