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.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Iracundus wrote:


It's not even criticism. It's GW history and fact. He was the lead for the 3rd edition Eldar. There was a past interview where he talked about the mess up that was the overpowered Star Cannon and his flawed design philosophy for the entire Eldar list, which shows just how major his role was. Just as Andy Chambers was the lead designer for many previous Codices, such as the seminal 2nd edition Chaos Codex, Gav Thorpe was the lead designer for the 3rd edition Eldar Codex. In those past editions, the lead had a major role in shaping the Codex, with the rest playing more minor roles or input, and GW shifted away from explicit designer credits I think after their designers got too much unwelcome attention after each Codex, especially Matt Ward. So now we don't have "celebrity lead designer" per Codex.

So you don't like Gav. Got it. Good talk.

Check out his Eldar novels. Again, they are the only Eldar novels where the Young King is an Exarch.

The sin here is only that the craftworld in the novels is Alaitoc. That's the only inconsistency. If it had been Biel Tan then everything comports with the lore.

Iracundus is correct. Gav thorpe has a particular view of the Eldar and has written them his way since he was given control of them in 3rd ed.

Whether you like Thorpe or not, what Iracundus said about the history of his writing of the Eldar is accurate.


As for the thematics of who should be used to summon the avatar, the Exarch concept (both 1st and 2nd edition avatars were summoned by sacrificing an aspect warrior, so it's not like this was up in the air when he came to write 3rd ed eldar) does not make much sense at all for several reasons, of which Iracundus has described several.

Other considerations are that Exarchs are like chaos champions, having given their soul over to Khaine entirely. Their soul is already Khaine's and would be of no particular value as a double offering. An innocent is more valuable, tragic and reflective of the cost.

The idea that an exarch is more valuable is an entirely utilitarian concept, focusing on their military prowess. To eldar culture an exarch is literally lost, they are effectively dead to everyone. How can you sacrifice something that's already gone? It's the cultural equivalent of dividing by zero. It's not a sacrifice.

In the grand tradition of fairytale sacrifices, an aspect warrior is an innocent virgin and an exarch a wizened crone nearing the end of her life...

Since when did I say I dislike Gav Thorpe? I said nothing of the sort. I just pointed out the history of what happened, and he himself mentioned how his idea for the Eldar list came out flawed, by his own self-admission.

I may disagree with him on various points about Eldar background such as the aforementioned Exarch vs. Aspect Warrior sacrifice and Gav Thorpe's adherence to the small numbers school of thought on Eldar population, but certainly I acknowledge that he is one of the GW people that has given the most attention to the Eldar and attempted to expand their background the most. There are interesting ideas in his novels even though I think his writing style is not for me.

Just because I don't put him on a pedestal and think him flawless does not mean I dislike him.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

Iracundus wrote:


It's not even criticism. It's GW history and fact. He was the lead for the 3rd edition Eldar. There was a past interview where he talked about the mess up that was the overpowered Star Cannon and his flawed design philosophy for the entire Eldar list, which shows just how major his role was. Just as Andy Chambers was the lead designer for many previous Codices, such as the seminal 2nd edition Chaos Codex, Gav Thorpe was the lead designer for the 3rd edition Eldar Codex. In those past editions, the lead had a major role in shaping the Codex, with the rest playing more minor roles or input, and GW shifted away from explicit designer credits I think after their designers got too much unwelcome attention after each Codex, especially Matt Ward. So now we don't have "celebrity lead designer" per Codex.

So you don't like Gav. Got it. Good talk.

Check out his Eldar novels. Again, they are the only Eldar novels where the Young King is an Exarch.

The sin here is only that the craftworld in the novels is Alaitoc. That's the only inconsistency. If it had been Biel Tan then everything comports with the lore.

Iracundus is correct. Gav thorpe has a particular view of the Eldar and has written them his way since he was given control of them in 3rd ed.

Whether you like Thorpe or not, what Iracundus said about the history of his writing of the Eldar is accurate.


As for the thematics of who should be used to summon the avatar, the Exarch concept (both 1st and 2nd edition avatars were summoned by sacrificing an aspect warrior, so it's not like this was up in the air when he came to write 3rd ed eldar) does not make much sense at all for several reasons, of which Iracundus has described several.

Other considerations are that Exarchs are like chaos champions, having given their soul over to Khaine entirely. Their soul is already Khaine's and would be of no particular value as a double offering. An innocent is more valuable, tragic and reflective of the cost.

The idea that an exarch is more valuable is an entirely utilitarian concept, focusing on their military prowess. To eldar culture an exarch is literally lost, they are effectively dead to everyone. How can you sacrifice something that's already gone? It's the cultural equivalent of dividing by zero. It's not a sacrifice.

In the grand tradition of fairytale sacrifices, an aspect warrior is an innocent virgin and an exarch a wizened crone nearing the end of her life...

All of that is predicated on the idea that the 'sacrifice' is like a chaos sacrifice and the symbolism is more important than the utility. There is nothing I'm aware of in the lore that states that the power of the symbolism is more important than the strength of the individual when summoning an Avatar. I'm very hesitant to call the Eldar gods the same as the Chaos gods, either mechanically or metaphysically. Luetin makes the point that the Eldar gods might never have been the same as the Chaos gods and are more down to stories spawning from fundamental elements of the Eldar psyche. The Avatars of Khaine might be nothing more than the physical manifestation of a particularly powerful element of that psyche.

I'm also hesitant to call the Avatars 'daemons' as has been suggested earlier in the thread. Avatars are functionally very different from daemons, who are invariably depicted in lore as having individual personalities, separate from their patron god. Avatars are more likely either literal pieces of the god Khaine (like the necron shards are literal pieces of the C'tan), or they are manifestations of fundamental parts of the Eldar psyche. I've never seen an Avatar deviate from its set purpose the way a daemon might. They don't have their own goals or personalities separate from their Craftworld or each other, so why would you assume any sacrifice made to summon it works in the same way as a chaos daemon?

@Hellebore out of interest, in the sections of the lore you're talking about where it says "an aspect warrior" is used for the sacrifice, does it explicitly state that the aspect warrior is not an exarch? Because exarchs ARE aspect warriors...

All of this has strayed from my original question, though: am I okay assuming avatars can be different sizes? I think from the fact that in lore they are stated as 'growing' in the inner sanctum that I'm safe painting my old Avatars as different craftworlds, even if the strength of the craftworld doesn't necessarily affect the size of the Avatar (though it might, who knows?). I'm going to paint my little Rogue Trader Avatar as Yme Loc for that reason.

Please, no fighting, everyone. Try to keep the snarky comments to a minimum.

The Avatar has been tagged as a demon since back in 3rd at least mechnically. I know this is the background forum, but there have always been strong parallels.

So, Avatars are commonly referred to as daemons by humans, the rules classed them as daemons for years, and anti-daemon tech can be effective against them. They don't behave like Chaos daemons but then I wouldn't expect them to. They are Warp entities and you can consider a daemon to be a broad category of Warp entity.

Edit: ninja'd by Nevelon.

Ease of classification in the mechanics of the tabletop game doesn't necessarily mean they are actually daemons in lore, though. Even if humans in the lore think of them as daemons, again that doesn't mean they are. Is there any lore where the Eldar themselves think of the Avatar as a daemon? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking.

It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but not all warp entities are daemons. The chaos gods themselves aren't daemons. Psychneuein aren't daemons. When I think of the word 'daemon' I immediately have a certain character profile in my head: they're subservient to a patron god, but they have their own minds, goals and self interest. They want power for their own sakes and, correct me if I'm wrong, some even have ambitions of becoming gods themselves? Avatars don't fit that profile as they are depicted as semi-sentient fragments of a greater whole - at least as far as I'm aware. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. My impression of them is not of an intellect within the warp waiting to possess an individual, but as a spirit slumbering until it's called upon. The sacrifice is used to awaken them, not to give them a vessel through which to enter reality.

Again, though, this is all my impression and I'm happy to be corrected if people have evidence to the contrary.

 CancelledApocalypse wrote:
Ease of classification in the mechanics of the tabletop game doesn't necessarily mean they are actually daemons in lore, though. Even if humans in the lore think of them as daemons, again that doesn't mean they are. Is there any lore where the Eldar themselves think of the Avatar as a daemon? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking.

It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but not all warp entities are daemons. The chaos gods themselves aren't daemons. Psychneuein aren't daemons. When I think of the word 'daemon' I immediately have a certain character profile in my head: they're subservient to a patron god, but they have their own minds, goals and self interest. They want power for their own sakes and, correct me if I'm wrong, some even have ambitions of becoming gods themselves? Avatars don't fit that profile as they are depicted as semi-sentient fragments of a greater whole - at least as far as I'm aware. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. My impression of them is not of an intellect within the warp waiting to possess an individual, but as a spirit slumbering until it's called upon. The sacrifice is used to awaken them, not to give them a vessel through which to enter reality.

Again, though, this is all my impression and I'm happy to be corrected if people have evidence to the contrary.

Avatars can think and act independently.

In the novel Shadowpoint an Avatar on a far flung Craftworld gets up on its own accord and goes travelling through the Webway to influence a particular battle.

Also chaos daemons are all subsets of a greater whole - all daemons (other than daemon princes) are part of the god from which they spawned, like cells of a body.

 CancelledApocalypse wrote:


All of that is predicated on the idea that the 'sacrifice' is like a chaos sacrifice and the symbolism is more important than the utility. There is nothing I'm aware of in the lore that states that the power of the symbolism is more important than the strength of the individual when summoning an Avatar. I'm very hesitant to call the Eldar gods the same as the Chaos gods, either mechanically or metaphysically. Luetin makes the point that the Eldar gods might never have been the same as the Chaos gods and are more down to stories spawning from fundamental elements of the Eldar psyche. The Avatars of Khaine might be nothing more than the physical manifestation of a particularly powerful element of that psyche.

There are two different powers you're describing. One is literal and the other cultural. The eldar moreso than any other faction in 40k are highly symbolic and cultural. So to them it is a more powerful sacrifice. The other concept, of literal power to power the god, has never been ascribed to the process. It takes a soul to awaken the avatar, there has never been any discussion that the power of a soul affects the avatar. This is because the soul acts as a warp conduit to the greater essence of the warp entity, not because it's a battery. Greater Daemons are generally summoned the same way, or at least have been in the past.

There is no difference between the function of an eldar god and a chaos god, they both follow the same metaphysics. If you recall, Slannesh is an eldar god. The chaos gods spawn from the fundamental elements of Sapient psyches - rage, desire, despair and hope. Slannesh is cross compatible with non eldar desire as are all the chaos gods. You can go down a philosophical road of discussing these 4 elements as the most basic units of emotion in sapient creatures hence their universality of worshippers. For the other eldar gods, they are a bit more specialised to the eldar and their breadth of emotional capability.

To use an analogy, all sapients function on a minimum of a '4 bit' emotion, while the eldar function on '24 bit', creating a wider spectrum from which warp entities can form.

 CancelledApocalypse wrote:

I'm also hesitant to call the Avatars 'daemons' as has been suggested earlier in the thread. Avatars are functionally very different from daemons, who are invariably depicted in lore as having individual personalities, separate from their patron god. Avatars are more likely either literal pieces of the god Khaine (like the necron shards are literal pieces of the C'tan), or they are manifestations of fundamental parts of the Eldar psyche. I've never seen an Avatar deviate from its set purpose the way a daemon might. They don't have their own goals or personalities separate from their Craftworld or each other, so why would you assume any sacrifice made to summon it works in the same way as a chaos daemon?

Every daemon is a fragment of the god they represent, whether those fragments have their own personalities is up to the god that created them. The only difference is that the avatars were not created voluntarily, the whole of Khaine was shattered, while Khorne manifests his bloodthirsters (who all have variations on Khorne's personality anyway - having their own personality is not as distinct as it sounds).

 CancelledApocalypse wrote:

@Hellebore out of interest, in the sections of the lore you're talking about where it says "an aspect warrior" is used for the sacrifice, does it explicitly state that the aspect warrior is not an exarch? Because exarchs ARE aspect warriors...

The same lore that says the emperor is not a unicorn that is indistinguishable from a super psyker man? Proving a negative is fallacious. The fact is that that the background describes exarchs as exarchs when it talks about them, it doesn't say aspect warrior (not an exarch) when it talks about aspect warriors, the same way it doesn't say space marine (not a captain) when it talks about space marines. Your argument would require ALL nouns to come with caveats on what they AREN'T (ork [not a nob, warboss, painboss, beastboy, krork]) in order for people to know what they are. Which is why it's fallacious and not useful.

 Hellebore wrote:

 CancelledApocalypse wrote:


All of that is predicated on the idea that the 'sacrifice' is like a chaos sacrifice and the symbolism is more important than the utility. There is nothing I'm aware of in the lore that states that the power of the symbolism is more important than the strength of the individual when summoning an Avatar. I'm very hesitant to call the Eldar gods the same as the Chaos gods, either mechanically or metaphysically. Luetin makes the point that the Eldar gods might never have been the same as the Chaos gods and are more down to stories spawning from fundamental elements of the Eldar psyche. The Avatars of Khaine might be nothing more than the physical manifestation of a particularly powerful element of that psyche.

There are two different powers you're describing. One is literal and the other cultural. The eldar moreso than any other faction in 40k are highly symbolic and cultural. So to them it is a more powerful sacrifice. The other concept, of literal power to power the god, has never been ascribed to the process. It takes a soul to awaken the avatar, there has never been any discussion that the power of a soul affects the avatar. This is because the soul acts as a warp conduit to the greater essence of the warp entity, not because it's a battery. Greater Daemons are generally summoned the same way, or at least have been in the past.

There is no difference between the function of an eldar god and a chaos god, they both follow the same metaphysics. If you recall, Slannesh is an eldar god. The chaos gods spawn from the fundamental elements of Sapient psyches - rage, desire, despair and hope. Slannesh is cross compatible with non eldar desire as are all the chaos gods. You can go down a philosophical road of discussing these 4 elements as the most basic units of emotion in sapient creatures hence their universality of worshippers. For the other eldar gods, they are a bit more specialised to the eldar and their breadth of emotional capability.

To use an analogy, all sapients function on a minimum of a '4 bit' emotion, while the eldar function on '24 bit', creating a wider spectrum from which warp entities can form.

I think it is plausible that Biel Tan specifically places a different cultural emphasis onto Exarchs. They are the most warlike Craftworld and are lead by a council of senior Exarchs. The psyche of Biel Tan eldar is probably subtly different, and to them an Exarch may be considered a more fitting sacrifice because they value war and Khaine so highly.

Doesn't really work for Alaitoc but that was Black Library...

 Hellebore wrote:


Iracundus is correct. Gav thorpe has a particular view of the Eldar and has written them his way since he was given control of them in 3rd ed.

Whether you like Thorpe or not, what Iracundus said about the history of his writing of the Eldar is accurate.

Ok, fine. So what? Eldar have had 7 codices and 2 supplements since 2nd edition (not including Harlies). All the base codices except third, where there is no mention of the Young King at all, say the Young King is an Aspect Warrior chosen by the Farseers. Only the Craftworld Eldar codex supplement in 3rd says it's an Exarch and that's solely in the context of Biel Tan and their Court of the Young King.

Given that, why is the idea that all craftworlds sacrifice an Exarch to awaken the Avatar so persistent and widespread? I think it probably has to do with other media. Path of the Warrior came out in 2010 and that features an Exarch of the Shining Spears as the Young King on Craftworld Alaitoc. The Dawn of War games include at least two instances of Exarchs being sacrificed. Dark Crusade from 2006 has an Ulthwe Warp Spider Exarch sacrificed to awaken the Avatar in the cut scene before attacking the Eldar stronghold there. This sacrifice is made on the planet surface nowhere near the Avatar's chamber. Another was already mentioned - Exarch Tyrea sacrificed in DOW 2 Retribution from 2011. She's at least Biel Tan and her sacrifice is made in the Avatar chamber of the unnamed, lost craftworld. There's also the odd case of the Rites of War PC game that was released in June1999, the same year as Codex Eldar (3rd) and a full year ahead of the Codex Craftworld Eldar in June 2000. The opening cinematic of that game features an Iyanden Exarch being sacrificed to awaken the Avatar. So there must have been some WD articles that talked about this and fleshed out the variant army lists for the named Craftworlds before the Codex was released.

As for the thematics of who should be used to summon the avatar, the Exarch concept (both 1st and 2nd edition avatars were summoned by sacrificing an aspect warrior, so it's not like this was up in the air when he came to write 3rd ed eldar) does not make much sense at all for several reasons, of which Iracundus has described several.

Other considerations are that Exarchs are like chaos champions, having given their soul over to Khaine entirely. Their soul is already Khaine's and would be of no particular value as a double offering. An innocent is more valuable, tragic and reflective of the cost.

The idea that an exarch is more valuable is an entirely utilitarian concept, focusing on their military prowess. To eldar culture an exarch is literally lost, they are effectively dead to everyone. How can you sacrifice something that's already gone? It's the cultural equivalent of dividing by zero. It's not a sacrifice.

In the grand tradition of fairytale sacrifices, an aspect warrior is an innocent virgin and an exarch a wizened crone nearing the end of her life...

Ok. So what if it's not about how significant the sacrifice is and it's just about spending a soul to start the engine? Aren't souls the food/currency of the Warp? What if that's all this is? It costs one soul to turn on your Avatar. Which soul do you spend? Does the Avatar care? To me the big question about Aspect Warrior vs Exarch is which soul(s) get spent when it's the Exarch. In Korlandril's case it would have been just his soul that is spent and Morlaniath and the other six spirits that inhabit the stones of the armor remain unsacrificed or are all of the souls spent? The Young King goes in naked. The spirit stones are still on the armor so that makes me think they are protected. However, in every instance of the Exarch sacrifice we see, they use the name of the original Exarch so that makes me think it's all of the souls being spent. There's nothing that indicates that if Morlaniath is sacrificed then the second soul to wear the armor, Idresail, becomes Exarch of Hidden Death when a new Exarch comes to don the armor and reactivate the shrine. Why wouldn't the warp entity calling itself Khaine want 8 souls instead of 1?

 Arschbombe wrote:

In Dawn of War 2 Retribution we see a Tyrea, a Howling Banshee Exarch of Biel Tan sacrificed to awaken the Avatar. That's supposedly canon.

That was also a very unusual situation. It was a combination of spur of the moment, "we've got an unused Avatar shrine here", and a wounded exarch who had badly screwed up (she was a leader in a unit that had inadvertently caused the very thing they had come to stop) and wanted revenge against the non-Eldar forces.

As others have noted, Exarchs are Aspect Warriors. However, there's a problem with using an Exarch as the Young King. Exarchs don't remove their armor. In fact, the fluff has stated that some Exarchs are merely animated suits of armor, their bodies having long ago wasted away. We're told that the ritual of the Young King involves stripping the Young King and delivering him or her to the Avatar Shrine. You *might* be able to convince an Exarch to remove its armor for ceremonial reasons. You'd have a very hard time doing that if the Exarch in question no longer had a physical body.

That's not to say that a Craftworld couldn't use Exarchs. But imo regular Aspect Warriors make a lot more sense for the typical Craftworld.

Eumerin wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

In Dawn of War 2 Retribution we see a Tyrea, a Howling Banshee Exarch of Biel Tan sacrificed to awaken the Avatar. That's supposedly canon.

That was also a very unusual situation. It was a combination of spur of the moment, "we've got an unused Avatar shrine here", and a wounded exarch who had badly screwed up (she was a leader in a unit that had inadvertently caused the very thing they had come to stop) and wanted revenge against the non-Eldar forces.

As others have noted, Exarchs are Aspect Warriors. However, there's a problem with using an Exarch as the Young King. Exarchs don't remove their armor. In fact, the fluff has stated that some Exarchs are merely animated suits of armor, their bodies having long ago wasted away. We're told that the ritual of the Young King involves stripping the Young King and delivering him or her to the Avatar Shrine. You *might* be able to convince an Exarch to remove its armor for ceremonial reasons. You'd have a very hard time doing that if the Exarch in question no longer had a physical body.

That's not to say that a Craftworld couldn't use Exarchs. But imo regular Aspect Warriors make a lot more sense for the typical Craftworld.

Gav Thorpe has the animated suit concept apply only to Phoenix Lords, since he is also the writer that writes Exarchs being the Young King sacrifice. In his conception, Exarchs are still physical Eldar. The other problem is Gav Thorpe's idea has the entire Exarch spirit stone pool being drained and consumed as part of the sacrifice, which effectively destroys the Shrine or at least any linkage with the past. The problem lies in how often it seems the Craftworlds engage in war, combined with Gav Thorpe's small numbers school with regards to Eldar population. The Eldar Craftworlds should have run out of Exarchs and population long ago. For reference, Gav Thorpe was on record stating he believed the population of Alaitoc and other large Craftworlds to be no more than about 4-5 million spread over something like the size of North America.

I think Matt Ward saw that problem which is why in the Iyanden supplement he makes reference to Iyanden having billions of Eldar. Against the quadrillions of humanity, even billions of Eldar is tiny.

I think you also need billions of Craftworlders in order to remain even vaguely relevant compared to Commorrites in numbers. Obviously Craftworlders are much more interventionalist but still. Bigger numbers also supports the attrition rate of being interventionalist as you point out.

I would love it if the size and manifestation varied by craftworld...

Iracundus wrote:

Gav Thorpe has the animated suit concept apply only to Phoenix Lords

Regardless of what Gav Thorpe may prefer, Exarchs as animated suits has been explicitly mentioned in the codex. So unless a later codex contradicted that bit of fluff, it should be safe to act as if it's still in effect.

In which version of the Eldar Codex, Eumerin?

Eumerin wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

Gav Thorpe has the animated suit concept apply only to Phoenix Lords

Regardless of what Gav Thorpe may prefer, Exarchs as animated suits has been explicitly mentioned in the codex. So unless a later codex contradicted that bit of fluff, it should be safe to act as if it's still in effect.

Although that was mentioned as far back as the 2nd edition Eldar Codex, there have still been inconsistencies since then, such as the Eye of Terror Codex mentioning an Exarch being chosen as the Young King sacrifice (which obviously would not be possible if they were just an animated suit of armor since the Young King is meant to stand naked and fill the Cup of Criel with their own blood.)

The open helmet option for the Exarch models by Jes Goodwin also seems to reflect such as shift as well. In an interview, Jes Goodwin said the idea was the helmet had force fields that protected the head just as much as a regular helmet and that the Exarch always had their psychological war mask on and no longer needed a fully enclosing helmet.

Mind you, I am not personally against the animated suit of armor idea, just that GW itself has been inconsistent with regards to this.

If it takes time for a body to be absorbed, there is room for both versions.

 Haighus wrote:
If it takes time for a body to be absorbed, there is room for both versions.

Pretty much.

This is more an issue of GW willingly slicing marines into thinner and thinner layers and versions, but stubbornly refusing to do the same to everyone else.

By the very fact of eldar social complexity and the path system, there should be far more options than just 'not an aspect warrior', aspect warrior, and exarch. A species with the depth and subtly of the eldar having such black and white lines is ridiculous (within each - obviously an exarch is a hard line to cross, but once past that line they are all unique).

An aspect warrior that has come back to the same aspect multiple times should be different to a completely fresh recruit to the path, and an aspect warrior that has trod multiple different aspects would be different to one that has not.

Exarchs are soul batteries, each new one adding to the greater whole. An exarch of one soul should not be the same as an exarch of 10 souls. The idea that an exarch from the original shrine of asur (10,000 years old and trained with the phoenix lords), is indistinguishable from a newly lost exarch of the 41st millennium with no skill, experience or power difference is laughable. GW will willingly give special rules to 1000 marines for having different chapter colours, even when they're not even of a different genetic lineage to another chapter. Yet the idea that there could be more than one level of non phoenix lord exarch? perish the thought.

At minimum each aspect should have 3 levels: new, normal and veterans. Add to that multi aspect experienced units, where those that have experience gained from other aspects are put together and it's at least 4. The same is true of exarchs, especially when you have the latter menshad korum concept to the mix. A new multi aspect exarch vs a new mono aspect exarch vs a veteran multi aspect exarch vs a veteran mono aspect exarch...

Iracundus wrote:

Although that was mentioned as far back as the 2nd edition Eldar Codex, there have still been inconsistencies since then, such as the Eye of Terror Codex mentioning an Exarch being chosen as the Young King sacrifice (which obviously would not be possible if they were just an animated suit of armor since the Young King is meant to stand naked and fill the Cup of Criel with their own blood.)

Ha. I missed that. And it's Ulthwe too. The Exarch idea just has legs for some reason. Like I mentioned this discussion to a buddy who used to play back in third. He said, "it's an Exarch, right?"

 Hellebore wrote:

This is more an issue of GW willingly slicing marines into thinner and thinner layers and versions, but stubbornly refusing to do the same to everyone else.

Well, Eldar, despite often having very strong builds in each edition, are still just an NPC faction.

By the very fact of eldar social complexity and the path system, there should be far more options than just 'not an aspect warrior', aspect warrior, and exarch. A species with the depth and subtly of the eldar having such black and white lines is ridiculous (within each - obviously an exarch is a hard line to cross, but once past that line they are all unique).

40k doesn't have the depth for this anymore, if it ever did. The trend now is streamlining, simplification. The current combat patrol mode would have been unthinkable a decade ago, but it's here now. Datasheets are being dumbed down even when the current kit offers options. Like the Ravener kit that includes 3 different chest weapon options getting dumbed down to a generic thorax weapon. They're not going to go back to having more options to differentiate minor characters.

An aspect warrior that has come back to the same aspect multiple times should be different to a completely fresh recruit to the path, and an aspect warrior that has trod multiple different aspects would be different to one that has not.

Does the returning to an Aspect actually happen? Walking several Aspect paths happens because it's stated to be so in relation to Warlocks and Autarchs, but I've not seen anything that indicates an Eldar might walk the same path twice.

Exarchs are soul batteries, each new one adding to the greater whole. An exarch of one soul should not be the same as an exarch of 10 souls. The idea that an exarch from the original shrine of asur (10,000 years old and trained with the phoenix lords), is indistinguishable from a newly lost exarch of the 41st millennium with no skill, experience or power difference is laughable. GW will willingly give special rules to 1000 marines for having different chapter colours, even when they're not even of a different genetic lineage to another chapter. Yet the idea that there could be more than one level of non phoenix lord exarch? perish the thought.

At minimum each aspect should have 3 levels: new, normal and veterans. Add to that multi aspect experienced units, where those that have experience gained from other aspects are put together and it's at least 4. The same is true of exarchs, especially when you have the latter menshad korum concept to the mix. A new multi aspect exarch vs a new mono aspect exarch vs a veteran multi aspect exarch vs a veteran mono aspect exarch...

In 2nd edition there were three levels of Warlock, but not Exarch. 40k no longer has the bandwidth for that kind of thing. If we are ever to see different levels of Exarch it would be in Kill Team.

 Haighus wrote:
If it takes time for a body to be absorbed, there is room for both versions.

Yes, and iirc this was made clear from the start. There was a physical body in the armor for a while. But if the Exarch survived long enough, the body would waste away. And eventually, when the Exarch was finally "killed", the suit would be opened up only to discover that there was nothing inside.

40k doesn't have the depth for this anymore, if it ever did.

While I agree with this general point, I do think that Exarchs are aren't treated well in the rules. An Exarch is a warrior that's potentially been around for thousands of years. But the game treats them like a sergeant. That doesn't feel right.

Eumerin wrote:

While I agree with this general point, I do think that Exarchs are aren't treated well in the rules. An Exarch is a warrior that's potentially been around for thousands of years. But the game treats them like a sergeant. That doesn't feel right.

That's true. It's unfortunate, but unlikely to change after 26 years. It's also compounded by the treatment of the base Aspects where abilities that should be inherent to the squad are tied to the Exarch.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
If it takes time for a body to be absorbed, there is room for both versions.

Pretty much.

This is more an issue of GW willingly slicing marines into thinner and thinner layers and versions, but stubbornly refusing to do the same to everyone else.

By the very fact of eldar social complexity and the path system, there should be far more options than just 'not an aspect warrior', aspect warrior, and exarch. A species with the depth and subtly of the eldar having such black and white lines is ridiculous (within each - obviously an exarch is a hard line to cross, but once past that line they are all unique).

An aspect warrior that has come back to the same aspect multiple times should be different to a completely fresh recruit to the path, and an aspect warrior that has trod multiple different aspects would be different to one that has not.

Exarchs are soul batteries, each new one adding to the greater whole. An exarch of one soul should not be the same as an exarch of 10 souls. The idea that an exarch from the original shrine of asur (10,000 years old and trained with the phoenix lords), is indistinguishable from a newly lost exarch of the 41st millennium with no skill, experience or power difference is laughable. GW will willingly give special rules to 1000 marines for having different chapter colours, even when they're not even of a different genetic lineage to another chapter. Yet the idea that there could be more than one level of non phoenix lord exarch? perish the thought.

At minimum each aspect should have 3 levels: new, normal and veterans. Add to that multi aspect experienced units, where those that have experience gained from other aspects are put together and it's at least 4. The same is true of exarchs, especially when you have the latter menshad korum concept to the mix. A new multi aspect exarch vs a new mono aspect exarch vs a veteran multi aspect exarch vs a veteran mono aspect exarch...

There was the Iyanden supplement that seemed to signal the start of fleshing out the individual Craftworlds but that seemed a stillborn effort. It was actually not too bad as a supplement even if it was by Matt Ward.

The Phoenix Rising supplement did allow for more experienced Exarchs or "exemplars" of their shrine and Aspect. Basically they got to select an additional Exarch power from an Aspect restricted list of powers, some useful some not so much. A useful thematic one was the Banshee power Nerve-shredding Shriek (on charging, inflict D3 mortal wounds on 4+ showing their Mask's scream was strong enough to kill). A not useful one was the Dark Reaper Deadly Touch (a melee to-wound roll of 6 inflicts 2 mortal wounds in addition), since a Dark Reaper Exarch in close combat was already doing something seriously wrong. I don't really know why they chose that Aspect to have the "dim mak" touch of death attack like the "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique" from Kill Bill.

With the Banshees we can see most clearly the potential differentiation between shrines of the same Aspect. Some Exarchs use the Executioner to emulate their Phoenix Lord's weapon, and presumably their powers and focus would be on strength of attacks. Others use mirrorswords focusing on volume of attacks. The triskele option seems an uncommon focus on their Phoenix Lord's secondary weapon, and finally the powers like Nerve-shredding Shriek could show a shrine focusing on tuning their voice into a lethal weapon.

I always come back to the fact that the aspects are philosophies rather than weapon load outs, which is very dissimilar to space marines. Yet they get treated that way.

The aspect of the destroyer reflects the application of overwhelming force, not the use of a specific rocket launcher.

The very fact that maugan ra and some exarchs carry shuriken cannons shows that the destroyer is interpreted differently.


That opens up massive variety within an aspect shrine, especially if an exarch in that shrine teaches their version to some students.

Why wouldn't an exarch that uses a shuriken cannon teach that version of khaine the destroyer to their students?

How did reapers even get their reaper launcher if the very founder of the shrine didn't use it? Because an exarch taught the destroyer philosophy through that launcher rather than a shuriken cannon and it seems to have propagated.

 Hellebore wrote:
I always come back to the fact that the aspects are philosophies rather than weapon load outs, which is very dissimilar to space marines. Yet they get treated that way.

The aspect of the destroyer reflects the application of overwhelming force, not the use of a specific rocket launcher.

The very fact that maugan ra and some exarchs carry shuriken cannons shows that the destroyer is interpreted differently.


That opens up massive variety within an aspect shrine, especially if an exarch in that shrine teaches their version to some students.

Why wouldn't an exarch that uses a shuriken cannon teach that version of khaine the destroyer to their students?

How did reapers even get their reaper launcher if the very founder of the shrine didn't use it? Because an exarch taught the destroyer philosophy through that launcher rather than a shuriken cannon and it seems to have propagated.

Yeah, there's a fundamental flaw in how the Aspects are designed. The exarch weapons rarely match what the rest of the squad has. Has anyone ever taken the dragon's breath flamer on a Fire Dragon Exarch?
The Exarch is often the big damage dealer so the squad tends to become ablative wounds for the Exarch. This is reinforced when squad special abilities are tied to the presence of an Exarch.

I'd love to see a Dark Reaper squad all kitted out with shuriken cannons.

The reason is exarchs and aspects were designed when exarchs were characters that acted independently.

Their skills and weapons not perfectly mirroring their aspect reflected their skill on the path of the warrior as a whole.

But GW demoted them to squad leader without changing how they worked which causes this fundamental mismatch.

In 2nd Ed an exarch could solo a marine captain despite having slightly worse stats, reflecting their kung fu temple master schtick.

It's also why autarchs don't make sense in the greater scheme either. They undermine the whole risk of the path system, that if you get too stuck in it you get lost, at the cost of becoming an uber warrior.

Autarchs are represented as better with none of the downsides. Which makes the exarchs look like drug addict chumps rather than tragic and terrifying warnings against the pursuit of perfection, gaining power but at a cost.

This is because the original Eldar background was written in a complete block, with everything interconnected and consistent. It wasn't designed piecemeal.

Any changes they make to the wd126/2nd Ed background are hard to reconcile because it's hard to avoid them contradicting it.



The concept of exarch sacrifice is an example of this. For it to make sense you have to make more changes to exarchs (like them not being absorbed into the armour) so they can be presented naked to the avatar.

Imo if you can't add a new concept without having to change additional existing ones then you are doing more harm than good and it's more ego to add your own stamp than to enhance the existing work.

The hemlock wraith fighter is an example of something that doesn't change other things to be added to the background. An autarch is not.

 Hellebore wrote:
The reason is exarchs and aspects were designed when exarchs were characters that acted independently.

Their skills and weapons not perfectly mirroring their aspect reflected their skill on the path of the warrior as a whole.

But GW demoted them to squad leader without changing how they worked which causes this fundamental mismatch.

In 2nd Ed an exarch could solo a marine captain despite having slightly worse stats, reflecting their kung fu temple master schtick.

It's also why autarchs don't make sense in the greater scheme either. They undermine the whole risk of the path system, that if you get too stuck in it you get lost, at the cost of becoming an uber warrior.

Autarchs are represented as better with none of the downsides. Which makes the exarchs look like drug addict chumps rather than tragic and terrifying warnings against the pursuit of perfection, gaining power but at a cost.

Autarchs aren't represented as necessarily better but as having a wider strategic view whereas Exarchs might be more tactically focused. They also do not have the supernatural powers that Exarchs and ultimately Phoenix Lords have.

I would say the old concept of the Menshad Korum has been subsumed by and replaced by the Autarch concept. I think GW wanted Exarchs to be more thematically consistent and Aspect oriented mirroring a Phoenix Lord per Aspect. The mix and match Aspect equipment perk went to the Autarch instead.

I don't mind the Autarch concept because it allows for the Craftworld Eldar to have a warrior leader archetype alongside the thinker/seer type of the Farseer. It's harder to have Eldar characters to write about if the only warrior archetype is an Exarch that by definition is trapped on the Path and therefore might not offer opportunities for Black Library to write stories about.

One thing GW has never clarified is what happens if an Aurach gets trapped on the Path of Command. We know Autarchs are not trapped because Yriel's past is he was an Autarch of Iyanden before going corsair and then afterwards he became Autarch again. If he were trapped, then he could not have done that.

Wasn't Yriel exiled though? Did he change by choice? Plus, he was a Corsair captain, he remained in a position of command. It is conceivable he was still trapped on the Path of Command but was simply not allowed to follow it within Iyanden.

Yriel’s was a self imposed exiled. He expected to be praised for stopping a Chaos fleet from assaulting the Craftworld but his daring attack on their mustering point allowed a trio of ships to attack the Craftworld. His pursuit destroyed all 3 but not before a salvo of torpedoes was launched with at least one having a vortex warhead and one torpedo impacted (killing Iyanna’s family). Instead of being praised, he was told to present himself and justify his actions. In his pride, he refused to do so saying his actions spoke for themselves and stormed off.

Basically he ragequit because he expected praise instead of being accused. There was nothing stopping him from returning. I would say that a truly Path trapped Eldar would not psychologically be able to leave and be a corsair, as corsairs are not bound by any Path and that is why they are viewed as dangerous due to their potential to lure away young Eldar chafing at the constraints of the Path.

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The reason is exarchs and aspects were designed when exarchs were characters that acted independently.

Their skills and weapons not perfectly mirroring their aspect reflected their skill on the path of the warrior as a whole.

But GW demoted them to squad leader without changing how they worked which causes this fundamental mismatch.

In 2nd Ed an exarch could solo a marine captain despite having slightly worse stats, reflecting their kung fu temple master schtick.

It's also why autarchs don't make sense in the greater scheme either. They undermine the whole risk of the path system, that if you get too stuck in it you get lost, at the cost of becoming an uber warrior.

Autarchs are represented as better with none of the downsides. Which makes the exarchs look like drug addict chumps rather than tragic and terrifying warnings against the pursuit of perfection, gaining power but at a cost.

Autarchs aren't represented as necessarily better but as having a wider strategic view whereas Exarchs might be more tactically focused. They also do not have the supernatural powers that Exarchs and ultimately Phoenix Lords have.

I would say the old concept of the Menshad Korum has been subsumed by and replaced by the Autarch concept. I think GW wanted Exarchs to be more thematically consistent and Aspect oriented mirroring a Phoenix Lord per Aspect. The mix and match Aspect equipment perk went to the Autarch instead.

I don't mind the Autarch concept because it allows for the Craftworld Eldar to have a warrior leader archetype alongside the thinker/seer type of the Farseer. It's harder to have Eldar characters to write about if the only warrior archetype is an Exarch that by definition is trapped on the Path and therefore might not offer opportunities for Black Library to write stories about.

One thing GW has never clarified is what happens if an Aurach gets trapped on the Path of Command. We know Autarchs are not trapped because Yriel's past is he was an Autarch of Iyanden before going corsair and then afterwards he became Autarch again. If he were trapped, then he could not have done that.

I've got no problem with them filling out the guardian heirarchy with veteran ex aspect warriors taking up senior roles. They were always squad leaders.

It's the specific way that autarchs work their way through the aspects repeatedly without falling to the path, leaving and taking all that power with them that I don't like. The exarch powers are due in part to the soul gestalt so yeah they don't have those. But they have designed the autarch to be the eldar hq beatstick, despite him being a mortal eldar not powered by souls or absorbed by his armour.

The path of command does not bring to mind a combat master, yet they gave them those stats and describe them as such.

The path of command should be a pure buffing character, lower stats, joining units, manipulating strategems etc. They are a tactical farseer rather than a psychic one. If they want an eldar beatstick HQ then they should make an elder Exarch that has those stats.

I don't see why an autarch should be the equivalent of an archon, when they take on very different roles. It's the way they translate and describe the character that I don't like. For better or worse, if you give one model X stats and another Y stats, it says something about how you see these characters. Exarchs don't look at all like they should and it diminishes them greatly.

.