The idea might be cool, but I won't support it. not because its would be a "again a new special rule for those Eldars !", but becauase it would alter too much the basic rules.


Rangers, of course.
Gardians (options to be define)
Wind Riders, which can be seen as Guardians or mounted Rangers, scouting for Revenant titans.
War Walkers and Wraithlords can be add but are not essential for me.
Others 'classic' Eldars formations shouldn't have its place in ETC imho.


I support you 200% !
New profile for the pulsar is the key imho.


For 250pts, the Storm Serpent bring a Wraithgate wherever it is needed AND correct (AT+FF) firepower AND an activation.
For 100pts, the Wraithgate option for the Phantom titan only brings the Wraithgate. And a strong enough formation, able to effectively use the 100pts Wraithgate, is yet to buy !
I don't say 100pts is too much for this option. I just say that I struggle to get titans and not be to "over-activated", that I even don't consider the Wraithgate option.


Leave them as they are for now.
My Bright Stallions troupe is allmost painted. First try in an undetermidded delay ...

Traditionally, the Aspect Warrior host is the core of the Eldar army, with the Guardian hosts being more of a supporting militia. To this is added the Seer Host and Autarchy (to direct the battle), the Engines and Swords of Vaul (for support) and the Wind Hosts (for scouting and flanking). Allied auxiliaries such as Rangers, Harlequins are used if they are available, which isn't always owing to their nature.

In extremis, the eldar will draw support from the dead and deploy Wraithlords and Wraithguard, but this is viewed almost as necromancy, and only done in times of dire need.

In a list where the Titans are the main thrust of the force, from a purely background perspective I'd therefore encourage:

[list=]
[*]Guardians
[*]Guardian support platforms
[*]Guardian heavy weapon platforms
[*]Guardian jetbikes
[*]War Walkers[/list]

Discourage:
[list=]
[*]Harlequins and Rangers
[*]Engines and Swords of Vaul[/list]

Heavily discourage:
[list=]
[*]Wraithlords and Wraithguard
[*]Aspect Warriors[/list]

and be equanimous about the rest, including Autarchs, Farseers and the Avatar.

From a gaming perspective, I can see why a lot of these units (Rangers especially) are useful, but I'd prefer to start with a background-rich army and tweak from there, personally.

+++

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Why the separation between war walkers and platforms on one side, and tanks and rangers on the other? Tanks and engines are guardian-crewed machines, just like war walkers and platforms. Rangers and War Walkers are also both scouting units.

I still think a list that swaps access to Aspects for more Titans is worth a look.

No real opinion on wraithunits. While they are supposed to be rare, they still show up in regular eldar armies, and they're not supposed to be more common there.

I would not like to see the old Eldar weapon profiles change. They work well in multiple army lists, and changing them would cause needless complication unless across the board. Points changes (as seen in AMTL) are the way forward, if necessary.

Regarding making new weapons, I have no problem with that; but I think that they should come in 'suites' of weapons, rather than a free choice. One of the Eldar's defining characteristics is super-specialisation – just look at the Aspect Warriors for the examplar.

Taking a cue from the way the Revenants are forced into a role with their weaponry... as a suggestion, the current weapons for the Phantoms could be split into the 'anti-War Engine' suite:
Power fist, Fusion Lance, Pulsar, Titan D-Cannon (pick two for each titan)
the 'anti-tank suite':
Tremor Cannon, [new weapon X], [new weapon Y]
and the anti-horde suite:
[new weapon A], [new weapon B], [new weapon C]

That would give limited options within the 'suites' so that most models aren't invalidated, and allow you some room to create some different roles. It should prove relatively easy to balance, as you can't build a multi-role Phantom.

+++

No opinion – I haven't enough experience with using a Wraithgate with my Biel-Tan Eldar to give a useful review. Flogus' thoughts and analysis sound sensible to me.


Knights only seem to be associated with Titans (in both Eldar and Imperial forces) because they're both big stompy walking robots.

Personally, I think the Eldar Knight Houses should be a part of the Exodite forces rather than the Titan Clans, and would be inclined to drop them. Of course, that's rather an extreme solution!

+++

Fair criticism, and I'll hold my hands up and admit I can't think of a decent background counter-point.

However, in terms of the game, something needs to be left out for balance – and I'd be loath to see the Guardians go before the tanks.

A slower-moving force in support of the Titans seems sensible to me personally.
A good alternative would be only mounted troops, but I hesitated to suggest that as I think that's treading on one of the other Experimental Eldar lists. However, that might be one direction to playtest.


I agree, and think that could work.

That said, I continue to emphasise that I would prefer a list that allows a full Titan Clan, with minimal non-Titan support if the player so desires. To me, that would give the ETC list a unique appeal.

That in turn means giving up the things that make other Eldar lists their unique appeal:
[*]Farsight, which adds little to the ETC and takes away a great part of the Biel Tan and offshoot lists.
[*]Breadth of choice in specialised formations: the ETC should have Titans that fulfil or substitute for the traditional roles of formations like Falcons, Aspects etc. – and thus shouldn't have access to those formations.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

They're not directly comparable, I agree; but my point is that Rangers aren't directly under the command of the Craftworld. It's likely that any specific Ranger will be out of contact at any point, so while some could probably be gathered and grouped, they can't be relied upon as much as the Aspects or Guardians etc.

It's represented in the Biel Tan list by having them as a supporting rather than core formation – so that they don't outnumber the Aspects and Guardians; and I'd like to see that ratio maintained in the ETC.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

rangers are key because, as in any titan list, the default format is "titans + (formations with scout) + aircraft"

personally, i like rangers, i like the wraithlord options (as aesthetically they fit well) and would gladly see no other formations beyond wraithlords, wraithguard, rangers, warwalkers, and the titans (including of course, the smaller 'knight' style titans and whatever it was called to give a home to those lovely old hunchback revenants)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Yes, I think that selection would be both game-effective and aesthetically pleasing, as well as keeping the emphasis firmly on the Titans themselves.

It's not my personal favourite approach, but I could get behind it far sooner than a watered-down Biel Tan list with slightly more titans.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

I don't agree with the second part of that.


One of the criticisms popping up is that the Warlock is a no-brainer, and the Phantom isn't seeing much use.
In addition, the emphasised part is my main objection. You wrote yourself
...but that 'Universal Downside' isn't the case for the Titan Clan...


... hence my push for replacing Farsight. Don't get me wrong – I understand that it's one of the iconic Eldar rules: but from my personal playtest experience, and from feedback from others here, it's causing problems in this list.


+++

That's a valid strategy with a normal Eldar list, and can work with ETC; but from experience playtesting, we've found that due to the smaller activation count (Biel Tan are relatively high, ETC are relatively low), it tends to make for games that are quickly over, with less of the back-and-forth that makes Epic so appealing and enjoyable.

+++
I apologise if I'm sounding rather hectoring here – I'm obviously getting caught up in the froth!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Yes, fair enough! 'Titan Clan' for multiple Titan use and 'Craftworld Titans' for the more conservative approach? Your list looks very sensible to me – a good range of restricted units.

One thing that did jump out was the Warlock titan being able to summon the Avatar. Warlock Titans aren't mentioned in the background as having Farseers – it's always the rather nebulous 'Seers and Warlocks'. Farseers were exceptionally rare Seers when that background was produced, rather than the more common feel that current 40k and Epic suggest.

If Farsight is dropped, then it'd make sense to make it clear that it's because Warlock Titans are crewed by the more war-oriented Seers and Warlocks than a Farseer proper.


Yes, this would be a cool, exclusive unit.

+++

The Psychic Lance and different upgrade options (Supreme Commander, for one) is a sufficient enough difference for me. Taken in context of my 'weapon suite' suggestion earlier, it has a role as a more flexible Titan, in contrast to the more rigid Phantom options. Of course, if Angel_of_Caliban doesn't like that idea, your point is very valid!


To give an example of the list Bob_Hunk likes to use, here's the 4500pt list we're using tonight:
Warlock Titan(725)
- Titan Autarch (75)
Phantom (650)
- Spirit Stones (50)
Phantom (650)
Revenant (325)
- Twin (325)
- Titan Exarch (50)
Revenant (325)
Revenant (325)
6 Wraithlords (300)
3 Nightwings (300)
5 Guardians & 5 Platforms (200)
8 Rangers (200)

Six Titan formations, four non-titan formations. Titan heavy, certainly; but no more so than a typical ATML list.


I agree.


I agree. While I like the visuals of Wraithguard, they don't make much background sense, and aren't an ideal support formation, in my opinion. They wouldn't make my lists, let's put it like that.

The highlighted section isn't exclusive to Eldar Titans – but the AMTL and OGBM lists manage to hit the balance while still putting the War Engines themselves front and centre.




Having a low activation count isn't a problem – it's the extremely low-risk ability to retain twice in a row (owing to Farsight and 1+ initiative); in concert with a low activation count. Our playtest games often have the ETC player only having two 'turns' within a turn:

ETC Activation
Enemy Activation
ETC Activation
(Retain) ETC Activation
(Retain ETC Activation
Enemy Activation
Enemy Activation
Enemy Activation
Enemy Activation
etc.

...and that's because the Farsight rules encourage it. The Ghosting rule I suggested – and I hasten to add it's far from perfect – would give the opportunity for the ETC player to mess around with the enemy's plan in a characterfully wily Eldar way, while still keeping the armies involved (i.e. switching activations back and forth) until the end of the turn.

Is that clearer?

Ta for the considered feedback, by the way – much appreciated!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

I don't think tinkering with Farsight is an option. As mentioned, it is on the Warlock's stat line which affects multiple lists. As far as I'm concerned it has to stay, even if you don't think it's worth using. I think it's fine for ETC to play differently to Biel Tan with respect to their command and control, and likewise fine for them to be different to AMTL.

The main issue seems to be that Eldar titans are not so predictably robust due to their low DC and variability of their shields. This is a general Eldar trait, and one that is countered by making as much use as possible of Hit & Run. Low activation count does make it very difficult to avoid return fire though. I don't think it's possible to do anything about this except allow lots of cheap activations, but it would be a shame if this was required in order for a list to be competitive. In fact whilst I think it should be possible for people to form a list with a reasonable number of support formations if they would like to, I'd rather the popcorn option was not available, and thus prevented by force selection. I also would not like to see a new special rule to change the fundamental mechanics of the game (i.e. the activation system). Yes the existing Eldar special rules are fairly fundamental changes, but that was then and this is now.

An entirely separate issue (in my mind at least) is the ant-WE slant of the titan weaponry. I think this does need to be addressed with some mid-long range AP/AT weapons if titan-heavy lists are to be competitive, but I don't think making an all-titan ETC list a competitive option is a realistic aim.

Overall I think it's best to keep things simple. Use the standard Eldar host/troupe structure, with battle titans and revenant pairs as hosts and a few support formations as troupes. You could maybe restrict troups to 1:2 ratio like Steel Legion, but I think single revenants would have to be core choices in that case. Reduce the cost of the titans to promote their usage (e.g. 800/700/600), use the reduced utility of Farsight as justification if necessary.

I don't think many troupe choices are required, and I think de-emphasising infantry is sufficiently thematic. For example have 3-6 war walkers but no access to rangers, guardians that always come with heavy weapons, windriders, maybe night spinners. I think including falcons might detract from revenants, and none of the EoV fit well. Wraithguard and wraithlords as upgrades I'm ambivalent about, I don't think they should be full formations. Knights I think should be left out.

Does the SC always have to be in the warlock? Maybe this is one reason why the warlock is such a no brainer, and some people feel they can't justify 2 battle titans with similar roles? Maybe the pulsar could use another points break too? e.g. get a pulsar/PF phantom for 700 points (already less than Biel Tan) and twin pulsar for 675. Let it take the SC for +50 and it starts to look like a realistic option.

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