PDA

View Full Version : Eldar Aspects



FeetOfClay
01-11-2007, 17:54
Are there any eldar aspects other than those in the codex?

IJW
01-11-2007, 17:57
Yes, but we don't know about them. ;)

Oh, and the Slicing Orbs of Zandros (spelling?) which were mentioned in a previous codex.

Vaulkhar
01-11-2007, 17:59
What IJW said. Speculation on the weirdly disturbing Slicing Orbs, anyone?

FeetOfClay
01-11-2007, 18:02
I think I remember them, were they in a White Dwarf once?

IJW
01-11-2007, 18:04
No, they were just mentioned as an example of a rarer Aspect. No other details ever given. :(

Vaulkhar
01-11-2007, 18:05
They've got a one line mention in the Codex Imperialis - just that they exist, are weirdly terrifying and are confined to a single Craftworld..

so we've got grounds for causing fear then (-1 to enemy Ld tests?). Close combat specialists possibly...

Kymar
01-11-2007, 18:19
ooo ooo let me post the picture!
.
.
.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j211/KymarPics/Tiraslicingorbs.jpg
Not much more to add to this except that I think I got this from an earlier warseer thread about the Slicing Orbs

Idaan
01-11-2007, 18:19
There were also mentioned the Star Eagles, but we don't know what they do. There was speculation about them piloting Eldar fighters, but wasn't that one ruled out with publication of Aeronautica Imperialis?

Iracundus
01-11-2007, 20:50
Star Eagles were never described as an atmospheric fighter Aspect, which is what Nightwing fighters and all the other craft in TA are.

Chilltouch
01-11-2007, 23:03
From what little I know the Slicing Orbs, I think they're meant to use various psychic abilities to shape a sphere of wraithbone and manipulate it - i.e. transform the orb into a glaive and cast it through the air to slice through a dozen men before landing back into their hands.

Either that, or they specialize in special forms of frag grenades.

In either way, it sounds like their fighting style focuses on a spherical item of power.

heinrichvoncarstein
01-11-2007, 23:16
where did you get that from

Tehkonrad
01-11-2007, 23:49
yeah where did you get that from oh chilltouch bearer of the obscure-but-true-facts?

[SD] Bob Plisskin
01-11-2007, 23:55
Are there any eldar aspects other than those in the codex?

Strictly speaking there are many none-military aspects that aren't in the codex.

Artisan, Farmer, bonesinger, Lover etc. etc.

Chilltouch
02-11-2007, 01:08
Personally?

I think that came from a forum where it was someone else's interpretation and I thought "Yeah, that sounds likely" and went with it. It's probably not true at all, just a theory.

Kage2020
02-11-2007, 02:04
Bob Plisskin']Strictly speaking there are many none-military aspects that aren't in the codex.
Well, strictly speaking those arguably represent different Paths rather than Aspects, which seems a term we are only really familiar with from the Path of the Warrior. That is, they are seen as the differing aspects of Khaine, God of War.

Out of random interest, I personally go for a limited number of Paths, and the examples that you use (e.g. artisan, farmer, etc.) are actually Ways upon those Paths.

Lover, on the other hand, is something that you do in your private time. For me, that is. :D

Kage

[SD] Bob Plisskin
02-11-2007, 02:51
True True... I mixed up aspects of Khaine with paths. what an idiot!

Thinking about it I agree, with you slightly, however I would think there would be a large number of paths and a huge number of aspects for that path. Using the path of the Lover for example (because I can!) the aspects of KamaSutra (substitute for eldar love god) would be learning the different types of lover you can be, the aspect of the gentle touch, the aspect of the same-gender relationship, the aspect of the bigamist, the aspect of the multiple partners. etc etc.

Still aspects, different Path.... Maybe I dunno...

Kage2020
02-11-2007, 02:56
It's really however you want to interpret things, [SD] Bob Plisskin. I select to believe in a limited number of Paths (Warrior, Seer, Outcast, Steward, and Seeker) with everything being an off-shoot Way to those. Some of these Ways may be remarkably different, while others might be remarkably similar, yet still considered a separate Way upon the Path.

(Again, the "lover thing is, for me, a red herring in reference to the Eldar.)

It works for me, but whatever works for you... works for you, and is therefore cool enough! :D

Kage

[SD] Bob Plisskin
02-11-2007, 03:01
I select to believe in a limited number of Paths (Warrior, Seer, Outcast, Steward, and Seeker)

Kage

Doesn't the new codex say that Autarch's are lost on the path of command? or do they say aspect? I'm at work so can't check! (Yay 1hr to weekend!)

Kage2020
02-11-2007, 03:17
Yes, it does. But we all filter the 'fluff' through our own interpretations. Also note that I said, "for me," hopefully indicating that what I was talking about was my interpretation. It's really not hard to construct a vanilla interpretation of the Eldar, with Paths as "jobs," the dominance of the family to your world-view, some form of "racial guilt," etc. etc. I just find this vanilla approach a tad... human, and indeed the move away from that is why I tend to reject some of the more superficial ideas. ("Superficial" there is just my judgement. Other people can see complexities that link into their own individual interpretations, and the more the merrier. In fact, if you ever see someone that has published on the 'Net a really defined view of the Eldar, I would love to see it!)

In this case, I see the GW tendency to call everything a Path to either be a misinterpretation (i.e. the argument that even codices present information biased through the eyes of the poorly or misinformed), the same knee-jerk tendency to try and make the 'fluff' more in depth by giving it more points of data (which doesn't quite work), or - worse case scenario - forgetting that they had something that fit the category perfectly. (Of course, note quite the Yriel 'fluff' necessarily, but there we go.)

That 'something,' for me, is the concept of the Menshad Korum, "hunters in search of themselves" (IIRC), who unlike the majority of Exarchs (whom I refer to as the Shrine Sworn) cycle from one Way to another, one Aspect Shrine to another. This becomes a way by which the "focus" of the Exarch can be moderated. (After all, it seems to apply to the Path of the Seer, at least as presented by many...)

So, I'm afraid, I disbelieve the "Path of Command." That's just me, though, since it doesn't fit into my interpretation in the strictest sense. (I think of a Path as being something other than a "career path.") It seems more a vehicle of getting Yriel in as a new character and trying to fill a hole in the wargame army structure that, again for me, was already filled just not realised.

If you want the Path of Command then you can have it. I don't think that it fits the 'facts' that well, but since our determination of what is 'fact' - or 'true' - about the background material is personal (even if it does share commonalities with others), it really does come down to "whatever twiddles your biscuit," "floats your boat," or any other phrase. Being aware of the 'fluff' is, of course, the first step. (And why it's sometimes frustrating to have determined not to buy GW material -- you increasingly find yourself falling behind the times, though in this case it isn't the case. ;))

Kage

Feor
02-11-2007, 03:19
Not lost on the path, just on the path of command, having walked the path of the warrior and served in at least a couple of the aspect shrines.

Kage2020
02-11-2007, 03:34
Aye, I know the vanilla interpretation of what the Path of Command is, but find it superfluous to the needs of the 'fluff.' Rather, it seems to me a way of filling a void in the army list while giving a bit of life to the Yriel material...

Kage

[SD] Bob Plisskin
02-11-2007, 03:35
Kage - indeed. I wasn't trying to alter your opinion, just musing I guess, I agree 100% with your viepoints on fluff (in that it's my viewpoint and no-one elses!).

Feor - Yea, I knew something along those lines, although I would see Autarch more as an aspect of Khaine, he is a military commander after all

Kage2020
02-11-2007, 03:41
Also, why must command be a function purely of the Path? Otherwise the vanilla interpretation of the Farseer goes completely out. Rather, let it be an emergent quality of the individual who may have walked a number of Paths before, which may or may not make them suitable for 'command/leadership'.

(Amusingly, for me, I steal the idea from the 'ole D&D "Elves of Alfheim" that goes with the idea that only those that have been on the Path of the Outcast - they call it the Path of the Adventurer - truly have the breadth of experience to be able to 'lead' the Eldar in their dealings with other races. Still doesn't make the result of that a Path. ;))

Kage

[SD] Bob Plisskin
02-11-2007, 05:01
Also, why must command be a function purely of the Path? Otherwise the vanilla interpretation of the Farseer goes completely out. Rather, let it be an emergent quality of the individual who may have walked a number of Paths before, which may or may not make them suitable for 'command/leadership'.

Kage

Indeed, the whole idea of a farseer is messed up in my opinion, I prefer not to see the progression of paths/aspects as a straight line from apprentice-aspectwarrior-exarch but more as a tree, that branches off in other directions, with greater specialisation. This is a very human way to look at things I know with our progression through the education system....

Farseer's with incredible power to safeguard the future of their craftworld through reading the future would not be risked in a battlefield role. My Eldar army is lead by what I have deemed (appropriately enough for the setting) a 'Warseer'.

Chilltouch
02-11-2007, 10:56
I see the Eldar going into Paths as this:

Choices of Step 1: Apprentice.
Choices of Step 2: Aspect Warrior
Choices of Step 3: Either progress to become an exarch for all time, remain on the Path of the Warrior but not dedicated to it, or turn to another Path or another Aspect.

If you become fixated one single Aspect of a single Path, you remain stuff on that Path for all time and eternity. It is all you know. Nothing else exists to you. It's your new life. You're trapped in it. And that's what Farseers and Exarches are - people on the Path of the Seer and the Warrior respectively who are trapped. And just like with the Path of the Warrior - I am sure there are seperate branches of the Path of the Seer. I mean, the Path of the Warrior has Aspects right? The Path of the Seer probably does too.

So, imo - your idea works.

Kage2020
02-11-2007, 21:40
Bob Plisskin']Indeed, the whole idea of a farseer is messed up in my opinion...
Of course. GW's tendency to making exceptions to everything is responsible for that. Rather than taking the Path of the Warrior as representative and extending it into the Path of the Seer, they began to skew things (or seemingly so). It's one of the reasons that I've quite readily diverged from their material in my interpretation.


Bob Plisskin']I prefer not to see the progression of paths/aspects as a straight line from apprentice-aspectwarrior-exarch but more as a tree, that branches off in other directions, with greater specialisation.
Has the Path ever really been that, other than the travesty that was the suggestion that Warlocks were "apprentice Farseers?" It's always seemed to me that the individual selects what is right for them and just adopts it. Sure, they must learn from someone or something, but often the use of "apprentice" tends to evoke the wrong image. In terms of the Warrior, they are merely not ready, rather than a menial. ;)


Bob Plisskin']Farseer's with incredible power to safeguard the future of their craftworld through reading the future would not be risked in a battlefield role.
That was, after all, the original suggestion in WD127. It's one of the reasons that they were a 0-1 option, though the wargame is something that you shouldn't take as entirely indicative of social forces. :D


Bob Plisskin']My Eldar army is lead by what I have deemed (appropriately enough for the setting) a 'Warseer'.
That, for me, would be "Battleseer," an individual who walked the Way of the Warlock before they became stuck on the Path of the Seer...


I mean, the Path of the Warrior has Aspects right? The Path of the Seer probably does too.
I call them "Ways," but there we go.

Kage

Tehkonrad
03-11-2007, 00:16
off topic i know but kage can i steal your 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence line' in your sig?

hmm way of the warrior sounds familiar :p

Kage2020
03-11-2007, 00:20
It's not mine to steal, Tehkonrad. So feel free... :D

Kage

Hellebore
03-11-2007, 13:49
Perhaps the problem is that we apply too narrow a perception to 'path'?

We read the information and start applying limits on what can and can not be a path. Kage doesn't like the path of 'command', but I think is more to do with assumed strictures regarding how paths work.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with being on the Path of the Warrior, and then on the Path of command, even if said path is happening congruently.

The term path is never given specific limitations or clear lines to follow, there is nothing that says what can and cannot be called a path. Thus the term 'path' may be a much more generalised term than we assign it.

I don't mind the Autarch per se (but from a wargame perspective I would have rathered a multiwound mini phoenix lord Exarch rather than a warrior who has mastered nothing with better stats than an Exarch).

The Apocalypse book has some rather interesting information about how the eldar wage war, and reconciles both farseers and Autarchs fairly well in the chain of command. It's only one page of information, but it does help quite a lot.

hellebore

Chilltouch
03-11-2007, 14:25
The Eldar don't wage war, they get their farseers to sway the minds of lesser creatures and make them fight each other instead of fight them.

Only in desperate situations do they actually get involved.

Kage2020
03-11-2007, 14:37
Perhaps the problem is that we apply too narrow a perception to 'path'?
Perhaps, though ironically so since they already go beyond the limitations of the GW published material. ;)


We read the information and start applying limits on what can and can not be a path.
Actually, that's not wholly true insofar as that we all place limits or boundaries with our own interpretation. Trying to encompass everything becomes increasingly hard, perhaps even impossible, unless you try and encompass nothing, which one might refer to as the "Tao of GW." (Write much, saying nothing, watch your back at all times.) ;)


Kage doesn't like the path of 'command', but I think is more to do with assumed strictures regarding how paths work.
I don't have a problem with command, but defining it as a path runs into the same narrow definition that you mention above, except this time it is obscured by non-definition beyond, "everything is a Path."

In some ways it's almost like the idea of the Inquisitorial ordo -- you need a new Inquistorial body that does a slightly, or completely, tweaked thing? Well, let's call it the Ordo Whatevericus and - presto - we've added more "depth" to the 'fluff'. (When in reality we've merely added more "surface," but there we go.)

The same applies with the Path, surely? We have a different concept, so let's label it with the name "Path" and the world is a better place because we've again given more purported depth to the 'fluff.'

For some reason, I'm reminded of a quote from a book that I've been reading recently:


Surfaces glitter with intelligible lies; the depths inside blaze with unintelligible truths.
Which in turns remind me of the Crow, where one of the characters says, "I like the pretty lies..."

Hmmn... Now that I think about it, that's kind of a strike against both of these approaches, but there we go. :D

Suffice to say that the concept of "command," for me, is devalued by placing it in the hands of a specific Path. Leadership - command - is something that is an assumed responsibility for the Eldar (for me). Sure, it may be aspected a given Path or Way, but that doesn't mean that someone has to be walking two simultaneous Paths (or, perhaps, one Path with two Ways), or that any definition of "Path" is inherently wrong or limited. Again we run into the knee-jerk reaction to assign a different thing to a different "Path" (which I'm obviously going to say as someone that prefers categories and possibilities, rather than just random possibilities). Thus here and on other forums you'll hear about the "Path of the Procreation/Lover/whatever." Hardly necessary. (Of course, that's fine if that's the way you prefer to interpret it.)

Perhaps the greater limitation is taking a look at the wargame statistics and then trying to have the "Path of Command" as an "uber Path" (Shadowrun-esque with the Elven Path Magic, and the Path of the King)? Or, alternatively looking at the statistics and trying to see why they're "Exarchs plus?"


The term path is never given specific limitations or clear lines to follow, there is nothing that says what can and cannot be called a path.
Thus you can define them if you want ("intelligible lies"), or fence-sit ("unintelligible truths"). Just depends on what you want out of the background -- an active, personalised interpretation, or to never have an understanding even if it can never be a true one.


The Apocalypse book...
I'll have to wait until that makes it to the forum and the "Path of Quotation," since for me buying over-priced books for one interesting page is becoming fairly redundant. It took all of my willpower to buy Descent of Angels yesterday... :eyebrows:

Kage

Iracundus
03-11-2007, 14:52
The bit about the Eldar Farseers and Autarchs in Apoc is a bit vague and contradictory with past descriptions of Farseers in command (Farseer Kelmon of Iyanden in the old Epic piece where the Avatar defeats a Keeper of Secrets for example). Essentially in Apoc, it says the Farseers guide and set the overall objectives, while the Autarchs think up a plan for military intervention to meet those objectives. It therefore seems to set Farseers as the political and strategic leaders with Autarchs being the operational level commanders.

However, in the older piece with Farseer Kelmon, the Farseer was in a tent moving runes around, which directly represented the units in battle, and presumably giving commands when he moved Eldar runes around. One possible means of retconning this would be to suppose there was an intermediary Autarch relaying and finetuning the desired general wishes of the Farseer into more precise tactical orders.

Kage2020
03-11-2007, 15:26
Which is in itself contradictory to the statement of the position of Farseers in the original WD127, which I'm more inclined to believe since it wasn't as of then muddied too much by the wargame and the requirements of a balanced army list.

That and I just don't agree with the idea of Farseers as the political leaders when one considers the nature of their abilities, etc. But that's an old soap box.

Kage

[SD] Bob Plisskin
04-11-2007, 09:12
Path of the politician?

Chilltouch
04-11-2007, 10:37
That'd come under the Path of Command - I would expect that under the Path of Command, there would be the Aspect of the Politician, the Tactician, the Charismatic Leader and so on.

The Path of Seers also probably has Aspects of Destruction, Farsight, Telepathy, Scrying and so on.

Iracundus
04-11-2007, 11:39
There is no reason why Farseers cannot be the politicians of their Craftworlds, particularly when all the evidence points to them being just that. Their predictive powers allow them to select policies with the most likely positive ends and hence help the Craftworld survive.

The Path of Command has already been stated within the Eldar Codex to have the pre-condition have having walked one or more Aspects of the Eldar Path. What is meant by Command is also apparently purely military (including starships).

Kage2020
04-11-2007, 16:35
Again, and for me, this is all fairly redundant and subscribes to the idea that you name everything the "Path of..." whatever.

Please also note that I did not suggest that they (Farseers) had no political influence, Iracundus, but rather they are not the singular leaders, exclusive of other possibilities. Indeed, as per the material from WD127 that is explicit rather than implicit. Furthermore, my personal interpretation of the Eldar makes them a defined component of an extended government, nor does it exclude them from being the singular leaders in exceptional circumstances (i.e. it is not the general rule).

Of course, it remains based upon the premise that a leader makes themself; that they put themselves forward as a part of an expanded sense of responsibility - of personal duty - to the craftworld and to the Eldar as a people. One imagines that, yes, the idea that one can put oneself forward as a 'leader' increases as a function of experience. Yes, this would also mean that Seers might be "disproportionately" represented since, after all, the Path of the Seer is one that at least originally tended to be walked towards the end of the life of the Eldar.

What it doesn't mean is that anyone who makes a political decision is on the "Path of Command," at least for me. Just as I don't believe that there is a "Path of the Lover" (as was suggested elsewhere). If you feel that it is necessary, despite or because of the 'fluff'? Cool enough. I find it about as necessary as the "Path of Breathing." :D

Kage

[SD] Bob Plisskin
04-11-2007, 18:45
Hmmmm. Personally I see the paths as necessary whenever the task or role the Eldar is learning involves emotion, the greater the emotion the stricter the path (ie. the less variety you learn and the more you concentrate on a singular aspect/emotion).

From our education system we learn things in general then narrow down our interests as we progress. You start by learning the basics of everything then go on to specialising in a particular area. The Eldar probably don't do this, their experience of emotion is where the problem lies because they feel each emotion so strongly they have to only experience one at a time (my take on the problems with the fall and the implementation of paths/aspects).

I guess this is the reason why I see a wide variety of paths, further enforced by the facts that 1. Eldar live incredibly long and would get bored if they walked every path leading to more outcasts/rangers and personal tradgedies. 2. If we look at the warrior aspects, these are very defined, ok this may because of the emotion involved in battle, but similar emotions will apply in other areas of life as well.

The fluff talks about how an eldar switches between personas (unless they are lost on the path/aspect) and a Dire Avenger who takes off his mask removes his emotion at the same time to become a normal part of craftworld life, but what normal craftworld life is, we don't really know...

sabreu
04-11-2007, 19:00
Just an honest inquiry, because I've read this thread and I'm still a little confused on what exactly overlaps between Farseers and Autarchs? I'd always assumed leadership roles were taken irregardless of whatever path they are on (and in best interest/available aspects of said craftworld) and the Path of Command was just a fancy term to denote an Eldar who becomes a Warmaster/General/Commodant/Etc.

[SD] Bob Plisskin
04-11-2007, 21:06
Just an honest inquiry, because I've read this thread and I'm still a little confused on what exactly overlaps between Farseers and Autarchs? I'd always assumed leadership roles were taken irregardless of whatever path they are on (and in best interest/available aspects of said craftworld) and the Path of Command was just a fancy term to denote an Eldar who becomes a Warmaster/General/Commodant/Etc.

I'd say it probably depends on the craftworld, smaller ones would probably do as you said and simply pass the leadership onto whoever seemed the most worthy, simply out of necessity, I would see larger craftworlds as having a council, whether this was like a parliament of our world with people trained in leadership or simply made up of the oldest Eldar in the craftworld.

Kage2020
04-11-2007, 21:28
Bob Plisskin']I guess this is the reason why I see a wide variety of paths...
Ultimately, and most basically, it really only comes down to a system of categorisation. Chances are that what you call a Path I would personally call a Way and subsequently assign it to a broader, more limited category of "Path." There are a number of reasons for this, but primarily it is a question of modelling the Path in RPG -- it's just easier when you don't have to make everything different. That and it makes it sound something other than a modified variation of the WFRP career system, which for me is something to be avoided at all costs. ;)

Again, I have limited Path and huge quantities of Ways. Others just have huge quantities of Paths. Mine is slightly more "organised" (though some might say restrictive, though they would be in error), but ultimately it's just the same thing with the idea of creating a "general rule" rather than "yet another exception."


Bob Plisskin']1. Eldar live incredibly long and would get bored if they walked every path leading to more outcasts/rangers and personal tradgedies.
Well, see the above. Again, it's a categorical system. With reference to the "Path of Command," though, I'm going to stick by my stance that it isn't remotely necessary, even when considering the Yriel material.


Bob Plisskin']...and a Dire Avenger who takes off his mask removes his emotion at the same time to become a normal part of craftworld life...
For me this is actually just an expansion of a process that is ingrained in Eldar children from childhood, but there we go.


I'd always assumed leadership roles were taken irregardless of whatever path they are on (and in best interest/available aspects of said craftworld) and the Path of Command was just a fancy term to denote an Eldar who becomes a Warmaster/General/Commodant/Etc.
That is basically my working hypothesis, i.e. the "Path of Command" isn't actually a Path. Linking it to Autarchs makes an even bigger mess of it...


Bob Plisskin']I'd say it probably depends on the craftworld, smaller ones would probably do as you said and simply pass the leadership onto whoever seemed the most worthy, simply out of necessity...
I think that sabreu was basically saying the you don't have to walk on the "Path of Command" to be a leader.


Bob Plisskin']I would see larger craftworlds as having a council...
In Kage-verse, and as a general rule, there are always three councils of varying degrees of influence: Seer, Clan and Ancestor. But there we go, that's just me.

Kage