That makes no sense what so ever. Your army list that you write out has absolutely dick to do with how your army is painted or the fluff that you wish to follow. Yes, it says that the rules apply to the Saim-Hann keyword. So give your Daal-en Windrider Host the Saim-Hann keyword. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
This is where I become convinced you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing. Do you genuinely not understand that all I did was make a mild point that they could have used exactly the same rules, with exactly the same templating, and just given them a name that was a better flavour fit? That you can do X is entirely irrelevant - there's no necessity for them to have forced players to use the 'count as' solution at all.
I'm really not sure why pointing out that a different naming convention would have been better has promoted multiple posts of counter-argument.
GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.
And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.
So... Eldar are special little snow flakes then where each one is different and doesn't conform to the fighting styles of the major Craftworlds? I'm starting to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.[/quote]
I'm not even sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to be working backwards. The major Craftworlds aren't meaningfully distinct entities like Space Marine Chapters - they were created as exemplars for a particular style of army and never evolved beyond that. With that background it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to have 'Craftworld Biel-Tan' instead of 'Aspect Host' as the doctrine flavour, because Biel-Tan is just an example of a Craftworld that makes a lot of use of Aspect Hosts.
Yes, you can use the 'count as' approach, but then if you go that route they could just have named the book 'Codex Biel-Tan' and you can just count your army from any other Craftworld as Biel-Tan (didn't they do exactly that once with the Ultramarines)? It doesn't seem obviously preferable to do that instead of having a generic Craftworlds Codex.
(Image removed from quote.)
I can't even discern a coherent thought out of... that.
I'm not sure where the difficulty lies. Do you have difficulty with the concept that Swooping Hawks can have different rules from Dark Reapers and that those make them play differently? If not, why is this any more complicated?
Maybe an off-the-cuff example would illustrate the point better:
Mobile Warfare
ASURYANI units with the Battle Focus ability are able to advance and fire with heavy weapons, with the penalty for moving and shooting. Units with the GRAV-TANK keyword do not suffer a penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons unless they advance.
Additionally, the Fire and Fade Stratagem can be used more than once per Shooting phase so long as every targeted unit has the FLY or GRAV-TANK keyword.
Hey presto, a sixth doctrine that promotes mobile, vehicle-based shooting builds, and doesn't interfere in any way with any of the existing options. Once again I fail to see any issue with simply providing useful alternative options.
Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.
As Blazinghang mentioned, there is no phrasing in the preview that even slightly indicates it is wraith constructs only.[/quote]
Okay, seems I was remembering one of the other previewed Iyanden rules.
The game doesn't need that level of crap any more. Be glad they are adding this level of customization at all. You could have just been stuck with the past couple methods of theme for an army where it was simply the models you took and nothing else.
I'd be fine without any doctrine system - I simply don't see a need for the one that exists to have the flavour it does. Space Marines and Chaos have something like eight doctrines each to choose from - why would a sixth for Eldar be excessive?
a fellow Epic player from the Space Marine era myself, it's important to remember that the only distinguishing features for craftworlds back then were the free cards which you could take. Otherwise, the craftworlds used the same units. Subsequent editions of Epic differentiate the craftworlds more, but these are mostly developments by the player base, not by GW. On that basis, I think that you're expecting a bit too much from the forthcoming codex.
The Craftworlds still use the same units and have no uniquely distinguishing features other than their preferred army formations. The one effort made to give Craftworlds distinct units was dropped in later editions - even the Seer Council became a generic 'Warlock Conclave'. We're told the that one of the super-heavy grav-tanks is now considered unique to Biel-Tan, but as it doesn't have a 40k model that's not relevant to distinguishing Craftworlds.
Inasmuch as their formations are described as unique to the Craftworld in the background, this isn't well-reflected in the rules. The Swordwind is not just an Aspect Host - it's an Aspect Host that emphasises transports and mobile warfare, for instance. The rules given are simply a better fit for a generic Aspect Host. The only concession to something flavour-specific to a particular Craftworld is the Saim-Hann charge bonus, which is a bit out of place in a generic biker host.