Stelek wrote:You have an aspect warrior army that is all over the place.
Not really all over the place if you read the fight plan; has mobility, a firebase and a walking / running base. What some see as all over the place, a good strategist sees as versatile.
Biel Tan died with Craftworld: Eldar.
Let it rest in peace.
While this list is modeled after a very effective 3rd edition list I used, I've found it's still viable in 5th. Once again this goes back to the versatility of the aspects and their supporting units.
To critique the non-aspect warrior portions:
Defenders and Jetbikes need a seer with embolden.
Guardians do not need conceal. 5+ or 4+? I'll take the forest, you guys stand out there.
I will probably switch the Warlocks to Embolden. I wanted the increased survivability with conceal, but if the Avatar falls then the Guardians will run.
All WS should have BL.
This would give me 4 brightlances and a large squad of Fire Dragons. Great if i faced a mech army, but would get overrun if I faced horde. 3 brightlances along with 3
EML give me good versatility to deal with horde, and still have ample anti-tank.
This is a horrible mix of close combat, aspects, non-aspects, foot, mech, and MC.
Not sure what's so horrible about it. Have solid anti-tank, anti-horde, a good foot base, fire base, counter assault, ability to capture objectives and ability to take out key enemy units - gives the enemy much to worry about. The aspects are there to support the non-aspects, and visa-versa; I don't see any problem with that. While it's true this army is not of a stereotypical Eldar theme, the units in it are capable of great synergy if used correctly.
You'll get owned.
Thanks for the 'constructive' criticism

Welcome to the boards, eh?