Well let's get some more games in first. The small wraith formation frees up points and I am still interested in seeing how mounted formations get on, along with spamming wraiths.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

What about separating infantry troupes from vehicular troupes, and limiting each of the two categories to 1 formation per wraith host? It’s like a 1:2 limit, but you can’t use it all on infantry.

The Windrider troupe would be a little awkward. 6 jetbike stands is supposedly 18 Eldar individuals, only two fewer than you'd get in a 4-stand infantry formation. But 6 Vypers are 12 individuals, same as you get in a 6-strong Falcon troupe. I don’t know where they’d belong; probably infantry.

On the other hand, the fluff makes it sound like Iyanden had a lot more than 5x the population of the smaller craftworlds, so even after losing 80% of its population it seems silly that it wouldn’t be able to assemble thousands of guardians and aspect warriors.

==

One question to ask is if 4-stand or 6-stand wraithguard formations are preferable for balance and fun. The 1:1 limit will greatly encourage the use of 4-stand formations – is that a good thing?

Into the Breach 2015 reports Here.

The army raised some eyebrows, and while it did not do that well, with some minor changes it could have done a lot better. I would add that my experiment suggests that it is possible to get away with dispensing a lot of the usual formations (AA, Artillery etc) though not all. The experiments also tend to confirm that Eldar require parity or superiority in activations, which in turn precludes large numbers of big wraith formations and has a direct bearing on the 1:1 ratio.

Wraith formation costs vs resilience and the number and types of support formations are interesting conundrums. However before we go to 1:2, I agree with Kyrt and others that it is probably worth exploring different options, for example I want to try out some 5x strong formations as well as different delivery options etc. I also have views on the make up of the 'core' and 'support' formation types, though I need to explore these a little further.

Final thought, The animated construct rule would have had no impact, as no wraith formation tried to march after the first turn.

Having the Spiritseers summon the Avatar might have helped in a couple of the games, though I am not sure that it would have changed the ultimate results, not least because I threw some abysmal dice (as usual) getting roughly 15% more '1's than any of them

33-25 vs Rob C
37-32 vs Rob H
36-30 vs Charles

Hey Guys

Thanks for the responses.



Absolutely more game testing is required, I agree that there are some builds we haven't seen much of and I would love to see a few different gamers/groups put the list through its paces. The data at the moment is really suggesting that the ratio mechanic needs some thought and discussion.

@Uvenlord and Mordoten I hear you

@ Kyrt, Carlisimo and Ginger it's not a bad idea.
I guess that should you divide the Troupe section into living and support parts.
The living would comprise of:
Aspects
Guardians
Rangers
Jet bikes

The remainder of the troupe section would form the support part.
So the ratio would be for each 1:1:1, each Warhost choice would unlock 1 living troupe and 1 support troupe. I am open to this idea and think it fits well with Iyanden's fluff. However I still have some reservations that we may end up over complicating the list, but let's keep discussing it.



Carlisimo your point about Iyanden original populations size is a good one. I guess thoughts like this would lead for the straight 1:2 ratio between warhosts:troupe.

Regarding the 4-stand WG/WB formations the intention was to open up the choices for how you run Wraith formations in the army and it also falls into line with changes to the Vampire Transport capacity and the fact that Guardians were moved to the troupe section. Is it a good thing? I believe it is given the current choices with the Warhost section. I particularly like four stands in Wave Serpents however more testing and feedback will indicate if it is a good thing or not.

@Ginger, mate I appreciate you taking the time to feedback from all your games recently, Cheers!

Just finally, I have had to rain check my couple of games for today due to some Family issues trumping my wargaming, so hopefully I will get a game in this week coming.

Cheers

Mic

Some further thoughts;

I agree with Tiny-Tim that the smaller four strong wraith formations with the potential for upgrades are definitely the way forwards. This gives the player greater flexibility in creating a list that suits his particular style of play.

I am a little unsure about the 1:1:1 construct although it does give a little more freedom than the current 1:1 ratio. Players are always trying to find good combinations of formations for reasonable points costs, within the theme of the list. This 1:1:1 ratio allows more 'living' formations, but is still constricting in the other supports. The point is that the current ratio tends to force people to use air units (Vampires) or paired Storm Serpents, which in turn is just a bit prescriptive. The 1:1:1 approach does not change this.

While I understand your concerns over the number of 'living' elements, could this be represented by having a minimum number of Wraith constructs, perhaps at least one per thousand points under a 1:2 ratio?

Anyhow, I have another game tomorrow night, and will be using a slightly more numerous and mobile version of the list, still under the 1:1 ratio and trying out some 5x strong wraith guard formations.

So tonight I am taking the following

675 5x Wraith Guard + 5x Wave Serpents + Wraith Seer
575 5x Wraith Guard + 5x Wave Serpents
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 Void Spinner
250 Falcons including 2x Firestorms
200 Vampire
150 Guardians
200 Vampire
125 5x Rangers

So, four wraith hosts, four 'supports' and two air. This is a lot more mobile, the Vampires and Wave Serpents will enable more assaults by the Wraith formations and the larger Wraith formations will still be tough. The down side is that there are more 'squishy' formations and I am still outactivated!

If we have time (very doubtfull) I might try a full on spam list based on the principles I tried last weekend
425 5x Wraith Guard + Wraith Seer
325 5x Wraith Guard
325 5x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard

The idea is that with more formations and no 'weak' ones to pick on, the principle of just pushing forwards is more possible, though I would still have been outnumbered against either of the last two lists.

oh no you're not - Void Spinner is only B-T and not allowed in other lists

drat - foiled again
I think this one works

675 5x Wraith Guard + 5x Wave Serpents + Wraith Seer
475 4x Wraith Guard + 4x Wave Serpents
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
250 Falcons including 2x Firestorms
250 Falcons including 2x Firestorms
200 Vampire
200 Vampire
125 5x Rangers

A pity as I wanted to play two formations of 5x WG, though the Blitz guard is a lot stronger.

I disagree, I think 1:1:1 changes it a lot, almost as much as 1:2 in fact. I think it allows you to build a lot more "standard" armies, with things like rangers and guardians in them and no need for air or titans at all:

575 4x Wraith Guard + 4x Wave Serpents + Wraith Seer
475 4x Wraith Guard + 4x Wave Serpents
375 6x Wraith Guard
275 4x Wraith Guard
350 Guardians in Wave serpents (or swap the serpents into the WG formation for a third mounted WG)
100 4x Rangers
100 4x Rangers
250 Falcons including 2x Firestorms
250 Falcons including 2x Firestorms
250 Falcons including 2x Firestorms

And although storm serpents are still the most restrictive build, they become easily achievable and you get to take other units that currently can't be included in a storm serpent build, all in a high activation army:

475 6x wraithguard + wraithseer
375 6x wraithguard
275 4x wraithblade, 1x wraithguard
275 4x wraithguard
175 4x swooping hawks
150 guardians
125 5x rangers
100 4x rangers
250 falcons w/firestorms
250 falcons w/firestorms
250 storm serpent
250 storm serpent
50 wraithgate

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Ginger it would be nice if the Void Spinner was in the list but alas. The smaller starting size for the wraith formations was bit of a must given the move of the guardians to the troupe section, the ratio adjustment and the changes to Vampire transport capcity. But I am glad both you and Tiny Tim are seeing it as a positive step for the list.
Ginger can we tempt you to put the WB through their paces soon? I'd be interested to see if you could make them dance especiaslly agasinst armies that are more subsetable to CC such as Guard etc.

Greg and Kyrt it was your ideas and suggestions for the 1:1:1 which i think had alot of merit. I am hoping to really see some more discussion and thoughts of it compared to the 1:2 ratio.

What do others think?

Cheers

Mic

Kyrt I like your thinking with this list, the WL with the WB has alot of value and starts to make it comparable to the WG both for 275pts although it cuts down the delivery options.

Mic

If 1:1:1 is part of a "Living Few" restriction then it has the odd effect of encouraging the selection of, such as, Guardians and Rangers to increase the number of activations; rather than taking more formations with lower manpower (read eldar-power) requirements.

For example, for three activations you are guided to take 1 wraith guard host, 1 war walker troupe and 1 ranger troupe (for 25 living, Spiritseer, 4 walker pilots and (say) 20 rangers), rather than 1 wraith guard host, 2 war walker troupes, (for 9 living, Spiritseer, 8 walker pilots).

I do realise that it stops 1 wraith guard host and 2 ranger troupes; which I have certainly opted for in the past.

Personally I think you have enough of the Living Few flavour in the only Wraith Host Formations option.
I'd vote for 1:2 as sufficiently restrictive.

Another bash at Iyanden here, this time with more mobility and air options, and more formations (10)