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.

I'm interested what other people think of Imperial Armour 11, especially of the storyline part.

Personally, I think there is a massive difference between the older IA books I had the chance to read and this one. What do you guys think?

Severely disappoint in lack of an Elysian update.

TheCaptain wrote:Severely disappoint in lack of an Elysian update.

Why would there be?

The Elysians--while having a fairly critical role in securing the high ground-- didn't really feature all that much.

Plus, IA8 was the Elysian update. Detachment 99 has an update(available for free, even!) that uses IA8's list.
Anyways...

Skylifter, I liked it. It was nice that we had a narrative and a documentary going on.

Kanluwen wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Severely disappoint in lack of an Elysian update.

Why would there be?

The Elysians--while having a fairly critical role in securing the high ground-- didn't really feature all that much.

Plus, IA8 was the Elysian update. Detachment 99 has an update(available for free, even!) that uses IA8's list.
Anyways...

Skylifter, I liked it. It was nice that we had a narrative and a documentary going on.

Elysians deserve an update in every IA released. and BS 4. and 4+ saves.

Edit: For no extra point cost.

And infantry sprues so I can actually make a viable vet squad.

I rather liked it. The narrative was a bit strained for a bit, but the final encounter was nicely done I thought. A nice and enigmatic conflict for the Eldar to enter into to recover a vitally important symbol.

Posted this elsewhere

Was a bit disappointed with it myself.
I have IA3-4 and have read Badab 1.
In terms of a raw story I rate it about as good as IA3 but weaker then 4.
However, it is nowhere as well written technically or from the perspective of involvement and drawing one in.

IA3 to me felt almost like reading a WW2 campaign review - great stuff.
Whilst I acknowledge this isnt everyones up of tea I think 11 was much too lightweight.

IA4 wasnt as well written technically and too short imo but the story was great, basically a cross between Aliens and dark 70s sci gone wrong.

I was really exictied to see the Eldar getting featured but to me, you dont get anything new from it, there is virtually no story told from the Eldar perspective and lot of the fluff you'll have read/heard before.

Another big flaw for me were the "technical readouts". In other IA books they would have things like height, weight, speed, potential materials used, threat levels etc. The only Eldar entry with this is the Nightwing (and thats from IA2?). Very disappointing.

Having said that the artwork and pics are great, they are definetly a better level then previous books and there are one or two great little stories (The Redmaw, the Titan pilot).

Is it worth picking up for Eldar fluff alone Stavfel? I personally dont think so if you are an Eldar buff and have read a lot of their histroy already. The amount of actual fluff on them is limited and a lot you'll have seen under Apoc datafaxes, Codici etc. However, as an overall book it is enjoyable enough.

Lastly the whole premise as mentioned above is waaaay off to me:

Spoiler:

A dying race, knowing survival is everything mount a straight up, full on attack vs the IoM to awaken a single PL? Hmmm, not to me. Hell, they know its going to get so bad they employ the Phantom. Surely a much more covert op would have been realistic?

I'll disagree with Flinty specifically on the bit I have spoilered:


Didnt sit well with me :(

Interesting points of view all.

I hadn't stated my own opinion at first, because I didn't want to give the thread too much direction at first, but I just cannot keep it to myself any longer.

What I really liked about those IA I had read up to now was the documentary feel, the way the narrative seemed so fitting and realistic that it had an air of actual war reports. I think this goes especially for Vraks, though I only read the first two.

Now with IA 11 - this just doesn't happen. All the imperial officer's decisions just make no tactical sense whatsoever, and neither, actually, do those of the Eldar. The very first battle has a sizeable part of the imperial forces blow themselves up to take out a few eldar forward elements. Then for some reason, the massive numbers of infantry sitting in their CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS - which are under fire from Eldar skimmers, but do not take any significant damage - decide they should dismount so the Eldar can shoot them. This goes on throughout the whole story.

Maybe this is chauvinistic, but damn, it was written by a woman...

Seriously though, I think most of the earlier IAs were written by guys who were also into historical wargaming and as such know a lot about actual military strategy and tactics, while the author of IA 11 does not seem to have any understanding whatsoever of it. Actually, the whole misery starts with the commander of an IG force deciding they should try to outmanoeuvre the Eldar.

I'm happy it wasn't me who spent the cash on it, but a buddy of mine.

Okay, rant over. Thank you for your attention.

Skylifter wrote:
Seriously though, I think most of the earlier IAs were written by guys who were also into historical wargaming and as such know a lot about actual military strategy and tactics, while the author of IA 11 does not seem to have any understanding whatsoever of it. Actually, the whole misery starts with the commander of an IG force deciding they should try to outmanoeuvre the Eldar.

An IG commander as an in-universe character may not be as well informed about the Eldar as readers are. They may not be aware just how much more mobile the Eldar are, or what the capabilities of their anti-grav vehicles are.

My gripe with the book is with the poor performance of the Phantom titan. Ruleswise it should have pulped Warhounds and Reavers, since the Phantom in terms of background has always been portrayed as a Warlord equivalent. Yet we see only 1 Warhound go down (which is counterbalanced with 1 Revenant going down), and it struggles with another Warhound and Reaver. In other words, despite greater points and thus resources invested, the Eldar do worse.

Finally as others have already said, the entire premise of the Eldar operation makes no logical sense. They expend numerous Eldar lives for the sake of reviving 1 Phoenix Lord, of a not so great Aspect. Cost-benefit analysis doesn't work out.

In terms of rules, FW dropped the ball on the new Aspect. They seem almost deathly afraid of giving the xenos something good, and end up being cautious to the point of underpowering, yet when it comes to Imperials or Space Marines they come up with such overpowered stuff as the Land Raider Achilles.

Iracundus wrote:

Skylifter wrote:
Seriously though, I think most of the earlier IAs were written by guys who were also into historical wargaming and as such know a lot about actual military strategy and tactics, while the author of IA 11 does not seem to have any understanding whatsoever of it. Actually, the whole misery starts with the commander of an IG force deciding they should try to outmanoeuvre the Eldar.

An IG commander as an in-universe character may not be as well informed about the Eldar as readers are. They may not be aware just how much more mobile the Eldar are, or what the capabilities of their anti-grav vehicles are.

I think most IG commanders learn what the most common alien races can and cannot do via the Tactica Imperialis. But that is beside the point, since this is only one of several instances where the narrative shows no understanding of tactics.

And the author also does not seem to know much about military hierarchy and organisational structure. The Cadian regiment is commanded by a general, while the Vaustians (I think that was their name, wasn't it?) are commanded by a colonel - who is sent to the penal legions for not following the orders of a fellow regimental commander. A lot of mishmash and fitting things to the storyline. She could at least have made the Cadians a division, then that bit would have made some more sense.

The events up to the first bit about Titans also do not seem to actually be really connected to each other. It's more like "So A did that, then blew himself up, then B did that and it didn't go so well, then C went to the canyons and had his infantry get out so they could be shot."

And the Eldar strategy is just as badly done, yeah.

@Ratius - Now I rather like the smae aspect that you don't like Eldar tend ot be described as following weird and convoluted paths to get what they want. The final prize is a big thing worth going big for.

@Skylifter - You have managed to clarify exactly my problem with the book. The art was fantastic, the idea was great, the actual combat and logistics were very poorly realised.

@Iracundus - From what I can recall, the book actually states that the general in charge had extensive knowledge and experience with the Eldar. Certainly the Inquisitor that was on hand knew a thing or two.

Flinty wrote:@Ratius - Now I rather like the smae aspect that you don't like Eldar tend ot be described as following weird and convoluted paths to get what they want. The final prize is a big thing worth going big for.

Actually the problem with the Eldar rules in general is that the prize at the end is not worth the convoluted path taken. If there is a more convoluted path, with more possible points of failure, then the reward should be better to justify the effort of coordinating and bringing it all together.

The problem comes that with GW when they say "synergy" they seem to mean "1+1= 1". In other words, a lot of effort has to be taken to get comparable performance. Whereas synergy really should be 1+1=3, where there is a final result greater than the sum of the parts. For example, Banshees despite being touted as being CC masters and specialists (in return for trading off long range ability) suffer from their low Strength. The common tactic and argument is "oh well just get a Farseer and use Doom". Well that is more resources invested just to get something to perform as they are supposed to as well as greater risks of failure: failed rolls to use the power, necessity to keep the Farseer in range etc... If Banshees are supposed to be preeminent CC specialists, why can't they excel at their job without a Farseer babysitting them?

We see things also in the form of the Night Spinner. Gravity manipulation firing a liquid polymer and then end result has less overall killing power than an explosive shell fired by gunpowder such as the IG or Orks might use. And then the Night Spinner has a troop compartment which it is presumably paying points for. Would an IG player appreciate troop transport on the artillery? Is the artillery really meant to be transporting troops to the front lines? Paying for an ability of little use is overcosting.

Or take the classic Bright Lance. It only performs better against AV 14, equal against 13, and worse against anything lower. Yet it is touted as being "oh so advanced". Of course then what happens is pieces of Imperial equipment come out that negate the Lance rule, rendering the Bright Lance equal against 13 and worse at everything else. A simple Strength 9 for a Bright Lance and a rule of +1 to armor penetration rolls for Lance weapons would have solved things, giving the Bright Lance the supposed performance the background says it has (costed appropriately of course).

GW has a tendency to tack on these abilities and then overcost. To reframe the situation in another way, if you get equal performance only when the more complicated path is taken, with greater points of possible failure, then ísn't it really a disadvantage?

I think Flinty is talking from a fluff PoV though, not rules wise.

@ Flinty, cool mate, everyones opinion is different and valid

Ratius wrote:I think Flinty is talking from a fluff PoV though, not rules wise.

Even from a fluff POV, just look at the Night Spinner. Enormous technology used to get a final lethality that is worse than an explosive artillery shell.

The IA 11 rationale for the Eldar needs more explaining to make it work. Why couldn't a smaller covert strike team have struck to get in and out quickly and minimize the loss of Eldar life? Over and over again we are told that the Eldar are a dying race for whom every Eldar life is precious, yet we see them in IA 11 getting killed left and right and expending vast amounts of military hardware in swarm like attacks.

I dont disagree at all
Thats GW fluff vs rules vs logic for ya!

Well they ARE after a PL

The chance to get a PL seems like it would be worth a decent amount of risk.

Granted it could have been better enacted.



They could have had a covert strike team attempt a rescue and fail, hence forcing the Eldar to use a more direct approach.

The way it seems, they did have a "covert strike team attempt a rescue".

The entirety of the "war" on Betalis III was a great big ol' distraction while the Farseers, Warlocks, and Shadow Specters hunted for the Phoenix Lord.

Storyline was "meh".. I think mainly it was because of the Talima's writing style, but I didn't like the Badab War series either.

I do like how the main story was an Imperial "victory" whilst the Inquisitorial report at the end actually revealed that the Eldar had actually managed to get what they came for which was a nice touch.

Kanluwen wrote:The way it seems, they did have a "covert strike team attempt a rescue".

The entirety of the "war" on Betalis III was a great big ol' distraction while the Farseers, Warlocks, and Shadow Specters hunted for the Phoenix Lord.

You could have fooled me



Of course this is FW, they don't exactly have a great role model for fluff quality in GW. and it is better then some of the blunders GW comes out with.

Well here's the thing to think about.

The Phoenix Lord's wargear (and soulstones) was in the middle of an Imperial facility.

Even the Pathfinders of Alaitoc would likely have had trouble getting in and grabbing the goods, don't you think?

Now, why the Imperials never found it--that's something else entirely.

Which is why it kinda makes sense they had an all out attack.


and of course without an all out attack they wouldn't really have much of a book now would they

Kanluwen wrote:Well here's the thing to think about.

The Phoenix Lord's wargear (and soulstones) was in the middle of an Imperial facility.

Even the Pathfinders of Alaitoc would likely have had trouble getting in and grabbing the goods, don't you think?

Now, why the Imperials never found it--that's something else entirely.

But they did find it, that was the whole point of the first few pages describing the "industrial accidents" that had occurred. One of them was the self defence mechanism of the armour going off to get rid of the miners.

If they had just tried to insert a team there would be even less guarantee of victory as a small setback could give up the whole game to the Imperials and then the armour would be even harder to recover. Also if you think about what Farseers actually do, that is the fluff-based reason that they went for the all out invasion. The odds of success for a small team must have been checked out and determined to be not good enough.