Sorry this cant be true All characters are Elite
Where did you get this from?

Those are all Elites?

Yes. We have seen the leaked Codex pages of DJ and Shadowseer and the Solitaire rules were in WD

It is the truth, i have the actual Codex since saturday.

I am already planning my army based on that. I have enough (old and new) models to field a complete masque.

Don't have the codex with my by the way (at work at 200 kilometers from where i and the codex live), so i can try to answer questions, but i really don't know everything yet...

First time ever that i seem the first to have a codex :-)

Warhams-77 wrote:
Sorry this cant be true All characters are Elite
Where did you get this from?

White Dwarf itself states that you can use a Solitaire, Death Jester, Shadowseer or Troupe Master as your Warlord.

The re-roll of any 1 is only if you field an entire army.
Plus you can run and charge starting from turn 2.
Plus you can re-roll warlord trait.

Another formation are troupes in transports that can re-enter their transports after hit-and-run if they are within range.

Another formation of jetbikes and new skimmers can re-roll jink saves.

Another formation exists of death jester, shadowseer and solitaire, but the tekst is unclear if they are seperate models or a unit of 3.
And if you field this unit, you cannot field a masque because the solitair is unique.

They are Elite
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12792&d=1423951668
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12793&d=1423951669
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12490&d=1422385940

You will most probably prefer a Troupe Master as warlord in a masque or, maybe, a Death Jester or Shadowseer.

This is because Troupe masters can roll a d6 where others can roll a d3 on the 3 warlord trait charts you can choose from and the first 3 are the same for all 3 charts, the others on 4,5,6, the best and/or funniest ones, are different for the 3 charts.

ORicK wrote:
I don't know if anyone wrote this already...
The HQ choices of the Harlequins are the Solitaire (unique), the Death Jester and the Shadowseer and you may take 7 HQ choices.
In a masque these are 1 Solitair, Death Jesters and 3 Shadowseers.

This is not correct. Harlequis have 0 HQs. The Masque consists of 7 optional Elites
Orick, thanks, we have all the rules on the previous pages

Hmmm... i might remember it wrong and they might be ELITE indeed... sorry!

But i remember that somehow that does not matter much in regard to what you can field, you can field 7 of them, be it HQ or ELITE.

I think...
I will check it this evening when i get home...

ORicK, all of this has been posted before. Warlord traits, formations, all entries, etc. Here's the last question, which we all seem to know the anwser to:

Outside of the Masque detachment and the formations: is there any way to take the Harlequins as a sort of allied detachment (not formation) other than the Masque formation?

I don't know for sure which are formations or detachments, i did not pay attention to that because i want to build an entire Harlequin army and because i did not know that i had a Codex that was not supposed to be out yet.

I will look that up this evening when i get home.

But there are other smaller choices like a troupe or a few units, i will look up what they are exactly.

And furthermore Eldar and Dark Eldar are battle brothers off course.

No problem It is easy to have them wrong being only the tiny symbols on the unit sheets

I just want to prevent confusion. It is good that you bring us those infos. So far we have only one source, a leaked italian codex. And with translations (from GW themselves) not always being well-done it is actually very nice to get more info from a different source. You have the english book, right?

I like the Hit-and-run back into the starweaver. Cool stuff




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now the GW blog is showing some fluff pieces from the Codex

I indeed have the English codex.

And I did not look at symbols and if i did, i would not know or recognise them anyway :-)

The current 40k editio is new to mee (way too busy with work since about a year); i only got the new rules a short time ago and know how the rules changed, but have not played any allied forces yet, so symbols do not concern me (yet) hahaha...

But good that you mention them, if they are important, i will actually look at them and remember them now ;-)

Not much of a millenia of mystery if they spell it all out in a timeline, is it?

It happened to me several times as well - they are in the top left (the cross eg is Elite). No worry

Harlequins have this 'speciuality' of not being led by anyone. The codex explains (can be seen in the previews) that they are all equal and fight side by side (I dont remenber the exact wording but that is the idea behind this uncommon concept)

Those Mime rebels

I will build a full Harlequin force too. Hopefully there is a battleforce this or the week after like most army releases had since early 2014. Some even more than one (Nids and IG for example)

OK, i am at home and have the codex here.

The force organisation chart of a Harlequin army is called a Harlequin Masque and it exists of:
Compulsory: 3 troops, 2 fast, 1 heavy; Optional: 7 elite

It also states that you can include any of the formations presented as part of a battle-forged army.

The formations are:
1) a complete masque with the 7 elites being 3 death jesters, 3 shadowseers and 1 solitaire
2) 3 troupes, 2 skyweavers, 3 starweavers, 1 voidweavers
3) 1 troupe, 1 death jester, 1 shadowseer
4) 1 troupe, 1 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers
5) solitaire, death jester, shadowseer
6) 2 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers

So if i understand it right you could also use one of the 6 formations mentioned above in any battle forged army...

You could use any and all of the formations in a Battleforged army, without using the Harlequin Masque Detachment.

that is indeed what i make of it...

Those formations ease my fears greatly. Especially the DJ, SS, and 1 Troupe one... Perfect for an allied detachment.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Those formations ease my fears greatly. Especially the DJ, SS, and 1 Troupe one... Perfect for an allied detachment.

The with it is that the DJ and SS cannot leave the unit, which may limit their effectiveness a bit. Still the cheapest way to get a unit of Harlies in without going Unbound, and if you are allying with DE then the fact they can't fit in their own transport is mitigated a bit- you can just chuck them in someone else's Raider.

Huh.. Interesting. According to that timeline, Vect gets some help from the Harlies to take control of Commorragh. I would also wonder then if he's got a Shadowseer helping him to counter the myriad attempts on his life.

 Paradigm wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Those formations ease my fears greatly. Especially the DJ, SS, and 1 Troupe one... Perfect for an allied detachment.

The with it is that the DJ and SS cannot leave the unit, which may limit their effectiveness a bit. Still the cheapest way to get a unit of Harlies in without going Unbound, and if you are allying with DE then the fact they can't fit in their own transport is mitigated a bit- you can just chuck them in someone else's Raider.

Well. That is epically stupid. Sigh.

Actually i am not surre about this...

The formation states that it exists of 1 Death Jester, 1 Shadowseer and 1 Solitaire.
It does not state that they are to be a unit.
I actually find that unlikely because the solitaire is... well... solitaire. And the solitaire has a rule that he can never join a unit.

It does state that the models in this formation cannot join other units nor can they be joined by other characters.

I read this as 3 individual models making life difficult for the enemy. The story accompanying the formation describes 3 individual models as well.

ORicK wrote:
Actually i am not surre about this...

The formation states that it exists of 1 Death Jester, 1 Shadowseer and 1 Solitaire.
It does not state that they are to be a unit.
I actually find that unlikely because the solitaire is... well... solitaire. And the solitaire has a rule that he can never join a unit.

It does state that the models in this formation cannot join other units nor can they be joined by other characters.

I read this as 3 individual models making life difficult for the enemy. The story accompanying the formation describes 3 individual models as well.

Different mini-formation.

One is 3 characters (1 DJ, 1 SS, 1 Solitaire). The other is 2 characters + 1 troupe (1 DJ, 1 SS, 1 Troupe)

O wait, i misread this one, wrong formation.
The DJ and SS cannot leave the troupe they belong too.

For the DJ that is not perfect, but the shrieker cannon is 24", so it's not a long range suport choice. Furthermore the DJ can take haywire shrieker is assault so he can shoot at what you want to charge and help against armour with the haywire.
Only troupe master, DJ and SS can take haywire. 3 of these on initiative 7 is not a bad thing at all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if you want complete freedom, you have to play a masque.
And that is not a bad thing, it's the same for other armies.

ORicK wrote:

O wait, i misread this one, wrong formation.
The DJ and SS cannot leave the troupe they belong too.

For the DJ that is not perfect, but the shrieker cannon is 24", so it's not a long range suport choice. Furthermore the DJ can take haywire shrieker is assault so he can shoot at what you want to charge and help against armour with the haywire.
Only troupe master, DJ and SS can take haywire. 3 of these on initiative 7 is not a bad thing at all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if you want complete freedom, you have to play a masque.
And that is not a bad thing, it's the same for other armies.

That's not true. Other armies can take a CAD or be used as an Allied Detachment. With no HQs, that option is absent, which makes Harlies dubious choices for allies. I don't want a giant detachment for an ally and 7 man units for an army who kind of NEEDs it's transport, which only holds 6 models, is GW stupidity at it's best.

ORicK wrote:
OK, i am at home and have the codex here.

The force organisation chart of a Harlequin army is called a Harlequin Masque and it exists of:
Compulsory: 3 troops, 2 fast, 1 heavy; Optional: 7 elite

It also states that you can include any of the formations presented as part of a battle-forged army.

The formations are:
1) a complete masque with the 7 elites being 3 death jesters, 3 shadowseers and 1 solitaire
2) 3 troupes, 2 skyweavers, 3 starweavers, 1 voidweavers
3) 1 troupe, 1 death jester, 1 shadowseer
4) 1 troupe, 1 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers
5) solitaire, death jester, shadowseer
6) 2 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers

So if i understand it right you could also use one of the 6 formations mentioned above in any battle forged army...

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab: the minimum requirement for the Harlie FOC is grossly inflated, without an HQ you can't run a Combined Arms or Allied detachment, and the formations offer very little flexibility (and are often padded out). If you just wanted to add a Troupe and a Solitaire to your army, you're going to have to play Unbound.

Formations are honestly one of the worst things to come out of GW recently, and for exactly this reason - you are increasingly encouraged to view your army not as a collection of separate units costing $20-60, but as a collection of fixed formations each of whose cost could run into the hundreds of dollars to complete. They honestly want to turn 40k into 28mm Epic.

And since free special rules weren't enough of an incentive before, we now have a mini-dex with almost zero flexibility in what models you can buy and how you can field them, because everything has to be in formations.

It's absolutely disgusting. This should have been an easy home run for GW, especially among veteran players, yet they manage to find a way to redouble my conviction to never buy another model from them again.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab: the minimum requirement for the Harlie FOC is grossly inflated, without an HQ you can't run a Combined Arms or Allied detachment, and the formations offer very little flexibility (and are often padded out). If you just wanted to add a Troupe and a Solitaire to your army, you're going to have to play Unbound.

Formations are honestly one of the worst things to come out of GW recently, and for exactly this reason - you are increasingly encouraged to view your army not as a collection of separate units costing $20-60, but as a collection of fixed formations each of whose cost could run into the hundreds of dollars to complete. They honestly want to turn 40k into 28mm Epic.

And since free special rules weren't enough of an incentive before, we now have a mini-dex with almost zero flexibility in what models you can buy and how you can field them, because everything has to be in formations.

It's absolutely disgusting. This should have been an easy home run for GW, especially among veteran players, yet they manage to find a way to redouble my conviction to never buy another model from them again.

Not sure what you want.

Unlike 5th Edition ... you don't have to buy a whole army of them.
Unlike 6th Edition ... you can just play a Troupe & Solitaire unbound, if that is what you fancy.

Quality of the formations/detachments aside, you don't need them. They are optional. It's hard to argue for a "cash-grab" when GW explicitly gives you permission to just not use them.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Not sure what you want.

Unlike 5th Edition ... you don't have to buy a whole army of them.
Unlike 6th Edition ... you can just play a Troupe & Solitaire unbound, if that is what you fancy.

Quality of the formations/detachments aside, you don't need them. They are optional. It's hard to argue for a "cash-grab" when GW explicitly gives you permission to just not use them.

I'm sorry, but that's horsepucky.

What do you mean, what do I want? It's incredibly obvious. If I even still played the game anymore, what I would want is for Harlies to have the option to follow the normal force organization charts just like everyone else. So I could bring a single Troop choice and HQ model as allies without my entire army becoming Unbound.

Don't even start with the "permission to play whatever you want." There are distinct advantages to having a Battle Forged army, and in this case the Harlequin codex has been structured to force you to pay money for that privilege. This is clearly, absolutely a cash grab, because there's no other reason to set it up like this.

It's a gimmick designed to (practically) force you to buy more models and play them a very specific way, and it's bullcrap.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's horsepucky.

What do you mean, what do I want? It's incredibly obvious. If I even still played the game anymore, what I would want is for Harlies to have the option to follow the normal force organization charts just like everyone else. So I could bring a single Troop choice and HQ model as allies without my entire army becoming Unbound.

Don't even start with the "permission to play whatever you want." There are distinct advantages to having a Battle Forged army, and in this case the Harlequin codex has been structured to force you to pay money for that privilege. This is clearly, absolutely a cash grab, because there's no other reason to set it up like this.

It's a gimmick designed to (practically) force you to buy more models and play them a very specific way, and it's bullcrap.

How is, in this regard, the normal CAD (1 HQ, 2 Troops) for an advantage (Objective Secured, etc..) any different to the Formations/Detachment presented?

You have some constraints/minimum requirements. In turn, you get some advantages? Same thing.

Your entire rant was about how you despise that sort of thing. Yet for some reason, you also dislike the option to pick what you like without constraints (because you miss some advantages?).

So basically, you want unbound AND all the advantages from formations, etc... ?

Wonderwolf wrote:
How is, in this regard, the normal CAD (1 HQ, 2 Troops) for an advantage (Objective Secured, etc..) any different to the Formations/Detachment presented?

You have some constraints. In turn, you get some advantages? Same thing.

Your entire rant was about how you despise that sort of thing. Yet for some reason, you also dislike the option to pick what you like without constraints (because you miss some advantages?).

So basically, you want unbound AND all the advantages from Formations, etc... ?

What is it I want? I feel like you must be trolling, because it's perfectly obvious. What I want is exactly what every other army gets. The option to put together a normal force using either a Combined Arms Detachment, or an Allied Detachment.

How are the Harlie options different from a CAD? Again, you are probably being intentionally obtuse. The normal FOC or allied FOC are distinctly different from the options presented here: the Harlies either have zero flexibility and some special rules, or total flexibility (Unbound) and your entire army loses the benefits of Battle Forged.

It's no coincidence, either, that every single formation presented would be more expensive than a minimum sized Allied Detachment, if you could run a character as an HQ. And the Harlequin FOC is also grossly more expensive and less flexible than a CAD FOC, if everything but the characters are truly required. I maintain that this is exactly the reason to meddle with the FOC and make the characters all elites - it forces you into a specific buying pattern if you want a Battle Forged army, and it's more expensive than it would be otherwise.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I maintain that this is exactly the reason to meddle with the FOC and make the characters all elites - it forces you into a specific buying pattern if you want a Battle Forged army, and it's more expensive than it would be otherwise.

+

Again.

1) The same is true for CAD. It "forces you into a specific buying pattern", as you said, if you want battleforged.

2) You don't need to be battle forged. It cannot be a "money-making scheme" if they give you explicit permission not to go there.



For 1), I don't see how the "buying pattern" imposed by the normal CAD (old-school FOC) is less "despicable" than any other, doubly so for pre-allies days, when the requirements were much, much steeper. As a whole, GW significantly lowered entry costs for people for any army beyond the first (which, arguably was the point of allies and unbound). Thus it was "worse" in the old days than it is now.

For 2), I can only repeat, that you don't need to go battleforged. GW explicitly let you off the hook. They might tempt you with nifty rules-incentives, and seemingly they do a good job, but tempting (not forcing) is still preferably to the "old way" of forcing-no-matter-what. Ergo, it was "worse" in the old days than it is now.

Concluding, GW's "cash-grap-attitude" in this regard has significantly lessened in the past 3 years or so over what it used to be, which contradicts your earlier statement.

One of the Formations available is a Troupe with attached Death Jester and Shadowseer. How is that not basically the same as an Allied Detachment? It's one Troops choice and two relatively inexpensive (points wise) Elites. It's about the same dollar and point cost as a Troop/HQ combo.

Also, not all codex armies can field Combined Arms Detachments and Allied Detachments. Imperial Knights, Inquisition and Legion of the Damned can't to name a few. Officio Assassinorum also can't, but they aren't a proper codex army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

Not sure what you want.

Unlike 5th Edition ... you don't have to buy a whole army of them.
Unlike 6th Edition ... you can just play a Troupe & Solitaire unbound, if that is what you fancy.

Quality of the formations/detachments aside, you don't need them. They are optional. It's hard to argue for a "cash-grab" when GW explicitly gives you permission to just not use them.

I'm sorry, but that's horsepucky.

What do you mean, what do I want? It's incredibly obvious. If I even still played the game anymore, what I would want is for Harlies to have the option to follow the normal force organization charts just like everyone else. So I could bring a single Troop choice and HQ model as allies without my entire army becoming Unbound.

Don't even start with the "permission to play whatever you want." There are distinct advantages to having a Battle Forged army, and in this case the Harlequin codex has been structured to force you to pay money for that privilege. This is clearly, absolutely a cash grab, because there's no other reason to set it up like this.

It's a gimmick designed to (practically) force you to buy more models and play them a very specific way, and it's bullcrap.

If you don't play the game, why do you care? This is an honest question. I see a lot of people complain endlessly and they always preface their complaints with the fact that they don't even play the game.

There is no such thing as "the normal force org chart" anymore. That's a 6th Edition concept. You need to let the past go and embrace the new system. If you want to continue playing Warhammer 40k using only the armies that existed at the end of 6th Edition and only using a Combined Arms Detachment, you can. But if you want to play with the new things GW is putting out, you're going to have to be a little more open-minded and embrace the army creation changes that 7th Edition brought us.

And there are also distinct advantages to having an Unbound army. No restrictions for one. Need a tank killing unit? You have dozens to choose from. Want some assault capability for your Tau army? Go crazy. Unbound also has the advantage that it allows you to really build some interesting fluff lists that Battle-forged doesn't allow for. Want an all scout army led by Scout Warlord Telion? Go for it. Want a rogue Ordo Xenos Inquisitor who has cultivated a small army of mechanically inclined Grots manning Kans and Gunz? Make it happen.

If losing out on the ability to re-roll a Warlord Trait and having Objective Secured for your Troops is enough for you to say the game is unplayable... then maybe you aren't very good at the game. I play Tau and Necrons as my two main armies and choose a very shooting heavy play style. I don't remember the last time I actually had a Troops choice make use of the Objective Secured rule. Regular old scoring has always been enough.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

ORicK wrote:
OK, i am at home and have the codex here.

The force organisation chart of a Harlequin army is called a Harlequin Masque and it exists of:
Compulsory: 3 troops, 2 fast, 1 heavy; Optional: 7 elite

It also states that you can include any of the formations presented as part of a battle-forged army.

The formations are:
1) a complete masque with the 7 elites being 3 death jesters, 3 shadowseers and 1 solitaire
2) 3 troupes, 2 skyweavers, 3 starweavers, 1 voidweavers
3) 1 troupe, 1 death jester, 1 shadowseer
4) 1 troupe, 1 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers
5) solitaire, death jester, shadowseer
6) 2 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers

So if i understand it right you could also use one of the 6 formations mentioned above in any battle forged army...

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab: the minimum requirement for the Harlie FOC is grossly inflated, without an HQ you can't run a Combined Arms or Allied detachment, and the formations offer very little flexibility (and are often padded out). If you just wanted to add a Troupe and a Solitaire to your army, you're going to have to play Unbound.

Formations are honestly one of the worst things to come out of GW recently, and for exactly this reason - you are increasingly encouraged to view your army not as a collection of separate units costing $20-60, but as a collection of fixed formations each of whose cost could run into the hundreds of dollars to complete. They honestly want to turn 40k into 28mm Epic.

And since free special rules weren't enough of an incentive before, we now have a mini-dex with almost zero flexibility in what models you can buy and how you can field them, because everything has to be in formations.

It's absolutely disgusting. This should have been an easy home run for GW, especially among veteran players, yet they manage to find a way to redouble my conviction to never buy another model from them again.

So basically. ...you do not play, want to play and after this Codex definitely, definitely don't want to play, is this about right? I don't like eggs, I will not be eating eggs but this does not mean I'm going to have a rage fest about eggs and shout down everyone who suggests maybe eggs might not be so bad as I'm raging about. If you don't want to play the game don't play, if you have something constructive to add, great, comment away.

@Kriswall: Well said! Have an exalt sir!

**Edit: You too Denilsta

Oh, the anger emerges.

Despite the fact that one of the very formations that can be used, freely, with any army is a single troop squad with a Death Jester and Shadowseer...which, to be honest, is what the normal Harlequin squad consisted of from 5th edition onwards anyway, right?

I mean, the original squad was basically harlequins with a Master and options to add a Shadowseer and Death Jester. So....why not just take that formation and call it a day?

Really, that's probably what 90% of the angry I want Harlequin Allies players already had in the form of a squad, so how is this that difficult?

There's also an option for a 'mounted' formation too. Hey, want to use your squad, transport and new bikes? Tada! There we go.

I'm not understanding this absolute obsession with battleforged as a general concept.

The Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment are simply detachments that have Objective Secured as a special rule associated with the,

Battleforged allows for Detachments and Formations - Unbound is essentially whatever you want, plus some formations. So, as long as you are following the structure your list is still Battleforged.

You could field a CAD, BSF and ASF Blood Angel list without worrying.

You could field a CSM CAD, with an Allied Detachment of Crimson Slaughter and a Fallen Angels formation without worrying.

You could even field a Dark Eldar CAD, Eldar CAD, Harlequin Masque detachment and Dark Angel Librarius Conclave formation without worrying.

Really, people are too hung up on the CAD and Allied Detachment as options, not realising that 7th has freely allowed for other detachments to exist.

Perhaps your worry is local tournaments? I mean, I know my local doesn't allow Unbound, LoW and tends to shy away from Formations - but if you have a concern you speak to the local organisers and work out a compromise.

In the local case for me? I've helped figure out the LoW problem - Super Heavies. So the no LoW rule has been amended to the following for fairness.

You can either have a LoW SC or a third HQ. If the 3rd HQ is chosen it must be used for a special character.

That way the 6th edition armies can't complain it's not fair that the 7th ed. lists can effectively have 3 characters....and the 7th ed. armies can't complain they're being denied their figurehead SCs whereas the 6th ed lists aren't.

I see absolutely no reason that they won't allow the formation that has a Death Jester, Shadowseer and Troupe as an option for people or for the mounted version.

I mean, really, you wanted a Harlequin army. You got one. Turns out, they have a very restrictive list as they should. They're an elite, specialiset force. As such they have an odd structure. You were expecting standard...for Harlequins?

So, a vegan of the WH40k community has struck again. Glad to see there are reasonable people here to counter their nonsense.

 sharkticon wrote:
GW just got back to me. If you ordered any models with the books, they are being held until the Codex arrives.

I'm annoyed by this. I've been grabbing the datacards and the dice as they go. So 1 pack of datacards is holding up an order I threw on a piece of terrain that my fiance also wanted to hit the price point for golden ticket entry. At least I didn't throw on anything I needed right away. I guess I can always call and complain, since there was no sign they were going to hold up the entire order.

I can definitely see some beef with the way the detachment/formations are set up. Shadowseers are far and away the all-stars of the book, and the biggest boon to either DE/CWE. ML2 on the phantasmancy chart is insane for either army, and the fact you can get multiple Shadowseers is just plain gravy. The fact that to do so, you need to invest in a lot of pretty bad units (looking at you Voidweaver/Skyweaver) at a fairly high points cost is annoying.

Harlie troupes w/Starweavers isn't a huge deal, they're pretty well balanced for the cost. But the fact I have to take 3 (instead of 1-2 I'd take as an ally), with requisite transports (to eat the FA slot instead of skyweavers) and also take at least one Voidweaver (which I in absolutely no way want) is pretty obnoxious. And that's the minimum I have to take to get the one unit that is an actual stand out in the codex and synergize with my main list.

If this was a way to limit Shadowseer spam and prevent them being OTT, I'd get it. I would. Except A) Troupes are expensive and forcing 3 units of them + FA slots would have been plenty B) GW pretty obviously doesn't understand their own rule set enough to know how good they made the Shadowseer. Case in point for point B- “Faolchu’s Blade” formation exists. The 2 worst units in the codex in a formation together that gives a bonus to jinking.....with both units having blast based weaponry (yes they could be Shricannon boats, but why would you do that?).

I'm still excited about Harlies, and will field them as I have wanted to do since 2nd. It's just annoying that they have made them so restrictive (how often do you really play unbound?), when one extra page in the codex and a simple sculpt that would have been a gigantic seller could have filled out an HQ slot that has already been described in fluff. It's just perplexing that this release came so close to being amazing, and ended up as meh.

@DarkStarSabre - the practical reality is that battleforged is the way to go when deciding on a list, because otherwise you limit your opponents. The problem isn't so much slight deviations from CAD or formations; it's that you can totally abuse unbound to make a ridiculous army. For instance, I want a Solitaire, four hive tyrants, six wave serpents, and five drop pods with something to hold objectives. Oh yes, Dante and Smash, for kicks.

Just because I happen to think all those models are fun!

 Talys wrote:
@DarkStarSabre - the practical reality is that battleforged is the way to go when deciding on a list, because otherwise you limit your opponents. The problem isn't so much slight deviations from CAD or formations; it's that you can totally abuse unbound to make a ridiculous army. For instance, I want a Solitaire, four hive tyrants, six wave serpents, and five drop pods with something to hold objectives. Oh yes, Dante and Smash, for kicks.

Just because I happen to think all those models are fun!

Fair enough. But if you want something more restrictive, there'll be ... drum rolls ... restrictions, and not every conceivable combination of units in the codex will be playable in any number and combination. If they were, it'd be unbound.

It's no secret that unbound isn't everyone's cup of tea ... fair enough.

But the original rant by CalgarsPimpHand was about the non-unbound, more restrictive approach being ... well ... more restrictive than unbound, and accusing GW of a blatant cash-grab for introducing rules that require you to take a certain minimum of troops and or other requirements and not allowing you to take stuff willy-nilly (which they did .. um ... 1986 or so?).

If (!) that is the kind of thing that really grinds your gears ... well ... in that case, unbound would seem a natural fit. Indeed, in that case, any previous version of Warhammer 40K and any other wargame that does not have an "unbound"-mode would seem to be far inferior to 40k 7th with its unbound option.

Overall, even with the restrictions, I'm a bit happier with this release than I'd expected to be. Perhaps not as much as it could have been, but such is life. It doesn't feel like that long ago (recognizing that it's been about 14 years, but I haven't been playing much for the last 6 so it feels shorter!) that Tau only had 14 regular army list entries (one being the Bodyguard Team) and two special characters, so there's room to grow.

Not holding my breath on that, obviously, but hey, I'm happy for now.

Edit: Been playing for 15 years total, but less over the last 6. Awkward sentence structure.

I am hopeful campaigns like Shield of Baal will become a more regular occurance and we might get the missing Harlequin units in one of those.

@Wonderwolf - yup, I get it. I think there is a happy middle ground too.

Part of it is that the game is about making unit choices based on factions, which have individual strengths and weaknesses. So, Necron have no psychic, for example. There are also very good HQ choices that are designed to be limited.

If you go, all models are ok, the problem just becomes that people will never take Tau infantry, any flyer other than an FMC, etc. Even if you don't abuse it overly, there will always be the temptation to snag one more of the above average units instead of an average unit.

Oh yes -- also, I've never met anyone with an issue with Formations. If you don't want to play formations and only want to play against CAD/Allied, that would probably also highly limit play partners.

 Eldarain wrote:
I am hopeful campaigns like Shield of Baal will become a more regular occurance and we might get the missing Harlequin units in one of those.

Depending on the financial response to the release (naturally, forums are a notoriously bad metric for that sort of thing), it might be possible at some point. We shall have to wait and see, but it looked like the Limited Edition codex sold out quickly even despite the price. If nothing else, I look forward to seeing little painted murder-clowns and the occasional batrep over the coming weeks.

 Talys wrote:
@DarkStarSabre - the practical reality is that battleforged is the way to go when deciding on a list, because otherwise you limit your opponents. The problem isn't so much slight deviations from CAD or formations; it's that you can totally abuse unbound to make a ridiculous army. For instance, I want a Solitaire, four hive tyrants, six wave serpents, and five drop pods with something to hold objectives. Oh yes, Dante and Smash, for kicks.

Just because I happen to think all those models are fun!

You missed the point by a mile.

Battleforged consists of detachments and formations. Individual codexes and supplements present alternative detachments which can still be used for a battleforged army.

So, really, people complaining that the Harlequins have a set detachment structure or formations as options for allying with them are missing the point.

Every example I gave? That's a battleforged army. Battleforged is not just Combined Arms and Allied. The other detachments also fit in there as well.

Unbound is no restrictions at all. Battleforged is restrictions according to whichever detachment you chose to use.

You can take multiple detachments in a Battleforged army, provided you are meeting the minimum requirements for each detachment - so yes, you can field an Eldar CAD, an Iyanden CAD, a Dark Eldar Realspace Raider Detachment and an Allied Detachment selected from the Haemonculus Coven supplement. You can add the Ghost Warrior formation and the Harlequin formations.

And still be a Battleforged army.

Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

 Talys wrote:


Oh yes -- also, I've never met anyone with an issue with Formations. If you don't want to play formations and only want to play against CAD/Allied, that would probably also highly limit play partners.

A) It's still no GW-ploy if you decide to further limit your options.

B) It's a paradoxical position. You deliberately choose to use less options than provided by GW, but complain about being too contained by what remains, even though more options are available, yet you refuse to make use of them?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

This. Unbound has a lot of potential for themed forces or scenario games. Reading the Shield of Baal missions had me thinking that a lot of them would be so much better if you went Unbound and themed.

The reason most tournaments etc. avoid them is because you will inevitably get the power gamer who decides they should abuse the hell out of it and shows up with the 3 Riptides, 3 Wraithknights, 3 whatever other power units they shoved in their power lists and called it an army.

Personally, I'd love for local groups to open up more for unbound games - I think they have potential in campaigns as final games for phases or special scenarios.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

Not to mention that the people that already have the models likely have the old full unit size or so, which wouldn't fit in the transport anyway. The Shadowseer wouldn't be able to cast any of his buffs from inside the transport, either. Honestly, the only reason to need the darn thing is if you needed it for something else, and I'm not sure what that would be in Eldar or DE other than for Eldar assault units to bum a ride, which is not worth the turn 1 hop anyway.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

That's a fine opinion. Here's mine: If they wanted to throw us a bone, they would have included an HQ in the list. It's really not asking much.

Hey just my 2 cents (probably not worth even that).

Why not just talk to your opponent prior to the game. Most people are fairly reasonable, from my experience. The other day I was playing a CWE list and wanted to try out some of the new Harlequin rules as allies. Before the game I showed my opponent my list that consisted of about a 1000 points of Eldar using a single CAD and 750 points of Unbound Harlequins (nothing over the top just several different units to try them out). He was perfectly cool with it and only asked to see the White Dwarf magazines to skim the rules prior to our game.

We had a blast, I lost, learned some interesting things ( the Solitare is- Oh my damn!), and agreed to a rematch.

I guess something that is commonly forgotten. Is that this game should be more about forging friendships than winning, losing, or assembling an unbeatable list using every rule to your advantage.

In a game of dice there are no absolutes. So grab a cold one, roll some dice, and make friends. Life's to short to let a game of model soldiers dictate whether you're happy or not.

So to whomever may read this post,

Have a blessed day, good luck at the tables, and treat others as you want to be treated.

Why? It is absolutely unnecessary in their game, has no effect on the (revised) fluff for the Harlequins, and doesn't add anything the army is missing in regards to tactics. They simply aren't going to give it a thought because people limit their game system in ways they don't believe you should. If it actually mattered to them, the shadowseer would be an HQ. Even if they wanted you to buy multiple of them, all they needed was to add more HQ slots. It just comes down to how they want the army, as a detachment, to act and feel. People can complain about their group disallowing this and that, but it takes a weird turn when you actually get mad at a company who didn't have anything to do with their decision.

bigbaboonass wrote:

Hey just my 2 cents (probably not worth even that).

Why not just talk to your opponent prior to the game. Most people are fairly reasonable, from my experience. The other day I was playing a CWE list and wanted to try out some of the new Harlequin rules as allies. Before the game I showed my opponent my list that consisted of about a 1000 points of Eldar using a single CAD and 750 points of Unbound Harlequins (nothing over the top just several different units to try them out). He was perfectly cool with it and only asked to see the White Dwarf magazines to skim the rules prior to our game.

We had a blast, I lost, learned some interesting things ( the Solitare is- Oh my damn!), and agreed to a rematch.

I guess something that is commonly forgotten. Is that this game should be more about forging friendships than winning, losing, or assembling an unbeatable list using every rule to your advantage.

In a game of dice there are no absolutes. So grab a cold one, roll some dice, and make friends. Life's to short to let a game of model soldiers dictate whether you're happy or not.

So to whomever may read this post,

Have a blessed day, good luck at the tables, and treat others as you want to be treated.

Every time I read a post like this, I think of a game I played last year, 7th had dropped, but, I thought I had agreed beforehand that the woods we had would be treated as such (5+ cover if you have your base within the terrain piece)

Only for my opponent to subsequently argue, once it became relevant, that they weren't Citadel woods and therefore only provided cover if they obscured the relevant % of the model (making agreeing they were woods beforehand utterly irrelevant.) Something that was impossible because they were specifically modelled with long trunks so models could be placed under the trees without issue.

I told him what I thought of his argument, but went with the RAW (not worth the effort for three bases of Nurglings) but after the game told him that it would be club policy from then on that we treated all club woodland as "Citadel" woodland.

The following week I heard him pull the same gak with our clubs newest and youngest regular attendee.

My point is, you can't write rules for reasonable people, you have to write so the odious little gaks whose self worth is so deeply embedded in their ability to win a game of toy soldiers that they'll pull anything they think they'll get away with to do so.

You have to write rules so these guys have a metaphorical straitjacket, and these guys will be so paranoid that your troupe in a transport is going to cost them a game they'll refuse to play it.

You have to write the rules so reasonable people don't get their fun spoiled by idiots, not write rules for reasonable people.

That strikes me as an issue with the player raather than the game. By your logic, the 9/10 of players that are going to use Unbound to make fun, fluffy or just different lists should lose out because of the 1 idiot in 10 whose self-worth is determined by winning a game of toy soldiers.

Were I writing the rules, I'd write them for the 90% that embrace their spirit, say to hell with the other kind of person and hope the community did the same.

And you'd be wrong.

It's like allies, the guys who were going to use them for fun, fluffy lists were likely already doing it. All their introduction in 6th resulted in was all the douchebag players taking it as a permission to dig up the most broken combos possible.

OK, back on topic. Has anyone seen the death jester sprues yet? I wanna see how much work it will take to convert one into a different pose. (In case I want to field three of them)

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

It's not them throwing anyone a bone. It's the opposite. If you happen to have a Troupe, a Death Jester, and a Shadowseer, then yes there's one formation for you, and you have to run them as a single unit. Literally any other combination of things will require buying a lot more models, because you have zero flexibility, just a bunch of fixed formations to choose from (and one very large and nearly fixed FOC). And if you don't have any Harlequins but you want to get on board, you can't just buy one troop choice and one HQ. You need at least one more character model unless you want to run your list Unbound, effectively squeezing an extra $20 out of anyone who buys in. This is intentional.

Look, call me a 40k vegan or whatever nonsense you want, but I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious: the Harlequin FOC and formations are more restrictive and more expensive than the CAD FOC or Allied FOC would be, and there is no reason this has to be the case. It's a conscious decision on someone's part. The existence of Unbound does not excuse this.

Be happy with things if you want, it's your money and your opinion. Just understand that your new sandwich has some s**t in it, and it's not just because "s**t sandwiches are the new 7th edition list building paradigm, deal with it", it's because s**t has a higher profit margin and GW doesn't mind feeding it to you if you'll pay for it.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You missed the point by a mile.

Battleforged consists of detachments and formations. Individual codexes and supplements present alternative detachments which can still be used for a battleforged army.

So, really, people complaining that the Harlequins have a set detachment structure or formations as options for allying with them are missing the point.

Every example I gave? That's a battleforged army. Battleforged is not just Combined Arms and Allied. The other detachments also fit in there as well.

Unbound is no restrictions at all. Battleforged is restrictions according to whichever detachment you chose to use.

You can take multiple detachments in a Battleforged army, provided you are meeting the minimum requirements for each detachment - so yes, you can field an Eldar CAD, an Iyanden CAD, a Dark Eldar Realspace Raider Detachment and an Allied Detachment selected from the Haemonculus Coven supplement. You can add the Ghost Warrior formation and the Harlequin formations.

And still be a Battleforged army.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, except in your earlier post you said:

I'm not understanding this absolute obsession with battleforged as a general concept.

The Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment are simply detachments that have Objective Secured as a special rule associated with the,

Battleforged allows for Detachments and Formations - Unbound is essentially whatever you want, plus some formations. So, as long as you are following the structure your list is still Battleforged.

I was trying to provide insight as to why there is an "obsession" with battleforged -- using published detatchments and formations is the way to go, not Unbound, because the latter leads to abuse, and practically nobody to play with. I agree with you that Harlequins don't really have an issue with a playable formation as an ally in a Battleforged list.

I do understand that a lot of people wish there were formations that contained 0+ options (like Decurion). Give it another 5 years and it might happen; when there are two or three times as many Harlequin models, this would make more sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
And if you don't have any Harlequins but you want to get on board, you can't just buy one troop choice and one HQ. You need at least one more character model unless you want to run your list Unbound, effectively squeezing an extra $20 out of anyone who buys in. This is intentional.

Look, call me a 40k vegan or whatever nonsense you want, but I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious: the Harlequin FOC and formations are more restrictive and more expensive than the CAD FOC or Allied FOC would be, and there is no reason this has to be the case. It's a conscious decision on someone's part. The existence of Unbound does not excuse this.

Be happy with things if you want, it's your money and your opinion. Just understand that your new sandwich has some s**t in it, and it's not just because "s**t sandwiches are the new 7th edition list building paradigm, deal with it", it's because s**t has a higher profit margin and GW doesn't mind feeding it to you if you'll pay for it.

I think your argument falls apart at the "GW wants you to spend $20 more". 40k is a silly expensive game to play, and if you're considering allying in Harlequins, buying one more Shadowseer or Death Jester isn't even going to make a rounding difference on cost of the army. Besides, there are several other alternatives --

- For the Shadowseer, you can kitbash one using the extra upper torso and parts you get out of Troupe, plus bits from Eldar or Dark Eldar.
- You could buy an old DJ or Shadowseer; they are plentiful, and often quite cheap, and still, beautiful models

I will wholeheartedly agree that 40k as a hobby is an expensive one, but Harlequins are not particularly more expensive than any other models that GW sells. The Heroes are about the same price, and the troops are about the same price (as other similar kits). At least with GW, if the price of Heroes bothers you, simply build them out of other troop models, as reasonable-looking, identifiable, and acceptable substitutes for most can be built using common parts. This is not the case with nearly all other games.

Does anyone know the approximate dimensions of the new Starweaver/Voidweaver? It looks to be slightly longer than a Venom, so if someone could tell me the Venom's dimensions, that would also work. I have an idea for an alternative model I could use instead, and just want to know if it would be the right size.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Look, call me a 40k vegan or whatever nonsense you want, but I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious: the Harlequin FOC and formations are more restrictive and more expensive than the CAD FOC or Allied FOC would be, and there is no reason this has to be the case. It's a conscious decision on someone's part. The existence of Unbound does not excuse this.

Really? So if I wanted to just field a couple of units of Skyweavers and a Voidweaver as an ally, it would be cheaper for me to be forced to take an HQ choice and a Troops choice that I didn't want by using the Allied Detachment instead of just taking the formation that allows me to field exactly the units that I wanted by using the Faolchu's Blade Formation

I'm just a little confused by these arguments.

Before, you wanted to take Harlequins as allies:

Your army + Codex: Eldar + Eldar HQ of choice + Eldar Troop of choice + Harlequin Troupe + Shadowseer + Death Jester (for a maxed out unit...also, you only got 2 kisses and 2 fusion pistols in the troupe box)

Now:

Your army + Codex Eldar: Harlequins + Harlequin Troupe (with many much options) + Shadowseer + Death Jester

Soooo...You end up ahead by losing the Eldar HQ and Eldar Troops choice tax. I fail to see how that is more restrictive or more expensive than the previous way of getting the same unit into your army.

So, my 2 cents here: You can't field a CAD army of Harlequins. You couldn't before. But NOW you can add other units and elites, gain more benefits, and basically do whatever you desire within the confines of their new formaition rules. You're gaining so much more than we had as Harlequins fans. How is this not better?

 Ghaz wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Look, call me a 40k vegan or whatever nonsense you want, but I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious: the Harlequin FOC and formations are more restrictive and more expensive than the CAD FOC or Allied FOC would be, and there is no reason this has to be the case. It's a conscious decision on someone's part. The existence of Unbound does not excuse this.

Really? So if I wanted to just field a couple of units of Skyweavers and a Voidweaver as an ally, it would be cheaper for me to be forced to take an HQ choice and a Troops choice that I didn't want by using the Allied Detachment instead of just taking the formation that allows me to field exactly the units that I wanted by using the Faolchu's Blade Formation

What if you wanted to field a single troupe?

 Ghaz wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Look, call me a 40k vegan or whatever nonsense you want, but I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious: the Harlequin FOC and formations are more restrictive and more expensive than the CAD FOC or Allied FOC would be, and there is no reason this has to be the case. It's a conscious decision on someone's part. The existence of Unbound does not excuse this.

Really? So if I wanted to just field a couple of units of Skyweavers and a Voidweaver as an ally, it would be cheaper for me to be forced to take an HQ choice and a Troops choice that I didn't want by using the Allied Detachment instead of just taking the formation that allows me to field exactly the units that I wanted by using the Faolchu's Blade Formation

If you happen to want to field exactly what's in one of the formations, obviously the formations are great. But what if you don't want to field exactly that? What if you don't want to field exactly what's in one of the handful of formations, or use the bloated FOC where the only option is "how many characters do I want to add?"

I never said the formations shouldn't exist - formations are fine if you want to give people perks for fielding interesting combinations.

My point is (and I think I've made this very, exceedingly clear): the formations (and the Harlie FOC) are inflexible, and even at their cheapest are more expensive than an Allied detachment could be if all you want is a low-cost addition to a Battle Forged army. There is no reason the Harlequins should be denied access to a normal CAD or Allied Detachment, or at least an equivalently flexible FOC if they absolutely must be special snowflakes with no HQ option. They


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godswildcard wrote:
I'm just a little confused by these arguments.

Before, you wanted to take Harlequins as allies:

Your army + Codex: Eldar + Eldar HQ of choice + Eldar Troop of choice + Harlequin Troupe + Shadowseer + Death Jester (for a maxed out unit...also, you only got 2 kisses and 2 fusion pistols in the troupe box)

Now:

Your army + Codex Eldar: Harlequins + Harlequin Troupe (with many much options) + Shadowseer + Death Jester

Soooo...You end up ahead by losing the Eldar HQ and Eldar Troops choice tax. I fail to see how that is more restrictive or more expensive than the previous way of getting the same unit into your army.

So, my 2 cents here: You can't field a CAD army of Harlequins. You couldn't before. But NOW you can add other units and elites, gain more benefits, and basically do whatever you desire within the confines of their new formaition rules. You're gaining so much more than we had as Harlequins fans. How is this not better?

You assume that anyone who plays Harlequins wants to add both a Shadowseer and Death Jester to a single Troupe (and wants to run them all as one unit instead of splitting the characters off). What if they want to run a single Troupe and a Solitaire? That sounds extremely reasonable and perfectly fluffy, and costs less actual money, but it's impossible without going Unbound. That really shouldn't be the case.

You can say "well they gave you the old option, plus a bunch of larger formations that have to be purchased all at once to use, so you should be happy." But this is a brand new mini-dex with a lot more unit options (which is good) and instead of giving you the freedom to choose those options as you see fit, they've intentionally messed with the way you select an army list so you're basically forced to buy units in larger blocks.

This may sound like a pedantic rant, but a greater emphasis on formations and special FOC's with high minimums and few options means you are less able to choose your units a la carte. It's a kind of gradual increase in effective unit size as far as list building goes, and that's the kind of thing that helped kill fantasy by making it even harder to start a new force. You're right, Talys, 40k is an expensive hobby already. Best to just gradually make it even more so at every turn, that really brings in new players.

 Paradigm wrote:
Were I writing the rules, I'd write them for the 90% that embrace their spirit, say to hell with the other kind of person and hope the community did the same.

Cool, but when writing rules what you should be doing is making them as clear and concise as possible. Spirit means nothing if the rule has 20 different interpretations. Rules are a form of technical writing. They need to be accurate.

 Azreal13 wrote:
What if you wanted to field a single troupe?

This whole damned problem would have been solved by GW including one extra bit in the Harli box (a big glaive) and writing an entry for a "Great Harlequin" HQ choice.

Or, you could just field one troupe. If I wanted to just field an army of one farseer and a 5man squad of dire avengers, I can't without being unbound due to the fact that I need a primary detachment and the allied detachment cannot be one. They have given all the flexibility in the world, LITTERALLY with unbound. The detachments and formations are there to show how the army fights when they attack in force. It doesn't matter to what you attribute the notion laziness, or a desire to let you play in the sandbox, the option is there, and people ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

No, but people refusing to play it smacks it right in the face.

Not sure if this has been posted but what are the ally charts for harlequins?

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Not sure if this has been posted but what are the ally charts for harlequins?

It was in the first of the Harlequin White Dwarf issues. Both other Eldar types are Battle Brothers, Imperium and Tau are Allies of Convenience, greenskins are Desperate, everyone else Come the Apoc.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

For a "pure cash grab" it has some of the best models they have made in a long time.

Got solitaire yesterday (don't play Harleys but love the look of him) and he is a great model.

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

This tired old thing again, can't we take it to "a farm in the country?"

Running a private enterprise for profit =/= cash grab.

Trying to manipulate customers into spending money, and not being subtle about it = cash grab

PP, Mantic etc do a much better job of fostering an idea of ownership of their product beyond a simple purchase, people enjoy the product, like the public face of the company and consequently are happy to spend money with them.

GW constantly clumsily do stuff that makes customers feel taken advantage of, manipulated and patronised, and then refuse to communicate to explain themselves, even when that may alleviate the ill will. Hence the PR clusterfeth that is modern GW.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.

First World Problems

Haha, 'the SM dex is such a benefit to my life, but that new harly dex is at my expense, screw them!' cause we need both to eat.

There's an awful lot of unbound/cash grab talk and not a lot of news in here.

Can't believe we don't have the WD for this week yet... Anyone seen it on the interwebs somewhere?

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.

First World Problems

Haha, 'the SM dex is such a benefit to my life, but that new harly dex is at my expense, screw them!' cause we need both to eat.

So is your internet and computer....but what does that add to the discussion?

Well I have purchased some. I usually wouldn't touch GW but these models are very, very nice.

I am a little annoyed about the odd force organisation, but its roughly what i was gonna get anyway.

There is a lot of fun to be had with painting these though. The rules don't seem to be that bad either.

 Eldarain wrote:
There's an awful lot of unbound/cash grab talk and not a lot of news in here.

Can't believe we don't have the WD for this week yet... Anyone seen it on the interwebs somewhere?

Discussing the intentions behind providing the product the thread concerns is completely on topic, fishing for rumors however..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.

First World Problems

Haha, 'the SM dex is such a benefit to my life, but that new harly dex is at my expense, screw them!' cause we need both to eat.

So is your internet and computer....but what does that add to the discussion?

I dont know, youre the one who brought up my computer and internet, you tell me.

Asking about rumours in a news and rumours thread seems equally, if not more so, on topic that talk about if something is or isn't a cash grab.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Asking about rumours in a news and rumours thread seems equally, if not more so, on topic that talk about if something is or isn't a cash grab.

Thats why im not a mod, and if the cash grab discussion is equally on topic with what you brought up, whats your qualm then?

Not a qualm, just an observation.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


You assume that anyone who plays Harlequins wants to add both a Shadowseer and Death Jester to a single Troupe (and wants to run them all as one unit instead of splitting the characters off). What if they want to run a single Troupe and a Solitaire? That sounds extremely reasonable and perfectly fluffy, and costs less actual money, but it's impossible without going Unbound. That really shouldn't be the case.

You can say "well they gave you the old option, plus a bunch of larger formations that have to be purchased all at once to use, so you should be happy." But this is a brand new mini-dex with a lot more unit options (which is good) and instead of giving you the freedom to choose those options as you see fit, they've intentionally messed with the way you select an army list so you're basically forced to buy units in larger blocks.

This may sound like a pedantic rant, but a greater emphasis on formations and special FOC's with high minimums and few options means you are less able to choose your units a la carte. It's a kind of gradual increase in effective unit size as far as list building goes, and that's the kind of thing that helped kill fantasy by making it even harder to start a new force. You're right, Talys, 40k is an expensive hobby already. Best to just gradually make it even more so at every turn, that really brings in new players.

Fair enough.


On topic: Looking forward to picking up three boxes of the bikes tomorrow to add to the two troupes I've already got! I'm excited that the army is starting to take shape. I hope the painting guide points out a decent and somewhat simple way of doing the diamond pattern.

Wild card

here is what I plan on doing (with varying colours)

floridaminiaturepainting.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/harlequin-player-step-by-step-tutorial.html

Check out the other stuff he did, amazing in my opinion.

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab:

You say that as if GW isn't a private company providing a purely luxury product while operating in a free market environment... cause it's not like you can proxy, or even need to buy the product at all..

Haven't we figured out everything GW, PP, Mantic etc. does is a cash grab?

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!

Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.

First World Problems

Haha, 'the SM dex is such a benefit to my life, but that new harly dex is at my expense, screw them!' cause we need both to eat.

We're on an internet forum talking about little man dollies. Everything we talk about is a first world problem. Every company is out to make money, that doesn't even need to be mentioned because it's blatantly obvious, but a distinction is made between "blatant cash grab" and "just going about the business of making money".

I suspect the fourth WD issue will have an example battle. My guess is it's against a Slaanesh themed army, which would be my preference as I also have a collection of them.

Reviewing the Formations again, I finally bothered to read one more carefully and discovered the limitation of one unit getting the Hit & Run re-embark rule rather than all units. I have to admit that dampened my enthusiasm a little bit, but it's still a nice little trick to pull off on your opponent.

Favorite formation: the one that grants rerolls of 1s for invul saves. Huge!
Least favorite: The skyweaver/voidweaver formation. Not because it's weak. Rather, I like infantry too much.

I have to say I like the incentive GW built in to selecting a Troupe Master as the warlord. It has the same number of wounds as the SS and DJ, so no loss there. The added benefit of rolling fully on all Harlequin warlord tables combined with the Flip Belt rule granting 2+ LO,S! to it make it a very solid equivalent to a standard HQ. Fluffy and effective.

There have been no leaked pics of the upcoming White Dwarf yet. Maybe there isnt much new in it we havent seen already and people dont care to post it. The new Deathjester and Shadowseer are still to be released. There is a well done comparison of the new and old models using last weeks White Dwarf photos on The Elder Thoughts blog.





@Tannhauser

There was a sprue comparison photo of the Starweaver and Venom on Warseer but I could not find it. The Starweavers canopy is between 0.5 and 1 cm larger on each side if you center the Venom canopy on top of it. I hope that helps.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I found the Starweaver sprue pic. By Eversor on Warseer

I like how similar they made the DJ and SS. They've even kept the little shurikens in the base on the DJ.

For what it's worth, on

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/blog/blog.jsp?_requestid=1423282

In the preview titled Masters of Fate, it talks about Great Harlequins, and how Troupe Masters grow into that role. So it seems in the future there is still room in the backrgound for introduction of an HQ choice. It also says the Masque of the Frozen Stars safeguards Maiden worlds of the Eastern Fringe as they believe that it will be on the Fringe that the Eldar's fortunes will be reclaimed. So they seem to be Biel-tan of the east.

That's really interesting. Also how often they mention Exodites lately makes me curious if Jes Goodwin is planning to expand the Eldar miniature range in this direction someday. With the Lizardmen kits available one can already build the entire Epic Exodites miniatures of old but it would be great to get at least one or two official kits in 28mm.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The preorder list for this friday - by Aracerssx on Warseer

Thanks!

The price, USD$26 is interesting. For kicks, look at 2014+ IC releases, of the 25-40mm base variety, in the order of release:

Dark Eldar - Succubus & Archon - $23
Blood Angels - Sanguinary Priest & Librarian - $30
Necron - Overlord - $28
Harlequins - Solitaire, Death Jester & Shadowseer - $26

I wonder who/how they determine those prices? I mean, it's obviously not just price creep -- which is a good thing -- but why on earth is the Overlord $2 more than the Solitaire and $2 less than a Sanguinary Priest?

Perhaps prices are determined by $25 + 1D6?

They look to increase roughly with the mass of the model. The Archon and Succubus are both rather slender models without any huge billowing capes or elaborate bases, while the Cron and the Harlie characters all have big bases and coats. The SangPriest is the exception, but that is accounted for by the 'Space Marine tax', same as the plastic Librarian/Captain in PA from a while back.

But this is GW, so it could well be 25+d6! -

Well I was definitely wrong in thinking the Deathjester and Shadowseer would be more expensive than the Solitaire.

Still, closing in on $30 for a single 28mm plastic model (space elf or otherwise) is a lot of money. It's no Dwarf Gyrocoper, but it's not what I would call reasonable either.

I about had a heart attack at the archaon fantasy stuff and then i looked at the price tag..wait wait, that's a fluff novel...

I'm guessing the march rumor date on that seems to be accurate.

I do like what they've done for the plastic shadowseer and deathjester though.

 Paradigm wrote:
The SangPriest is the exception, but that is accounted for by the 'Space Marine tax', same as the plastic Librarian/Captain in PA from a while back.

Guess isn't not *always* good to be a SM player!

 Paradigm wrote:
They look to increase roughly with the mass of the model. The Archon and Succubus are both rather slender models without any huge billowing capes or elaborate bases, while the Cron and the Harlie characters all have big bases and coats. The SangPriest is the exception, but that is accounted for by the 'Space Marine tax', same as the plastic Librarian/Captain in PA from a while back.

But this is GW, so it could well be 25+d6! -

The plastic Librarian in PA was also one of the first SM models that could have reasonably been placed on a 32mm base. He's a chunky character.

In regards to the Sanguinary Priest and the Terminator Librarian for Blood Angels? The Sanguinary Priest might be overpriced...but the Terminator is underpriced compared to what most people were expecting. The reason why for both is a pretty obvious one.
The iconography degrades the potential sales figures, as they only end up selling to BA players rather than generic Space Marines.

 Kanluwen wrote:
In regards to the Sanguinary Priest and the Terminator Librarian for Blood Angels? The Sanguinary Priest might be overpriced...but the Terminator is underpriced compared to what most people were expecting.

No Kan. Nothing GW makes is underpriced. They're just overpriced or really overpriced.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
In regards to the Sanguinary Priest and the Terminator Librarian for Blood Angels? The Sanguinary Priest might be overpriced...but the Terminator is underpriced compared to what most people were expecting.

No Kan. Nothing GW makes is underpriced. They're just overpriced or really overpriced.

In that case - Sang. Priest is super-mega-ultimately-outrageously-overpriced, and Termie Librarian is just little bit overpriced

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
In regards to the Sanguinary Priest and the Terminator Librarian for Blood Angels? The Sanguinary Priest might be overpriced...but the Terminator is underpriced compared to what most people were expecting.

No Kan. Nothing GW makes is underpriced. They're just overpriced or really overpriced.

Read the rest of my post.

"Underpriced compared to what most people were expecting".

Most people were expecting $37 at least and the model to be in a box like the Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun.

I can't say that those price surprise me. I had already started converting my own character's from the troupe box set in order to keep it within my hobby budget.

Ace Rimmer wrote:
I can't say that those price surprise me. I had already started converting my own character's from the troupe box set in order to keep it within my hobby budget.

Post some photos once you're done

Quick question about the Harlequins. Since they can only be fielded by detachments/formations or whatever, does this mean you can have a dark eldar and eldar army with a harlequin detachment?

Yes, that is infact how most people intend to field them

 Veskern wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:
I can't say that those price surprise me. I had already started converting my own character's from the troupe box set in order to keep it within my hobby budget.

Post some photos once you're done

Solitaire WIP - flipping his way in to give someone a haywire grenade to the face!

Nicely done! Due to the rules as written, the gear alone should be enough to distinguish him as a Solitaire, and the fact that he is wearing a long coat and has a daemon face seals the deal.

I think, although the prices are rip off, the characters are actually really well done models. BUT if I need multiples I will be making my own. Looking at the bits the main box comes with it shouldnt be hard to go nuts and make your own ones like above!

Although the cool jester hat is something I reckon you should try add to him.

Right they're up

shadowseer sprue (inc shuriken pistol or neurodisruptor)


Deathjester sprue (inc spare mask)



Web Bundle £121 (no discount)

Contains 12 plastic Citadel miniatures, including: 1 Starweaver, 1 box of Skyweavers, 1 Solitaire, 1 Troupe, 1 Death Jester, and 1 Shadowseer.

The Ghosts of the Webway bundle £379 (no discount)

Contains 51 plastic Citadel miniatures, including: 3 Starweavers, 8 Skyweavers, 2 Solitaires, 6 Troupes, 1 Death Jester, and 1 Shadowseer.

You have to have a good laugh at a bundle that has 2 of a Unique character...

2013 sprues? They've been waiting on the Solitaire, Starweaver, etc.. for a while.

Yeah, they must have put a pin (of war?) in the release for soe, reason.

Would that have coincided with the last Eldar release?

 Melcavuk wrote:
Yes, that is infact how most people intend to field them

Thanking you!

Had an absolute blast painting these guys, gonna have to get more.

Wonderwolf wrote:
2013 sprues? They've been waiting on the Solitaire, Starweaver, etc.. for a while.

Not necessarily. Copyright dates back to whenever you create the first version of a finished "work." Thus, the copyright on the sprues could date back to before they did the tooling for the molds, but after they created the final prototype models (using resin or whatever).

Ace Rimmer wrote:

 Veskern wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:
I can't say that those price surprise me. I had already started converting my own character's from the troupe box set in order to keep it within my hobby budget.

Post some photos once you're done

Solitaire WIP - flipping his way in to give someone a haywire grenade to the face!

That is sweet, and just perfectly done - mask, weapons, cloak - everything in place

And more about converting - problem lies with doing Death Jesters - how to bite it? What weapon from what pack to use? A bit of a same goes with Shadow Seers, but I guess some work with Spirit Seer model would do a nice effect.

And I am still planning to buy at least one of each type, these are just too pretty models to pass them by

I have purchased the corsair upgrade kits from forge world before, I'll be getting more due to there being a hand held shuriken cannon in the special/heavy weapons teams

Looks like someone was messing with my PC settings!

Comment removed. Sorry.

bigbaboonass wrote:


Hey all, GW's preorder page is up and it looks as though we only thought we were catching a break at $26 each (insert sarcasm/profanity here) for the DJ and SS. They're actually $28.50!!! which means the 10-20% discount that most online sellers offer is already negated prior to the release. Yay!

I love the models (the crouching Death Jester is unreal) but am inclined to do as others have already stated and convert my own if I need more. I've already converted a Solitare and have the last renditions of both the DJ and SS. So for me, I'm going to have to pass for now unless I catch a break on eBay or another online retail shop.

Are you sure you are set to the "US" page and not the Australia page

Because it comes up as $26 US for me.

I hope somebody gets a bingo

 Veskern wrote:
problem lies with doing Death Jesters - how to bite it? What weapon from what pack to use? A bit of a same goes with Shadow Seers, but I guess some work with Spirit Seer model would do a nice effect.

And I am still planning to buy at least one of each type, these are just too pretty models to pass them by

My DJ at the moment (still very WIP, and awaiting Harlie parts) is using Dire Avengers arms with the gun's barrel extended using a High Elf lance (with the head cut off, obviously). I'd imagine any Shuriken Cannon barrel could be lopped off and placed on a DA Catapult.

My Shadowseer is a HE Mage with a gun, mask and hood added. The hood is GS, the mask is a Dire Avenger head cut down to just the flat faceplate. Ignore the base, it needs changing.

Any further releases rumoured after the Death Jester?

Nope, that's it as far as we know. Next week I think is back to WFB End Times with a Khorne-themed few weeks. Archaon book, plastic Bloodthirster and Khorne Chosen/Elite unit.

The New Character kits are really nice.

I might pick up a new Shadowseer and Death Jester in the future if funds allow (or perhaps on my birthday list), but for now I've got the metal Shadowseer from the previous release to cover my initial "Way of heroes" detachment with my WIP DJ and Solitaire.
With the 2 new troupe boxes I have, the previous metal incarnations of the troupe set and a couple of converted venoms for star weavers, I can pick up a Voidweaver tomorrow at WHW and I'm pretty much good to go

[edit]
@Veskern :

I'm using Dark Lances (as I found 4 Random Kabalites with them in my Cupboard O' Warhammer) for the time being until I can think of a better way to convert my bit box stock of Shuriken cannons up.

Anyone see the Ghosts of the Webway bundle? It comes with 2 solitaires for some reason, is there a way you can use 2 that I don't know about?

I think it's just an oversight. Or aimed at the collectors.

The latest Blood Angels Strikeforce army box (new Terminators and Libby) went into preorder in the 1st or 2nd Thanquol week. I would not rule out an army box for Harlequins with a discount as yet. End Times V starts next Friday

 Paradigm wrote:

 Veskern wrote:
problem lies with doing Death Jesters - how to bite it? What weapon from what pack to use? A bit of a same goes with Shadow Seers, but I guess some work with Spirit Seer model would do a nice effect.

And I am still planning to buy at least one of each type, these are just too pretty models to pass them by

My DJ at the moment (still very WIP, and awaiting Harlie parts) is using Dire Avengers arms with the gun's barrel extended using a High Elf lance (with the head cut off, obviously). I'd imagine any Shuriken Cannon barrel could be lopped off and placed on a DA Catapult.

My Shadowseer is a HE Mage with a gun, mask and hood added. The hood is GS, the mask is a Dire Avenger head cut down to just the flat faceplate. Ignore the base, it needs changing.

Spoiler:

ooooohhh - that Shadow Seer is looking lush!

Nope, that's it as far as we know. Next week I think is back to WFB End Times with a Khorne-themed few weeks. Archaon book, plastic Bloodthirster and Khorne Chosen/Elite unit.

thanks Para

Very nice stuff. I can't wait to get my Death Jester The sprue looks phenomenal.

Why on earth would they include 2 solitaires in the bundle? O.O

 Talys wrote:
Very nice stuff. I can't wait to get my Death Jester The sprue looks phenomenal.

Why on earth would they include 2 solitaires in the bundle? O.O

To sell more?

 Talys wrote:
Very nice stuff. I can't wait to get my Death Jester The sprue looks phenomenal.

Why on earth would they include 2 solitaires in the bundle? O.O

I'ma go ahead and quote myself from earlier in the thread here:

Dash2021 wrote: B) GW pretty obviously doesn't understand their own rule set enough to know how good they made the Shadowseer. Case in point for point B- “Faolchu’s Blade” formation exists. The 2 worst units in the codex in a formation together that gives a bonus to jinking.....with both units having blast based weaponry...

Sales and production teams don't really communicate in anyway. "Bundles" are a way to unload more product than the player would normally buy, that is their sole purpose. Think of how many junk units end up in these "bundles". The Game development department is incredibly sloppy with rules, and apparently the sales department never even bothers to read them.

 Talys wrote:
Very nice stuff. I can't wait to get my Death Jester The sprue looks phenomenal.

Why on earth would they include 2 solitaires in the bundle? O.O

So they could prove themselves to be oxymorons?

t

 Talys wrote:
Very nice stuff. I can't wait to get my Death Jester The sprue looks phenomenal.

Why on earth would they include 2 solitaires in the bundle? O.O

If I had to hazard a guess, it's so that people could do conversions.

Mispost.. Oops


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But.... It's single pose

I guess it could be.

I was pleasantly surprise to find there were 3 full crew minis (not including the pilot) with the Star/Voidweaver kit

so you'll be able add a bit more variety to your Troupe with the spare(s)

I know that this is probably going to be a dead thread in news and rumors soon, but I had seen the question asked and I know some people were curious.

So here's the spare torso from the Troupe box with a set of scourge legs. I cut off some of the spiky bits. Additionally, all the dark eldar heads work great. Got him now with one of the blank mask heads from the wych sprue. Also, the wych legs would work great too. Both legs require a little bit of green stuffing to fill a gap. There are plenty of guns/swords/heads to complete the model.

Hand0z wrote:
I know that this is probably going to be a dead thread in news and rumors soon, but I had seen the question asked and I know some people were curious.

So here's the spare torso from the Troupe box with a set of scoure legs. I cut off some of the spiky bits. Additionally, all the dark eldar heads work great. Got him now with one of the blank mask heads from the wych sprue. Also, the wych legs would work great too. Both legs require a little bit of green stuffing to fill a gap. There are plenty of guns/swords/heads to complete the model.

nice job. totally looks legit and fitting

Indeed, well done!

Yeah, if you hasn't've said they were Scourge legs I wouldn't've been able to tell.

Has anyone seen whether or not Enigmas of the Black Library are 1 per army or not?

One each per army.

Cool, so I only need to buy 2 troupe boxes then since the vehicles come with 3 crew. I could use them to beef out my numbers (along with the dark eldar legs) for a 3rd troupe easy.

Nice idea.

There are going to be a lot of empty Starweavers, aren't there...

Ilmarinen wrote:
There are going to be a lot of empty Starweavers, aren't there...

The alternative is empty wallets.

Ilmarinen wrote:
There are going to be a lot of empty Starweavers, aren't there...

Well, it works for the LSS!

2 Weavers built empty and a Troupe Box gets you 2 Troupes and their transports for around £60 after discount isn't quite so unpalatable...

I feel the gunner and one of the riders aren't posed dynamic enough, so I am going to make them into mimes! They are going to be my maelstrom markers, so mimes are hidden all over the battlefield, laden with gathered Intel and stolen tech. If the enemy finds them, they revert to their disguise and give them assistance until the troupe arrives to retrieve them.

I need 3 transports and 1 heavy support, so I will keep at least 2 crew per vehicle (one for the heavy one) so thats a free troupe with one from each transport and 1-2 from the heavy support. Add to this the extra torso from the box set and you can potentially save a fair bit of cash.

Mixed with my standard troupes it will hardly be noticeable.

I like the new shadow seer model but I think the old one is much nicer.

 Paradigm wrote:
Nope, that's it as far as we know. Next week I think is back to WFB End Times with a Khorne-themed few weeks. Archaon book, plastic Bloodthirster and Khorne Chosen/Elite unit.

The little blurb at the end of the white dwarf for this week is all "blood for the blood god!, skulls for the skuil throne!, rage is its only master" so, yeah...Khorne stuff next week.

Anyone got the Harelquin painting guide yet? From what 'seen looks like a guide actually worth the coin (for a change).

 Januine wrote:
Anyone got the Harelquin painting guide yet? From what 'seen looks like a guide actually worth the coin (for a change).

Dont pay for the guides mate. Its easy to find guides online for free. As in other peoples tutorials etc.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Januine wrote:
Anyone got the Harelquin painting guide yet? From what 'seen looks like a guide actually worth the coin (for a change).

Dont pay for the guides mate. Its easy to find guides online for free. As in other peoples tutorials etc.

The guides that GW has been releasing are not just painting step by steps.

They also include background material and a kind of "reference guide" for markings and things of that nature.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Januine wrote:
Anyone got the Harelquin painting guide yet? From what 'seen looks like a guide actually worth the coin (for a change).

Dont pay for the guides mate. Its easy to find guides online for free. As in other peoples tutorials etc.

The guides that GW has been releasing are not just painting step by steps.

They also include background material and a kind of "reference guide" for markings and things of that nature.

Thats still not worth the price tag. The Codex, the free online information and your imagination will suffice and save you cash easy.

I mean, in my opinion paying for something that has substitutes for free is usually not worth it.

OK so - does anyone have any info or further rumours on whether GW will be updating the Eldar jetbikes/Vypers/whatever after this?

I've been trawling through everything and really can't find it; hopefully someone who has been in touch a bit more can help me out...

Thanks!
-M

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Januine wrote:
Anyone got the Harelquin painting guide yet? From what 'seen looks like a guide actually worth the coin (for a change).

Dont pay for the guides mate. Its easy to find guides online for free. As in other peoples tutorials etc.

The guides that GW has been releasing are not just painting step by steps.

They also include background material and a kind of "reference guide" for markings and things of that nature.

Thats still not worth the price tag. The Codex, the free online information and your imagination will suffice and save you cash easy.

I mean, in my opinion paying for something that has substitutes for free is usually not worth it.

That's your opinion, as you say.

In my opinion and experience? They have been worth the price tag. It never hurts to have more reference material to work with, and it's nice to be able to specifically match in a 1:1 ratio something that you have seen in the Codex.

Eh, think of the more models you could have purchased and practiced on instead of buying the painting guides though... one purchase leaves you with experience and something to show for it.

But ultimately it doesnt matter too much. Just my opinion.

 Miniature13 wrote:
I like the new shadow seer model but I think the old one is much nicer.

But they're pretty much the exact same model...

majendie wrote:
OK so - does anyone have any info or further rumours on whether GW will be updating the Eldar jetbikes/Vypers/whatever after this?

I've been trawling through everything and really can't find it; hopefully someone who has been in touch a bit more can help me out...

I don't think it's really necessary to wait for official new Eldar models now. The jetbikes and the ...larger one are basically Eldar models right now. All you need to do is swap out the Harlie heads with Guardian heads, and put something else in place of where there are those mounted masks on the bikes. Instant Eldar Update.

I'm definitely going to be doing that soon with a squad of Vypers, and I might build a second squad of jetbikes, too (I already did a set of bikes using Dark Eldar as a base).

I honestly don't know if they even plan on updating the Eldar jetbikes anymore. In one of the newest White Dwarfs they point out the difference between the Craftworld and Harlequin bikes by noting how the rider sits on it like the dark kin do, trying to emphasize how Harlequins straddle the line between the two. The prototype that we saw years and years ago had a rider mounted just like the DE reavers, though, leaning forward as if he was racing instead of sitting upright.

It just seems like a weird thing to emphasize to me if they were planning on releasing an updated kit with new riders matching the DE and Harlequin bikes. I imagine those molds paid for themselves a long time ago and that GW is probably content to keep that kit around for as long as possible, as the new bikes probably wouldn't differ too much from the existing bikes to force people to update them anyway, and every sale they make for the current bikes is all profit. GW seems to avoid replacing existing plastic kits whenever possible, preferring instead to introduce new stuff for people to buy instead of updated versions of older models.

guessing plastic aspect figs is a wish, spit n dream :(

Hmmm I've got to say, I'm expecting a new jetbike based on the new Harlequin ones. I have nothing to go on, rumour wise, but looking at the model it now makes the Eldar ones look incredibly dated. They've clearly taken the DE jetbike and tweaked it to look more mainline Eldar, then added a couple of things back to make it a bit hybrid; the split front on the cowling and the face mask thing. The model could be very very easily converted to regular Eldar, sure, but I would not be in the least surprised to see them finally replace the standard Jetbike.

If nothing else, I don't want to go buy a bunch of Harlequin jetbikes (which I would expect to be more expensive than new Guardian jetbikes, since there's another rider on each one) and have them finally release new jetbikes a month later.

At the moment I'm sitting on my hands, not buying Harlequins, until I see a bit more confirmation one way or the other...

Now, plastic Aspect Warriors? Where are we on that one, GW? Eldar have the oldest models still in production; get on that!

I would really love to see some actual sales figures showing the breakdown between armies and which sells the most, as well as how those figures change when they bring out new models. They've just replaced a bunch of old Tyranid models, and now the Harlequins; Eldar are surely due for the desperately needed updates!

majendie wrote:
Hmmm I've got to say, I'm expecting a new jetbike based on the new Harlequin ones. I have nothing to go on, rumour wise, but looking at the model it now makes the Eldar ones look incredibly dated. They've clearly taken the DE jetbike and tweaked it to look more mainline Eldar, then added a couple of things back to make it a bit hybrid; the split front on the cowling and the face mask thing. The model could be very very easily converted to regular Eldar, sure, but I would not be in the least surprised to see them finally replace the standard Jetbike.

If nothing else, I don't want to go buy a bunch of Harlequin jetbikes (which I would expect to be more expensive than new Guardian jetbikes, since there's another rider on each one) and have them finally release new jetbikes a month later.

At the moment I'm sitting on my hands, not buying Harlequins, until I see a bit more confirmation one way or the other...

Now, plastic Aspect Warriors? Where are we on that one, GW? Eldar have the oldest models still in production; get on that!

I would really love to see some actual sales figures showing the breakdown between armies and which sells the most, as well as how those figures change when they bring out new models. They've just replaced a bunch of old Tyranid models, and now the Harlequins; Eldar are surely due for the desperately needed updates!

totally. wanting to build up a new eldar army but damned if i want to be buying shitecast aspect figs

majendie wrote:
OK so - does anyone have any info or further rumours on whether GW will be updating the Eldar jetbikes/Vypers/whatever after this?

I've been trawling through everything and really can't find it; hopefully someone who has been in touch a bit more can help me out...

Thanks!
-M

Vypers got a minor update a few years ago, to expand the weapons options in the kit. I don't really think it needs any further updating. Regular Eldar jetbikes sure do, though.

Isn't this thread kind of over now?

Yes, I think it is!

So long everyone, and thanks for the fish!