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.

Generally would probably be going for Alaitoc. Bike heavy force biel-tan all the way though.

 Sim-Life wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Also you get the bonus anyway if you have an Autark in 6".

I don't get this attitude. Autarch and Avatars can't be everywhere at once and handing out rerolls and Ld bonuses to everyone. The trait frees them to be useful elsewhere while similtaniously giving your army a bit more freedom rather than having to make sure they're in shouting distance of their boss.

Not having a go at you personally but I've seen people say stuff to this effect. It screams at me that they don't understand the implications or intention of traits.

Well I can't speak to the intention but why bother taking a trait when I can use an Autarch to get the same effect AND a better trait anyway?

Why is your Autarch limited to just babysitting Dire Avengers? Why can't he, now that the dire avengers don't need him for rerolls join some fire dragons or warp spiders or war walkers or something?

Well for one he can buff them all at once and for another that would require losing out on a better ability.

pm713 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Also you get the bonus anyway if you have an Autark in 6".

I don't get this attitude. Autarch and Avatars can't be everywhere at once and handing out rerolls and Ld bonuses to everyone. The trait frees them to be useful elsewhere while similtaniously giving your army a bit more freedom rather than having to make sure they're in shouting distance of their boss.

Not having a go at you personally but I've seen people say stuff to this effect. It screams at me that they don't understand the implications or intention of traits.

Well I can't speak to the intention but why bother taking a trait when I can use an Autarch to get the same effect AND a better trait anyway?

Why is your Autarch limited to just babysitting Dire Avengers? Why can't he, now that the dire avengers don't need him for rerolls join some fire dragons or warp spiders or war walkers or something?

Well for one he can buff them all at once and for another that would require losing out on a better ability.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly the kind of narrow minded person I was refering to.
What if you don't have room to blob up around the Aurtach?
What if you need him to hold an objective while the DAs go hold another?
What if your opponent deploys heavy armor on one flank and infantry on the other the aura doesn't stretch far enough?

Theres loads of situations where you can't have an entire army sitting within 6" of a single model.

 Sim-Life wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Also you get the bonus anyway if you have an Autark in 6".

I don't get this attitude. Autarch and Avatars can't be everywhere at once and handing out rerolls and Ld bonuses to everyone. The trait frees them to be useful elsewhere while similtaniously giving your army a bit more freedom rather than having to make sure they're in shouting distance of their boss.

Not having a go at you personally but I've seen people say stuff to this effect. It screams at me that they don't understand the implications or intention of traits.

Well I can't speak to the intention but why bother taking a trait when I can use an Autarch to get the same effect AND a better trait anyway?

Why is your Autarch limited to just babysitting Dire Avengers? Why can't he, now that the dire avengers don't need him for rerolls join some fire dragons or warp spiders or war walkers or something?

Well for one he can buff them all at once and for another that would require losing out on a better ability.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly the kind of narrow minded person I was refering to.
What if you don't have room to blob up around the Aurtach?
What if you need him to hold an objective while the DAs go hold another?
What if your opponent deploys heavy armor on one flank and infantry on the other the aura doesn't stretch far enough?

Theres loads of situations where you can't have an entire army sitting within 6" of a single model.

I'm not being narrow minded I'm just not seeing why I wouldn't take a better trait.

I might not have room to blob around an Autarch but I still don't desperately want to buff one unit so much I'll give up a good trait for a bad one.
I'd have sent another unit for that or have one there. I don't use Autarchs to hold objectives I use things like Rangers.
Then I deal with it and watch the better trait like -1 to hit or FNP help me more than the buff to Avengers.

As I said I'm not being narrow minded I just don't want to purposely nerf myself for no reason. Just because I'm not powergaming doesn't mean I want to make life as hard as I can.

 Sim-Life wrote:

I don't get this attitude. Autarch and Avatars can't be everywhere at once and handing out rerolls and Ld bonuses to everyone. The trait frees them to be useful elsewhere while similtaniously giving your army a bit more freedom rather than having to make sure they're in shouting distance of their boss.

Not having a go at you personally but I've seen people say stuff to this effect. It screams at me that they don't understand the implications or intention of traits.

I mean, Autarchs aren't special characters or anything. You can have as many Autarchs as you want -- it's not like Eldar armies tend to run out of HQ slots. Now, maybe Autarchs are bad and everyone will prefer Spiritseers, but if Autarchs are good and you often find that you want to buff two different groups of dudes then why not just take two, along with a really useful trait?

Bharring wrote:
Combatcotton,
That would only really matter if it were rerolls to the same roll. Otherwise, it's basically just a 16% increase in volume of fire. Reroll to-wounds of 1 on Shuriken weapons, that might have been broken...

No, these are all the same. If you re-roll 1s to hit, then you get 17% more wound rolls, which is 17% more chances to roll a 6 to wound. If you re-roll 1s to wound, then you will get to re-roll 17% of your wound rolls, which is 17% more chances to roll a 6 to wound.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

I don't get this attitude. Autarch and Avatars can't be everywhere at once and handing out rerolls and Ld bonuses to everyone. The trait frees them to be useful elsewhere while similtaniously giving your army a bit more freedom rather than having to make sure they're in shouting distance of their boss.

Not having a go at you personally but I've seen people say stuff to this effect. It screams at me that they don't understand the implications or intention of traits.

I mean, Autarchs aren't special characters or anything. You can have as many Autarchs as you want -- it's not like Eldar armies tend to run out of HQ slots. Now, maybe Autarchs are bad and everyone will prefer Spiritseers, but if Autarchs are good and you often find that you want to buff two different groups of dudes then why not just take two, along with a really useful trait?

Why not just take the trait amd use the points elsewhere?

 Elbows wrote:
-1 to hit over 12" would absolutely be better. That's really tough, though you'd have to build an entire Eldar force around it, because Eldar have two ranges:

1) Too close.
2) Slightly less close.

And to be Alaitoc you'll have to get Rangers to be worthwhile and not wildly overpriced garbage Or, oddly the Alaitoc craftworld trait will be used on tanks and Wraithknights instead of actual rangers and scouts.

Just like ravenguard do.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

I don't get this attitude. Autarch and Avatars can't be everywhere at once and handing out rerolls and Ld bonuses to everyone. The trait frees them to be useful elsewhere while similtaniously giving your army a bit more freedom rather than having to make sure they're in shouting distance of their boss.

Not having a go at you personally but I've seen people say stuff to this effect. It screams at me that they don't understand the implications or intention of traits.

I mean, Autarchs aren't special characters or anything. You can have as many Autarchs as you want -- it's not like Eldar armies tend to run out of HQ slots. Now, maybe Autarchs are bad and everyone will prefer Spiritseers, but if Autarchs are good and you often find that you want to buff two different groups of dudes then why not just take two, along with a really useful trait?

Why not just take the trait amd use the points elsewhere?

My post answered this exact question so I don't understand why you're asking it. Like, I even considered the case where you deem Autarchs to not be worth their points!

As I've said in other threads, I think that plausibly a Biel-Tan detachment consisting of 2 non-Autarch HQs and then Guardian/Avenger squads in Serpents will be really solid. But you would definitely want to keep most of your other units in different detachments so that they can get traits that are useful to them. It's hard to imagine it ever making sense to have enough Biel-Tan non-shuriken units that it then makes sense to have a Biel-Tan Autarch to buff them.

 Elbows wrote:
-1 to hit over 12" would absolutely be better. That's really tough, though you'd have to build an entire Eldar force around it, because Eldar have two ranges:

1) Too close.
2) Slightly less close.

And to be Alaitoc you'll have to get Rangers to be worthwhile and not wildly overpriced garbage Or, oddly the Alaitoc craftworld trait will be used on tanks and Wraithknights instead of actual rangers and scouts.

Au contraire, you want people to be close so you can actually throw your guns at them. If eliminating a -1 to hit actually makes the enemy move at you, it's almost like doubling your Movement.

Vyper models are supposedly cheaper and can now benefit from conceal as bikes
The DA point reduction was nothing short of necessary.

Atm I am liking the 6+++ save of Ulthwe and reroll 1s of Bel Tan Shuriken weapons.

I am curious about the point reductions, Falcons need a reduction bad.
Also stratagems (CP costing abilities?) - there should be more in the codex right?

Well so far they've mentioned at least some of the Index stinkers are getting changes- point reductions for Avengers and "vastly improved" Fire Prisms.

I'm hoping the update Farseers to bring D3 CPs with them. Eldrad say fixed 3 instead of D3 CP.

Eldar really need something that brings more Command Points like some other things already do in other armies.

Farseers would be most logical as they use the their powers for foreseeing the future to predict what is going to happen. Also, it's a unit that almost all players take 1 of any way, maybe 2 with 6 powers to choose from in the Codex. This makes it easy for most armies to get the extra CPs they need to use some do these new stratagems whilst by their nature preventing them to be spammed.

Makes sense to me anyway. Need something to get us up to c10 CPs.

The Autarch refund of CPs on roll of a 6 is not enough. On average that is only 1 extra over course of a game. So typically 7, maybe 8 over course of a game.

Azuza001 wrote:
Until we see the rest of the codex we can't for sure say "this is worse than that" because a lot can modify things. What if they also have a rule in a different part that says "Biel-Tan aspect warriors count as troops, their guardians count as elites" or "Iyanden wraith units count as troops as long as you take a spirit seer as an hq choice".

That would be interesting. GW moved away from this mechanic in 7th edition (possibly 6th as well) but it seems to have come back in the CSM Codex at least. Up until the CSM codex I would have said that this is unlikely. Now I guess it is possible.

They moved away in 7th(maybe even late 6th) in favor of formations and different FOCs. I'd be fine with it not returning, since troop tax now only gives 2 extra CP for eldar in most games (we can't spam cheap enough for brigades in small games, yet).

elder will be a nightmare for opponents to keep track of which detachments are which abilities, etc....I can see a lot of love coming our way as arguments over which unit is in which detatchment......print out those lists in duplicates along with all the attributes too.

 admironheart wrote:
elder will be a nightmare for opponents to keep track of which detachments are which abilities, etc....I can see a lot of love coming our way as arguments over which unit is in which detatchment......print out those lists in duplicates along with all the attributes too.

I think this would only be a problem if you had multiple detachments with the detachments counting as coming from different craft world's but they are all painted the same. That I would have a problem with. If your Biel-Tan are painted one way and your Iyanden are painted completely different where it was obvious then I would not have any issue with multiple detachments from different worlds at once.

If you have 5 detachments, each from a different world, each painted the same, and with the same models in them then I would have a problem because that's how "mistakes" happen. You know, I thought those were Biel-Tan guardians but you say they were the Iyanden ones, that kind of thing.

Well, they're Biel-Tan in my shooting phase, Uthwe in yours, and Iyanden in the Morale phase. Not that hard to keep strait.

My CWE are Uthwe. Most of my units are Aspects, though. I wouldn't bat an eye at using Biel Tan (if it were better for my Aspect Host). I would be resistant to changing which Attribute I claimed between games/lists. But, within a list/game, unless they were clearly painted/modeled as seperate forces, saying these guys are Uthwe and those are Biel Tan feels wrong.

In tournies, using multiple Craftworlds will be an option. But tournies can make the difference in painting scheme required to differentiate detatchments.

Azuza001 wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
elder will be a nightmare for opponents to keep track of which detachments are which abilities, etc....I can see a lot of love coming our way as arguments over which unit is in which detatchment......print out those lists in duplicates along with all the attributes too.

I think this would only be a problem if you had multiple detachments with the detachments counting as coming from different craft world's but they are all painted the same. That I would have a problem with. If your Biel-Tan are painted one way and your Iyanden are painted completely different where it was obvious then I would not have any issue with multiple detachments from different worlds at once.

If you have 5 detachments, each from a different world, each painted the same, and with the same models in them then I would have a problem because that's how "mistakes" happen. You know, I thought those were Biel-Tan guardians but you say they were the Iyanden ones, that kind of thing.

While I agree that I would ideally prefer the units in one Cratfworld to be painted one colour, and the units from another Craftworld to be painted a different colour... it's just not feasible. It would take months of playtesting to even figure out the correct balance, and even then after you paint all these models what if you decide one unit would be better as a different craftworld? Stripping and repainting that unit would take day/weeks of work.

And then in a chapter approved, GW tweak some points costs and stats, and suddenly two or three more of your units need to swap craftworlds with each other. That's another couple months you can't play any games because your army is the wrong colour.

The only realistic solution (that meets your needs) would be to own multiple copies of the same units, each painted in different colours. This is what someone on the IG thread suggested was the "only answer". GW loves that guy. I think he's an idiot.

Sorry, while it would be nice in an ideal world, my units will all be painted in whatever colours I like at the time (not even necessarily matching each other, though within units they'll be the same). I'll put in my army list what craftworld I am, and what their trait is, which is more considerate than most players are!
I have not yet decided if I would run multiple detachments for different traits, or just pick one trait for the whole army. It will depend on options and stratagems. For example, if Alaitoc was the only one with an infiltration stratagem, then I would have to have a detachment for Alaitoc as infiltrating is pretty much a required ability in 8th.

If my opponent has an issue with this, I will hand them a pre-printed card with Games Workshops address on it, and tell them to write a letter.

Thanks for the replies. I've just added Alaitoc. I was half expecting their trait to apply only to Rangers. Seems almost too effective on every unit?

Niiru wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
elder will be a nightmare for opponents to keep track of which detachments are which abilities, etc....I can see a lot of love coming our way as arguments over which unit is in which detatchment......print out those lists in duplicates along with all the attributes too.

I think this would only be a problem if you had multiple detachments with the detachments counting as coming from different craft world's but they are all painted the same. That I would have a problem with. If your Biel-Tan are painted one way and your Iyanden are painted completely different where it was obvious then I would not have any issue with multiple detachments from different worlds at once.

If you have 5 detachments, each from a different world, each painted the same, and with the same models in them then I would have a problem because that's how "mistakes" happen. You know, I thought those were Biel-Tan guardians but you say they were the Iyanden ones, that kind of thing.

While I agree that I would ideally prefer the units in one Cratfworld to be painted one colour, and the units from another Craftworld to be painted a different colour... it's just not feasible. It would take months of playtesting to even figure out the correct balance, and even then after you paint all these models what if you decide one unit would be better as a different craftworld? Stripping and repainting that unit would take day/weeks of work.

And then in a chapter approved, GW tweak some points costs and stats, and suddenly two or three more of your units need to swap craftworlds with each other. That's another couple months you can't play any games because your army is the wrong colour.

The only realistic solution (that meets your needs) would be to own multiple copies of the same units, each painted in different colours. This is what someone on the IG thread suggested was the "only answer". GW loves that guy. I think he's an idiot.

Sorry, while it would be nice in an ideal world, my units will all be painted in whatever colours I like at the time (not even necessarily matching each other, though within units they'll be the same). I'll put in my army list what craftworld I am, and what their trait is, which is more considerate than most players are!
I have not yet decided if I would run multiple detachments for different traits, or just pick one trait for the whole army. It will depend on options and stratagems. For example, if Alaitoc was the only one with an infiltration stratagem, then I would have to have a detachment for Alaitoc as infiltrating is pretty much a required ability in 8th.

If my opponent has an issue with this, I will hand them a pre-printed card with Games Workshops address on it, and tell them to write a letter.

I agree that you should not have to repaint all your guys to run different worlds, that's not quite what I was saying. I am saying if you have a squad of 10 Biel-Tan guardians and another squad of 10 Alaitoc guardians standing next to them and they look the same then that's not cool. If your running 2 squads of Biel-Tan guardians and 2 bike squads of Alaitoc then I am fine with that, it's easy to keep it straight.

Azuza001 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
elder will be a nightmare for opponents to keep track of which detachments are which abilities, etc....I can see a lot of love coming our way as arguments over which unit is in which detatchment......print out those lists in duplicates along with all the attributes too.

I think this would only be a problem if you had multiple detachments with the detachments counting as coming from different craft world's but they are all painted the same. That I would have a problem with. If your Biel-Tan are painted one way and your Iyanden are painted completely different where it was obvious then I would not have any issue with multiple detachments from different worlds at once.

If you have 5 detachments, each from a different world, each painted the same, and with the same models in them then I would have a problem because that's how "mistakes" happen. You know, I thought those were Biel-Tan guardians but you say they were the Iyanden ones, that kind of thing.

While I agree that I would ideally prefer the units in one Cratfworld to be painted one colour, and the units from another Craftworld to be painted a different colour... it's just not feasible. It would take months of playtesting to even figure out the correct balance, and even then after you paint all these models what if you decide one unit would be better as a different craftworld? Stripping and repainting that unit would take day/weeks of work.

And then in a chapter approved, GW tweak some points costs and stats, and suddenly two or three more of your units need to swap craftworlds with each other. That's another couple months you can't play any games because your army is the wrong colour.

The only realistic solution (that meets your needs) would be to own multiple copies of the same units, each painted in different colours. This is what someone on the IG thread suggested was the "only answer". GW loves that guy. I think he's an idiot.

Sorry, while it would be nice in an ideal world, my units will all be painted in whatever colours I like at the time (not even necessarily matching each other, though within units they'll be the same). I'll put in my army list what craftworld I am, and what their trait is, which is more considerate than most players are!
I have not yet decided if I would run multiple detachments for different traits, or just pick one trait for the whole army. It will depend on options and stratagems. For example, if Alaitoc was the only one with an infiltration stratagem, then I would have to have a detachment for Alaitoc as infiltrating is pretty much a required ability in 8th.

If my opponent has an issue with this, I will hand them a pre-printed card with Games Workshops address on it, and tell them to write a letter.

I agree that you should not have to repaint all your guys to run different worlds, that's not quite what I was saying. I am saying if you have a squad of 10 Biel-Tan guardians and another squad of 10 Alaitoc guardians standing next to them and they look the same then that's not cool. If your running 2 squads of Biel-Tan guardians and 2 bike squads of Alaitoc then I am fine with that, it's easy to keep it straight.

I agree that there is a point where it can be confusing. If it's two identical guardian squads, like your example, then I would personally do something like give the squad leaders unique models, painted the right colours (as they would be the last to die usually) or make some little hats or something. But that's cos I like conversions and having unique models. I'd be happy enough with keeping a blue counter next to one squad and a red counter next to the other. Anything that makes it obvious which one is which.

I am actually kind of sad by the Alaitoc tactic. I was hoping for something more interesting, instead it's raven guard.

Saim-Hann on the other hand is quite cool.

In 8E, Guardians do not have squad leaders.

You can still paint someone as a squad leader, but they aren't a special model.

(6th/7th, you could add a warlock squad leader.)

I would also be fine with that, it's simply to make things easy for others as well as yourself. Unfortunately I have had a bad experience with someone mixing stuff up in game and I managed to get the raw end of the stick on both mistakes. Benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake, but I would not play that player again with the same kind of mess list without them actually being able to be told apart. So in this case I am a bit jaded.

Azuza001 wrote:
I am actually kind of sad by the Alaitoc tactic. I was hoping for something more interesting, instead it's raven guard.

Saim-Hann on the other hand is quite cool.

Unless the Alaitoc one does not specifically call out War Walkers/Wraithlords, Infantry, and Bikes?
It's Raven Guard 2.0, since the Raven Guard one only applies to models with Chapter Tactics(Dreadnoughts, Marines, and Bikers).

Bharring wrote:
In 8E, Guardians do not have squad leaders.

You can still paint someone as a squad leader, but they aren't a special model.

(6th/7th, you could add a warlock squad leader.)

It was a quick and dirty example, obviously.

Change it to Dire Avengers if you really want to be picky. The Exarchs can be unique colours while the rest can be the same.

Exarchs should definitely stand out. Oddly, though, each Shrine should look different already. Perhaps you have multiple squads from the same shrine, but I actually have each squad being a different shrine.

That said, yes, minor technical point. I agree with what you're saying.