Hey Guys,

We managed another two games over the past week here is the link for the first game against the Orks, viewtopic.php?f=84&t=29055&start=60

The second game against the Knights will have a batrep up soon, thanks Mard.

Mic

Yep, I'll get the game up tomorrow

Hi Guys

Ok I am at the stage of making the next round of changes to the list in our journey toward approval status. I have been looking at what people have been saying and what things have been highlighted through the game testing process.

The two changes are based around the ratio of Wraith Warhosts to troupes and Wraithblades stats and point costs.

First I have opted for the straight 1:2 ratio over the previously discussed 1:1:1.
The reason for this is simplicity. I am concerned that the 1:1:1 ratio will overcomplicate the list in order to try and capture a truer sense of the ‘living few’ mentality.

I believe that with the Warhost section still dedicated to Wraith formations most lists would generally see 3-4 of these formations depending on players preference. I recognise that there are issues with vulnerabilities to any of the Wraith formations delivery systems and hopefully the 1:2 ratio will open up the list further to allow some other “living” formations to shoulder some of the work load.

I am aware that the 1:2 ratio could be exploited with spamming rangers etc but lets be honest, many corner stone list like marines for example can spam things but people don’t because that is missing the point of why we play this bloody game.

Secondly I have modified Wraithblades in order to try and cement them a place in the list and give Iyanden players choice. I know there are some out there that don’t like this unit and some that do while most agree that there stats still need some work.

I have changed their combat value to 3+ and they will keep the MW EA+1. This stat improvement has allowed me to adjust the points of individual Wraithblade stands from 40 to 50 points. This should help in list building and have Wraithblades a more viable option for players when compared to Wraithguard.

Regarding the Stat increase itself I have considered and read the fluff surrounding them and feel that a stand of 5 Wraithblades armed variety of powerful ghost weapons is very comparable to a single Wraithlord in terms of lethality.

Now at this stage I am not changing the points cost of the Wraithblade formation and leaving them at 225 points. I have considered this and feel that Wraithguard still offer more a versatile formation throughout the course of the game. They are better suited to clipping assaults and can be easily used to support fire other Iyanden formations engagements.

Regarding the Animated Construct rule I am still considering this at the moment.

The above changes will need to be tested thoroughly I hope all of you can find the time to give the list a whirl and report back. I have put the new list up on the intial post.

Guys thanks for your feedback and batreps thus far.

Cheers

Mic

Good changes!! The list is taking a good shape!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Ok, will have a go at list building and try to get some test games in.

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

Really unsure about the Wraithblades. The point is that without any FF or shooting capability, they are an ablative shield for the formation or a one shot assault vehicle since they cannot support or shoot. Having them at 40 did at least mean that including them made the list a bit cheaper, at 50, I could not field my latest batrep list.

If you are to raise the cost to 50 points, personally I would much prefer some limited FF and possibly shooting capability, rather than improved CC capabilities.

I take your point Ginger. However I feel the way the Wraithblade formation is currently costed Vs it's stats it's well worth game testing. The initial assault from Wraitblades has a greater potential damage output than Wraithguard.

Mic

At the cost of half the threat range...

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

+1 IJW

Jim, this is where we disagree

In order to get into B-B, the delivery vehicle has to get that much closer. That extra 15cm is a huge difference, and represents a reduction of 50% in distance on foot, and ~30% from transport. For example, a favourite Eldar tactic is to stay mounted in Wave serpents, allowing the WG formation to 'pounce' on enemy up to 55cm away, but WB could only catch enemy at 40cm, and in practice this would actually be less.

Worse, while the WG can double, shoot and then support, this option is not available to WB which equally cannot support further combats. This means that unless equipped with Wave Serpents they are unlikely to be able to fight again in the game.

By all means test them, but IMO increasing the cost basically reduces their usefulness irrespective of the CC stats. Indeed, I suggest that there is potentially a case for reducing their cost rather than increasing it,
(but then I would say that wouldn't I . . . )

Absolutely do those units that excel in FF have an advantage over those that are strong in CC in 3/4 engagement situations, but not all. I think WraithBlades will really shine against those armies susceptible to CC like IG and Tau. For example I feel a formation of WraithBlades will fair better against a WE with fields/shields than Wraithguard. In saying that I'd imagine that most players would take more Wraithguard than Wraithblade formations however I believe WraithBlades will help to balance the list overall. The costings at the moment I feel are fair and worth game testing . But should testing and further feedback indicate that it's best to reduce the cost of individual units then that change can be made.

Further more we discuss the importance of supporting fire from a formation we have to also recognise that the game is about seizing and hold ground as well as destroying an enemy. Wraithblades still offer a Fearless RA4+ formation that despite its size can be harder to shift than other formations, food for thought...

Cheers

Mic

Ha, don't get me wrong, I agree on all you just posted. But my issue is that WB are not the same value as WG and we agree they have different uses. This is why I think they work well as upgrades to a WG formation, not as a formation by themselves. However, I also recognise that people use different tactics and have different play styles.

Like I say, by all means test them but IMO increasing the costs hinders rather than helps.

A final thought; my recent experience suggests that small fearless formations still break quite easily and rarely rally at that point - at best they are a 4+ to recover, though they are more likely to be a 5+.
Now *IF* Wraith formations were easier to rally, or had 'spiritstones' automatically (they exist on a different plane after all !! . . . )

Seriously, players have to avoid them becoming broken; not easy to do unless the formation is at least 5+ strong which obviously impacts the formation cost. It is this element in the list that needs to be balanced out for 3K, which the 1:2 ratio goes a long way to fixing.

The ratio of Wraith to non Wraith units is WAY TOO HIGH! Please make it 1:1 at most, ideally 2 Wraith formations to be allowed 1 non Wraith formation Otherwise the list is really a cop-out that doesn't represent Iyanden very well at all. Iyanden isn't just a craftworld with a bit more of a preference for wraith constructs than others (in the way Ulthwe has more Farseers), they're situation is much much worse than that and their wraith constructs vastly outnumber their living population.

The background states that during the tyranid invasion of Iyanden over 80% of their entire population were killed in the one attack and that every single one of these dead have since been resurrected as wraith constructs for their armies. Heck having to take 5 Wraith formations per 1 non Wraith formation would fit the background properly. 2 Wraithguard per 1 non Wraithguard formation would actually be extremely generous in flexibility from that, but probably the best compromise people would accept.



Wraithknights and the old Eldar Knights are two very different things. If you look back at the (quite extensive) background for the old Eldar Knights you'll see they're Eldar Exodite units and not Craftworld units. The large walkers are used to herd and control the herds of dinosaurs on many of the Exodite worlds. I'd like to see a list for the old Eldar Knights too, but that list should be those Knights plus dinosaurs not the old Knights and craftworlders. Sure, some Exodite Knights might occasionally ally with an Eldar Craftworld, just like Dark Eldar and Eldar occasionally ally but Epic tournament lists tend to focus on a particular army theme rather than such alliances.

The Wraithknight is a craftworld version of an Eldar knight and one specific unit rather than a range of them. I'd definitely like to see the Wraithknight added to the Iyanden list. It's a very iconic unit for the modern Eldar and Iyanden are known to use a lot of them.

GlynG thanks for the feed back. Absolutely was the Iyanden Craftworld ravaged by the nids and lost 80% of its population. Our work here is to develop a list that reflects the Craftworld as a balanced and competitive force for Epic. A good point that was previously raised was that the Iyanden Craftworld was previously one of the largest craftworlds so it's safe to say the remaining 20% of the Craftworld is substantial.

Current testing and feedback has indicated issues with the balance at the 1:1 ratio hence the move to 1:2. This is still considerably less than the standard Biel-Tan list and the reliance on having to choose wraith formations ensures most Iyanden lists will still have at least 3-4 wraith formations.

My feeling that from the evidence thus far this was the right move however I am hoping some more testing will show one way or the other.

I think that Wraithknights have a place in the Iyanden list but as Tiny-Tim indicated this is something we will explore down the track.

GlynG any chance you can take the list for a run in it's present form?

Cheers

Mic

Sure, the remaining 20% would still be a sizeable population a lot bigger than an epic army, but that's not the point. Iyanden armies would typically be made up of over 80% Wraith constructs and your version of the list in allowing 66% of the formations to be living other stuff goes much too far from the composition of a typical Iyanden force and doesn't do justice to the background and theme. It would be like an epic Titan Legion list allowing 66% of the formations to be non titan units - it would go against the theme and so the Titan Legion list sensibly allows a maximum of 1 non-titan formation per titan formation.

You mention people having issues with the 1:1 in game but rather than weaken/dilute the Iyanden theme your response should be to tweak the rules/stats/costs for wraith units so that armies mostly made up of wraith units is workable and has enough advantages and uses that the army still does ok overall despite the limitations. An Iyanden army with 3-4 wraith formations at 3k should not be acceptable - they should be fielding 5-8 or so. A wraith army is obviously quite an extreme force rather than a generalist one but so is say a World Eaters list and it's fine so long as the list overall is competitive. Having a heavily wraith based eldar list in the game would add more variety and interest than a more general craftworld list with smaller numbers of wraith units.

If you're going to add the Wraithknight why not throw together some stats and do so? It'd be a significant change to the list and it would seem strange to test the list loads and then add the knight at a late stage and have to re-test things loads again.

I like to vary what I play and probably want to test the Biel-tann list sooner but I might test the list in time. I like the idea of Iyanden but I'm just not that keen on the current list at the moment for reasons above.

Ii disagree with Glyn about the ratio. Who cares about fluff really? Make the list enjoyable to play first and for most.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam