Harlequins/corsair/outcasts supplement

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Would the long term eldar players here want a codex/supplement that combines the harlequins, corsairs, and outcasts, or just keep the non-DE eldar all together in the craftworld codex?

[TheMawr]

Im of two minds on this.. when it was first announced in 9th edition I was absolutely positive about Aeldari becoming a sandbox codex again, after all, that was what I was familliar with in 2nd edition ( I skipped 3rd to 6th )

Problems are that 1. GW doesnt really understand sandbox codexes anymore.. they just dont seem to do it right and 2. Fandom keeps calling it the Craftworld codex, wich it isnt ( though this one is kind of semantics.)

 

Problem 1 still persist if its a third codex though, as it would be either a sandbox or an agents-style codex, two things GW doesnt do well.

But especially if/when exodites join the scene as well, eldar are really outgrowing their two codex format.

 

My ideal solution would be 3 independent armies (codexes)

 

-- Asuryani ( craftworlds )
-- Drukhari
-- Aeldari Reborn / Aeldari Outcasts ( or codex Eshair )

 

The first two are obvious, so Im going deeper on the third one, especially the two names wich have a slightly different notion.

 

Aeldari Outcasts ( I always found the word for outcast; Eshair a very interesting aeldari word that fits an army.. especially if it is pronounced E-Sha-Ir, its exotic and alien )
Ynnari and Corsairs are clearly outcasts, but this would only work if the Exodites in the codex are outcasts of their society as well. Lorewise there is some sense they would be. You could still use the rules to represent a maiden world based exodite army, but introducing exodites in 40k as mainly outcasts of exodite society is a natural evolution of established exodite lore. The problem is, Harlequins really arent outcasts in any form. But thats just semantics.

 

Aeldari Reborn ( this one I always liked )
The problem here is that the word "reborn" has become associated with ynnari, but it has always been there ( in 2nd edition era, Harlequins where called reborn as well.) and there is a symbological meaning wich is a connection between Ynnari, Corsairs, progressive Exodites and Harlequins.. that is not shared with Asuryani and Drukhari.
In contrary to them, these other factions do not see (much) fault in the old Eldar empire/culture and they rather see it return to its former glory, ignoring the caution that the other two have with such goals.
This can even be reflected in connected own Army rules; Reclaim the Galaxy. A (returned from 7th edition) wording and general objective-oriented theme that is accurate for each of the 4, though might have different nuances to it ( hello detachments.) 
Another element is that these 4 are all about taking gambits, high risk, high reward lives.

 

The current Ynnari-drukhari datasheets would also transfer, but some would be opened up... ( example, instead of an Ynnari Raider, its now an Outcast Raider ) 

This would make the hypothetical third army of all these outcasts already have a relatively very complete roster without even going into ally rules or new releases :

 

( I cheated with Kyganil standing in for the Troupemaster, reserving a spot for the rumored killteam and Amallyn as a hypothetical seperate release as a generic character like we have seen before.)

Personally I would leave Kabalite warriors and Reavers out. The latter replaced with corsair jetbikes and the former technically overlapping with Voidreavers.. besides, the name is problematic to me ( semantics again.) considering they left their Kabals, so they shouldnt be called Kabalite warriors. 

 

Archon I would change to Monarch/Stellarch (to keep the arch naming convention) .. a datasheet that represents both the Autarch and Archon kit. And a Voidwitch datasheet that can be represented through either Warlock, Farseer or spiritseer kit.. and fulfills the role of the unbound psykers both Ynnari and Corsairs have, ( Maybe Unbound Warlock is a good name.) both of wich can choose between Anrathe or Ynnari keyword ( each opening up a different special ability.)

 

But no exclusions, and full integration with each other.. it doesnt matter if Yriel dislikes Ynnari, Necron do just fine having the ability to have 3 sworn enemies together on the battlefield. I understand why Ynnari cant join with other Epic heroes right now, but in the above context that problem doesnt exist.
The keywords should remain for bonuses etc. but not to create hard barriers.

 

Oh and I would probably include the Mindstealer Sphiranx as croneworld denizens mistrusted by both Drukhari and Asuryani, but employed by the outcast factions... but I will always push for that one, its among my favorite GW miniatures.

 

While that would make a complete roster that doesnt even require allies, the problem is that that affects ALOT of armies. 

So, short answer, yes :p

[TheMawr]

All thats really missing from that list (mostly bigger/heavier elements) would be fulfilled by the 4 Exodite units based on the epic roster. And after 30+ years my ideal army exists :)

 

[Bouargh]

My mind set on the topic is a little bit ambivalent:

1. Yes I would like something related to outcasts because of the attractiveness of the lore related to it

2. But I do not want anything that is another amalgamation of existing units mixed together with only a thematic excuse and a Xmas ribbon around. For example no repetition of the Ynnarii rule set just to convoy 3 characters. We have one Ynnarii it is enough for my taste

3. And I certainly do not want a codex that would be a composite à la pityful "Agents of the Imperium"

 

The conclusion that goes out from there is that to worth i, it should IMO be a real release with lots of new units and new army structure/archetype, like for Votanns for example. Otherwise I would pass.

In the current state of the unit roosters available, I find that the Aeldarii / Drukharii lists with the platforming Travelling players and Ynnarii rules and structures gives more than enough tactical flexibility to build variety of forces with very different play styles; I would therefore not see any need (in terms of play styles) for another stand alone pointy ears faction.