I notice that in the 2012 book that the Void Spinner's rules are included in the Yme-Loc Army Reference, but it is not an option in the Engines of Vaul Warhost nor the Engines of Vaul Troupe.

Is this seeming contradiction an oversight, or is it intentional that the Eldar "superheavy" tank list (which I imagine we can agree that Yme-Loc is) not have access to the superheavy artillery tank? Have there been discussions relating to leaving this unit out, and if so, could any link me to it? Searching for "Void Spinner Yme-Loc" gives no results.

If they are to be put in, where to put them: perhaps if not in the Engines of Vaul units, then as upgrades or 1 for 2 replacements to the Night Spinners in the Chains of Vaul Troupe?

The only reason the void spinner isn't included is because the fluff from Swordwind limits it to Biel Tan.

I'm of the opinion that we allow it's inclusion in the Yme-Loc list and justify it it by saying it is "one of the few craftworlds besides Beil Tan" that commonly makes use of it.

If any craftworld could justify using it, then the tank list craftworld would be the one. It certainly makes more sense than the aspect warrior craftworld.

I don't see how it could possibly be unbalancing.

I am not sure that the issue is about balance so much as to provide some distinctive differences between the various lists, so that they feel and play differently. I would have to agree to an extent that the inclusion or exclusion of Void Spinners is unlikely to be significant, other than to point out that few people take Night Spinners as a first choice especially where Void Spinners are available. So in practice they have to use alternative strategies (eg Phoenix Bombers) - which is what the list differences are all about.

A desire to make the armies distinct is certainly understood... but perhaps it would make more sense to force Yme-Loc Aspect Warriors to be mechanized (i.e. to buy them with Wave Serpents or Falcons, or attached to a Storm Serpent) than it does to preclude a Super Heavy Tank from their selection?

My preference would be to leave the Void Spinner in the Biel-Tan list. It has a background that clearly shows that only Biel-Tan uses it (the rest of the Craftworlds regard using it in battle as madness, and the BT as dangerously unstable). In addition, a list that has access to Void Spinners will nearly never use Night Spinners - there's no mechanical reason to include a Void Spinner as Night Spinners fill most of the function. The sturdiness and extra range of the VS is a special Biel-Tan perk.

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

I disagree obviously, but I'd like to restate the argument that including the Void Spinner is bad because it effectively removes the Night Spinner from the list.

Also, I think your argument (tank/sht list = everything included) is a bit simplistic. Greater selection, sure. Include everything indiscriminately? Not necessary.

Well, a remedy to the night spinner problem might be to allow formations of 5 night spinners plus an optional firestorm (instead of 4 + 1 as it is now). That would give them a but more staying power without altering the firepower of the formation. Either that or a price break or both.

I vote yes to inclusion of the void spinner in the eldar tank list.

Just so this is in the right thread (not just the ETC one):



The biggest restriction on the availability of the Void Spinner is not to do with differentiating the lists, it's because Swordwind has a specific piece of fluff that says it is only present in craftworlds which follow the ideal of warrior supremacy. Not "craftworlds that like to use tanks". It might not make sense from a purely list design point of view, but that's the context we have to operate in regardless.

If it is to be included, it will need a good fluff justification, and some may not be happy with that.

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

I think the fluff justification is simply that Yme-Loc doesn't have enough guardians to form a normal eldar army so they have accepted that they have to use all forms of force multiplication that are readily available.

I mean, they simply don't follow the norms.

Also, I think if you examine the [mathematical] set of people who know what a void spinner is, and then consider the subset of that set made up of people who know what the fluff says about the void spinner being limited to Beil Tan, and then further consider the subset of that subset made up of people that care deeply about holding true to said fluff, you'll find that 'breaking the fluff rules' in this specific instance will upset all of 5 people.

There is also the issue of fluff for Yme-Loc, which is all of 1 sentence:
"The Eldar of Yme-Loc are talented artisans, and their armies are supported by powerful grav-tanks and Titans."

The Yme-Loc list has, for good or for ill, become the defacto Eldar tank list. We could have just as easily created an entirely new craftworld, but that isn't the way things worked out. As it is, the tank list ought to have every eldar tank available, because there simply aren't that many to begin with.

Clearly Biel tan specific

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

"and a handful of other craftworlds"

How about the one that uses "powerful grav-tanks"?

You're not re-quoting fairly; the important bit is "unique to Biel-Tan and a handful of other craftworlds which follow the ideal of warrior supremacy". Yme-loc are not led by a military Court of the Young King and do not follow the path of warrior supremacy.

The background is very clearly against it and I definitely think the Void Spinner should not be included in the Yme-loc list. It's as specific to Biel-tann as the Baal Predator is to the Blood Angels and their sucessors.

You infer that just because the Eldar of Yme-Loc are talented artisans, they aren't agressive or lead by a court of the young king style junta. What's more, maybe they aren't necessarily warlike, but more like pushed to the brink and no long pulling any punches.

I admit that the fluff doesn't say they are, but it doesn't say they aren't either.

As for the baal predator reference, that logic would have more weight if the Eldar were as doctrinally rigid as SM chapters and the Adeptus Mechanicus are. They are not - per the 40k 3rd Ed craftworld codex, which allowed any craftworld to use in of the different craftworld army lists - it is just a difference in paint color.

In the end, though, real world considerations have to have some weight: if the Eldar are to have a "tank" list, then not including tanks that are commercially available when there is such a small number of tanks to choose from to begin with doesn't make alot of sense.

Just my opinion.