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.

So, having recently gotten back into 40k after many years - I started being interested in the game back in... I want to say 4th Edition(?) when the Tau were new and Necrons were soulless killing machines I have finally made the decision that I was unable to make in my indecisive teenage years. That being which army to actually settle down and collect!

Due to my love of their lore I have decided on Craftworld Eldar (I refuse to call them Aeldari out of principle ) and, after reading the lore both in the Codex and regarding the Gathering Storm - which IMO is a fantastic step forward for the lore of 40k - I decided that I did not want to do one of the Big Five craftworlds, and instead settled on one of the minor, but still documented - Craftworld Altansar.

The concept of the 10 millenia spent in the Warp after the Fall as well as their association with the new Ynnari faction, who I love the fluff for but feel as though their rules as an army... need work... spoke to me.

The issue that I am having is deciding on a Craftworld Attribute for my eventual Altansar army that is both useful and lore-friendly to what we do know about them. I am torn between two, that being Iyanden and Ulthwe.

I'm curious what other people who may have decided to model their Craftworld armies after Altansar have done and what their own personal headcanon is with regards to filling in the gaps that we don't know about them. For me, and the initial reason I considered Iyanden as a suitable facsimile, would be that the Seer Council of Altansar, in order to conserve resources, began to shut down many of the Craftworld's systems, asking the people of the Craftworld to give themselves over to the Infinity Circuit to protect their souls from She Who Thirsts, and now, having been rescued from the Eye of Terror by their Phoenix Lord Maugan Ra they are recovering their people in the only way they can, into the Wraith Constructs their people knew would be their eventual fate. On the one hand, I like this as, being a fan of Wraith Constructs in general I like the idea of building a fluff list based heavily around Wraiths and Psykers.

However, upon reading more into the lore, especially with Altansar described as 'the sister Craftworld of Ulthwe' and the fact that they, as well as Eldrad, have sided with the Ynnari that draws me towards Ulthwe as an option, not to mention that the hardiness afforded by their attribute makes for another flavourful option for a craftworld that has survived right in the middle of the Great Enemy's stronghold for thousands of years.

All this without mentioning how you could equally claim they survived by stealth and guile, especially if they have gotten as close to Terra as lore suggests, and therefore make an argument for Alaitoc!

My vote is for Ulthwe. Just because you like Wraith constructs, doesn't mean you should take Iyanden. In fact, because you aren't Iyanden, but want Wraiths, you should avoid it.
Ulthwe makes more sense to me for an army of Eldar that may or may not have some kind of mutation from spending time in the Eye of Terror.

-

 Galef wrote:
In fact, because you aren't Iyanden, but want Wraiths, you should avoid it.

Why is that, out of curiosity? o.O

If nothing other that to drive home that you aren't Iyanden via fluff. If your list has a bunch of Wraith stuff, people might assume you're Iyaden just painted differently.
But by not having the Iyanden trait, but Ulthwe instead mixed with some Psykers, it makes your list feel different than a true Iyanden list.
Combine with the Altansar scheme, and you've created your own thing.

But if you keep the Iyanden trait with a bunch of traditionally Iyanden units, your army just comes off as a reskin of Iyanden.

 Galef wrote:
If nothing other that to drive home that you aren't Iyanden via fluff. If your list has a bunch of Wraith stuff, people might assume you're Iyaden just painted differently.
But by not having the Iyanden trait, but Ulthwe instead mixed with some Psykers, it makes your list feel different than a true Iyanden list.
Combine with the Altansar scheme, and you've created your own thing.

But if you keep the Iyanden trait with a bunch of traditionally Iyanden units, your army just comes off as a reskin of Iyanden.

That's pretty weird reasoning.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
If nothing other that to drive home that you aren't Iyanden via fluff. If your list has a bunch of Wraith stuff, people might assume you're Iyaden just painted differently.
But by not having the Iyanden trait, but Ulthwe instead mixed with some Psykers, it makes your list feel different than a true Iyanden list.
Combine with the Altansar scheme, and you've created your own thing.

But if you keep the Iyanden trait with a bunch of traditionally Iyanden units, your army just comes off as a reskin of Iyanden.

That's pretty weird reasoning.

Weird, but reasonable when I consider the fact that I'm more about fluff than I am necessarily rules. I had in fact been asking myself while I was thinking of using the Iyanden attribute 'why don't I just buy yellow and blue paints and make then Iyanden'. Combining the playstyle of one craftworld with an attribute that doesn't completely make them suck does possibly make for an interesting combo.

Balfuset790 wrote:
'why don't I just buy yellow and blue paints and make then Iyanden'.

Well, mostly because that looks horrible.

 Crimson wrote:
That's pretty weird reasoning.

Well, thank you.

Basically all I am saying is that if you want to not just be "reskinned" Iyanden and are already taking tratiionally Iyanden units, being Ulthwe breaks that up a bit.
Ulthwe is also a more competitive choice (imo) for Wraithguard and WLs. WKs are a toss up though.

It might also make sense to mix the traits by having different detachments. Some with Iyanden, others with Ulthwe.

-

 Galef wrote:
It might also make sense to mix the traits by having different detachments. Some with Iyanden, others with Ulthwe.

Hang on... you're allowed to do that? Is the army still considered battle-forged at that point?

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
If nothing other that to drive home that you aren't Iyanden via fluff. If your list has a bunch of Wraith stuff, people might assume you're Iyaden just painted differently.
But by not having the Iyanden trait, but Ulthwe instead mixed with some Psykers, it makes your list feel different than a true Iyanden list.
Combine with the Altansar scheme, and you've created your own thing.

But if you keep the Iyanden trait with a bunch of traditionally Iyanden units, your army just comes off as a reskin of Iyanden.

That's pretty weird reasoning.

To me, it makes perfect sense.
Otherwise just play Iyenden.

 godardc wrote:

To me, it makes perfect sense.
Otherwise just play Iyenden.

Have you seen Iyanden colour scheme?

Balfuset790 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It might also make sense to mix the traits by having different detachments. Some with Iyanden, others with Ulthwe.

Hang on... you're allowed to do that? Is the army still considered battle-forged at that point?

Yes, as long as they aren't mixed within a detachment.

I play altansar, I like the fact that I can pick and choose the trait etc depending on the list I'm running.
But if I had to choose the most appropriate I'd say it's probably ulthwe but iyanden also works well too.

 Fifty wrote:

Balfuset790 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It might also make sense to mix the traits by having different detachments. Some with Iyanden, others with Ulthwe.

Hang on... you're allowed to do that? Is the army still considered battle-forged at that point?

Yes, as long as they aren't mixed within a detachment.

Indeed. You can have an Ulthwe Battalion with an Iyanden Vanguard all day. You stay Battle Forged because your ARMY shares the Aeldari keyword, which is valid to tie together an ARMY, but in Matched play, not for DETACHMENTS.
But by having 1 detachment of Ulthwe and another of Iyanden, both are valid and recent their respective traits

-

If you're looking for Wraiths, the Uthwe trait outperforms the Iyanden trait for them by a lot. Basically, you only want the Iyanden trait if you're going to run a large Guardian Warhost (and not just 1-2 blobs of Guardians).

The Morale rule does almost nothing for Wraithguard units, whereas a 6+++ does quite a bit (especially when you run up against any D3 weapons). And the 6+++ does more for keeping your big things in better brackets than the bracketing rules - while also keeping them on the table longer.

The reason to take Iyanden with wraiths is the Statagem, not the trait itself.

Also, there's a relic/warlord trait/special character locked to Iyanden. I only mean to point out that the *trait* is worse for Wraith armies than other *traits* - but that's only part of the equation, as you point out.

This raises another question - if I were to take (say) Iyanden as my Craftworld attribute, but my Keyword is Altansar, I'm going to assume that even though my army plays like Iyanden I can't take Iyanden specific relics such as the Psytronome, because that only affect Iyanden units and not Altansar, yes?

Balfuset790 wrote:
This raises another question - if I were to take (say) Iyanden as my Craftworld attribute, but my Keyword is Altansar, I'm going to assume that even though my army plays like Iyanden I can't take Iyanden specific relics such as the Psytronome, because that only affect Iyanden units and not Altansar, yes?

Correct. Which is why you must never take a custom faction as a keyword. Just pick the IYADEN keyword. Paint doesn't have any bearing on rules so you're free to use whatever colourscheme you want for your IYADEN army.

 Fifty wrote:

Balfuset790 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It might also make sense to mix the traits by having different detachments. Some with Iyanden, others with Ulthwe.

Hang on... you're allowed to do that? Is the army still considered battle-forged at that point?

Yes, as long as they aren't mixed within a detachment.

As long as you have another faction keyword (Asuryani), <Craftworld> can be mixed in the same detachment and the army still be Battle-forged. All units in that detachment lose the benefit of their <Craftworld> attributes if you do that, though that's because that's how the Craftword attribute rule is worded. <Craftworld> Characters can still take <Craftworld> specific Remnants of Glory and use <Craftworld> Stratagems in mixed <Craftworld> detachments.

While this has already been covered more or less, Eldar Craftworld traits have shockingly little correlation with their actual fluff or lore (one of the most poorly done Codices with regards to this). As mentioned above, Iyanden's traits are good for vehicles and large units of infantry (contrasting sharply with running Wraithguard most of the time). Ulthwe's Craftworld trait has zero reasoning behind it, and is more suitable to making Wraith units more difficult to kill. etc.

Don't get hung up on that.

And yes, if you're playing your own Craftworld or using a separate <CRAFTWORLD> trait, you would not use Iyanden or Ulthwe specific stratagems, relics or warlord traits. I do that for my own custom Craftworld, Yderis. While I use Iyanden traits (currently), I make a point not to use any of the Iyanden stuff. You could "legally" if you wish, no one at a tournament is going to give you gak for it - just a matter of opinion.

Likewise, you can 100% legally have detachments benefit from their own Craftworld traits - though you should make very clear to your opponent which units have what (and the models should be able to be visually identified as different for your opponent's benefit). It's generally bad form to arbitrarily point out random units have different traits. It's probably fine if you say "all of these jetbikes have X, the other units have Y", etc.

 Elbows wrote:
While this has already been covered more or less, Eldar Craftworld traits have shockingly little correlation with their actual fluff or lore (one of the most poorly done Codices with regards to this). As mentioned above, Iyanden's traits are good for vehicles and large units of infantry (contrasting sharply with running Wraithguard most of the time). Ulthwe's Craftworld trait has zero reasoning behind it, and is more suitable to making Wraith units more difficult to kill. etc.

Don't get hung up on that.

While it would be nice to have the Trait for Iyanden benefit Wraith units most and Saim-hann to benefit Bikes most, etc, to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that the traits do represent the fluff, but not necessarily the "iconic" units each CW typically takes.
GW, afterall, doesn't write many lore stories of an Iyanden force comprised solely of WraithGuard. They are always a healthy amount of Guardians (albeit, dwindling in number) in their lore. It is, in fact, because they are dwindling in number that they fight harder and thus run less often.
Same goes for Saim-Hann. There Trait should have changes WRs battlefield role to Troops, but GW chose to instead represent their ferocity as wild "barbarians" instead.

So from that point of view, GW hit the nail on the head with the Trait representing the fluff of each CW.
It's just the fluff GW wants to represent, not the fluff the table-top has traditionally reflected/encouraged

-

Thanks very much for all this guys, plenty of food for thought to be sure!