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.

Would pulling the Exarchs out of the units (making them have a "Sargeant" type instead) help you think?

Move the Exarchs to an Elites slot, but you get 1 slotless one if you have 1 or more units of the connected Aspect, where they could be used as a unit-booster, akin to the Sister Repenta and the Repenta Superior from the Sister of Battle?

Then you could focus on the Aspects individually, with the Exarchs having their own role.

From there, you could focus on the Aspects, prepping rules and, in theory, new models at the same time.

That'd let you focus on getting the units right, then making them even better with the "teacher" around.

Taking the oft-mentioned Banshees as an example, you might wind up with a unit that was designed to be fleet, nimble, and excel at taking down heavy infantry, which could look like so:

BANSHEES (5-10)

M 7, WS 3+, BS 4+, S 3, T 3, W 1, A 2, LD 7, SV 4+
(Unit leader as above, +1 A, +1 LD)

Power Sword (S, AP -3, 1 damage)
(Basic Eldar rules)

Wail of the Banshee: Models cannot Overwatch this unit. In addition, any enemy unit in Engagement Range with this unit suffers -1 LD.

Nimbleness: Models in this unit have a 5+ Invulnerable save.

Acrobatic: This unit may charge even if it Fell Back this turn.

Duelists: Enemy units attacking this unit in the fight phase suffer -1 to hit.

Perfect Placement: This unit may reroll failed rolls to wound against Infantry models during the Fight phase.

This gives them the speed to engage, the ability to get in, and out, of combat, showcases their swordsmanship, and with the reroll on wounding lets them land telling blows more often without having to explode the number of attacks.

Trying to get the points cost for this would be tricky, since if they were, say, 18 point models with 1 wound, no one would use them, but 10 pts is clearly too cheap, so it'd take a bit, but... workable? Maybe.

The Exarch would then have three abilities to pick from, some focused on themselves, some focused on helping their aspect (IE, "Pick a unit of Howling Banshees within 8" to blah") … I don't have the Psychic Awakening book with their new options in it, but, y'all probably get the gist.

Each unit gets a focus like this, generating some nice options, but to get around the old "It doesn't look like an army, it looks like a circus!" canard, there'd probably be some new guidelines for what Aspect Warriors LOOK like.

Like the Exarch gets the classic scheme, but the Aspects are a blend of craftworld colors and Shrine colors, since they have a foot in each world.This is akin to the Marines who have officers (Apothecary, Chaplain, etc) with a special uniform but who also bear the chapter iconography. Each Aspect needs something that links them to the army overall, but I'm not sure what that should be or even if it's needed.

I just know that, back in the day, one of the higher-ups HATED Eldar because of the Flying Circus look.

That sounds awful to me honestly. Part of the point of an Exarch is they train and lead members of their Shrine so they should be with their squad. Plus I'm generally against GW's weird thing of separating sergeants from their units like they did with Harlequins and Mistress Repentia. It makes things more tedious and it's plain silly.

The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Yeah, the Exarchs would be scarier versions of their current form. 3, maybe 4 wounds, for instance. I just didn't take the time to spitball one here.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

 vipoid wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
You're quibbling the inclusion of a warlock in a list, with ghoststep? That's such a cheap unit, and taking that power has almost no opportunity cost, and the power has a WC of 6! And of course, you'll be bringing at least one 45pt warlock in most CWE lists. Why quibble over this?

I don't think the inclusion of a Warlock is necessarily an issue in these comparisons.

The issue is that a Warlock can only buff a single unit, and even with multiple Warlocks you can still only cast ghsotstep once per turn.

Hence, the opportunity cost lies not in the inclusion of the Warlock but rather in the fact that it's having to buff the Scorpions over any of the other units in your army.

Fair point, well made. Yes, that's quite an issue and leans you into a multi-warlock list, which may not be ideal.

rather than faff with exarchs just let autarch trade the re-roll ability for an exarch power, go go build-a-bear hq

Exarchs are the only part of the aspect warrior squads that are any good, separating them would just make the aspect warriors themselvs even worse.

What needs to happen is aspect warriors need to get reworked to be actual elite infantry, not bargain-basement trash. Scorpions at 9 points a model with 2 S4 attacks are a mockery of the Eldar lore in a world where even non-combat focused space marines get 3 S4 attacks, probably with an AP bonus too.

At the end of the day fixing aspect warriors is just contributing to the problem. GW need to look at everything together and rebalance it all at once rather than looking at one bit at a time.

I'm just getting into 40k gaming again after not playing since probably 5th edition.

The Eldar, barring their name change, are exactly the same army as they were 5th edition - in fact, they are the same as they were in the 1990s. No new units, no new ideas. Now compare these to Space Marines which have changed beyond all recognition: dozens of new vehicles, units, flying tanks, even the basic troopers now have new weapons and a different profile.

Would it kill any of their designers to introduce more vehicles, more Aspects? In Epic, Tempests are a mandatory pick, but they are absent from 40K.

The Eldar ruled the galaxy with one type of troop carrier and one type of tank?

I'd rather they make the existing units work than put in a bunch of new ones.

pm713 wrote:
At the end of the day fixing aspect warriors is just contributing to the problem. GW need to look at everything together and rebalance it all at once rather than looking at one bit at a time.

And re-write the game.

 NoPoet wrote:


Would it kill any of their designers to introduce more vehicles, more Aspects? In Epic, Tempests are a mandatory pick, but they are absent from 40K.

The Eldar ruled the galaxy with one type of troop carrier and one type of tank?

have you met t...forge world, no idea why it go a new name but the scorpian is the same thing

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

But only sometimes

Honestly the real loss is the continued loss of customization for Exarchs and then their spiritual replacement, Autarchs. One of the pillars of the OG design was these hyper-customizeable champions with exotc alien weapons and abilities. The current incarnation is pretty lackluster in comparison. If Exarchs remain Sergeants, the Autarch should have more customization available, at the very least.

 Insectum7 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

But only sometimes

Honestly the real loss is the continued loss of customization for Exarchs and then their spiritual replacement, Autarchs. One of the pillars of the OG design was these hyper-customizeable champions with exotc alien weapons and abilities. The current incarnation is pretty lackluster in comparison. If Exarchs remain Sergeants, the Autarch should have more customization available, at the very least.

Its a shame we will never see the level of character custimization again, since GW doesnt want to make the models and they refuse to let 3rd party profit off their laziness

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

It has never been true that all shrines had one squad in it, or one squad for every exarch in it. Not only is that not sustainable (completely stunting aspect numbers based on how many eldar got lost on the warrior path - how do you get lost if no exarchs are alive to lead you down the path in the first place), it didn't make any kind of logistical sense for a military force.

This is still reflected at least partially by the fact you don't have to take an exarch in every squad (in terms of choice, not effectiveness).

The shrines have always evoked like classic Kung Fu temples with rows of initiates being trained by masters walking back and forth amongst them (you've seen the movies)..

There will always be more more students then teachers. Squad will always deploy without a teacher in them. If they were green recruits in their first battle I could totally see an exarch babysitting them specifically. But the warrior squad is of a certain experience and training level. This is what I meant earlier about the lack of exploration of the shrines.

It would actually make far more sense for exarchs to be separate and leading their many squads to battle, rather than only being in one of them. Being able to move between them is far more in keeping than sticking with only one.


And we've only concentrated on discussing their role as teacher. Exarchs are also the priests of khaine and specialists par excellence in their path. They are also driven to fight perpetually. We don't get the solo exarch on a mission from khaine to slaughter their foes as a one man army. We don't get the menshad korum exarchs chasing themselves through the path perpetually either.


. The squad babysitter is only one very narrow role for an exarch for one type of squad (newbs). There are plenty of other roles they fulfill we don't get anything of in the game despite them being vital lynchpins to the Eldar military structure and on the field of battle.


Exarch SHOULD be as varied and annoying as the glut of Lieutenants GW keeps making fun of, as they represent a wealth of rules and options

 Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

It has never been true that all shrines had one squad in it, or one squad for every exarch in it. Not only is that not sustainable (completely stunting aspect numbers based on how many eldar got lost on the warrior path - how do you get lost if no exarchs are alive to lead you down the path in the first place), it didn't make any kind of logistical sense for a military force.

This is still reflected at least partially by the fact you don't have to take an exarch in every squad (in terms of choice, not effectiveness).

The shrines have always evoked like classic Kung Fu temples with rows of initiates being trained by masters walking back and forth amongst them (you've seen the movies)..

It's a question of vision and scale. For example, Gav Thorpe seems to adhere to the small numbers school of thought (which I disagree with), giving ridiculously low populations for Eldar craftworlds. His view seems to be 1 Exarch per shrine and 1 squad per shrine as standard. In other words, it's the Karate Kid small fry local neighborhood dojo.

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

It has never been true that all shrines had one squad in it, or one squad for every exarch in it. Not only is that not sustainable (completely stunting aspect numbers based on how many eldar got lost on the warrior path - how do you get lost if no exarchs are alive to lead you down the path in the first place), it didn't make any kind of logistical sense for a military force.

This is still reflected at least partially by the fact you don't have to take an exarch in every squad (in terms of choice, not effectiveness).

The shrines have always evoked like classic Kung Fu temples with rows of initiates being trained by masters walking back and forth amongst them (you've seen the movies)..

It's a question of vision and scale. For example, Gav Thorpe seems to adhere to the small numbers school of thought (which I disagree with), giving ridiculously low populations for Eldar craftworlds. His view seems to be 1 Exarch per shrine and 1 squad per shrine as standard. In other words, it's the Karate Kid small fry local neighborhood dojo.

Hence why I said 'all shrines'. Thorpe's shrines are from a very specific craftworld that has avoided conflict for a huge amount of time (alaitoc?). I don't think it's at all representative of shrines in general. The descriptions of shrines through the codices has definitely not been so parochial.

So yes, there will definitely be small shrines neglected on craftworlds. Especially to the more esoteric aspects. But the more popular shrines on the more active craftworlds fit within the descriptions of shrines as large structures with armouries and training grounds for many students.

 Hellebore wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

It has never been true that all shrines had one squad in it, or one squad for every exarch in it. Not only is that not sustainable (completely stunting aspect numbers based on how many eldar got lost on the warrior path - how do you get lost if no exarchs are alive to lead you down the path in the first place), it didn't make any kind of logistical sense for a military force.

This is still reflected at least partially by the fact you don't have to take an exarch in every squad (in terms of choice, not effectiveness).

The shrines have always evoked like classic Kung Fu temples with rows of initiates being trained by masters walking back and forth amongst them (you've seen the movies)..

It's a question of vision and scale. For example, Gav Thorpe seems to adhere to the small numbers school of thought (which I disagree with), giving ridiculously low populations for Eldar craftworlds. His view seems to be 1 Exarch per shrine and 1 squad per shrine as standard. In other words, it's the Karate Kid small fry local neighborhood dojo.

Hence why I said 'all shrines'. Thorpe's shrines are from a very specific craftworld that has avoided conflict for a huge amount of time (alaitoc?). I don't think it's at all representative of shrines in general. The descriptions of shrines through the codices has definitely not been so parochial.

So yes, there will definitely be small shrines neglected on craftworlds. Especially to the more esoteric aspects. But the more popular shrines on the more active craftworlds fit within the descriptions of shrines as large structures with armouries and training grounds for many students.

I agree with you but a small quibble. Gav wrote about Alaitoc, one of the biggest Craftworlds and which is involved in a lot of the galaxy's wars, which is why I disagree so much with his portrayal of the shrines (and his low Craftworld population estimate) though appreciated some fleshing out of civilian Eldar paths and life. If it were some tiny never before heard of Craftworld, maybe, but not one of the big 5

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

It has never been true that all shrines had one squad in it, or one squad for every exarch in it. Not only is that not sustainable (completely stunting aspect numbers based on how many eldar got lost on the warrior path - how do you get lost if no exarchs are alive to lead you down the path in the first place), it didn't make any kind of logistical sense for a military force.

This is still reflected at least partially by the fact you don't have to take an exarch in every squad (in terms of choice, not effectiveness).

The shrines have always evoked like classic Kung Fu temples with rows of initiates being trained by masters walking back and forth amongst them (you've seen the movies)..

It's a question of vision and scale. For example, Gav Thorpe seems to adhere to the small numbers school of thought (which I disagree with), giving ridiculously low populations for Eldar craftworlds. His view seems to be 1 Exarch per shrine and 1 squad per shrine as standard. In other words, it's the Karate Kid small fry local neighborhood dojo.

I seem to remember the other scorpion shrine in those books being bigger, not immensely, but definitely not the minimum squad that the protagonist's original shrine seemed to be.
Of course, falling off the wagon and re-starting another shrine is a fairly dynamic way of introducing more, even if the novel itself cut that short.

Personally, I think Gav just took shortcuts to focus on the handful of characters he cared to abuse.

Voss wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original Exarchs were separated from their squads and geared independently. They had the combat stats closer to a SM Captain, too.

Original doesn't mean better. You can still give better stats/independent gear without the weird separation. Or they could return the character rules to what they were...

It has never been true that all shrines had one squad in it, or one squad for every exarch in it. Not only is that not sustainable (completely stunting aspect numbers based on how many eldar got lost on the warrior path - how do you get lost if no exarchs are alive to lead you down the path in the first place), it didn't make any kind of logistical sense for a military force.

This is still reflected at least partially by the fact you don't have to take an exarch in every squad (in terms of choice, not effectiveness).

The shrines have always evoked like classic Kung Fu temples with rows of initiates being trained by masters walking back and forth amongst them (you've seen the movies)..

It's a question of vision and scale. For example, Gav Thorpe seems to adhere to the small numbers school of thought (which I disagree with), giving ridiculously low populations for Eldar craftworlds. His view seems to be 1 Exarch per shrine and 1 squad per shrine as standard. In other words, it's the Karate Kid small fry local neighborhood dojo.

I seem to remember the other scorpion shrine in those books being bigger, not immensely, but definitely not the minimum squad that the protagonist's original shrine seemed to be.
Of course, falling off the wagon and re-starting another shrine is a fairly dynamic way of introducing more, even if the novel itself cut that short.

Personally, I think Gav just took shortcuts to focus on the handful of characters he cared to abuse.

In those books, a rival Scorpion shrine was looked down upon because it took more students. The small shrine sizes did not seem limited to just the Scorpions. The Dire Avenger shrine shown also seemed to just be 1 squad. The main character of the 1st book was also forced to leave his shrine to go revive an empty one when he became trapped, again showing Gav adhered to the 1 Exarch per shrine view.

I personally prefer the big martial arts temple with multiple Exarchs myself.

Given there is descriptions of different sizes, I'm not sure his small ones really matter in the scheme of things.

Gw normally (read when making imperial/marine lists) gives you all the possible options and lets you decide how to implement them.

If they treated marines like shrines, the codex would be missing large chunks of units because some chapters couldn't take terminators, or don't have librarians.


This comes back to what I've said before - GW has no trouble taking an expansive view of marines, but they take a restrictive view of xenos and especially Eldar. They contract and make less.

It's that mentality more than anything else that really turns me off 40k. The double standard in customer treatment effectively. They've done it to themselves and just keep reinforcing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
While I'm happy to accept the existence of many different sizes of shrine, I'm not sure that Thorpe's depiction makes much sense for a variety of reasons.

As I stated previously, it creates an unsustainable training cycle. One exarch to teach. Without it no one can follow the path. No one can get lost on the path. That aspect goes extinct after one battle.

Also, many of these shrines were supposed to be set up by the Phoenix lords and the idea of a Phoenix lords swooping in and building a dinky little dojo and telling them to keep it small and only have a single exarch is just bizarre. They're obsessed with the path of war, they aren't going to try to reduce the number of recruits their shrines get.



And this has all come about because of this focus on them as squad leader teachers, rather than as living embodiments of the path of the warrior and priests of khaine - mighty, LEGENDARY, warriors in their own right. Heroes lauded and feared by the fellows.

Excuse my ignorance, but is it only Exarcahs that teach, or do more experienced Aspect Warriors do it too?

 harlokin wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it only Exarcahs that teach, or do more experienced Aspect Warriors do it too?

The canonical GW answer as it is portrayed in Gav Thorpe's books, and Guy Haley's Valedor books, is the Exarch teaches. The Exarch lives in the shrine which itself is in a separate environmental dome of the Craftworld, The Aspect Warriors go there for their lessons then at the end of the day leave and can walk around the rest of the Craftworld and go to their homes. The Aspect Warriors in Gav's novels do spar against each other, though again under the supervision of the Exarch.

 harlokin wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it only Exarcahs that teach, or do more experienced Aspect Warriors do it too?

That's actually an example of GWs neglect in writing about the aspects. Where we get huge swathes of minutae on marines, we get very little on aspects.

It's unclear. I don't think it should be impossible for someone to learn an aspect without an exarch - the path of the warrior is a philosophy or concept that has been formalised. But anyone that concentrates on warfare in a structured way would be on the path to some degree. We see that guardians can use catapults, bikes, melee weapons, fusion guns etc without HAVING to have walked the warrior path.

In my opinion, a temple shrine would have many levels of student, from New recruits, to returning veterans who have come back to the path more than once (but not become trapped on it). There would be many exarchs of very different shades as each falls in a unique way.

Senior students would be able to teach new ones, as it's no different to real martial arts - whoever has more experience is encouraged to support their kouhai.

 harlokin wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it only Exarcahs that teach, or do more experienced Aspect Warriors do it too?

IIrc both can teach. An Exarch is basically wholly obsessed though, and forever trapped on the warrior path. I think of Exarchs as Eldar Space Marines in a way. They do nothing but train and pray, and will never return to be part of the 'normal' populace again. Individual Aspect Warriors will vary in experience though, and it would only make sense that some could teach others 'the way', while themselves not being lost to it.

 Hellebore wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it only Exarcahs that teach, or do more experienced Aspect Warriors do it too?

That's actually an example of GWs neglect in writing about the aspects. Where we get huge swathes of minutae on marines, we get very little on aspects.

It's unclear. I don't think it should be impossible for someone to learn an aspect without an exarch - the path of the warrior is a philosophy or concept that has been formalised. But anyone that concentrates on warfare in a structured way would be on the path to some degree. We see that guardians can use catapults, bikes, melee weapons, fusion guns etc without HAVING to have walked the warrior path.

They can learn how to use the equipment, but the Warrior Path is about the unlocking and controlling that part of the Eldar psyche. Historically that has been IMO why the old Eldar went from WS BS 3 to 4 (I from 4 to 5 and Ld increase etc.) when they became Aspect Warriors. This was from the training and the shrine rituals like the ritualistic donning of the armor and the psychological war mask. WIthout going back to the Warrior Path and undergoing those rituals, those with past experience cannot revive their skills to the same level though they retain their experience (from the 2nd edition Codex). Past Aspect Warriors, again from the 2nd edition Codex, could be Guardian squad leaders.

Gav Thorpe's Ranger character could shoot his rifle without having been a Warrior, but I think he started taking just a little too much glee and pleasure in the act of shooting and killing Grots. That would be the risk of prolonged fighting without past experience on the Path, and is what Corsairs would face. The risk is over time they may slide over into actions more becoming of Dark Eldar or Slaanesh followers.

I really enjoy these conversations and it shows just how much potential for interesting units, rules and exarchs the Eldar could have.

Which just highlights how deliberately neglectful and underwhelming they have been treated.

You could create just as much unique and interesting character as the Harlequin codex around a single shrine, if you chose to laser focus your creativity on it like they've done with the different colours in marine shoulder trim, or how many types of terminator armour you can get that all need different rules

 Hellebore wrote:
I really enjoy these conversations and it shows just how much potential for interesting units, rules and exarchs the Eldar could have.

Which just highlights how deliberately neglectful and underwhelming they have been treated.

You could create just as much unique and interesting character as the Harlequin codex around a single shrine, if you chose to laser focus your creativity on it like they've done with the different colours in marine shoulder trim, or how many types of terminator armour you can get that all need different rules

I'm still miffed they took a saying they initially attributed to Asurmen in a WD and retconned it to be from Farsight.

"To strike! That is the distillation of purpose into a single perfect moment. Be the first to strike."

I try not to let novels influence how I think about things that are a part of the actual game. The novels help me come up with scenarios, and they inspire me, but only material from a game book is actually cannon as far as I'm concerned. Opinions may vary, of course.

Separating exarchs has potential if tweaked, but it's hard to get right. As someone mentioned earlier, the squads are bad without the exarchs, so the exarch powers would have to become aura abilities. But even then...

I mean, the thing about separate Exarchs is that's kinda what a Phoenix Lord is, right? So if you dump exarchs into that design space, PL become superfluous.

I think the idea of re-tooling them as REAL elites would be my preference. They should all have 2 wounds and minimum strength and toughness of 4. If you don't like it because it's inconsistent with the Eldar species stat template, you just create a piece of gear or an ability that makes the model function as if it had S4 T4. And obviously, their costs can go up substantially to justify this.