You are correct, many of these alien witches have been blasted to ruins by the might of the Emperor's Hammer though.

I credit never being fool enough to get tanks within Webway charge range, Overwatch, and murderous firepower.

Perhaps my milage has just been good.

But at least they ought to be able to CC skimmers, they're flying knights after all!

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

Who are you and what have you done with Neal?

Other than Banshees I'd leave the aspects alone.

Does anyone other than a few players I know think that the Swords of Vaul are a really good formation for 300 points now? 12 AT4+ shots out to 45cm is really nice and of course hit and run is really good too.

Swords of Vaul do have a great deal of firepower, I think they're supposed to be overgunned soap bubbles, and they aren't particularly tough.

I can't find my list anywhere though, not having a PDF of all the changes in the list is making it hard to remember.  

I think there's 6 or them though in the formation.

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

How will this "four Aspects of same type plus optional Exarch of same type" work with the other Eldar lists. When you have only four or six Aspects as a choice?

For NetEA I would prefer all the 1.8 changes except for the 0-1 small Aspect host. We played 1.8 a lot and were quite sure that it was okay.

Personally I think that only very minor tweaks are needed - if any! Going through the thread to-date:-

1) EoV work well in their particular niches - over the weekend for instance even I managed to obliterate a Warlord with 2x Cobras (their prime target of choice) - and that was with my usual crap dice

2) Fire-Prisms need to be used cautiously, but will likewise "eat" IG SHT (they just need to operate from behind cover in the rear of the battlefield - you guys do of course have lots of cover don't you??). I am less sure they need to be part of the "Swords of Vaul" and do not think they should have any stats changes at all - shortening their range for example brings them permanently into range of things that can hit them, which breaks them and we then get complaints about how underpowered, brittle they are etc - they are supposed to be brittle!)

3) Also, I do not think we really need to allow 6x falcon formations (much as I would like to have them).Essentially you need to positions things properly so that you minimise the risk to them (unlike I did over the weekend, where they were too close to some Warhounds that prompty doubled and obliterated them )

4) Aspects likewise have their roles, and that is the whole point. the only real change I would make here is for all CC specialists to have 4+ armour, while all FF specialists would have 5+ armour. This would make WS 5+, HB4+ and also the stats would be slightly easier to remember As for the 2+ HB change, I remain unconvinced that it actually does the right thing - I think fixing their armour would be more appropriate

5) I have some sympathy with Neal's suggestion on simplifying Exarchs and Autarchs which makes the game easier to remember. The only real criticism is that as far as I understand from a fluff perspective the Eldar characters usually come with a wacking great sword. But here I would definitely vote for simplicity over fluff.

6) I am less sure about the use of Aspect 'blocks'. I believe fixing the Exarch stats will actually resolve some of the issues Neal mentions. However forcing the use of blocks adds an unnecessary restriction and complication - and I am likewise opposed to different pricing structures because by and large they all work equally well at their particular speciality (with the possible exception of WS and HB). So I agree with Hena that we should leave the prices alone.

7) As for the other 1.8 changes, things like the Shields of Vaul actually seemed to cause more problems than they solved, so consequently I would be inclined to drop them

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I think 1.8 mods are in general very good.
I might consider making cobra main weapon "+1 to-hit and ignore cover against WE" now that they are hit according to AT column.

For the aspects, I guess I would use all of them except howling banshees.
Maybe use them with cc2+ if I paint some, just out of curiosity, but do not feel that intriguing. But I'm neither fan of dark reapers either, wonder why they have that bad armour value nowadays...

But that is the point - in assaults, DR (along with Fire Dragons etc) stay at the rear behind the tougher CC stuff (and behind the Wave serpents if you have them). Otherwise, keep them in cover or in the vehicles until they are needed.

PS. Have you ever put an eight strong Dark Reaper formation on OW? Well nor have I   , but I have a feeling it would be quite potent against many armies except perhaps armour heavy IG .

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

For the most part, the 1.8 changes are fine.  Most of them have been incorporated in the BT - basically everything but the new tank formations (which are fair game for the variant lists).

Aspect Blocks:  It's just an idea and I'm not married to it.  As far as questions, it could work fine for any of the variant lists as well.  Cut the blocks in half so you're buying 2 at a time.  The Exarch purchase is arguably a bit fiddly, but it's not so complex that it caused problems.  "For every 4 Aspect Warriors of a shrine, you may purchase one Exarch of that Aspect" pretty much covers it.

I think it's workable, but if people don't like it... no sweat.

I do want to see Aspect-specific exarchs, though.  If nothing else, they just need separate datafaxes to stop the interminable questions about how the special abilities are applied to the extra attacks.

_________________
Neal

The only slight issue with this Neal, is there may well be people who do not have even four units of particular Aspects that would consequently be unable to use them at all if you have to buy them in 'blocks'. Equally, there are those like me who want to buy reduced numbers of Wave serpents, so field a pair of shining spears with a mix of other Aspects.

However, I get the impression that you are also trying to limit the practice of buying one or two "odd" aspects and converting them into Exarchs / Autarchs. Does this cause any particularly difficult problems?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Regarding the Cobra: Why not simply resurrect the old experimental MW-Barrage rule as a hole for NetEpic?

Dark Reapers are fine as they are. They are a nice support unit for aspect hosts which give them good FF attacks and the ability of laying blast markers. They are even better used in those smaller troupes of the other craftworlds. With my Ulthwé I regularly field a formation of four Dark Reapers loaded in two Wave Serpents. They provide good AP firepower - which the Eldar are relatively short of - and are fast enough to bring it to bear were it is needed. Further more they are very nice for supporting assaults.  

As a new player to Epic Armageddon (but a veteran of the old Space Marine/Titan Legions system), the two games I've played with the Eldar have been very good.

I read the original rules, and then compared them to the 1.8 changes, and then the official changes which sanctioned by JJ and I feel that the changes which were actually made were very good.  I went a step further and played my games using the statistics which were found in the handbook, and I didn't find a problem with any of those on the units which I fielded, so it would have been nice to see a few more changes make the official version in my opinion.  All these versions, so confusing....

I can't comment personally about the abilities of the Warp Spiders, as I don't have any models to be able to use them, but on paper, they do seems a little bit too good.

As for the Scorpion, I was very happy with its performance in the game in which I used it.  I feel that giving it three shots would most probably make it too overpowered.

Howling Banshees are a bit of a problem it would appear.  In terms of their background, they are not supposed to be heavily armoured, yet they die very easily in assaults due to their lack of armour, so it's a bit of catch twenty-two situation as to how you resolve that.

Overall, I think the Eldar work quite well, but I still haven't tried out all of the units yet, so I can't comment on everything.

_________________

So Chroma, any verdict on what we've discussed in this thread? Do you have any additional changes you want to make to the list?

On a separate topic, do you think any of the alternative craftworld lists need to be discussed?

For my part, I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion about the Alaitoc list, as I originally painted my some of my Epic models in the colours of Alaitoc.

I've played using the Swordwind list so far, but when I next get chance to play a game (although that won't be for a while), I may be tempted to give the Alaitoc list a go, but it depends on its status.  Is it currently usable, or are there a lot of glitches?  I'm guessing that there may be a few issues with it, since Chroma was looking out for play tests of the Alaitoc list in his opening post.

It's not the end of the world if it's not a functioning list though, as I'm enjoying playing with the Swordwind army list.

_________________

Actually, it seems to be the most stable and flexible Craftworld list out there... yet I don't think I've ever seen another Alaitoc battle report!

Give them a try and let us know how they do!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?