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.

Spellsingers are still 100pts base.

How about we give an army wide forest spirit 5+ ward vs non-magical attacks, and forest daemons (previously forest spirits 5+ ward vs everything).
That would make the elf infantry a little more durable, without going to crazy. To keep the feel of a smaller elite army, they do need to be better for the points.

As for mysterious forests, I'd say roll 2D6 and the elf player picks between the two, on a pair he picks any. In an woodelf on woodelf game, the player first entering the forest does the choosing.

-Matt

As far as the LoAL goes, I like it. It is a very control oriented spell list, which puts it VERY much at odds with the standard "do Xd6 amount of SY hits" spells we've been dealing with. It makes the spell list quite versatile and fits perfectly with the spirit of the army. I think it bears playtesting, certainly, as I worry about Longbow Hordes having poison shots, but still, very nice. GW could learn alot from the way Privateer makes its spells.

How about sending an email with the link of this forum to GW maybe they are going to admire some of the ideas.

@Nagashek: what should Spellsingers cost?
Thanks on the spells, though. Most of them are not my original thoughts.
I feel like tons of Poisoned shots might be a problem, but that a big unit of 12pt T3 6+ save models would kind of make up for that. I'd much rather have a Goblin horde with half the range and 4 times the arrows anyway. But yes, I'd like to test it (thought anyone who wants to use this Fandex in their own games is, of course, more than welcome. As long as you tell me how it went).

@Matt: I'm not sure what you mean about Forest Spirit saves. Is that right parenthesis meant to come after "spirits" rather than "everything"? If so, then it seems like you're suggesting that all Wood Elf models have a 5+ Ward versus non-magical attacks, and that models currently called Forest Spirits would have a plain ol' 5+ Ward. Am I getting that right?
That just seems...really, really awesome. I mean, Glade Guard are not that crazy-good, but they're by no means bad. They're quite comparable to Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen, especially with the little upgrades the Fandex currently gives them.
I've done the Mathhammer and seen it done; Glade Guard are a decent buy for their points.

But I like that Forest Stalker change. Just a touch simpler and more clear.

@devastator7777777: honestly, Games Workshop gets that kind of stuff all the time, from what I understand. They offered me a potential interview for a position on their design team, but I didn't want to move to Iceland. I know for a fact that at least a few of their guys look over these forums now and again. If they like it, they can have it.
Really, though, I wouldn't expect them to update the book any time soon. Hence this project.

This source states that the book is going to be updated early to mid 2013.
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/07/warhammer-fantasy-rumors-compiled-by.html

Well, if that is true, it's still far far away.

Plus, I need to give my brain something to blunt its metaphorical teeth on, and this is one of my projects that keeps my mind going while I'm in the middle of some particularly tedious work.

Other things I changed: I forgot that the Asrai Longbows granted AP at close range as well, so I took that out. They really don't need much better shooting, and with negating the penalty to Stand and Shoot! as well as giving them Fire and Flee!, I'm already worried we've gone too far in that direction.
Wood Elves will win basically any shooting match, which is as it should be. But shooting should never be enough to win you a game. That version of Warhammer would be boring and intensely frustrating.

So, once again, I'll ask: what, in general, do Wood Elves need to do better? I think that they need a few cost-/unit-adjustments, and that they needed a few things to deal with big blocks better. Beyond that, giving them some more options to encourage and reward a hit-and-run style of play is key.
Any other thoughts?

I think they do with big blocks good enough. Tree kin are powerfull vs infantry with their stomp attacks additionaly the 5 or 6 warhawk riders should be a able to obliterate a block with their rake.

Treekin are a good response (12.5 wounds/turn to WS3 T3), but they're really the only viable option with the current GW book, and they are extremely pricey. Not that they're not good; they're awesome. But when you have them, you have to give up a lot of other stuff.

As for Warhawk Riders, how do you figure? One S4 hit per model does not equal a ton of carnage. Plus, they're still very fragile, and hard to keep out of harm's way in even medium-sized units.

Let's assume that warhawk riders are able to get 30 s4 attacks on a unit of 30 models. If the unit has 6+ armour save and t of 3, then 2/3 of them are going to die if rake attacks hit automatically. 20 models. If rake attacks don't hit automatically then 4/9 or 1/3 of them is going to die. 13 or 10 models. I think that a unit of 20 ethernal guards is able to do comparable ammounts of damage. 60 attacks * 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6= aproximately 17 wounds. 2/3= probabilty of hiting, 1/2= p of wounding, 5/6= p of armour save failing. The horde will be able to get 20 or maximum 40 attacks on ethernal guard. Asume 32* 1/2*1/2*1/2=4

Hi, Liking all the updates so far! Here's a couple more thoughts.

I have a couple of suggestions for LoAL. Firstly does the signiature spell have a range? I think it should have some maximum range, increased with the bigger version. Maybe also have it able to target units outside range but within 6" of a forest as well if you really want it to get to far away units.

With the Faerie Fire spell I like the spell but I think being able to move enemy units like that is a big deal, between reforming, moving back to where they want to be and possibly failing their stupidity test that is 2/3 turns out of the game. I think it needs to be a higher casting or have some caveat on how it can move enemy units.

I really like the new 6 spell btw.

Also the war hawk attack has the potential to hit a LOT of units with a 20" march and fast cav shenanigans. would you consider changing it to pick one unit you have moved over but make the attack penetrate ranks, more along the lines of terradons? I think either way they also justify costing 5 more points considering the increasing damage larger units can deal with a rake rule. 6 of them moving over 20" worth of units and doing 6 str4 hits to each one (including war machines, lone characters, small/skirmishing units), multiple times a game, is worth more than 180 pts. I think 35 for a more focused rake attack would make more sense.

Also I really like the current set-up on eternal guard, I think the points cost is pretty spot on for what they do. I'm sure I saw you say in a post here somewhere that eternal guard also had parry but I can't see it in the army list.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what lores can singers use?

@devastator7777777: read it again. A War Hawk inflicts one hit per model of Warhawks in their unit, not per model the War Hawks fly over.
That would be beyond stupid.

@Uzi: No idea how I missed that spell not having a range. I like the forest-idea, but I'll play around with it a bit before adding any unusual (and thus harder to balance) elements/
I've been meaning to get Faerie Fire down to something reasonable.
I'm compare it to Wind Blast (which rocks):

7+/14+, magic missile, 24" range, d3+1/d6+2" away from caster

So this is harder to cast and has a shorter range, but moves the enemy father and in any direction, not just away from you.
Faerie Fire is a hard one. It fits with the Asrai concept so perfectly, but it's so hard to settle on something that's (1) not just Windblast v2, (2) broken and/or impossible to cast, or (3)
reasonable, but often ineffective.

I did have them hitting one unit/turn before, just because they can shoot, Fly, and I gave them 2 Wounds. So I changed them back to 1 unit raked/phase now, though I removed their restriction of choosing between raking or shooting (since you'd choose rake 95% of the time anyway).
I could knock them back down to 1 Wound (though 30pts for T3 W1 models still makes me cringe), restrict their shooting again, up their points, etc.
I think they're pretty solid right now. How do they compare to Hexwraiths and Screamers? Terradon Riders are...not exactly great right now. I'd rather leave them out of the equation as well.

With the Eternal Guard, I had Spear Staves granting the benefits of the extra hand weapon, hand weapon/shield, and spear at one point (+1 attack, Fight in Extra Ranks, +1 armour and Parry), but giving them A2 and the ability to make more supporting attacks was simpler. So as of now, they do not have Parry.
Maybe I could drop them to A1 again, and give them Parry? Not quite an even trade, but then they'll have some kind of save in combat, and we'll avoid a horde of 30 Eternal Guard throwing out 90 attacks. Because that would be...silly.
Also a stupidly good choice for any Poison-granting abilities.

What do you think?

Oh! Right, the wizards. I believe we were thinking Athel Loren, Beasts, Life, and Shadow? I know those last two are The Best right now, but, from a purely non-biased standpoint (assuming, perhaps wrongly, that all the Lores are equal), they seem to fit the best.

Ah, i hadn't thought of wind blast, fair point on that.

Loren, beasts and life is a good shout for singers, I wouldn't object to them having shadow too.

Definitely keep war hawks at 2 wounds, that on its own makes them useful, and 1 unit/turn rake and still shoot is good. I haven't played much vamps (in 8th) or demons so I don't know about the hexwraith/screamer comparison, I have however been thoroughly annoyed by terradons plenty of times.

Eternal guard don't need parry, you're going for attacks and that's fine, especially with more access to life magic, I don't think spear-stave has to do more than it does in the current book, the extra attack on the profile and the greater buff/hex magic options the army would have in general are enough to make them useful, and i think 14pts is good. Also missed that three supporting attacks thing, i think that (the 30 man, 90 attack scenario) is too much, especially with the poison option. I think with a 3 attack front rank and spears you are pretty well covered attacks wise with just 1 supporting (40 man horde getting 60 attacks if you don't charge and 30 getting 50).

And yes giving them poison is still a very good shout! I don't think its too much though.

BTW have you managed to get many test games in? and what faired well/poorly? I'd love to see a bat-rep with you using this codex

I don't like how you droped 2 supportive attacks, for a poison rule, keep in mind that dark elf black guard has 2 atacks and 1 supportive. They have a s4 and warrior elite rule. If ethernal guard which costs 2 points more per model would be able to field 3 attacks and 1 supportive with s3 , without warroir elite rule, then they would be to weak. Poison rule is not that effective. Remember that a limit of ethernal guards in a unit should be 20. 3 attacks and 3 supportive are fair. 60 attacks are not that devestating, normal wood elfs should't get a parry save if they have armour already. Keep in mind that a model costing 14 pts has a t of 3 and save of 4+. This means that unit of 20 enthernal guards costing 280 pts could be efectively weakened by missile units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will give you a better exammple why 3 attacks and 3 supportive attacks are just enough for the enthernal guard. They cost 14 pts, a goblin costs 3 if I am right. That means that for every 30 ethernal guards on a battle field( not in one unit as a limit is 20). There can be 110 goblins deployed. Ethernal guard costs 3.67 goblin. Goblins are able to performe 110 attacks hower ethernal guards 90. Ethernal guards need to make110 wounds to win. However goblins just 30. Goblins are probably going to be split in to few units. Ethernal guards in to two(as the limit is 20 in a unit). The only chance ethernal guards can win is if they wipe out each goblin unit one by one, quickly before all of them manage to engage. That's why they need to do high ammounts of damage in one turn. So 3 attacks and 3 supportive attacks are just enough.

@devastator7777777:

1. Eternal Guard and Black Guard should be comparable, but not the same. Black Guard should be better, because Dark Elves are more about close combat than archery.

2. I always forget about that 20-max rule, and it's stupid. A relic of 7th edition. In 8th, where units of 50 or more models is a common sight, such a stiff limit on even Special infantry is just silly.
I promise, Black Guard will have no such limit when they bring out another Dark Elf book. And if they cost a little more for that utility, I'd say that's fair.
So, to compare, we have:

14pts, S3 A3 (3 supporting), Forest Strider, light armour, no limit
12pts, S4, A2 (Warrior Elite), heavy armour, limit 20

That begins to look a little better. Black Guard are better model-to-model, but less versatile as a unit with their stupid 20-man cap. If we took that off and bumped them up a point or two, I think we'd see they're quite comparable.

3. Poison is very effective, especially at lower Strength vaules. Even 20 Eternal Guard would be generating 10 auto-wounds a turn.
It's not automatically broken, but a unit shouldn't go so well with a certain spell or item that it becomes an auto-include in every list.

4. "normal wood elfs should't get a parry save if they have armour already" What do you mean, and why?
Spear-Staves grant more attacks, that's one thing. But they could also easily be considered to offer more protection, bo-staff style, to help the unit out with their poor survivability. And the unit has an armour save of 6+, not 4+.

5. Any unit can be weakened by ranged combat. Not sure what you're driving at.

@Uzi: the problem is, giving them spears and two hand weapons is okay, but spears only work when you don't charge, and when you have 3-4 ranks of guys to work with. I think Eternal Guard need help being more versatile, so I'd really like to change the up to be as non-conditional as possible. Which isn't very much, given their S3 T3.

I'm thinking: drop the number of attacks (something like 1 attack base, or 2 supporting attacks and/or 1 from 3rd rank in Horde formation, or something) and give them a little more survivability. A 5 or 6+/6+ is all. What do you think?

Finally draids have 2 attacks and one supportive attack. If ethernal guard would perform 3 and 1 supportive attacks just with lower strenght then they would be crap. Ethernal guards in the current codex have similar characteristics, and everyone who is not a beginner never uses them. Draids are much more efective.If ethernal guards would get one more attack and a parry save then there would be a little change as they are a special unit which has lower strenght, toughnes and costs 2 points more then driads. 3 attacks and 3 supportive attacks are balanced for enthernal guard, pls don't make this unit a crap unit again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you think that they are to strong then give them 3 attacks and 2 supportive. 2 attacks and a 2 supportive with 6+ armour and 5+ parry is to weak. You need to be carefull not to make a unit called versatile a unit that is not worth deploying on battelfield. Yes with 3 attacks and 2 supportive they are going to be weaker then black guards for a higher cost interms of statistics.

Dryads take up a huge amount of space on the table, can never deny Steadfast, and, most importantly: are not Stubborn.

Stubborn is huge. Stubborn is awesome. Especially in an army that revolves around light, maneuverable troops that can't hope to win by charging headlong into the enemy.

The problem with extra supporting attacks is the Horde formation. It's not even that 90 attacks is too good (they're only doing 7-8 wounds/turn to Warriors of Chaos, and taking more than twice that in return). It's that it's too much of one thing.
They'd shred any large block they came into contact with, but die horribly to anyone with decent armour.
These are the elite of the Asrai; they should be prepared to face a variety of enemies, not be a super-focused unit that can only deal with one or two.

As I said, I'm thinking of:

- making them A1 (so they'd have 2 attacks each), with +1 supporting attack.
- keeping them A2, but bringing their supporting attacks down to 2.
- I'd also consider making the 3rd rank only get one supporting attack, but that's starting to get a little more complicated than it needs to be, and I don't want people to specifically avoid taking them in big units (after all, a 400+pt unit of T3 models with poor saves has its own drawbacks).
- I liked giving them +1 armour and a Parry. I think I'll go back to that.
Maybe the Spear-Stave gives them +1 Attack, Armour, and Parry, while the Guard themselves have a special rule for +1 supporting attacks.

Eternal Guard are not going to be as good at fighting as Dryads, because they're Stubborn. That single ability should define their roll as an Anvil unit. They should be able to dish out some pain as well, but in an army of fast, fragile Hammers, these guys have their roll to play.

Could you maybe give the eternal guard themselves the armour piercing rule (better fluff if it's the guards' skill rather than their weapons) in return for less attacks if you want them to be more versatile? Or give them a fighting style option between an attacking option and defensive option?

I also think it would be cool if they had ASF, just to throw that out there

Let's give them a high initiative of 6. So they will be first to fight. It would be cool if they could an offensive and deffensive option as uzi mentioned. So an offensive option could be 3 attacks and 3 supportive 5+ armour. Deffensive option could be 2 attacks 2 supportive 5+ armour and 4+ parry. Armour piercing rule is not worth droping attacks, as it modifies armour only by 1. They don't need asf as wardancers can have it.

When I use the word "versatile", I'm talking about a single set of rules that, while not excelling in any one situation, do well in many.

Armour Piercing is a good idea, though. +1S is to much, but -1 armour might be the right amount.

ASF isn't something I'm willing to give a unit without a lot of thought. That, and I'd like to find a different way to make elves better; ASF seems to be the go-to buff for pointy ears.
Initiative 6 is interesting, though. Dryads have I6, if I remember correctly. What about Black and Pheonix Guard? Those are the guys they should be most like.

3 supporting attacks is too much, looking back. It's not happening, period.
If it turns out that Eternal Guard 100% need it to be a viable unit, I'd rather give them halberds, like every other friggin' Guard. The only reason I haven't done so yet is an attempt to keep in line with the original idea. Of which, I believe the Spear-Stave to be the least cool anyway.

Also, they have a 6+ armour save, not a 5+. No Wood Elf is going to wear heavy armour, period. If their weapons grant them extra armour from some kind of improved Parry, that's another story. But I'm not piling on a million tiny rules like that. Simplicity is key.

Also, choosing between 3(3) attacks with a 5+ and 2(2) attacks with a 5+/4+ is ridiculous. With that second option, you've basically made Pheonix Guard that are cheaper, have more attacks at -1S, and are Stubborn.
Name one situation EVER where +1 attack is better than a 4+ Ward save. If even one such situation exists, I'd be suprised.

So now I'm thinking it might be easiest to go back to an older idea; Extra Attack, Fight in Extra Ranks, +1 armour, Parry, then also give them +1 Attack and Armour Piercing or something?

Honestly, are Spear-Staves based on a historical concept? They seem like they'd make a decent weapon but...blech.

On the topic of Spellsinger cost, I think the other elves' hero level spell caster cost is about right, which IIRC hovers around the 70-80 ppm mark.

NM, I'm smoking crack. Still, 100pts is too high, IMO. I'd still probably go with 95-90, since DE sorceresses are 100 and better in many ways.

70-80pts seems reasonable; I'd like to keep it in the same range as the other elves.
How do you think a Dark Elf Sorceress is better, and by how much should that effect cost?

Eternal guard should be comparable to the the Black and Phenoix guards in terms of quality, but they serve a very different role.

The Black guard are dedicated to inflicting appalling damage on the Witch King's enemies and are well suited to the task. The Pheonix guard are meant to engage the most deadly unit on the field to the last man (I think the fluff mentions that their order was originally founded to engage demons). The Eternal guard however are primarily there to keep their Lord alive.

Their abilities should all focus around durability. If I might make a suggest, what if they had regeneration? It would give them some staying power and is fluffy for Wood Elves (they could make a vow with Athel Loren similar to the Pheonix guard and the White Tower).

So...

Eternal Guard 14pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 9
Asrai Archery, Bodyguard, Forest Walkers, Stubborn, Regeneration

Equipment: Spear Stave, light armour
Unit size: 10+
Musician +7pts
Standard Bearer +14pts
May carry a magical standard worth up to 50pts
Guardian +14pts
A Guardian may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Your version of ethernal guards is not verstile as they are good at fighting heavy armoured units, but suck at fighting with hordes. Actually when you think of ethernal guards you think of a unit that spins it's double bladed spears showering enemy with attacks. These attacks are not that powerfull, but numerous. It's the style of elfs with double bladed spears, killing hordes. Infact if you watch first episod of lord of the rings, then at the begining of it there are such a warriors killing hordes of orcs. No one on earth has before you tought of making this unit a unit used to fight with not numerous heavy armoured enemies. You said that slow moving 2 men bows are not the style of asrai. Same with ethernal guards killing armoured units it's not their aim, not their style, just does't fit them. This unit has to long history of killing hordes in a fantasy world( books, games, films) to become a not numerous armoured enemy killer.

@Greenleaves12: you're on to something, there.
Eternal Guard are the guys watching over Athel Loren during the winter, while the forest sleeps. They should be...capable.
I did nix the Bodyguard rule, though. I noticed that there were a lot of ideas like that one taken from various other armies and, while they make sense, they make sense for a lot of armies. So instead of trying to give everyone all of the little abilities, I'd just as soon keep it simple.

I do not think they should have a straight-up 4+ Regeneration, though. That would make them better than Phoenix Guard by far, since they are still Stubborn.
Hm. But a unit with A2, 5+ Regen, and the original Spear Stave rules...let's compare them to Black and Phoenix Guard:

Versus WS3 S3 T3 A1, 5+/6+ -

Eternal Guard deal 4.7 wounds and take 1.4 (3.35:1)
Black Guard: 6.2/1.7 (3.64:1)
Phoenix Guard: 4.1/.9 (4.56:1)


Versus WS4 S4 T4 A2, 5+ armour -

Eternal Guard deal 3.7 wounds and take 2.8 (1.32:1)
Black Guard: 5.6/4.2 (1.33:1)
Phoenix Guard: 3.8/2.1 (1.8:1)

Versus WS5 S5 T4 A1, 5+ -

Eternal Guard deal 2.8 wounds and take 2.8 (1:1)
Black Guard: 4.7/4.2 (1.1:1)
Phoenix Guard: 3.1/2.1 (1.47:1)

That's starting to look pretty good! The Eternal Guard are behind the Pheonix Guard on kills and casualties, but are Stubborn, while they're behind the Black Guard on kills, but ahead on casualties.
They cost more than Black Guard, which is okay, since (1) Dark Elves are better fighters and (2) more attacks has a higher potential, so it should cost just a little more.

@devastator7777777: how do you figure that any of these ideas are good against heavily armour opponents? The closest would be S3 AP, which is almost as good as S4, which is still bad at cracking armour.
And how is 2-3 attacks plus Fight in Extra Ranks bad at fighting hordes? I mean, the best anti-horde units aren't ones with a bunch of S3 attacks, they're the ones with a bunch of S5 attacks.
But since we all agreed on trying to keep Eternal Guard S3, having 3 ranks in the front and 2-3 ranks of supporting attacks will surely go to helping them cut down plenty of the enemy.
Like I said before, 3 ranks of 3 attacks/model is in the realm of comical. Nothing in the whole game can come even close to that. It's still a poor choice 70% of the time, and an awesome one the other 30%.
We need Eternal Guard to be more durable, with a little more punch. They'll have plenty of extra attacks with additional hand weapons and spears; this should be the focus of the unit's combat ability, after all. But piling on more will only narrow their purpose. If you can intercept the enemy tar pits, they'd be broken, but if they stuck them in combat with the enemy elite first, they'd be terrible.

The more I think about it, the more I'd like them to be S4. What would we have to give up to give the following +1S (from the weapon, I assume):

14pts WS5 BS4 S3 T3 I5 A2 W1 Ld9
Asrai Archery, Forest Walkers, Stubborn, Regeneration (5+)
Spear Stave (counts as an additional hand weapon and a spear)

Maybe they need to be 15pts? Maybe their weapons count as additional hand weapons and halberds instead? Something like that?

Also, as far as Regeneration goes, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the enemy had a -1 to Hit or something instead (I know we talked about this a while back). That would tie them into the winter-element again, and also prevent characters from taking the Dragonbane Gem and being immune to the character who was designed to knock Regeneration off the unit. But maybe that's not so bad?

(see later post for current Fandex)

I like the 5+ regen idea for eternal guard, however if you do that AND make them str 4 aren't you just making dryads but with -1T and +1A (spear staves)?

Think about them in comparison with the 2 other combat infantry units: wardancers and dryads. Buffed dryads or wardancers should be the go to units for beating tough enemies, in flanks and combined charges. Treekin can take on tough enemy units face to face and win, especially with a little buffing.

Although eternal guard are cool they serve a the army list better by being an anvil, and as long a they are stubborn they are a decent bodyguard unit. With above average attacks and WS and regen/parry they should chew through enemy core infantry anyway. I would like them to be kick ass elite infantry but realistically that's not what the army list needs them to be.

I also think they need the highborn/core rule back, I can't see many people sinking special points into them when they are already taking fighty dryads as core and the special choice alternative is treekin, wild riders etc. I think players should get some reward/army variation if they take a highborn who ISN'T going to be avoiding combats!

I see what you're saying. My issue is that S4 isn't good, it's just average for the Warhammer world. It would round the unit out so well and erase the need for a bunch of weird stuff.

Wardancers and Dryads are cheaper and faster, with the prior hitting harder and the latter being tougher.
You raise a very good point about Highborn/Core; I'd like to reward people for taking a combat Lord over a Spellweaver. That said, if you can't see people taking them as Special, that seems to be a sign that S4 would help them a lot.
Also, no other army has that option of Core Stubborn troops, and I'm trying to go with the current trend of less weird rules.

High Elves provide a pretty decent comparison; their units should be better, but there should be some similarities (correct me if I missed anything):

Phoenix Guard 15pts WS5 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld8
Fear, Speed of Asuryan, Ward save (4+), halberds, heavy armour

Sword Masters 15pts WS6 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I6 A2 Ld8
Speed of Asuryan, great weapon, heavy armour

White Lions 15pts WS5 BS4 S4 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld8
Forest Strider, Speed of Asuryan, Stubborn, White Lion Cloaks, great weapon, heavy armour

Really, compared to these guys, I don't think the Eternal Guard would be too far off, even with the Spear Stave granting +1 Strength. They'd still be worse, which is fine, but my main concern is that they be viable.

Also, I did some math on -1 To Hit versus 5+ Regeneration. The latter generally seems to be slightly better, while the latter can't be stripped with Flaming Attacks and doesn't apply to non-WS/BS attacks. I personally think the prior would fit the unit better. Thoughts?

I think -1 to hit fits better,

If you like the highborn/core rule then make it that only a unit joined by the highborn is stubborn.

Thinking about a highborn and guard theme option for an army perhaps eternal kindred could cover some of this? Along the lines of "...If the army general has eternal kindred then units of eternal guard become a core choice. Any unit of eternal guard joined by the character gains stubborn" (and keeps the rule if he is slain in combat while part of the unit?) That's pretty close to the current army book rules, but a little more condensed.

This could be an excuse to drop a point or two from them but this way they are better value for points. Add a few points to eternal kindred in return if you think. Could open up more uses for them while still having the specialized option.

I would love to see more theme-able army lists like this in general (I think it would be particularly good with wood elves),GW seem to have a go at it every now and again, but they always get rid of it in the very next codex/book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for fun:

Wardancer Highborn:
Gives any unit he joins / units of wardancers within 8(?) the hit and run special rule

Or
Wardancers in an army led by this character gain +1 to their talismanic tattoo save

And/Or even...
Units of wardancer count as core choices but you must have one non-wardancer core choice for each wardancer unit taken as core (or core and special? eg 2 wardancers and 2 glade guard as core then 2 more wardancers as special?)


Branchwraiths:
Make spites for treekin and dryad champions unlocked by having a branchwraith

Perhaps with all kindreds make it so that they make a unit of type that they join stubborn? Could stop units like wardancers/cavalry from whiffing and losing to static combat res

Ok I'll stop now

(Treeman ancient = core treekin)

Core Eternal Guard makes sense, from their role in Asrai society; usually, an army with some Eternal Guard is almost solely Eternal Guard.
You're on to something, here! So Eternal General = Core Guard, and Eternal Character in Guard unit = Stubborn.

The other rules are something I'll mull over, but I'm a little hesitant; the Kindred idea already feels like something that won't be in the next book, which is a shame, but you don't see High Elves with Sword Master/White Lion/Phoenix Guard upgrades to their Princes, or Dark Elves with Khainite Dreadlords and what-have-you.
But my point is, it's already a weird, atypical rule, and I'm not sure I want to mess with it further.

Core Wardancers/Treekin would be tempting, I'm sure. And the idea makes sense. They both definately need those limitaions, though. An all-Treekin force would be a bit much.