As it seems we are doing some good groundwork at proposing a list of things to test for a potential Eldar review, let's get to one of the most heated topics: exarchs.

The problems:
- Some Exarchs are better than others, especially FF oriented ones vs CC oriented ones.
- Some Exarch special EAs are not as good as their basic attacks, which is both unfluffy, causes gameplay issues, and also is more complicated to explain.
- Autarchs have weird interactions with all this as they have different statlines.

My proposition:

- Have Exarchs and Autarchs with the same statline, the Autarch being just a Exarch with SC.
- All CC Exarchs gain MW on their EA.
- All Exarchs gain their Aspect special rule on their EA (aka. FS for Banshees, and MW for FDs).

In effect, CC exarchs become much better, thereby making CC Aspect troupes sexier (as you want a lot of CC Aspects to absorb the hits to protect the Exarchs).

Autarchs stop having weird interactions.

All exarchs EAs behave as they should do.

Note that the last line of the proposition has already been extensively tested by EUK and that no imbalance seems to have occurred, except internal balance wise.

Thoughts?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

EUK exarchs are good.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How about the other little propositions here?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

this discussion is an old one..... the main role of the exarchs is to be inspiring.... their extra attack should be considered gravy on top of that really

if you give them the EUK stats, you'll just see a preponderance of fire dragon exarchs instead of the others

I do think banshees should get FS though, it's way too easy to completely avoid their extra attack otherwise

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Do yout think MW on the CC attack of Scorpions and Shining would be imbalanced?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

probably not, but they're completely fine as they are at the moment and don't need any more boosts.... if people were reporting that aspect formations were consistently underperforming I would agree that exarch options need to be explored....

the reason for the higher instances of FF exarchs is that FF is simply better than CC in most assaults, you can't do a clipping assault with CC troops nearly as effectively as FF troops, and you're better off having solid FF troops for support fire purposes.... given a choice between CC4+ troops and FF4+ troops, all other factors being the same, I'd go for the FF troops nine times out of ten

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

The EUK fire dragon exarch is unbalanced. That much I know.

_________________

Ok adopt all exarch changes from the EUK lists except the fire dragons. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Honestly I would pay the 25 points just for the inspiring - there really is little need for anything else.

Can I also make the point that not everything in the list has to be / can be completely competitive all the time. Personally I dont think it really even should be.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/

Indeed, I'd already rate BT eldar (of any flavour) as one of the strongest and most versatile lists. All these changes are boosts.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

what the last two people said.....

if it comes down to 'realism' for you, then you're always going to be disappointed in a game of abstration.... sure eldar exarchs have access to ancient and potent weaponry, but is it neccessary for them to be able to blast the nuts off a warlord titan for them to be effective....? I'm not so sure it is

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Let's just remove the Exarch EA then.

Less complicated, better balanced.

@Steve: The changes being discussed are not about boosting the played units, but the unplayed ones, like what was achieved successfully in the Codex Marine Changes (Hail Dobbsy!). The idea in this thread is to streamline exarchs. If the CC ones are unplayed, and tbh they are completely unplayed, my proposal makes them a viable choice, though in no way overpowered, especially compared to EUK FDs which admittedly you do not consider OP. The idea is also to make things more simple and remove the weird interactions (Banshee Exarch anyone?).

You also stated in another thread that EUK Banshees were performing adequately. This proposed change brings them at par.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I would honestly prefer this, although I doubt anyone else would.




The thing is, if all you ever do is improve the under-performing units, then the average power of the list as a whole slides up. It is classic power creep. What needs to happen is a reappraisal of both the under performing units and the over-performing units to try and come to some median "power-level".

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/

I don't have a problem with the Exarchs as they currently are, and the Autarch is supposed to be more powerful than, and different from, Exarchs, so I don't see any reason to change that either.

_________________

What makes Autarchs more powerfuk than exarchs?

Also note that with the current rules, it is only the the CC Autarch that is more powerful than regular exarchs.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell