Aeldari rumours

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.

**clodax66**

My biggest take away from this is warp spiders are going to be super good. d6 auto hitting blast shots and can move 2d6 after shooting. 5 man unit will absolutely delete any 11+ unit.

**bullyboy**

The Autarch restriction is just so GW.

Besides the warcom mention of customization with existing Autarch, if you simply wanted to reproduce that splendid Autarch on the cover of the codex..... well, the rules say you can't, lol

**Galef**

I'm wondering if the Autarch rules in the Omens book are temporary.
They seem designed to build just what comes in the box OR the existing Winged Autarch.
It wouldn't be the first time GW released new models with rules in a box set than gave new rules in the Codex

Fingers crossed the Codex datasheet will allow more mix-n-match.
Or at least for the Skyrunner Autarch.

-

**Kanluwen**

Platuan4th wrote:
"Hey everyone! We made sure the new Autarch was compatible with the old one!"

"Unless you actually want to use the models."

Did they ever actually claim that the profiles did not have restrictions?
Looking at the Path of the Preview article and the announcement of the battlebox article...it looks like they definitely went out of their way to try to paint it as a "modeling" thing rather than a "profile" thing.

Devil's advocate moment though, it could be Crusade lets you open up more options for an Autarch. There's a bunch of showcase shots in the AdMech book of the example Crusade force's 10 model Skitarii Ranger squads toting 3x weapons(including two of the same! scandalous!). And not all are shown in the "Crusade" section.

**Arschbombe**

Galef wrote:
I'm wondering if the Autarch rules in the Omens book are temporary.
They seem designed to build just what comes in the box OR the existing Winged Autarch.
It wouldn't be the first time GW released new models with rules in a box set than gave new rules in the Codex

Fingers crossed the Codex datasheet will allow more mix-n-match.
Or at least for the Skyrunner Autarch.

It won't change. We all know this despite having a moment of hope based on the warcom article that said the two autarch kits are compatible. Unit options are based on what comes in the kit now. The winged autarch is its own kit. So it can only be built with what's in the kit. The new autarch will be its own kit as well.

**dan2026**

Warp Spiders are good.
Models are old and gak.

Truly the blurst of times.

**No One Important**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, but you won't find 3 different types of bolter on a single unit. One and sometimes a special heavy version is about all we deal with.

An Indomitor Kill Team can have 7 different types of bolt weapons in a single unit.

Spoiler:

Regular Heavy Intercessor Squad can have 3.

Spoiler:

**Iracundus**

I hope it is different. I fear it may not be.

It looks almost like the model designers, artists, and rules designers were not talking to each other.

Model designer: All the options will be backwards compatible with the old Autarch. Players will free to be able to mix and match any combination they desire!
Artists: I hear the model designers are making things customizable again. Let's change things up a bit from the old Autarch model for the front cover of the Codex!
Rules designers: Each box only comes with a limited number of options so that will be the only combination they will be allowed to build. It's not like they would be able to mix and match with the contents of the old Autarch box!

**Overread**

The problem is the way GW writes optional parts for 40K armies today. Even if the kits are being kept separate they've a very confusing way of writing things that on the one hand is "trying" to make it easy to get into, but its almost like the yare trying so hard that they actually miss how they are making it more difficult.

It strikes me that perhaps those who design those optional tables are either not getting or not responding to feedback on them.

It is also strange that two kits GW provides can't be combined when its in their very design. Heck GW already has kits like the Slaanesh Chariot where you need two to make an exalted; or the DoK Cauldron which is needed for most of their stand alone heroes and Khaine Statue

So GW CAN do this stuff. It's strange ,but eh we can just hope it will shift around in the future at some stage.

**Kanluwen**

Overread wrote:
The problem is the way GW writes optional parts for 40K armies today. Even if the kits are being kept separate they've a very confusing way of writing things that on the one hand is "trying" to make it easy to get into, but its almost like the yare trying so hard that they actually miss how they are making it more difficult.

It strikes me that perhaps those who design those optional tables are either not getting or not responding to feedback on them.

Or the feedback they're getting is useless.

It is also strange that two kits GW provides can't be combined when its in their very design. Heck GW already has kits like the Slaanesh Chariot where you need two to make an exalted; or the DoK Cauldron which is needed for most of their stand alone heroes and Khaine Statue

So GW CAN do this stuff. It's strange ,but eh we can just hope it will shift around in the future at some stage.

Counterpoint:
Skitarii weapon loadouts.

**xttz**

Kanluwen wrote:
Overread wrote:
The problem is the way GW writes optional parts for 40K armies today. Even if the kits are being kept separate they've a very confusing way of writing things that on the one hand is "trying" to make it easy to get into, but its almost like the yare trying so hard that they actually miss how they are making it more difficult.

It strikes me that perhaps those who design those optional tables are either not getting or not responding to feedback on them.

Or the feedback they're getting is useless.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of people yelling about things they don't like on Internet echo chambers also send feedback directly to GW.

**Overread**

xttz wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Overread wrote:
The problem is the way GW writes optional parts for 40K armies today. Even if the kits are being kept separate they've a very confusing way of writing things that on the one hand is "trying" to make it easy to get into, but its almost like the yare trying so hard that they actually miss how they are making it more difficult.

It strikes me that perhaps those who design those optional tables are either not getting or not responding to feedback on them.

Or the feedback they're getting is useless.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of people yelling about things they don't like on Internet echo chambers also send feedback directly to GW.

And how those emails are worded. Sometimes the difference between feedback being accepted and rejected is purely in the tone of the message. The content can easily be lost in poor or hostile wording.

Heck I'm always telling people to email GW to ask for a base size chart to be made for 40K/to update the AOS one.

I think one issue is people VENT on community sites and they don't often follow through. Then again sometimes its also likely because a lot of feedback will get the generic "thanks we'll take that into account" type of reply. So people might well not feel their feedback is received well enough to be encouraged

**H.B.M.C.**

Khahandran wrote:
There's some speculation on Discord that it's simply a limitation of the box's datasheet and won't be present in the Codex, and this isn't the first time this has happened either.

Don't do that.

And if that were the case, why would the temp data-sheet include rules for something that isn't in the box?

**l0k1**

It's interesting that Autarchs now allow you to use Command reroll twice per phase

**Nevelon**

l0k1 wrote:
It's interesting that Autarchs now allow you to use Command reroll twice per phase

It’s a neat perk, but with all the strats out there, is it the best use of a CP?

Sometimes it is, so good for the option.

**l0k1**

Nevelon wrote:
l0k1 wrote:
It's interesting that Autarchs now allow you to use Command reroll twice per phase

It’s a neat perk, but with all the strats out there, is it the best use of a CP?

Sometimes it is, so good for the option.

Yeah the CP is probably better used elsewhere. I think at this point I'm just trying to talk myself into buying the Autarch so I can paint it

**The Red Hobbit**

stahly wrote:
One thing I forgot to point out was that the new Autarch datasheet says you can EITHER draw from the options of the new kit OR take the other plastic Autarch model with its wings, mandiblasters, fusion pistol, and Banshee blade.

No mixing matching like say wings, Reaper Missile Launcher, and Banshee mask.

Has that been shared before?

Datesheet here: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/02/review-eldritch-omens-aeldari-vs-chaos-space-marines-battlebox/

I hope that's not the case, I'd prefer to mix and match even though I've got the older model.

**clodax66**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
stahly wrote:
One thing I forgot to point out was that the new Autarch datasheet says you can EITHER draw from the options of the new kit OR take the other plastic Autarch model with its wings, mandiblasters, fusion pistol, and Banshee blade.

No mixing matching like say wings, Reaper Missile Launcher, and Banshee mask.

Has that been shared before?

Datesheet here: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/02/review-eldritch-omens-aeldari-vs-chaos-space-marines-battlebox/

I hope that's not the case, I'd prefer to mix and match even though I've got the older model.

I also hope it's just for the box set. If it's like that in the codex then the autarch on the cover is illegal in match play.

**Wha-Mu-077**

clodax66 wrote:
The Red Hobbit wrote:
stahly wrote:
One thing I forgot to point out was that the new Autarch datasheet says you can EITHER draw from the options of the new kit OR take the other plastic Autarch model with its wings, mandiblasters, fusion pistol, and Banshee blade.

No mixing matching like say wings, Reaper Missile Launcher, and Banshee mask.

Has that been shared before?

Datesheet here: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/02/review-eldritch-omens-aeldari-vs-chaos-space-marines-battlebox/

I hope that's not the case, I'd prefer to mix and match even though I've got the older model.

I also hope it's just for the box set. If it's like that in the codex then the autarch on the cover is illegal in match play.

I don't see any reason why it would be a diffrent datasheet in the box than the final one - afterall, if it was supposed to be a datasheet only intended for the Autarch in the box, they surely wouldn't add options for the model not in the box to it, now would they?

**Galef**

For those thinking the Autarch datasheet is going to be exactly the same as the Codex datasheet, there's presidence for it to be different.
Many of the newer Primaris Marine units that were introduced in box sets have ended up with new rules shortly after when the Codex dropped.

Heck, there's a datasheet in THIS EXACT box that absolutely will get updated: the Chaos Chosen datasheet for Eldritch Omens has leaked and they still only have 1W.
We know that all Chaos Marines are getting the same +1W treatment that Loyalist got, so the minimum wounds for any Chaos Marine will be 2.
So right there we can infer that the datasheets are designed just as a "patch" until the Codices release.

That said, I still wouldn't be surprised if the Autarch was still restricted to either set of options, rather than mix-and-match

-

**Octovol**

Both those datasheets are riddled with 'see codex craftworlds' so something has to change for the datasheet. How much remains to be seen.

**Heafstaag**

xttz wrote:
vipoid wrote:

Harlequin weapons needed to be homogenised because it was too confusing to have different weapons in the same squad . . . even though your own data shows the opposite? What.

Also, I'm not sure I'd count 8th edition as a good metric for Harlequin weapons. Hell, I still remember a major complaint being that these really weird and esoteric harlequin weapons were all just represented with the most generic, boring statlines possible.
Harlequin's Kiss - a weapon that injects a coiled, monofilament spring into its victim, where it unwinds and liquifies their innards - S+1 AP-1 D1d3
Harlequin's Embrace - a weapon that projects a cloud of monofilament wire around the victim, before retracting it such that it carves them into pieces - S+1 AP-3 D1
Harlequin's Caress - a weapon that allows a Harlequin to phase their hand right through a victim's armour, bones and flesh and pluck out their still-beating heart - S+2 AP-2 D1

Three tiny variations of a very similar melee weapon profile that can be mixed & matched within the same unit was definitely unnecessary rules bloat. I'm happy to see similar changes in my own armies, such as consolidating all the Killa Kan melee weapons rather than worrying about which combination of arms were glued on under a previous codex or edition.

Intercessors were a bad comparison to Harlequins, as they don't contain mixed weapons. There's also far more scope for differentiating ranged weapon profiles and therefore how the unit plays, compared to melee (range being the most obvious stat). A choice of weapon option on an Intercessor unit is the difference between sitting in backfield, midfield, or getting in close for peak effectiveness. All of these Harlequin weapons have the same tactical result - you want to charge.

However there are definitely similar improvements that could and should be made for marine weapons, in particular the Redemptor & Repulsor that can use 5-6 distinct weapon profiles in the same phase.

Rules bloat? Nonsense.

Options are nice.

Like having different options for power and force weapons. I love the small choices like that for squads. It actually makes your units...feel like your units.

Giving them all the same profile is just lazy and takes away choice.

Just like the changes with the atalan jackals...all their dakka options are now generic atalan small arms vs a mix of pistols, shotguns, auto guns, etc.

Lazy!

I don't like changes like this, as it gets closer to the snoozefest (boring-ness) that is Age of Sigmar unit building. No options. No variety. No points differences. Boring.

**Daedalus81**

I'm still sort of flabbergasted by the haywire cannon.

AP3 and flat 3 damage just seems over tuned. If this thing isn't going up in points it will be a huge problem. Anyone else thought much about this thing yet?

**Wha-Mu-077**

Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm still sort of flabbergasted by the haywire cannon.

AP3 and flat 3 damage just seems over tuned. If this thing isn't going up in points it will be a huge problem. Anyone else thought much about this thing yet?

Guns being hilariously overturned seems to be a running theme recently.
Glances at the T'au Railgun

**Heafstaag**

Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm still sort of flabbergasted by the haywire cannon.

AP3 and flat 3 damage just seems over tuned. If this thing isn't going up in points it will be a huge problem. Anyone else thought much about this thing yet?

You can only take one per slot, unless they change back to squadrons like in the original harlie codex. And they are a glass cannon...but yeah...if they don't go up a bit in points its a little silly.

Although only max of 6 shots....meh. You don't want it costing too much as again, its only one per slot and they have like 6 wounds.

**xttz**

Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm still sort of flabbergasted by the haywire cannon.

AP3 and flat 3 damage just seems over tuned. If this thing isn't going up in points it will be a huge problem. Anyone else thought much about this thing yet?

Wonder if they'll do something similar with Tyranid Hive Guard shock cannons. They have exactly the same special rule this weapon did in the 8E Harlequin codex (plus the Haywire rule in older editions).

**SamusDrake**

Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm still sort of flabbergasted by the haywire cannon.

AP3 and flat 3 damage just seems over tuned. If this thing isn't going up in points it will be a huge problem. Anyone else thought much about this thing yet?

The Voidweaver dropped its value during 8th edition, and I'm assuming it was because it was too weak for the points at the time. The reduction was roughly the cost of a troupe player.

Now its been revised they'll likely put it back.

**Scottywan82**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I really thought they were turning a corner. The options on the new Gravis Captain, the Primaris Ancient, and an Autarch kit filled with different weapon options plus, apparently, completely compatible with the current Autarch kit.

Fantastic. After years of mono-pose optionless nonsense a shift in design paradigm, a shift that just took a while to find us due to the lead time in miniature design plus the slowdowns of the past while.

But no. They've turned no corners, and we were all fools for holding onto that hope.

Because what the feth, GW????

OH FFS! Are you kidding me with this?! Dammit, GW!

**Iracundus**

It is truly difficult to understand the outstanding level of derp to do this:

1) Tout in a WHC article how interchangeable the options are for the new kit, including how it is interchangeable with the old kit.
2) The artists make a Codex cover in the seeming belief that interchangeability is legal, so they make an Autarch with wings, glaive, and missile launcher.
2) Write rules that make it illegal to interchange options with the old kit, and thus also make the Codex cover illegal.

Way to go shooting down your own product feature.
People should request a FAQ amendment ASAP.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Iracundus wrote:
It is truly difficult to understand the outstanding level of derp to do this:

1) Tout in a WHC article how interchangeable the options are for the new kit, including how it is interchangeable with the old kit.
2) The artists make a Codex cover in the seeming belief that interchangeability is legal, so they make an Autarch with wings, glaive, and missile launcher.
2) Write rules that make it illegal to interchange options with the old kit, and thus also make the Codex cover illegal.

Way to go shooting down your own product feature.
People should request a FAQ amendment ASAP.

No FAQ needed yet, as we don’t know for certain this will be mirrored in the Codex proper.