Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tiberias wrote:
Quick question regarding psychic awakening in general: I've heard (non reliable source) that every faction involved in the psychic awakening will get at least some new models.
Do we actually have confimation from GW on this, or can we just speculate? I mean I guess it is fair to assume that every faction who is involved will at least get some new rules, but I really hope there will be new models for everyone also. (first in line should obviously eldar, because they deserve it the most)

No. GW said each of the listed factions (which I believe was most of the factions, but not quite all) would get SOMETHING new. Not always models. So sometimes, just rules.

It's basically the next roll out of models for 40K wrapped up with a campaign story to make the marketing more interesting. If anything it might just be GW addressing and removing a lot of the remaining finecast in the range so some armies will get a lot more than others. Armies like Eldar with a large number of finecast troop models might well get a lot more sculpts whilst forces like Tyranids with only one or two might see very little addition or change.

GW might also use this to add a few new models to some armies not just replace finecast.

Tiberias wrote:
Quick question regarding psychic awakening in general: I've heard (non reliable source) that every faction involved in the psychic awakening will get at least some new models.
Do we actually have confimation from GW on this, or can we just speculate? I mean I guess it is fair to assume that every faction who is involved will at least get some new rules, but I really hope there will be new models for everyone also. (first in line should obviously eldar, because they deserve it the most)

They didnt say everyone will get new models, they said everyone will get new rules and there will be some new models.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldar/comments/d24uph/confirmation_that_she_is_a_he/

GW probably don't know themselves that now there will be no end to jokes of why it was male Banshee who went Ynnari as well as Agent Smith memes. And that means there is still not a single female head in whole Craftworlds line.

I demand Dark Reapers to be lead by female with flowing anime hair then.

 Shadenuat wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldar/comments/d24uph/confirmation_that_she_is_a_he/

GW probably don't know themselves that now there will be no end to jokes of why it was male Banshee who went Ynnari as well as Agent Smith memes. And that means there is still not a single female head in whole Craftworlds line.

I demand Dark Reapers to be lead by female with flowing anime hair then.

I'm actually glad they've done this. It shows that, no, Banshees do not HAVE to be female, but since the banshees of their mythos ARE female, even male Aeldari who are Banshees wear the feminine plate armour.

But I certainly hear what you are saying about not enough "proper" female heads for CWE. Luckily, DE have them in spades, and even some Daemonette heads look decent on CWE bodies (as heretical as that is).

-

By not enough you mean none whatsoever, even though people would probably kill for plastic Macha model, and not just Eldar players.

I'm actually glad they've done this. It shows that, no, Banshees do not HAVE to be female, but since the banshees of their mythos ARE female, even male Aeldari who are Banshees wear the feminine plate armour.

But Exarch Smith is Ynnari, and cares gak for tradition or whatever, and also doesn't even wear helmet, even though supposedly Exarches are merged with their armor and shouldn't remove helmets I think. So I'm not sure that's representative of anything Aspect-wise actually.

Iracundus wrote:
Jes Goodwin's concept sketches for the Exarch of each Aspect included a helmetless version so I wouldn't say that helmetless version is necessarily always Ynnari.

So 6 Howling Banshee Exarch powers to choose from, normally it seems at the expense of War Shout (unless using the Exemplar of the Banshee Shrine). I wonder if that is the new thing now going forward for eventually the other Aspects as well.

It seems like the Exarch powers allow the Exarch to focus on an aspect of their Aspect (pun intended). Piercing Strike and arming with an executioner seems to basically focus on Jain Zarr's Blade of Destruction. I imagine another power might focus on the mirrorswords and about sheer number of attacks rather than high strength attacks.

So what do people think of Piercing Strike? Exarch will then have 2 A at S7 -3 D3. But the rest of the squad may still underperform.

His sketches from RT might have, but 2nd Ed made it clear that exarchs fuse with their armour.

They've got 3 main areas: scream, speed, damage. I can see one or two for each area.

I hope that Jain ZAR gets them all/can choose which ones to have active during her turn. It would be weird for the creator of the aspect to not be able use all her creations...

In fact I think it would be in keeping with the Eldar way of war for the exarchs to be able to choose what skills they will be "equipping" at the beginning of the game - precision application of force, rather than rocking up to a swarm with pointless stab-fu.



I'm hoping we see actual model options and not just rules though.

 Shadenuat wrote:

But Exarch Smith is Ynnari, and cares gak for tradition or whatever, and also doesn't even wear helmet, even though supposedly Exarches are merged with their armor and shouldn't remove helmets I think. So I'm not sure that's representative of anything Aspect-wise actually.

Helmets and War Masks are two radically different things.

Jes Goodwin's more recent sketches show helmetless Exarchs. These are collected in things like The Eldar Collection sketchbook.

Just google for Jes Goodwin Exarch or Banshee sketch and you will see sketches dating from 2005. There is one helmetless sketch for an Exarch of each Aspect. This predates the Ynnari but is well after RT.

One example:


So now it is Exarchs are not necessarily fused to their armor, at least not in the early stages. If people want fused Exarchs, just use the helmet version.

Ynnari: Have 3 official models, have been nerfed 6,000 times since release, current official rules only available in out of date white dwarf.

*Get one single fully optional bit in a plastic kit CWE players have been demanding for eons which comes out completely un-redesigned with zero ynnari aesthetic*

CWE Grognards: "GW is FORCING Ynnari down our THROATS!!!!!!!"

Come on, guys. "Eldar always wear hats because otherwise they go crazy and btw they are only suits of armor" is a flimsy lore justification for not giving them any variation in their kits.

I particularly love "Eldar wear their special war cone hats to suppress emotion during battle so they don't hurt their uwu smol bean feelings"

"oh except for those bare headed ones in the guardian kits I guess whoopsie those guys get PTSD."

"Also please ignore the cone hats that drukhari wear, those cone hats are emotion ENHANCING cones. It's the spikes you see, those are special feeling enhancer emotion spikes. Also their totally identical looking armor has HOOKS and BARBS because they like their coffee black just like their metal."

Helmets and War Masks are two radically different things.

Except that armor still matters so much that there are hour long rituals to don them. So no Masks are not non-special either.

Just read Path of the Warrior and what these suits mean for them when they don them.

CWE Grognards: "GW is FORCING Ynnari down our THROATS

They do. Everything major about Eldar later was Ynnari. And now even Craftworlds release specifies that this option is for Ynnari. And you can't play Eldar without being called out as TFG because of Ynnari rules legacy. Even if you never even bought the fething box.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

But Exarch Smith is Ynnari, and cares gak for tradition or whatever, and also doesn't even wear helmet, even though supposedly Exarches are merged with their armor and shouldn't remove helmets I think. So I'm not sure that's representative of anything Aspect-wise actually.

Helmets and War Masks are two radically different things.

Bingo. Helmet is a helmet. War Mask is a psychological barrier that Aspects erect in their minds to protect them from the horrors of war. Once they've had their "fill" as an Aspect, they remove this mask and return to normal CW society, leaving the Path of the Warrior.
Exarch cannot remove this War Mask and are thus trapped on the path. But they can absolutely remove their helmets. How else would they eat?

-

 Shadenuat wrote:
By not enough you mean none whatsoever, even though people would probably kill for plastic Macha model, and not just Eldar players.

I'm actually glad they've done this. It shows that, no, Banshees do not HAVE to be female, but since the banshees of their mythos ARE female, even male Aeldari who are Banshees wear the feminine plate armour.

But Exarch Smith is Ynnari, and cares gak for tradition or whatever, and also doesn't even wear helmet, even though supposedly Exarches are merged with their armor and shouldn't remove helmets I think. So I'm not sure that's representative of anything Aspect-wise actually.

Not sure there are any soulstones on the helmets themselves. I, too, think Exarchs should have helmets - but DAs have had unhelmetted Exarch options for a long time (which is the only other plastic Aspect).

As for Smith not caring about tradition; he's still an Exarch. The Exarch doesn't care about tradition *or anything else* beyond the Aspect. They're completely obsessed. So a Ynnari Aspect might be different from a CWE Aspect, but a Ynnari Exarch won't be more different than a CWE Exarch.

Bharring wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
By not enough you mean none whatsoever, even though people would probably kill for plastic Macha model, and not just Eldar players.

I'm actually glad they've done this. It shows that, no, Banshees do not HAVE to be female, but since the banshees of their mythos ARE female, even male Aeldari who are Banshees wear the feminine plate armour.

But Exarch Smith is Ynnari, and cares gak for tradition or whatever, and also doesn't even wear helmet, even though supposedly Exarches are merged with their armor and shouldn't remove helmets I think. So I'm not sure that's representative of anything Aspect-wise actually.

Not sure there are any soulstones on the helmets themselves. I, too, think Exarchs should have helmets - but DAs have had unhelmetted Exarch options for a long time (which is the only other plastic Aspect).

While I personally don't like the helmetless versions, the idea seems to have been Jes Goodwin's since at least 2004:



If people can find one of the old Eldar Codex videos with Jes Goodwin being interviewed, he even explains his reasoning a little. Basically, that while normal Aspect Warriors put on their psychological war mask with the donning of their helmets, the Exarch no longer needs the physical helmet for their psychological war mask (since it is always on), and force fields are given as the reason for no loss of protection.

It's Force Fields!

Fine, Goodwin.

Now give me my Dark Reaper girl with big black ribbon.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Helmets and War Masks are two radically different things.

Except that armor still matters so much that there are hour long rituals to don them. So no Masks are not non-special either.

Just read Path of the Warrior and what these suits mean for them when they don them.

An Eldar who becomes an Exarch only dons their armor once. The Exarch only dons their armor once per Eldar that joins them. All these souls then are stored in soulstones on the armor. If there are soulstones in the helmet, then losing/not wearing the helmet should be impossible. But if not, it's debateable.

CWE Grognards: "GW is FORCING Ynnari down our THROATS

They do. Everything major about Eldar later was Ynnari. And now even Craftworlds release specifies that this option is for Ynnari. And you can't play Eldar without being called out as TFG because of Ynnari rules legacy.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Except that armor still matters so much that there are hour long rituals to don them. So no Masks are not non-special either.

Just read Path of the Warrior and what these suits mean for them when they don them.

I know exactly what the armor means. The fact that you dont understand the difference between a physical object and the psychological construct that literally makes an Aspect Warrior an Aspect Warrior speaks volumes as to why you're hilariously overreacting to an aesthetic choice by the GW design team.

No loss of protection as compared to having a helmet to protect the head.
One of the sketches has text saying the frame projects a force field. In other words, the seemingly bareheaded Exarch has as much protection as if they were wearing their helmet, so they would not be any more vulnerable to headshots than their regular armored helmeted selves.

The Dire Avenger Battle Fortune 4++ is basically supernatural from the combined power of the souls in the Exarch twisting fate.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Helmets and War Masks are two radically different things.

Except that armor still matters so much that there are hour long rituals to don them. So no Masks are not non-special either.

Just read Path of the Warrior and what these suits mean for them when they don them.

CWE Grognards: "GW is FORCING Ynnari down our THROATS

They do. Everything major about Eldar later was Ynnari. And now even Craftworlds release specifies that this option is for Ynnari. And you can't play Eldar without being called out as TFG because of Ynnari rules legacy. Even if you never even bought the fething box.

A fething white dwarf magazine and a single headswap option in a single kit is "EVERYTHING" now? Since the end of 7th edition? EVERYTHING has been Ynnari? I must have missed that in all the lore from all the three different eldar codexes and how none of those codexes had any rules for Ynnari at all.

Other than GW saying that bareheaded version is Ynnari, I do not see anything in that head option that makes it Ynnari. Ynnari use red as a color but so do Banshees. The head option could just as easily represent a regular Craftworld Banshee Exarch IMO.

Sterling191 wrote:
I know exactly what the armor means. The fact that you dont understand the difference between a physical object and the psychological construct that literally makes an Aspect Warrior an Aspect Warrior speaks volumes as to why you're hilariously overreacting to an aesthetic choice by the GW design team.

I am not sure you understand what is an overreaction or isn't, but it's true I am p. hilarious.

the_scotsman wrote:
A fething white dwarf magazine and a single headswap option in a single kit is "EVERYTHING" now? Since the end of 7th edition? EVERYTHING has been Ynnari? I must have missed that in all the lore from all the three different eldar codexes and how none of those codexes had any rules for Ynnari at all.

Well you wouldn't miss it if you actually read a Codex, like for example Prince Yriel becoming Ynnari; or a few books about Craftworlds, like Iyanden going on a trip with Ynnari, or Saim-Hann in Wild Rider book gettin pwned by Necrons if not for Ynnari etc.

Also calling people grognards on dakka is really hilarious. It's like going on anime reddit and saying there's too many weebs or something like that.

 Galef wrote:
But they can absolutely remove their helmets. How else would they eat?

Idk, how do Phoenix Lords? They don't need to eat, neither do probably Wraithguard eh?

 Shadenuat wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
I know exactly what the armor means. The fact that you dont understand the difference between a physical object and the psychological construct that literally makes an Aspect Warrior an Aspect Warrior speaks volumes as to why you're hilariously overreacting to an aesthetic choice by the GW design team.

I am not sure you understand what is an overreaction or isn't, but it's true I am p. hilarious.

the_scotsman wrote:
A fething white dwarf magazine and a single headswap option in a single kit is "EVERYTHING" now? Since the end of 7th edition? EVERYTHING has been Ynnari? I must have missed that in all the lore from all the three different eldar codexes and how none of those codexes had any rules for Ynnari at all.

Well you wouldn't miss it if you actually read a Codex, like for example Prince Yriel becoming Ynnari; or a few books about Craftworlds, like Iyanden going on a trip with Ynnari, or Saim-Hann in Wild Rider book gettin pwned by Necrons if not for Ynnari etc.

Also calling people grognards on dakka is really hilarious. It's like going on anime reddit and saying there's too many weebs or something like that.

 Galef wrote:
But they can absolutely remove their helmets. How else would they eat?

Idk, how do Phoenix Lords? They don't need to eat, neither do probably Wraithguard eh?

You can be a 40k fan without being a grognard. One requires a particular set of behaviors, attitudes, and usually in person, appearances and scents.

Implying that someone is not a True Fan tm because clearly they haven't read the extended universe material the way you have and interpreted it the way you did. That'd be a grognard behavior right there.

Ynnari are obviously a large, lore-shifting event. In the actual game of warhammer 40,000, however, they've been continuously diminishing in importance since the edition dropped and they have gotten literally zero model support since they were first conceptualized.

Everyone is always going to hate xenos armies for everything, Ynnari is just a new excuse. I've gotten gak from SM players for my Dark Eldar army in 7th because of things TAU could do. Outside of tournaments, where people will just select the best subfaction trait/designation for their faction, I've never seen a Ynnari player, and I've played hundreds of games since the gathering storm books were put out. Ynnari were about as impactful as a fart in a manure field.

I like being a grognard tho.

Not sure how Codex is extended universe material or Thorpe is, even if I dislike what he writes, he's like the only source of material except Codex out there.

For me Ynnari was like, the hottest stuff and everything, everyone bought the Triumvirate, guess we're just grognards.

This might be a 'PoserMcBogus is drunk on a tuesday again post', but, has it occurred to anyone that the man head on the Banshee might also have a female, un-helmeted option?

Looking at the two photos, it looks like the face is a thin, plate-like part that goes at the front of the head. I imagine, if they're pushing it as a multiple builds character, that they might include a female face, too, and are perhaps pushing the odd man-head deep-lore-background now to generate online chatter? It seems a little insane to me, that while sure, it exists in the fluff, why they would make a male banshee for the mostly female portion of the mostly male part of the Eldar line, when they could as easily do so for a different aspect, and have recently been pushing for slightly more non-"white male" representation in their lines.

As much as GW's Facebook pages seem to moderate comments pretty tightly, I wonder if they might not try to make sure everyone on the forums is discussing an upcoming release by pushing out a PR pic that, while showing a nice mini, also seems to have an odd-looking feature to the point of ridiculousness - I mean, what does he keep in the boob-plate bits? Snacks? What foul xeno snacks is he hiding? GW, we want answers!

 posermcbogus wrote:
This might be a 'PoserMcBogus is drunk on a tuesday again post', but, has it occurred to anyone that the man head on the Banshee might also have a female, un-helmeted option?

Looking at the two photos, it looks like the face is a thin, plate-like part that goes at the front of the head. I imagine, if they're pushing it as a multiple builds character, that they might include a female face, too, and are perhaps pushing the odd man-head deep-lore-background now to generate online chatter? It seems a little insane to me, that while sure, it exists in the fluff, why they would make a male banshee for the mostly female portion of the mostly male part of the Eldar line, when they could as easily do so for a different aspect, and have recently been pushing for slightly more non-"white male" representation in their lines.

As much as GW's Facebook pages seem to moderate comments pretty tightly, I wonder if they might not try to make sure everyone on the forums is discussing an upcoming release by pushing out a PR pic that, while showing a nice mini, also seems to have an odd-looking feature to the point of ridiculousness - I mean, what does he keep in the boob-plate bits? Snacks? What foul xeno snacks is he hiding? GW, we want answers!

I have the wild guessing GW may try to bring 2 versions of same unit as they did in Aos with Khymerae and Melusai.
So maybe a normal Craftworld version with helmets and Ynnari version with different weapons and without helmets? or just wild guessing.

Here's a question the force field theory doesn't address - how does a Howling Banshee Exarch who isn't wearing the Banshee Mask generate the "aural assault" described on pg 54 of the current Craftworld book (and in pretty much every other book describing Howling Banshees I can think of)?

Are you referencing the new model? It has the projectors along the jaw on both sides of the head.

 Dysartes wrote:
Here's a question the force field theory doesn't address - how does a Howling Banshee Exarch who isn't wearing the Banshee Mask generate the "aural assault" described on pg 54 of the current Craftworld book (and in pretty much every other book describing Howling Banshees I can think of)?

I dunno maybe you could look at the model and find out.

(hint: it's the little chin speaker doodads that have always done that and are still on the banshee without the mask)

 posermcbogus wrote:
As much as GW's Facebook pages seem to moderate comments pretty tightly, I wonder if they might not try to make sure everyone on the forums is discussing an upcoming release by pushing out a PR pic that, while showing a nice mini, also seems to have an odd-looking feature to the point of ridiculousness - I mean, what does he keep in the boob-plate bits? Snacks? What foul xeno snacks is he hiding? GW, we want answers!

I've seen some trolly arguments about how the only female line of models in the Codex which has mostly male models gets a male character without an option to build a proper female one, man showing girls how to fight and so on.

It's p. dumb but when you think about, it is odd that only helmetless option for mostly female squad is male.

I honestly think it was intended to be a female sculpted face...it just came out terribly. It is, however, pretty silly to not include a simple genderless torso for the Exarch if you're going to feature a male Exarch head in the box.

I don't actually recall any fluff/lore indicating that all Howling Banshee armour was female, merely that it was a heavily feminine aspect, etc.

I think the helmetless Exarch head is ugly anyway, so it's not a major concern.