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.

It doesn't actually make sense within the Eldar lore...at all. It's an invented thing because someone wanted a Space Marine Captain in the Eldar army. This was another issue when Warlocks (literally psykers who have walked the path of the warrior) and Farseers suddenly became completely incompetent in combat.

In 2nd edition, they were battle psykers. They were expensive, and Warlocks came in three levels. Witchblades and singing spears were actually competent tools, and these psykers didn't just collapse like a bunch of broccoli when confronted with...ANYTHING on the table. They weren't as tough as a Space Marine Captain, but using their spells they were easily on par.

3rd, etc. they began the downward spiral to the flimsy pointless characters they are now, reduced to simply "they cast spells". They're hopeless in combat, weak, etc. Their stat lines from 2nd edition could not be further from that.

The Autarch issue is that they made up fluff to justify a beatstick (who is...actually not much of a beat stick). The Autarch performs much like a mix of several Exarchs...but an Exarch is a doomed Aspect Warrior who gets lost along the path of the warrior and is unable to return to normal life - eventually being consumed by the suit, etc. The Autarch makes no sense from that perspective. It's simply an unnecessary unit. It also was used to step into the role of the actual Exarch from 2nd edition (who were waaaaay stronger than just a simple squad leader like they became over time). Again an Exarch was on par with an Chaos Champion - mid-level versatile characters that could be turned into really nasty warriors with a heap of options, wargear, etc.

Damn you, every deity ever created damn you for showing me metal Warlock models I do not currently own.

I thought I had all of them, urgh.

Granted Autarchs were around when I started up Eldar but they've always made sense to me. Farseers and Warlocks use their powers either to read the immediate future, assist their warriors or just shoot lightning out of their hands and I do agree they should be powerful fighters on their own but nothing about them says "Experienced general commanding and planning the details of battles" which is what Autarchs are for.

They are the military commanders of the army who have experience as soldiers in multiple Aspects and deal with the mundane aspect of war. As for going through multiple Paths isn't that the point? They go through a Path and then leave. Exarchs shouldn't lead an army so their toes aren't being stepped on.

I think Autarch's have their place in the fluff and while the beatstick thing isn't great they're worth having as an idea at least. For variety if nothing else.

 Elbows wrote:
flimsy pointless characters they are now, reduced to simply "they cast spells". They're hopeless in combat, weak, etc.

Are you trying to get an award for making a statement as far from truth as possible and beat Xenomancers at quality of content posted?

Funnily enough, I just watched a video from Dawn of War (1), where a Dark Reaper Exarch sacrifices himself to activate the Avatar.

Not exactly a canon source, but worth mentioning.

I was misremembering that as a Spider Exarch. Thanks for fixing my memory!

I still think Exarchs being the Young King is a lore botch, but I suppose that's beside the point of this thread.

DoW1 did the Avatar wonders. I will always remember hearing "I... ... Am... Kaela Mensha KHAINE".

 Elbows wrote:
Any fan of the Eldar or any Eldar player period who hasn't read the 2nd edition Codex is basically missing out on the best written, most complete history of the race. It's the cornerstone upon which everything else was built (or later retconned for sales gimmicks). The quality of lore and writing in the early to mid 90's far surpasses the lore and writing of current books. The same can be said for the tremendous Chaos Codex from 2nd edition, etc. If you want fully encompassing, well written lore...that is your source. It never got any better.

Two words: Rick Priestley.

I agree 100%.

Bharring wrote:
I was misremembering that as a Spider Exarch. Thanks for fixing my memory!

I still think Exarchs being the Young King is a lore botch, but I suppose that's beside the point of this thread.

DoW1 did the Avatar wonders. I will always remember hearing "I... ... Am... Kaela Mensha KHAINE".

I play that in my head literally every time my Avatar starts a fight.

Whether the Young King is an Aspect Warrior or an Exarch is where the background is inconsistent because of different authors with differing visions writing different things.

2nd edition Codex says it is an Aspect Warrior, not an Exarch, that is sacrificed. Gav Thorpe, in his works, writes it as an Exarch.

I personally prefer Aspect Warrior because it allows for the Eldar to participate in regular battles without basically destroying all their Exarchs and shrines. Secondly, the entire Avatar awakening ceremony is a symbolic re-enactment of the final battle of Eldanesh against Khaine, wielding Anaris. Eldanesh had refused Khaine's offer of supremacy in return for swearing the Eldar race to Khaine. Therefore it is symbolically more appropriate IMO to have an Aspect Warrior, one not yet given over permanently to Khaine, to be the sacrifice rather than the Exarchs, who are trapped on the Path of the Warrior and thus already Khaine's.

In the latest Codex, it is back to being an Aspect Warrior.

I also like it being an Aspect Warrior because:
1. There's some fluff about them being dressed in ceremonial garb - which doesn't really work when you're more walking armor than person
2. An Aspect Warrior is still an Eldar, and is not lost to the Craftworld (as a person). So sacrificing such a person has a deeply personal cost. An Exarch is lost on the path, and so has no such connections or personal value anymore. It might be a more tactically expensive sacrifice, but it's certainly a much less personal one.
3. An Exarch is entirely obsessed with their Path. A three-day-long gruesome death just doesn't mean as much when you don't care.
4. The blood and gore on hand of the avatar of the Bloody Handed God has more meaning if it's the blood/gore of a flesh-and-blood Eldar. It means less if it's the blood/gore of a host body that was inside a now-destroyed Exarch.

It's just so much more impactful being a non-Exarch. It'd be like a human sacrifice being a braindead patient instead of a young and promising candidate.

the_scotsman,

You're super duper welcome!

I am not even collecting models to game anymore but I grabbed a big bunch of 11 metal seers and warlocks today for an absolute steal. Keep a couple, sell a couple.

pm713 wrote:
What's wrong with the Autarch?

A couple of things: undermining the sacrifice of an exarch, and contradicting the original command structure.

The original military command structure of the craftworlds consisted of exarch councils. Exarchs were also trapped on the path of the warrior, not trapped in an aspect of the path (although they often stayed in one). The menshad korum was an exarch that never stayed in an aspect, travelling every path of the warrior.

Something important that has been lost, is that as exarchs are lost in the path, rather than the aspect, they're not the over specialised narrow focus squad leaders that we've been fed since 3rd ed. The menshad korum especially, is a master of the path of the warrior and therefore capable of strategy beyond 'screaming', or 'stealthing', or.shooty middle good.

Which leads to the sacrifice. The autarch is portrayed as having better abilities than an exarch, but not falling to the path. Making an exarch look like a chump rather than the kungfu master they're supposed to be.

This is relatively easy to fix, just as GW fixed the broodlord by returning the patriarch concept back to the game.

All GW needs to do is split autarchs into two HQ choices: strategy and beat stick.

The guardians do have a command structure, but it's more like the imperial guard. An autarch should be a synergy/order giving, strategem producing character. You should probably be able to take 1-3 as a single hq choice.

The menshad korum should be the master of all aspects, an exarch that's turning into a Phoenix lord.

EDIT: the autarch actually shows up by name in EPIC Armageddon before the 40k codex. In that, they are one of the craftworld's exarchs who has taken a first amongst equals position among their exarch brethren. They literally claim autarchy. This version of an autarch is as close to the menshad korum as we've had since 2nd ed.

Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:
What's wrong with the Autarch?

A couple of things: undermining the sacrifice of an exarch, and contradicting the original command structure.

The original military command structure of the craftworlds consisted of exarch councils. Exarchs were also trapped on the path of the warrior, not trapped in an aspect of the path (although they often stayed in one). The menshad korum was an exarch that never stayed in an aspect, travelling every path of the warrior.

Something important that has been lost, is that as exarchs are lost in the path, rather than the aspect, they're not the over specialised narrow focus squad leaders that we've been fed since 3rd ed. The menshad korum especially, is a master of the path of the warrior and therefore capable of strategy beyond 'screaming', or 'stealthing', or.shooty middle good.

Which leads to the sacrifice. The autarch is portrayed as having better abilities than an exarch, but not falling to the path. Making an exarch look like a chump rather than the kungfu master they're supposed to be.

This is relatively easy to fix, just as GW fixed the broodlord by returning the patriarch concept back to the game.

All GW needs to do is split autarchs into two HQ choices: strategy and beat stick.

The guardians do have a command structure, but it's more like the imperial guard. An autarch should be a synergy/order giving, strategem producing character. You should probably be able to take 1-3 as a single hq choice.

The menshad korum should be the master of all aspects, an exarch that's turning into a Phoenix lord.

EDIT: the autarch actually shows up by name in EPIC Armageddon before the 40k codex. In that, they are one of the craftworld's exarchs who has taken a first amongst equals position among their exarch brethren. They literally claim autarchy. This version of an autarch is as close to the menshad korum as we've had since 2nd ed.

I didn't know this. I need to get a copy of the 2nd ed codex! Sounds like an easy fix, though.

Blastaar wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:
What's wrong with the Autarch?

A couple of things: undermining the sacrifice of an exarch, and contradicting the original command structure.

The original military command structure of the craftworlds consisted of exarch councils. Exarchs were also trapped on the path of the warrior, not trapped in an aspect of the path (although they often stayed in one). The menshad korum was an exarch that never stayed in an aspect, travelling every path of the warrior.

Something important that has been lost, is that as exarchs are lost in the path, rather than the aspect, they're not the over specialised narrow focus squad leaders that we've been fed since 3rd ed. The menshad korum especially, is a master of the path of the warrior and therefore capable of strategy beyond 'screaming', or 'stealthing', or.shooty middle good.

Which leads to the sacrifice. The autarch is portrayed as having better abilities than an exarch, but not falling to the path. Making an exarch look like a chump rather than the kungfu master they're supposed to be.

This is relatively easy to fix, just as GW fixed the broodlord by returning the patriarch concept back to the game.

All GW needs to do is split autarchs into two HQ choices: strategy and beat stick.

The guardians do have a command structure, but it's more like the imperial guard. An autarch should be a synergy/order giving, strategem producing character. You should probably be able to take 1-3 as a single hq choice.

The menshad korum should be the master of all aspects, an exarch that's turning into a Phoenix lord.

EDIT: the autarch actually shows up by name in EPIC Armageddon before the 40k codex. In that, they are one of the craftworld's exarchs who has taken a first amongst equals position among their exarch brethren. They literally claim autarchy. This version of an autarch is as close to the menshad korum as we've had since 2nd ed.

I didn't know this. I need to get a copy of the 2nd ed codex! Sounds like an easy fix, though.

While the second Ed codex is great and does represent a much better exarch, the menshad korum is not mentioned by name. It was last mentioned in the RT Era compilation book of the original WD Eldar article.

Overall though, the 2nd Ed book is probably best.

Karandras and maugan Ra were T6....

When did phoenix lords arrive on the scene? Is it possible that the decline in exarch power happened because they needed to make room for Phoenix Lords?

I mean, if exarchs are combat gods, and phoenix lords have to top them, do you make them game breakers or dumb down their lesser kin?

PenitentJake wrote:
When did phoenix lords arrive on the scene? Is it possible that the decline in exarch power happened because they needed to make room for Phoenix Lords?

I mean, if exarchs are combat gods, and phoenix lords have to top them, do you make them game breakers or dumb down their lesser kin?

Phoenix lords were introduced in the 2nd Ed codex.

They had better stats than exarchs and unique wargear items. It's no different to having generic captains, named chapter masters and primarchs in the same army list.

Exarchs were very customisable and at the time, pretty much the only Characters that could carry heavy weapons.

They also had access to the generic wargear item deck, which included 3+ invulnerable teleport saves and even 2+ saves.


Edit: I've also attached the stats of the avatar and a farseer to show that in 2nd Ed , stats alone don't really give you a great idea of how good something is.

On the original metal Phoenix Lord sculpts (I don't know if it ever changed), many of them say "EXARCH" on the slotta tab, because they were literally sculpted before the Eldar lore was properly organized/written, etc. You can see the same in Goodwin's art books.

The 2nd edition book had a very fun list of maybe 15-20 Exarch powers which you could choose from, you'll notice the Phoenix Lords use these (though they all had three of them, and they were dictated in the codex). Exarchs were a really fun tool. You could throw them on a Jetbike, heck you could mount them on a Vyper (before the Vyper even had a proper model the codex allowed you to mount a "fighting platform" in place of the turreted weapon...because awesome). You could have even had Maugan Ra zipping around on the back of a Vyper shooting from the back with his Maugetar, etc.

The amount of wargear, wargear cards, exarch powers, etc. made Exarchs really fun.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
I would actuly prefer the Avatar to not be much bigger than it is now. Its a good size for what it is. Give it some weapons options to make it cool, But i would rather it be big in comparison to a human or marine, but not really huge.

Hard disagree. I'm tired of Marines devaluing Xenos. The Avatar is a construct summoned to protect the Craftworld in times of absolute peril, and requires the sacrifice of an Exarch. The Avatar should be able to go toe to toe with a Primarch, and I want a model and rules that reflect that. I'd pay 300 points for an Avatar that truly did the business in CC, threw out wicked buffs, and had a 4++ or something. I don't want it to be OP but I want it to be SCARY.

Being good in the game does not mean it needs to be big, it should be more powerful than a primarch. But I honestly think primarchs have be way overblown in power and kinda wreck the feel of 40k. They both should not be stepping on the toes of tanks and war machines of the setting.
Leaders, and powerful. But no need to overblown and a bit silly.
Avatars could be cool if they gave them powers and ability’s, ether to fit there craftworld, or better to show there is some small differences as focal points for there craftworlds.

Yncarne, the Avatar of Ynnead can somewhat go toe to toe in a duel with Guilliman in 8th edition. Daemon primarchs are on a different level but fluff-wise I can see it. They sacrificed their corporeal forms to become warp entities after all.

I'm sure the Avatar of Khaine will get an updated datasheet once GW updates the sculpt.

Phoenix Lords seem more like chapter masters to me than primarchs in terms of power level. I'm not too familiar with their lore though.

 slave.entity wrote:
Yncarne, the Avatar of Ynnead can somewhat go toe to toe in a duel with Guilliman in 8th edition. Daemon primarchs are on a different level but fluff-wise I can see it. They sacrificed their corporeal forms to become warp entities after all.

I'm sure the Avatar of Khaine will get an updated datasheet once GW updates the sculpt.

Phoenix Lords seem more like chapter masters to me than primarchs in terms of power level. I'm not too familiar with their lore though.

It's a case of fluff description at odds with stats. And I'm not talking prose describing how badass they are, just the functional description of how they work.

Phoenix lords are basically aspect wraithguard - they are an armoured shell with the spirits of the dead powering them. Their abilities are supernatural and powered by warp energy, they can't tire, they don't eat, they can't suffer injuries, be poisoned, suffocated etc.

They're like Shaolin monks that have reached enlightenment. They have complete control over their form, perfected fighting techniques and supernatural ninja moves.

They aren't big bruisers, they are lightning fast armoured ghost ninjas.

 silverstu wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Some of the Warlocks date back to Rogue Trader.

Yeah but they are ace models- I love the antler helmet one- I hope he makes a reappearance in a new warlock box [hopeing for a box rather than an individual kit].

The aspects where always going to be challenging - but I think their tech is so good now, and their model of kits size [I'm used to £25 for 5 elite models] works now. We really need proper spears- I hate those models, plus we can get fuller options for exarchs [which hopefully might spread out to autarchs through allowable kit bashing].

A big feck-off plastic avatar kit is also desperately needed [forgeworld is lovely but pricey and physically fragile and I think they could do him better in plastic now].

I really hope Banshees are the start of a serious revamp of eldar over the next year or so [there is too much to do all at once even just on terms of the aspects].

I honestly love the Rogue Trader Craftworlder design and think it's the pinnacle of the lot. Maybe modernised for proportions and size, but I still prefer them to most of the modern aspects, for example.

And no Farseer is better than the original bug-eye Farseer.

Delete, miss post.

I wish they'd bring back more of that highly ornate alien looking design to Eldar. The smooth domes of some of the more modern designs are sleek, but at the same time they feel very empty unless you're good with an airbrush/freehand.

I'd say anything that is currently in finecost, or anything over a certain age:

Definitely:
- Phoenix Lords
- Guardians
- Vyper
- Falcon/Wave Serpent - chassis is fine but the turrets etc are old and clunky.
- all the aspect warriors
- needs to be plastic storm guardian sprues
- warlocks on foot
- Avatar (that sculpt is horrific!) although I'm currently using the Khaine statue from the dark elf blood throne thing

It is one of the ranges with the most need for plastics.

I hope this new box set means a thorough plasticing of the whole range, but I'm not holding my breath.