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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Chaospling wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy.

Unfluffy for Aeldari or all factions?

I mean, shouldn't meddling with the Warp be risky business for?

Happy to answer the question, but JFYI that's part of my signature. It shows up below all my posts.

Honestly, psychic tests are pretty unfluffy for all factions except maybe imperial guard and whatever form R&H still exists in. The issue I take with psychic tests in general isn't that they're dangerous (but see below), it's that they can fail completely. In the lore, you never really see a psyker fail to make something psychic happen. Maybe he loses control and Perils of the Warp happen, sure, but you never see a librarian raise his hand to shoot lightning and just... not have anything happen. In the lore, even unaugmented mortal psykers are generally able to make their powers happen. Heck, in A Thousand Sons, we even see untrained psykers who have more trouble turning their powers off than on. So I find it really annoying that sometimes psychic powers just straight up fail to happen.

It wasn't such a big deal back in the day when passing a psychic test generally just meant rolling a 2-10 on 2d6; you could just headcanon those relatively rare failures as the product of stress/the psyker taking a bit to do the thing. But nowadays, psychic tests fail often enough for it to feel.. strange.

Now all that said, I do feel that eldar should be better at getting psychic powers off safely than most. Once upon a time, our warlocks' powers were just "always on" without requiring a psychic test because they were extremely competent psykers using extremely safe and practiced methods to use familiar powers. It was an excellent nod to the differences between an eldar psyker and something like a librarian. I love that we have ghost helms on everything again allowing us to avoid dying from random perils out of nowhere. So even if the current rules still make it possible for us to look silly by failing to cast powers, at least our millenia-old psykers don't randomly explode while doing it.

Maybe this discussion belongs to another thread than an Aeldari thread, but I largely agree, and I especially agree that Aeldari, specifically, should be more safe than other races - but if we take away the risk of manifesting the psychic power and take away the risk of a catastrophic psychic incident, was is left to making this a risky business?

As you say, we could keep Perils of the Warp for some or all races, but it also feels stupid, that your expensive and lore-wise highly respected sorcerer dies or otherwise gets damaged.

It's a high priority for me to reflect the background as much as possible in the game, so I can very much see your reasoning behind your argument, I just don't think that getting a 100 % chance of something (maybe quite significant) happening.

Come to think of it... What if the psychic power always will be manifested as you say, but that the magnitude of the psychic power may vary?

What I've pitched in the Proposed Rules forum in the past is that Perils of the Warp can't remove the last Wound from a psyker, but a psyker brought to 1W by Perils (or who suffers Perils while at 1W) can't cast powers for the rest of the game.

So the idea is that your psyker can become too exhausted to keep casting, but Ahriman won't suddenly die because this happened to be his one big slip up after millenia of casting spells. Your warlock might burn out his runes, but he won't explode and take a bunch of nearby aspect warriors with him. It's a simple change to make that fits with the other existing rules of the game.

I don't really feel it's necessary to make powers have a chance of failing. We don't have that expectation of reroll auras or My Will Be Done from necrons. If the idea is that the power is OP unless it randomly fizzles out x% of the time, then it should be balanced in a way that is more consistent and fluffy.

I hope there are still some out there, who are following this thread, and who want to share their knowledge.

Regarding Exarchs, they're lost on their specific path. They can lead units from the same Aspect/Shrine - could they also lead smaller armies/patrols, which are too small and too many for Autarchs?

Am I right, when I say that Farseers usually were the army commanders but now are more of a support character like Librarians?
That'll mean that while you have Lieutenants, Captains and a Chapter Master and maybe even several ranks of Chaplains to lead Space Marine forces, Aeldari only have Autarchs?
That's why I ask if Exarchs could lead smaller armies.

Well late to this one…but….

You need to keep in mind that the Eldar Military is very, very different to pretty much any other 40K Military.

Guardians from any Craftworld are a Citizen Militia. Yes each may have its own peccadillo, but not to the point where they’re overly distinct in the way a Chapter, Traitor Warband, Orky Clan, might be.

The real distinction comes from the Warrior Paths. And even then, unless you get trapped and become an Exarch, it’s still a temporary profession in a way that a military role just….isn’t, for anyone else. At any point you can put down the Aspect’s path and tread another path. If you end up walking multiple Aspect Paths, you may end up an Autarch.

But the Citizen Militia thing isn’t, and in my opinion, shouldn’t, be as pronounced as Dedicated Militaries. Because every Guardian is merely wearing a mask. A physical and metaphorical way to protect their psyches from obsession. And if that doesn’t work, you can walk a Warrior Path to hopefully, and in most instances, get that bloodlust out of your system in a helpful and kind of, ish, healthy way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further thoughts. The Path system is a way not only to reign in the Eldar predilection for excess, but to stave off ennui.

Eldar live lifetimes far, far in excess of other races. The Path system allows one to properly study, master and excel in a given discipline. Each and every one is intended to be a healthy outlet, which helps stave off potential boredom. It helps you maintain focus, and allow you a certain level of single minded indulgement of the senses.

I mean, it’s entirely possible every Path has some form of Exarch. Path of the Seer? Regular folks come and go as Warlocks. Exarch equivalents become Farseers, and so on.

It’s a societal structure we in the real world will likely struggle to properly understand. I mean, I’ve posted this and I’ve semi-baffled myself!

Chaospling wrote:

Regarding Exarchs, they're lost on their specific path. They can lead units from the same Aspect/Shrine - could they also lead smaller armies/patrols, which are too small and too many for Autarchs?

Short answer: yeah, probably. It used to be that exarchs were an HQ choice in the 2nd edition codex (iirc). Later, they got moved into more of a sergeant slot. The impression I get from various bits of media is that exarchs can assume leadership roles for more than just their own squad/shrine, but that craftworlders tend to prefer not to use them in such roles if they can avoid it. My headcanon is that exarchs are considered to view combat situations through the lens of their own aspect/shrine teachings and thus might not be as quick to consider more efficient options. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So a striking scorpion exarch might constantly be reaching for a sneak attack tactic when a more direct assault is what's called for, for instance. Plus, exarchs would probably prefer to be able to indulge in their opportunity to fight rather than juggling a bunch of status reports and requests for orders.

Exarchs probably make sense as like, Combat Patrol level leaders.

Am I right, when I say that Farseers usually were the army commanders but now are more of a support character like Librarians?

Ehhhhhh. Sort of. Commanding is an autarch's specialty, so you'd almost always want him calling the command-level shots when possible. When you have both farseers and autarchs present, farseers gather information through divination. Autarchs will propose plans, and the farseers will scry the future to see how that plan is likely to go. So if you're on the battlefield doing the psychic equivalent of listening to vox reports, the autarch is probably the guy keeping troop movements in his head and ultimately calling the shots.

Farseers are extremely capable leaders in their own right because they can basically take quick peeks into the future to figure out if a given order is going to work out well or poorly. However, getting a clear picture of the future takes time, even for a farseer, so there are benefits to having a guy who's just really good at commanding armies through conventional methods. An army lead by a farseer will be fine, but ideally you'd rather have the farseers focusing on providing information rather than making decisions.

That'll mean that while you have Lieutenants, Captains and a Chapter Master and maybe even several ranks of Chaplains to lead Space Marine forces, Aeldari only have Autarchs?

Well, no. Farseers, spirit seers, and warlocks are all potentially perfectly competent leaders. It's just that they're not quite as good at leading armies as the guy on the Path of the Army Leader. Additionally, just because GW doesn't give us marine-level support doesn't mean that all eldar with a given datasheet are considered to be of the same rank or to have the same roles. It seems like craftworlds sort of rank their leaders based on seniority, consensus, or political factors. So you might have a "head autarch" that gets to lead the war effort as a whole but then also have less senior or less proven autarchs that are delegated control of smaller parts of the battle. You could see this as being comparable to a chapter master - captain - lieutenant relationship. Similarly, you might have spirit seers tending to wraith hosts or the dead of a certain detachment and warlocks babysitting your guardians in roles that are vaguely analogus to apothecaries/chaplains/librarians.

And then you have craftworld-specific arrangements. For instance, the Wild Rider novel gives us a peek at how Saim-Hann is arranged. Iirc, you have the Wild Host as a semi-distinct faction with their own leader, the Wild Rider. Which is a political title currently held by Nuadhu Fireheart. (I'm unclear on whether or not he's technically considered to be an autarch and if being Wild Rider requires you to also be an autarch.) And then you have the craftworld's Houses which are partly intertwined with the theoretically (but not practically) politically neutral seer council. Similarly, we know that being a noble of a house has some sway on Iyanden (even if that noble happens to be a ghost in a wraith construct). There's also the Matriarchy of Iybraesil which we know basically nothing about, but I'd be surprised if they're exclusively autarchs.

tldr; It's not that craftworlds "only have autarchs." It's just that GW doesn't give unique models and datasheets to every possible subrank of autarch/support character the way they do with marines. If you gave marines the eldar treatment, you'd probably see lieutenants, captains, chapter masters, company champions, etc. all rolled together into a single "Command Brother" datasheet or something.

I feel there is also a place for a kind of low-level Guardian leader unit, who would command a force roughly analogous to a platoon of Guardians, and would defer to any autarchs/farseers/etc. when present. Kind of a militia organiser. They could even be Eldar who had previously walked the path of command, but now do not.

Obviously nothing in the fluff to back this up at present as far as I am aware, but seems logical it would exist.

 Haighus wrote:
I feel there is also a place for a kind of low-level Guardian leader unit, who would command a force roughly analogous to a platoon of Guardians, and would defer to any autarchs/farseers/etc. when present. Kind of a militia organiser. They could even be Eldar who had previously walked the path of command, but now do not.

Obviously nothing in the fluff to back this up at present as far as I am aware, but seems logical it would exist.

Yeah. I could see that. The only thing is that warlock sergeants sort of kind of filled that niche back in the day, and I miss them. So I'd rather see sergeantlocks return rather than introduce platoon commander guardians.

Edit: I guess you could argue that HQ 'locks are the platoon commander warlocks to the sergeant'locks' sergeants.

In second edition there weren't HQ selections as we understand them today. Points were spent in percentages. You had to spend 25% of your points on squads (kind of like troops, elites and fast attack lumped together.) You could spend up to 50% of your points on characters. Characters included the Avatar, Farseer, Exarchs, Exodite Lords, Pirate Captains and Warlocks. There was a requirement to take either the Avatar or Farseer. The codex stated that if the Avatar was present in the army then it was the commander. I don't have a second edition rulebook so I don't know exactly what that means. From a fluff perspective it strikes me as absurd. This blood thirsty daemon is not really going to provide tactical guidance to eldar forces. You could still take a Farseer in addition to the Avatar, but the Avatar was always going to be the commander.

In some parts of the book it says Farseers led eldar troops in battle. In other parts it said things like "A Farseer does not normally fight in the Eldar's wars, but in times of desperate need his incomparable powers will be employed on the battlefield." So it's all a little muddy about how eldar organize for war.

In third edition we got the first FOC as we know it today with the mandatory HQ and 2 troop selections. The two primary choices for HQ were still Avatar or Farseer. A Farseer could take a Warlock bodyguard of up to 5 models. There were special characters you could use as a HQ choice as well - the Phoenix Lords, Eldrad, Iyanna, and Nuadhu.

In 4th the FOC was unchanged. HQ options expanded to include the Autarch that was introduced as a supreme commander option. Yriel appears. Iyanna and Nuadhu disappear. Farseers are described as guiding eldar forces in war. The Autarch is stated to be a master strategist who (because this is 40k) will also charge into the action at key points to lead spearheads, duel enemy leaders and whatnot.

And with all of that we don't know craftworlds really govern themselves or are organized for war. We tend to think in terms of modern military structures based around spans of control of 3 to 5 units. A platoon consists of 3 to 5 squads. A company consists of 3 to 5 platoons. A battalion is 3 to 5 companies etc. The 3 to 5 ratio is a limitation of the human mind. I don't know that the eldar mind has the same limitation. A craftworld could have just a single Autarch running whatever size warhost the craftworld summons for a particular battle. They may not need any intermediate levels of command to function well. Or maybe there are multiple layers of individuals on the path of command at various intermediate levels and it's just a function of the game's design that they aren't fleshed out more like the imperial factions are. 40k is not and has never been a simulation so trying to suss out how the eldar are really organized is probably just beside the point. Maybe one day Gav will add to the Eldar Path series with a Path of Command novel that is as illuminating as the other books were. That would be cool, but it probably wouldn't have an impact on the rules.

Khaine is the god of war, right? Not god of mindless rage.

I can see the Avatar having great commander skills as an aspect of war. It would be "leading from the front" kind of skills probably.

I think the advantage of small scale commanders is less "the Autarch can't handle it and needs to delegate" (as you say, we don't know that) and more to lead forces simply out of range of the Autarch's direct influence, like leading a small, surgical webway strike.

 Haighus wrote:
Khaine is the god of war, right? Not god of mindless rage.

Not mindless, but filled with blood lust. Definitely more Ares than Athena.

I can see the Avatar having great commander skills as an aspect of war. It would be "leading from the front" kind of skills probably.

To me it's just kind of a follow me thing. I can't see the Avatar stopping to consult with Exarchs, Farseers, and an Autarch to discuss options. It does make me wonder how the eldar control the Avatar. He is awakened, the craftworld is at war and then what? Do they give him a briefing? "Sir, we are conducting an assault on this planet because we have determined that one of the Mon-keigh has the potential to become a threat to us. It is heavily defended. We ask that you breach their walls here."

I think the advantage of small scale commanders is less "the Autarch can't handle it and needs to delegate" (as you say, we don't know that) and more to lead forces simply out of range of the Autarch's direct influence, like leading a small, surgical webway strike.

That's fair. I think it's entirely possible that a craftworld has multiple people on the path of command at any point in time. Actually they must have. Who trains the guy who starts the path today? So there should be more than one Autarch floating around. Each will have different levels of experience as commanders and also as warriors. So probably when they're planning they take that into account. "This mission should be led by Phil because he was once a Striking Scorpion and this mission requires utmost stealth. Betty has more overall experience, but she was only ever a Banshee and Hawk." So in larger operations, a craftworld could deploy multiple layers of Autarchs to command the troops.

 Arschbombe wrote:

I can see the Avatar having great commander skills as an aspect of war. It would be "leading from the front" kind of skills probably.

To me it's just kind of a follow me thing. I can't see the Avatar stopping to consult with Exarchs, Farseers, and an Autarch to discuss options. It does make me wonder how the eldar control the Avatar. He is awakened, the craftworld is at war and then what? Do they give him a briefing? "Sir, we are conducting an assault on this planet because we have determined that one of the Mon-keigh has the potential to become a threat to us. It is heavily defended. We ask that you breach their walls here."

Lol. But yeah, if I remember right, the Avatar sort of allows itself to be loaded up into ships on the way to the fight and then just kind of goes where it wants once it's planetside. I feel like I've seen at least a couple scenes where everyone just kind of goes, "Oh snap! The Avatar's here! Everyone follow that guy!" Maybe it's instinct/supernatural comprehension of where to go? Like, the Avatar always just happens to know the best place to go for the sake of the battle by virtue of being the manifestation of the concept of war. Which does make me wonder if avatars have ever been found keeping their distance to engage in guerilla hit & run tactics when a direct charge would result in failure. Maybe they just hang back and wait if they know charging in won't help the situation.

Although a couple spoilery points...

That's fair. I think it's entirely possible that a craftworld has multiple people on the path of command at any point in time. Actually they must have. Who trains the guy who starts the path today? So there should be more than one Autarch floating around. Each will have different levels of experience as commanders and also as warriors. So probably when they're planning they take that into account. "This mission should be led by Phil because he was once a Striking Scorpion and this mission requires utmost stealth. Betty has more overall experience, but she was only ever a Banshee and Hawk." So in larger operations, a craftworld could deploy multiple layers of Autarchs to command the troops.

We know that there are multiple autarchs. Not only does it make sense, but the Path series and Wild Rider both reference the existence of multiple autarchs on a given craftworld.

And yeah, I think they just sort of assign jobs based on a combination of the autarch's strengths and political considerations. Sneaky autarchs lead sneaky missions. Winter Court autarchs lead Winter Court-aligned forces (or whatever the Winter Court is called in Wild Rider). That one autarch everyone thinks is super cool and who has experience fighting this particular enemy gets to be the main commander. Etc.

Yeah. The title of Autarch isn’t particularly exclusive. It’s more what one is called if you’ve walked multiple Aspect Paths, then walked the Path of Command.

So there’s no particular limitation beyond personal preference to a given Craftworld’s number of Autarchs, as I’m not aware one needs to have walked the path of the warrior to walk the path of command?

I suspect there may be an internal Autarch Council of sorts. A meeting of minds for those of similar Path experience deciding the best strategy, and selecting from amongst their own number the one best suited to a given theatre.

I wonder how many Autarchs have also previously walked the Path of the Seer? If they’re in constant contact with their own Seers/Farseers about the potential pitfalls of their own orders, would it help to be aware of the seer mindset already?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I suspect there may be an internal Autarch Council of sorts. A meeting of minds for those of similar Path experience deciding the best strategy, and selecting from amongst their own number the one best suited to a given theatre.

I don't recall any mention of a formal body of autarchs in any of the BL novels, but I do get the impression that the council (consisting of autarchs and seers) does sometimes break up into smaller groups to work out details of a plan. So I could absolutely see the autarchs breaking off to have a little tactics chat where they sort out who's going to be responsible for which group of troops. I'm curious about what happens when you have more autarchs than you really need to coordinate the battle. Like, if you're breaking your overall force into a bunch of 2,000 point armies and you have more autarchs than armies... Does autarch Bob know that he's just helping out autarch Jeff because they didn't have anywhere especially important to put him?

Mr_Rose wrote:I wonder how many Autarchs have also previously walked the Path of the Seer? If they’re in constant contact with their own Seers/Farseers about the potential pitfalls of their own orders, would it help to be aware of the seer mindset already?

I imagine it's a bit like working with the tech guys at a corporation. They don't have to understand the techies' jargon or reasoning, but they can still listen when the techies say, "Don't do that. It's a bad idea."

So... An Autarch usually takes/gets with him some sort of weapon or wargear, when he leaves a shrine - could that be a weapon, which were wielded by Exarchs?

For example, would it not be following the lore, if an Autarch had an Executioner or a Triskele? Or is it only more mundane weapons like an Avenger Shuriken catapult or a Scorpion Chainsword?

It would be their personal weapon that they used/bonded with while wearing that aspect. So not an Exarch weapon. Apart from anything else I’m pretty sure the exarch gear is part of the suit and doesn’t work properly without the extra power of the trapped souls of the previous wearers.

What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

Well…..

The Exarch type weapons could very well be all the Warriors train with. They just take up their ritual weapons for war.

Of course, this just adds to the argument for the Aspects to have a choice of weapons. Not to change their overall role, but to give them the option to super specialise as a Temple.

Iracundus wrote:
What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

They walk multiple aspects on the Path of the Warrior. Every time they “graduate” they take home a memento.

Either the Glaive is taught specifically as part of the Path of Command (along with how to integrate all those warrior styles without breaking their brain) or there’s another Aspect out there that uses Glaives exclusively that we just haven’t seen yet.

Actually, now I think about it, it’s entirely possible that, what with everything Eldar make being psychic on some level, every Aspect Warrior keeps their complete suit and weapons after they step off that Path, because the gear is effectively part of them now.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

They walk multiple aspects on the Path of the Warrior. Every time they “graduate” they take home a memento.

Either the Glaive is taught specifically as part of the Path of Command (along with how to integrate all those warrior styles without breaking their brain) or there’s another Aspect out there that uses Glaives exclusively that we just haven’t seen yet.

Actually, now I think about it, it’s entirely possible that, what with everything Eldar make being psychic on some level, every Aspect Warrior keeps their complete suit and weapons after they step off that Path, because the gear is effectively part of them now.

I meant multiple pieces of wargear from the same Aspect as the ritual said they take one piece away with them. So does an Autarch with scorpion helmet and chainsword have to do Scorpion aspect, shift to something else, and then back to Scorpion in order to get that combo?

I’d assume so long as they’ve walked a given Warrior Path, their current Path allows them access to the tools of their previous Temples.

Chaospling wrote:
So... An Autarch usually takes/gets with him some sort of weapon or wargear, when he leaves a shrine - could that be a weapon, which were wielded by Exarchs?

No, I don't think so. The exarch weapons are tied to a given shrine and a given suit of armor. Exarch weapons are kind of like relic weapons in that they are centuries or millennia old. The codex rules that give you the freedom to choose a weapon for the exarch is an abstraction for your benefit. It lets you play what you want. But in the fluff an exarch, his suit of armor and his weapon are tied to his shrine. When he dies the suit and weapon lay dormant until a new exarch comes. That exarch dons the suit and his spirit merges with the others in the suit bringing the original exarch back to life. The exarch will always be known by the name of the first to be trapped on the path and will use the weapon he has always used.

I can't see how an Autarch can just borrow one of these weapons that he never used or was trained on when he was on the path of the warrior.

They can’t be assigned to a specific Exarch though, as Exarchs have no fixed number. No-one can tell when a given Eldar might become trapped on the path, and there’s no indication there’s anything like “one in, one out”.

Sure some will be honoured relics, but Eldar being Eldar, there’s nothing at all preventing a new one being made when needed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They can’t be assigned to a specific Exarch though, as Exarchs have no fixed number. No-one can tell when a given Eldar might become trapped on the path, and there’s no indication there’s anything like “one in, one out”.

Well we know what happens when a warrior falls and there are empty shrines. The new exarch finds his way to the vacant shrine, puts on the armor and becomes the latest iteration of the original exarch. We don't know what happens if someone gets trapped and all the shrines are occupied. Exarchs are shunned by the rest of their craftworld so they can't go ask someone to build them a new shrine. They can't just hang out in their old shrine waiting for another shrine to open up.

I'd submit that a craftworld functions like a living being in a sense. A craftworld on a path towards war will just start making more warriors. Nobody is making a decision to recruit more warriors, just more eldar will feel drawn to leave whatever paths they're on and start on the path of the warrior. Shrines will start to fill. A warrior on the path will become trapped and move to a dormant shrine. If all shrines are occupied, perhaps at that point an Autarch will ask the singers to start building new ones. Or maybe the singers feel drawn to start building new shrines on their own.

Sure some will be honoured relics, but Eldar being Eldar, there’s nothing at all preventing a new one being made when needed.

Sure, artisans could manufacture new suits and new weapons for a new shrine. How would an Autarch ever get trained on them given that the only eldar to ever use them have been those trapped on the path of the warrior?

Chaospling wrote:So... An Autarch usually takes/gets with him some sort of weapon or wargear, when he leaves a shrine - could that be a weapon, which were wielded by Exarchs?

For example, would it not be following the lore, if an Autarch had an Executioner or a Triskele? Or is it only more mundane weapons like an Avenger Shuriken catapult or a Scorpion Chainsword?

Reasonable people will disagree with me, but my take is that exarch weapons are considered inappropriate for normal aspect warriors. That is, you start walking the path of the banshee, and it's your exarch's job to guide you on that path and hopefully keep you from succumbing to blood lust and becoming an exarch yourself. Part of that process is teaching you the highly specific martial art that involves a shuriken pistol, banshee mask, and power sword. Handing you a triskele would be a deviation from that tried and true method and would thus put you more at risk of becoming lost on the path. There's a line from Jain Zar where she says something like, "Your exarch has done a good job of staying true to my teachings," and changing up the shrine's wargear (and all the symbolism behind the associated combat style) seems like the opposite of that.

Basically, letting students learn the triskele might put them at greater risk of becoming an exarch and is thus taboo. Or at least discouraged. You might have a shrine that does start experimenting with squads full of triskeles, but then you're not really howling banshees; you're "screaming spectres" or whatever. And only the major aspect warrior traditions get datasheets.

Iracundus wrote:What isn't explained is how an Autarch would end up with multiple pieces of gear, such as Scorpion helmet and chainsword or Banshee mask and power sword. There is also the question of where Autarchs get the star glaive or learn how to use it.

Some theories:
* Your shrine views the mandiblasters and chainsword as functionally part of the same weapon. If you're going to take one, then obviously you're going to take the other. You wouldn't take a bow without arrows, right?
* You studied under two different scorpion shrines, each with their own teachings and interpretation of the path. Despite both being "striking scorpion" shrines, you took very different lessons from each and very different weapons too.
* You took the mandiblasters as part of the ritual, but then you just asked some artisan to make you a nice chainsword.

As for star glaives, well, are we sure anyone really "teaches" how to use them? Eldar are pretty graceful, and an autarch has a pretty good grasp of martial arts. And a glaive is, to oversimplify, kind of just a sword on a stick. I feel like the autarchs could do alright with a glaive even untrained. Also, the glaive has a -1 to hit still, right? Maybe that's because their wielders don't learn how to use them as well as aspect weapons.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well…..

The Exarch type weapons could very well be all the Warriors train with. They just take up their ritual weapons for war.

Wouldn't that be kind of counter-productive? Building up muscle memories for reaching out and pinching a guy with a scorpion claw and then going to war with a completely different weapon?

Of course, this just adds to the argument for the Aspects to have a choice of weapons. Not to change their overall role, but to give them the option to super specialise as a Temple.

Narratively, see above about a squad of triskeles not really being "howling banshees." Mechanically, if you can take a squad full of executioners, how likely are you really to take a squad full of power swords instead? Either the executioners are worth their points or they aren't, and you'll only see people fielding the better option. If you want to see distinctions between shrines, I feel like the exarch powers are a much better way to convey that. Are you dire avengers trained in defensive stances to hold positions, or are they more dedicated to wringing out every bit of lethality with their shurikens? Etc.

Mr_Rose wrote:
Actually, now I think about it, it’s entirely possible that, what with everything Eldar make being psychic on some level, every Aspect Warrior keeps their complete suit and weapons after they step off that Path, because the gear is effectively part of them now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’d assume so long as they’ve walked a given Warrior Path, their current Path allows them access to the tools of their previous Temples.

I don't think that's the case. We know that there's plenty of craftworld tech that's psychic but not restricted to use by one person, so there's no reason to think aspect warrior gear would be an exception. We don't see Kelrandriel go out requesting personalized wargear the way Thirianna requests her personalized rune. Plus you have Thirianna who doesn't show up to her old shrine with any gear when she dons her warlock armor but does have a little charm (the kind that dangle off of the avenger guns on the models) that she took from her old shrine as a keepsake.

Plus, given the point of the path system and the eldar tendency towards obsession, keeping your old gear around your apartment seems like a bad idea. Don't want to leave the path of the warrior because you feel Khaine getting his hooks into you only to have your scorpion helmet staring at you from the wall every day.

Can I hear your opinion about this:
Exarches; As I see it, there are possibilities:

They belong to units, like they do now, leading them and stays with the unit throughout the battle.

Like in 2. edition, they are characters on their own, which may or may not join units.

I ask because, either way can be done, it's a technicality, but lorewise... Exarches aren't exactly leaders, are they? Aren't they just deeply lost in their Aspect, in which they may teach and inspire off the battlefield - on the battlefield... Well that's another matter...?

@Wyldhunt:
By the way, thanks. I never thanked you for you answering my last question.

Why not both?

I can see fluff justifications for both. An exarch trains his students and he leads them in battle. Exarchs can also serve independently if, for example, they have no students when war calls or their students are not ready. Also remember that in 2nd edition you had to have aspect squads in the list in order to take the independent exarchs though they didn't have to match.

There's a lot we don't know about their organization. The codices over the years always limited aspect squads to 10 members. This seems like a game limitation borrowed from the marines and codex astartes without a lot of thought. IIRC one of the Scorpion temples had more than 10 members in Path of the Warrior. There's also the matter of leaderless squads. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps they are there to represent part of larger shrines.i.e. 20-man temple split into 2 teams of 10, one having the exarch.

So include both and see how you like it.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Why not both?

I can see fluff justifications for both. An exarch trains his students and he leads them in battle. Exarchs can also serve independently if, for example, they have no students when war calls or their students are not ready. Also remember that in 2nd edition you had to have aspect squads in the list in order to take the independent exarchs though they didn't have to match.

There's a lot we don't know about their organization. The codices over the years always limited aspect squads to 10 members. This seems like a game limitation borrowed from the marines and codex astartes without a lot of thought. IIRC one of the Scorpion temples had more than 10 members in Path of the Warrior. There's also the matter of leaderless squads. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps they are there to represent part of larger shrines.i.e. 20-man temple split into 2 teams of 10, one having the exarch.

So include both and see how you like it.

But only one way to include an Exarch in an army is necessary - either as an Independent Character or as a permanent part of a unit of Aspect Warriors.

I have no trouble by going back to the way it's done in 2. edition, but I was wondering if people were too attached to the way, it has been all the editions post 2. edition.

Though, they way you put it, the Independent way seems closer to the lore.

Chaospling wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Why not both?

I can see fluff justifications for both. An exarch trains his students and he leads them in battle. Exarchs can also serve independently if, for example, they have no students when war calls or their students are not ready. Also remember that in 2nd edition you had to have aspect squads in the list in order to take the independent exarchs though they didn't have to match.

There's a lot we don't know about their organization. The codices over the years always limited aspect squads to 10 members. This seems like a game limitation borrowed from the marines and codex astartes without a lot of thought. IIRC one of the Scorpion temples had more than 10 members in Path of the Warrior. There's also the matter of leaderless squads. To me that doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps they are there to represent part of larger shrines.i.e. 20-man temple split into 2 teams of 10, one having the exarch.

So include both and see how you like it.

But only one way to include an Exarch in an army is necessary - either as an Independent Character or as a permanent part of a unit of Aspect Warriors.

I have no trouble by going back to the way it's done in 2. edition, but I was wondering if people were too attached to the way, it has been all the editions post 2. edition.

Though, they way you put it, the Independent way seems closer to the lore.

I personally hate the crappy sergeant they've become.

Don't look at them from a rules perspective, look at them from a background perspective. They are the high priests of Khaine, trapped on the path of the warrior (which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be stuck in one aspect). They are exemplars of their craft, walking sculptures of perfect warfare. They aren't trapped on the path of the teacher, teaching others their craft isn't the core of their identity.

They aren't there at their shrine waiting for other eldar to show up to learn from them like some NPC quest giver. 100 students or no students they are trapped on the warrior path, continually perfecting and practicing their art. They're an old kung fu master up on a hill who practices every day. If some young PC comes to beg for training, they basically just stand around imitating them while the old man goes through his moves.

Now it's clear the exarchs do actively teach when they have students. But they are still going to be 100% ready to go to war regardless.

Remember that it's the war mask that makes an eldar capable of fighting, not their squad leader holding their hand. The idea that a professionally trained eldar can somehow not perform without their teacher present is pretty stupid and ONLY came about as an assumption due to the rules - that it was generally always better to take the exarch upgrade than not to. I don't believe between 1-7th edition of 40k the exarch was a compulsory choice, but it was treated as one and now has been made so in the rules which has bled over into the perception of the background.

When Khaine stirs and the craftworld goes to war, the exarchs are drawn to it, students or not. They can no more stay out of a fight than a khornate worshipper could.

This quote: "Blood runs, Anger rises, Death wakes, War calls." Is basically the activation of an exarch.


So from a background perspective, you should be able to take exarchs separately and there could potentially be more exarchs on the table than aspects, as it's not like you can stop the exarchs joining the war. It's also not like every squad of trainee aspects is ready to go to war conveniently at the same time, so there'd be exarchs on the field who left students behind. THere'd also be exarchs who just prefer to stalk and slaughter alone, even if they've trained a squad. Just because you've shown other people how you fight doesn't mean you have to hang around with them all the time.



So as you can see, the concept of exarch+aspect is artificially intertwined by the rules and not by anything in the background. The only eldar that LIKE the company of an exarch are other exarchs due to their violent psyche...

 Hellebore wrote:

I personally hate the crappy sergeant they've become.
Don't look at them from a rules perspective, look at them from a background perspective.

Well, Chaospling is asking because he is writing his own codex for Biel-tan so the discussion will revolve around the rules presentation, but I take your meaning.

They are the high priests of Khaine, trapped on the path of the warrior (which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be stuck in one aspect). They are exemplars of their craft, walking sculptures of perfect warfare. They aren't trapped on the path of the teacher, teaching others their craft isn't the core of their identity.

In the absence of war, they train. You can interpret that as a form of ritual worship by priests, but training is a large part of their function in the craftworld environment. They don't get to travel the craftworld freely enjoying normal eldar life on a craftworld.

Interesting notion that an exarch could change aspects. How would that work? Perhaps someone who walked more than one warrior path has enough control to choose the aspect when they fall? I don't see a new exarch having much agency in that regard. The new exarch goes to the shrine, puts on the ancient armor and becomes the original exarch. That exarch is not going to change aspects after thousands of years.

They aren't there at their shrine waiting for other eldar to show up to learn from them like some NPC quest giver. 100 students or no students they are trapped on the warrior path, continually perfecting and practicing their art. They're an old kung fu master up on a hill who practices every day. If some young PC comes to beg for training, they basically just stand around imitating them while the old man goes through his moves.

That's not how it was depicted in Path of the Warrior, Korlandril falls, is refused entry to the shrine of deadly shadow, is told to find his own shrine. He goes to the autarch chamber, sees the runes of the shrines and finds the shrine of hidden death. He goes there, dons the armor and become Morlaniath, first of seven to wear the exarch armor in that shrine. Korlandril was the eighth, but his spirit is submerged under the first. Soon his gets his first student.

Your first pupil.
One to be taught.
So soon?
Always it is so. A new exarch needs followers. The shrine calls to them.

Now it's clear the exarchs do actively teach when they have students. But they are still going to be 100% ready to go to war regardless.

I think they always have students based on Path of the Warrior, but, yes, they are always ready for war even when some or most of their students are not.

Remember that it's the war mask that makes an eldar capable of fighting, not their squad leader holding their hand. The idea that a professionally trained eldar can somehow not perform without their teacher present is pretty stupid and ONLY came about as an assumption due to the rules - that it was generally always better to take the exarch upgrade than not to. I don't believe between 1-7th edition of 40k the exarch was a compulsory choice, but it was treated as one and now has been made so in the rules which has bled over into the perception of the background.

The rules for the aspects have always put the juiciest bits on the exarch so that aspect squads would feel like ablative wounds/delivery systems for the exarch much like mobs of boyz used to be wounds for the nob with powerklaw. Still, you could always choose to run a bare squad for something like DAVU. The exarchs being so much better than the rank and file was explained as coming from the spirits of the previous incarnations of the exarch.

Rules and list building aside, it is still the exarchs that determine when aspect warriors are ready. The aspect warriors don't get to determine that themselves. I can't envision a squad of warriors deciding to go to war on their own without their exarch, who has decided to sit this one out for some reason. There's never any mention of an aspect leader who isn't an exarch. I suppose you could have an autarch join a squad of aspects in lieu of an exarch.

When Khaine stirs and the craftworld goes to war, the exarchs are drawn to it, students or not. They can no more stay out of a fight than a khornate worshipper could.

I don't see exarchs as berserker equivalents and they absolutely can stay out of a fight when the craftworld leadership, autarchs and the council tell them to.

So from a background perspective, you should be able to take exarchs separately and there could potentially be more exarchs on the table than aspects, as it's not like you can stop the exarchs joining the war.

I do like the idea of having freelancing exarchs in a host, but I do also think you can keep them under control. If the specific mission requirements don't require their specific aspect or many of that aspect then the council will make decisions about who goes and who stays. They don't send everyone to every battle.

It's also not like every squad of trainee aspects is ready to go to war conveniently at the same time, so there'd be exarchs on the field who left students behind. THere'd also be exarchs who just prefer to stalk and slaughter alone, even if they've trained a squad. Just because you've shown other people how you fight doesn't mean you have to hang around with them all the time.

So as you can see, the concept of exarch+aspect is artificially intertwined by the rules and not by anything in the background.

I haven't seen anything to support these suppositions.