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.

 Hellebore wrote:

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.

The Autarch also seems to have at least some familiarity with starship combat as well so they seem to be versed in combined arms in a way that Exarchs are not. Even the vehicular Exarch of the Crimson Hunters is more of a Top Gun ace focused on individual personal dogfighting skill rather than strategic skill.

One could argue an Archon should not have combat skills as the mafia boss of a criminal syndicate doesn't have to be the combat monster that goes out on the battlefield, yet pretty much all HQ characters by GW are at least passable if not better in combat stats, even Farseers. The Autarch is not unique in that regard compared to characters from other factions.

As it is, the Autarch's specialness is more from carrying around the different Aspect equipment rather than from supernatural Exarch powers. When the Autarch was introduced, the GW people likened him to Batman and his gadgets. The Autarch does have a few strategy abilities but 40K is a bit limited in how to show that on the tabletop.

Like a lot of Eldar things, the Autarch is half baked. He's like a general/admiral but also likes to mix it up face to face. When introduced in 4th, the Autarch allowed you to add 1 to reserve rolls so he could help get reserves to the tabletop faster. He wasn't especially tanky or powerful in combat, but he could be better than the Farseer when properly kitted out. In the current version of the game it seems the best use for the Autarch is the Wayleaper staying untargetable at range. The regular Autarch can only join Guardians which strikes me as unnecessarily restrictive. An Autarch and Storm Guardians don't seem like much of a death star.

The Farseer is also a weird choice for an army commander, given that they may never have walked a warrior path. In the DoW1 games they turned Farseers into beatsticks because the Autarch didn't exist when it originally came out. In DoW2 they made the Autarch the beatstick and made the Farseer a support character which feels more appropriate.

While I would like to see more attention given to Exarchs, I don't think they should be elevated to army commander. They're too narrowly focused on their skillset to manage a wider battle. Instead I'd like to see more done with Warlocks. They were pretty badass in 2nd with 3 different levels and able to match Exarchs in stats with an extra wound. Unfortunately they've been relegated to Guardian sergeant and Farseer bodyguard since then. To me a Seer who has walked a warrior path would make more sense to be the guy in charge of a host.

 Arschbombe wrote:

The Farseer is also a weird choice for an army commander, given that they may never have walked a warrior path.

Aren't Farseers Warlocks who become trapped on the Path of the Seer, and Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors?

 Arschbombe wrote:
Like a lot of Eldar things, the Autarch is half baked. He's like a general/admiral but also likes to mix it up face to face. When introduced in 4th, the Autarch allowed you to add 1 to reserve rolls so he could help get reserves to the tabletop faster. He wasn't especially tanky or powerful in combat, but he could be better than the Farseer when properly kitted out. In the current version of the game it seems the best use for the Autarch is the Wayleaper staying untargetable at range. The regular Autarch can only join Guardians which strikes me as unnecessarily restrictive. An Autarch and Storm Guardians don't seem like much of a death star.

The Farseer is also a weird choice for an army commander, given that they may never have walked a warrior path. In the DoW1 games they turned Farseers into beatsticks because the Autarch didn't exist when it originally came out. In DoW2 they made the Autarch the beatstick and made the Farseer a support character which feels more appropriate.

While I would like to see more attention given to Exarchs, I don't think they should be elevated to army commander. They're too narrowly focused on their skillset to manage a wider battle. Instead I'd like to see more done with Warlocks. They were pretty badass in 2nd with 3 different levels and able to match Exarchs in stats with an extra wound. Unfortunately they've been relegated to Guardian sergeant and Farseer bodyguard since then. To me a Seer who has walked a warrior path would make more sense to be the guy in charge of a host.

I think Exarchs as a leader makes sense for 40k-sized games. A particularly venerable Striking Scorpions Exarch being tasked to lead the sneaky ambush force or a Dire Avenger Exarch tasked with commanding a defensive blocking force make plenty of sense when we are talking about forces of around 50 warriors. Aside from Biel Tan, you wouldn't expect them leading warhosts at the scale seen in Epic, but a 40k force is a single critical battleforce not an army.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

The Farseer is also a weird choice for an army commander, given that they may never have walked a warrior path.

Aren't Farseers Warlocks who become trapped on the Path of the Seer, and Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors?

Farseers are Seers trapped on the Path of the Seer. Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors because the warlock helms are stored in Aspect shrines and they go to their old shrine to pick up their warlock helm when it is time to don their warrior psychological self.

However this means there is the possibility that there are Seers that never served as Aspect Warriors that then become trapped and become Farseers. There is a mention of such in Gav Thorpe's Path novels. When Alaitoc is attacked, the various Seers take to the field except for those that have never served as Aspect warriors. They stay behind in the HQ.

Iracundus wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

The Farseer is also a weird choice for an army commander, given that they may never have walked a warrior path.

Aren't Farseers Warlocks who become trapped on the Path of the Seer, and Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors?

Farseers are Seers trapped on the Path of the Seer. Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors because the warlock helms are stored in Aspect shrines and they go to their old shrine to pick up their warlock helm when it is time to don their warrior psychological self.

However this means there is the possibility that there are Seers that never served as Aspect Warriors that then become trapped and become Farseers. There is a mention of such in Gav Thorpe's Path novels. When Alaitoc is attacked, the various Seers take to the field except for those that have never served as Aspect warriors. They stay behind in the HQ.

I had this conversation recently. Your interpretation is the same as mine. However, someone on discord was pointing out that there's some indirect evidence to support the idea that all farseers were warlocks. Partly the flavor text on one of the Crusade upgrades from 9th edition for turning a warlock into a farseer (which I'd argue is gamey and far from decisive), but also because
A.) Seeing messed up visions of the future could be pretty traumatizing without a war mask and
B.) It would be a bit weird if farseers needed to constantly track someone down to help them put their warmask on (guardians get help donning their version of the mask).

But like I said, your interpretation makes more sense to me.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

The Farseer is also a weird choice for an army commander, given that they may never have walked a warrior path.

Aren't Farseers Warlocks who become trapped on the Path of the Seer, and Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors?

Farseers are Seers trapped on the Path of the Seer. Warlocks have to have served as Aspect Warriors because the warlock helms are stored in Aspect shrines and they go to their old shrine to pick up their warlock helm when it is time to don their warrior psychological self.

However this means there is the possibility that there are Seers that never served as Aspect Warriors that then become trapped and become Farseers. There is a mention of such in Gav Thorpe's Path novels. When Alaitoc is attacked, the various Seers take to the field except for those that have never served as Aspect warriors. They stay behind in the HQ.

I had this conversation recently. Your interpretation is the same as mine. However, someone on discord was pointing out that there's some indirect evidence to support the idea that all farseers were warlocks. Partly the flavor text on one of the Crusade upgrades from 9th edition for turning a warlock into a farseer (which I'd argue is gamey and far from decisive), but also because
A.) Seeing messed up visions of the future could be pretty traumatizing without a war mask and
B.) It would be a bit weird if farseers needed to constantly track someone down to help them put their warmask on (guardians get help donning their version of the mask).

But like I said, your interpretation makes more sense to me.

The logic as I see it:

All Seers can become Farseers.
A Warlock is a Seer.
Therefore a Warlock can become a Farseer.

It does not conclude necessarily that a Farseer had to have been a Warlock. The ones we see on the tabletop may just be the ones that have been in the past, while all the ones that have not stay in the HQ far away.

It's the path of the seer, and like the path of the warrior, it has many aspects.

Warlock is one. Being trapped on the path of the seer turns everyone into a farseer, just as being trapped on the path of a warrior turns everyone into an exarch.

GW keeps forgetting this with their aspect locking exarchs. They are fallen to the path, not the aspect. They are still total warriors even if they happen to prefer being in a specific aspect. It's not the path of the scorpion, or the path of the dragon, drifting between aspects is relatively easy given they all use the same psychological war mask and are on the same path. the background even says that an eldar will stay on a path for as long as they like, but it doesn't say they restrict themselves to only one aspect of said path while they're there. For the autarchs that learn it all and leave, there will be others that learn it all and get lost. Reinforcing the issue i have with how the split between them is portrayed. you can be cruising every aspect in the path for centuries before being lost. Despite Thorpe's personal preference via his book with a guy that just falls immediately after joining the scorpions once.

spirit seers are an aspect of the path of the seer. I believe bonesingers have their own path.

the eldar have a huge amount of implied depth to their forces and units (and of course culturally), but unless GW treat them like marines we'll never see it.

 Hellebore wrote:


spirit seers are an aspect of the path of the seer. I believe bonesingers have their own path.

the eldar have a huge amount of implied depth to their forces and units (and of course culturally), but unless GW treat them like marines we'll never see it.

Bonesingers, as depicted by Gav Thorpe in his novels, are the Exarch equivalent and those trapped on the Path of the Artisan.


I had hoped that the Iyanden supplement would be the start of supplements expanding the known background for the big Craftworlds, but it was not to be. What little we do know of them has to be cobbled together from tiny snippets spread across many other sources.

 Hellebore wrote:

Despite Thorpe's personal preference via his book with a guy that just falls immediately after joining the scorpions once.

I don't think it was really his preference. I think it just had to do with the novel format. It's BL, not Tolkien or Herbert. They decided to make three novels that would share common threads, but each had to have a self-contained story. I think Path of the Warrior suffers from being the first and having the narrative burden of establishing the context of the craftworld up front. I am ok with Korlandril falling quickly, after just two battles, but I didn't like his storyline being terminated with the resurrection of Karandras. It felt contrived to me even though it finally got me to grok why they're called Phoenix Lords.

Similarly I think the choice of Striking Scorpions was kind of required. Of all the Aspects they strike me as the most like martial arts and therefore most suitable for the master apprentice trope ala Karate Kid, Batman Begins et al. Like I have a hard time imagining how he would present the training cycle if Korlandril had gone Fire Dragon.

the eldar have a huge amount of implied depth to their forces and units (and of course culturally), but unless GW treat them like marines we'll never see it.

I think they've tried a few times, but it's never panned out. We got the craftworld supplement in 3rd and the Iyanden book in 6th. Rites of War is an Eldar themed game from 1999. We got Gav's novels that apparently did well enough to green light the series on the Phoenix Lords, but that ended after two books and IIRC Gav said that it was due to lack of sales. Space faeries just aren't as popular as roided out killing machines.

 Arschbombe wrote:

I don't think it was really his preference. I think it just had to do with the novel format. It's BL, not Tolkien or Herbert. They decided to make three novels that would share common threads, but each had to have a self-contained story. I think Path of the Warrior suffers from being the first and having the narrative burden of establishing the context of the craftworld up front. I am ok with Korlandril falling quickly, after just two battles, but I didn't like his storyline being terminated with the resurrection of Karandras. It felt contrived to me even though it finally got me to grok why they're called Phoenix Lords.

PotW would probably have benefitted a lot from one or two paragraphs basically saying, "And then he went on like 20 more missions that we don't have time to show you but were pretty sweet." Similar to how Aradryan became a badass corsair prince (or at least baron) mostly off-screen.

Karandras was a smidge contrived, but I think we would have all been left wondering what being absorbed into a PL looks like if they hadn't proactively answered the question.

 Arschbombe wrote:
It's BL, not Tolkien or Herbert.

That's an excuse on par with 'nothing is canon lol!'

Nothing about the format of a Black Library publication prevents including a time jump in the narrative.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
It's BL, not Tolkien or Herbert.

That's an excuse on par with 'nothing is canon lol!'

Nothing about the format of a Black Library publication prevents including a time jump in the narrative.

I'm not trying to excuse anything. I think it's clear that there's a qualitative difference between works that authors spent decades writing and revising and pulp novels produced to accompany tabletop games.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
It's BL, not Tolkien or Herbert.

That's an excuse on par with 'nothing is canon lol!'

Nothing about the format of a Black Library publication prevents including a time jump in the narrative.

A time jump in the Path novels would have been the better narrative decision. I think it was a mistake to have all 3 stories be constrained by having to have a conflict occur relatively soon after they joined their respective paths. That constraint meant Aradryan's first return to Alaitoc has him basically lie about his adventures (because he's hardly had any since he only left a short time ago).

It's a pity nothing followed the Iyanden supplement because we learned more about Iyanden (such as Iyanden being the pioneer in using the Infinity Circuit to preserve Eldar souls) and in passing other major Craftworlds in that 1 supplement than we have in literally decades of real life time from dropped crumbs in other works. The only other real major background information I can recall is from Gav Thorpe's Wild Rider novel where we learn that the Saim-Hann clans were originally not blood related individuals and that the clans were a social construct formed by the disparate survivors of the Fall. After generations they are now blood related. I suppose that is not too dissimilar from Iyanden's various Houses.

 Arschbombe wrote:


I think they've tried a few times, but it's never panned out. We got the craftworld supplement in 3rd and the Iyanden book in 6th. Rites of War is an Eldar themed game from 1999. We got Gav's novels that apparently did well enough to green light the series on the Phoenix Lords, but that ended after two books and IIRC Gav said that it was due to lack of sales. Space faeries just aren't as popular as roided out killing machines.

The Eldar at war are space ninjas and GW could make that work.

Just see how Warframe could do it:

https://youtu.be/MsbL8lFHrZI?t=116
https://youtu.be/MsbL8lFHrZI?t=239

It would be comparative lack of sales.

unless you are literally a space marine, your numbers won't be good enough.

 Hellebore wrote:
It would be comparative lack of sales.

unless you are literally a space marine, your numbers won't be good enough.

That is due to lack of effort on GW's part to push and market them or tell compelling tales with memorable characters that aren't just killed off. Even so, Craftworld Eldar have historically been probably the largest xenos faction by player count.

Iracundus wrote:
Even so, Craftworld Eldar have historically been probably the largest xenos faction by player count.

If that were true, I don't think we'd still be using sculpts from the 90s. The impression I have is that Eldar were more popular in the older editions since they got resculpts back in those days. Like Fire Dragons came out in 1990. They got resculpts in 3rd and 4th and have been the same since 2006. Banshees also came out in 1990, got resculpted in 1999 for 3rd and then again in 2006. They changed a bit when converted to plastic in 2019, but clung closely to the 4th edition style. Same with the Dark Reapers. So it feels to me like GW was giving them almost marine-levels of attention during those old editions, but that effort did not result in the desired sales so they backed off.

It's probably worth noting that I don't believe GW has ever included Craftworld Eldar in the starter box for a new edition. This is despite the fact that the Craftworld Eldar are one of the two oldest xeno races in the game (the other being Orks). I suspect that this is a hint that the Eldar are somewhere in the middle of the popularity pile. Not high enough to suggest that they might help sell the starter box. But also not low enough that they would need the boost that the starter box probably provides for a race.

But that's just speculation.

And of course now that GW has moved more toward quadrant-spanning stories with a primary antagonist race, we're probably less likely to see them show up in a starter. Not only is that not the way that the Eldar operate, but when things get really bad, the two races tend to become grudging co-belligerents, and limit the squabbling while they both focus on the more immediate threat.

Eumerin wrote:
It's probably worth noting that I don't believe GW has ever included Craftworld Eldar in the starter box for a new edition. This is despite the fact that the Craftworld Eldar are one of the two oldest xeno races in the game (the other being Orks). I suspect that this is a hint that the Eldar are somewhere in the middle of the popularity pile. Not high enough to suggest that they might help sell the starter box. But also not low enough that they would need the boost that the starter box probably provides for a race.

But that's just speculation.

And of course now that GW has moved more toward quadrant-spanning stories with a primary antagonist race, we're probably less likely to see them show up in a starter. Not only is that not the way that the Eldar operate, but when things get really bad, the two races tend to become grudging co-belligerents, and limit the squabbling while they both focus on the more immediate threat.

The problem is that eldar and tau fit a protagonist position alongside the imperium. They don't seem like 'bad guys' in the way DE, orks, chaos, nids and necrons do. So they are unlikely to ever appear as a starter set antagonist because they don't look like an imperial opponent. Their design language doesn't fit the villain role.

So they are left being on the imperial side of the starter set, but never going to actually replace them. So they will never get a starter design boost like evil factions do because they will never give up an imperial faction slot in the starter for the eldar.

 Hellebore wrote:
It's the path of the seer, and like the path of the warrior, it has many aspects.

Warlock is one. Being trapped on the path of the seer turns everyone into a farseer, just as being trapped on the path of a warrior turns everyone into an exarch.

GW keeps forgetting this with their aspect locking exarchs. They are fallen to the path, not the aspect. They are still total warriors even if they happen to prefer being in a specific aspect. It's not the path of the scorpion, or the path of the dragon, drifting between aspects is relatively easy given they all use the same psychological war mask and are on the same path. the background even says that an eldar will stay on a path for as long as they like, but it doesn't say they restrict themselves to only one aspect of said path while they're there. For the autarchs that learn it all and leave, there will be others that learn it all and get lost. Reinforcing the issue i have with how the split between them is portrayed. you can be cruising every aspect in the path for centuries before being lost. Despite Thorpe's personal preference via his book with a guy that just falls immediately after joining the scorpions once.

spirit seers are an aspect of the path of the seer. I believe bonesingers have their own path.

the eldar have a huge amount of implied depth to their forces and units (and of course culturally), but unless GW treat them like marines we'll never see it.

I don't think it is all that difficult to implement either, seeing as it is basically statline variations. You could have a situation where Guardians can be upgraded to veteran Guardians (previously walked the path of the warrior), probably either just one as a squad leader up to maybe half the unit. And Aspects could have similar. You could have "veteran" Exarchs as minor HQs (lieutenant equivalents) who can take one exarch skill outside their aspect to show how they might have crossed aspects on their journey. Just some quick examples. The senior Exarch would be a tactical leader, not a strategic one like the Autarch and Farseer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
It's probably worth noting that I don't believe GW has ever included Craftworld Eldar in the starter box for a new edition. This is despite the fact that the Craftworld Eldar are one of the two oldest xeno races in the game (the other being Orks). I suspect that this is a hint that the Eldar are somewhere in the middle of the popularity pile. Not high enough to suggest that they might help sell the starter box. But also not low enough that they would need the boost that the starter box probably provides for a race.

But that's just speculation.

And of course now that GW has moved more toward quadrant-spanning stories with a primary antagonist race, we're probably less likely to see them show up in a starter. Not only is that not the way that the Eldar operate, but when things get really bad, the two races tend to become grudging co-belligerents, and limit the squabbling while they both focus on the more immediate threat.

The problem is that eldar and tau fit a protagonist position alongside the imperium. They don't seem like 'bad guys' in the way DE, orks, chaos, nids and necrons do. So they are unlikely to ever appear as a starter set antagonist because they don't look like an imperial opponent. Their design language doesn't fit the villain role.

So they are left being on the imperial side of the starter set, but never going to actually replace them. So they will never get a starter design boost like evil factions do because they will never give up an imperial faction slot in the starter for the eldar.

I think what you are saying probably has some truth to it, even if it would be a very shortsighted perspective by GW.

Although it would be funny to have a starter with Eldar against the Imperium being shown as the villains invading a maiden world or something.

Iracundus wrote:
Even so, Craftworld Eldar have historically been probably the largest xenos faction by player count.

I don't have any data to back this up, but my gut would've said Orks over Eldar.

 Haighus wrote:

Although it would be funny to have a starter with Eldar against the Imperium being shown as the villains invading a maiden world or something.

Eh...

Unless Exodites have taken up residence, the vast majority of Maiden Worlds have been uninhabited since before the Fall - i.e. for over 10,000 years. It would be "invading" from the Eldar perspective, but the Imperium's view would be, "Well, you're clearly not using it..."

 Dysartes wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
Even so, Craftworld Eldar have historically been probably the largest xenos faction by player count.

I don't have any data to back this up, but my gut would've said Orks over Eldar.

You would probably see more Orks at the FLGS, but more Eldar at tournaments/events. But also that’s just my gut talking.

Eumerin wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Although it would be funny to have a starter with Eldar against the Imperium being shown as the villains invading a maiden world or something.

Eh...

Unless Exodites have taken up residence, the vast majority of Maiden Worlds have been uninhabited since before the Fall - i.e. for over 10,000 years. It would be "invading" from the Eldar perspective, but the Imperium's view would be, "Well, you're clearly not using it..."

I think it would be easy enough to craft a narrative framing the Imperium as the invaders. Imperial exploitation is inefficient and destructive to the local environment, there is a preservationist angle if nothing else. But could also be a good opportunity to introduce Exodite models.

The imperium considers the galaxy their's by divine right - from their perspective every alien is an invader of human lands. Every crusade into new territory is seen this way. No alien is considered to have legitimate claim to the space they occupy. This is one of the many realworld parallels of colonialist europe that they reflect.

I don't really see how framing another alien race to see invasion through their own cultural lens is any different.

There is no abstract universal constant of invasion to measure from, only what each species values and commits to.

 Haighus wrote:

I think it would be easy enough to craft a narrative framing the Imperium as the invaders. Imperial exploitation is inefficient and destructive to the local environment, there is a preservationist angle if nothing else. But could also be a good opportunity to introduce Exodite models.

Writers can frame things however they want. For instance, they could frame a campaign narrative in which the Tyranids are the "good guys", defending themselves against mean and evil Imperium forces.

But from a practical perspective, again we're talking about planets that have largely been unused since the Fall - barring those which have Exodite populations (which, given that recorded history on Earth is less than that, each really ought to have billions of Eldar by now... but that's another matter). A comparison to the real world would be a country that's laid claim to an island for the last 500 years, but has completely ignored it during that time. It's outside the claiming country's sphere of influence, and the only "presence" is that a ship occasionally sails past, or a plane sometimes flies over it. But that's it. And for the last four hundred years, they haven't bothered to tell anyone that they claim it.

But then one day an overflight spots a settlement on the island belonging to a nation that's fairly close to the island.

Yes, from the Eldar perspective, the humans are invaders. But from the human perspective, it was an empty planet when they arrived. And the Eldar (who have a reputation for being manipulative and untrustworthy) are just trying to steal a planet that the Imperium found and settled.

Eumerin wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I think it would be easy enough to craft a narrative framing the Imperium as the invaders. Imperial exploitation is inefficient and destructive to the local environment, there is a preservationist angle if nothing else. But could also be a good opportunity to introduce Exodite models.

Writers can frame things however they want. For instance, they could frame a campaign narrative in which the Tyranids are the "good guys", defending themselves against mean and evil Imperium forces.

But from a practical perspective, again we're talking about planets that have largely been unused since the Fall - barring those which have Exodite populations (which, given that recorded history on Earth is less than that, each really ought to have billions of Eldar by now... but that's another matter). A comparison to the real world would be a country that's laid claim to an island for the last 500 years, but has completely ignored it during that time. It's outside the claiming country's sphere of influence, and the only "presence" is that a ship occasionally sails past, or a plane sometimes flies over it. But that's it. And for the last four hundred years, they haven't bothered to tell anyone that they claim it.

But then one day an overflight spots a settlement on the island belonging to a nation that's fairly close to the island.

Yes, from the Eldar perspective, the humans are invaders. But from the human perspective, it was an empty planet when they arrived. And the Eldar (who have a reputation for being manipulative and untrustworthy) are just trying to steal a planet that the Imperium found and settled.

land can have a meaning even if it's not inhabited. this is a major issue with indigenous land rights issues, areas which are not lived in specifically because they hold other meaning. sacred is sacred, and that still counts as something to the culture which lives in context of it. from the colonizer perspective, such land might be "empty" or "not used", but that's only if you ignore the culture and meaning of it

Eumerin wrote:
Yes, from the Eldar perspective, the humans are invaders. But from the human perspective, it was an empty planet when they arrived. And the Eldar (who have a reputation for being manipulative and untrustworthy) are just trying to steal a planet that the Imperium found and settled.

That would make for a far more interesting story than 'Hur dur Imperium bad. Colonialism bad'.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
Yes, from the Eldar perspective, the humans are invaders. But from the human perspective, it was an empty planet when they arrived. And the Eldar (who have a reputation for being manipulative and untrustworthy) are just trying to steal a planet that the Imperium found and settled.

That would make for a far more interesting story than 'Hur dur Imperium bad. Colonialism bad'.

i mean, but colonialism is bad, and since a lot of people don't seem to agree, i don't think we can have enough stories about that just yet

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
Yes, from the Eldar perspective, the humans are invaders. But from the human perspective, it was an empty planet when they arrived. And the Eldar (who have a reputation for being manipulative and untrustworthy) are just trying to steal a planet that the Imperium found and settled.

That would make for a far more interesting story than 'Hur dur Imperium bad. Colonialism bad'.

i mean, but colonialism is bad, and since a lot of people don't seem to agree, i don't think we can have enough stories about that just yet

You can have a story which illustrates why colonialism is bad without having the metaphorical narrator turn to the camera and just state it though.