Probably missed a thread on this. But I'm wondering what the consensus is on if you can use the new book with the Iyanden army list or if it still requires the old book?

Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Is this the first case of this in recent memory?

Are there any examples from the past where a book had a supplement then got updated?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:


Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

I'm leaning towards this interpretation, but I'm curious if there's any precedence for a situation like this.

 Blacksails wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:


Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

I'm leaning towards this interpretation, but I'm curious if there's any precedence for a situation like this.

I think this is the first time a codex has been updated while it had a supplement. So there isn't really a precedent for it.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

This is entirely gross if the supplement is no longer valid. So not only is your old book replaced in two to three years, but your $50 extra purchase is useless from the game play perspective.

If that's true, then hopefully some folks get rightfully mad. I hope it's not.

Without input from GW we will never know for sure.

I think this is the first time a codex has been updated while it had a supplement. So there isn't really a precedent for it.

Indeed. GW seriously needs to clarify this.

I do know this: if supplements ARE invalidated, meaning supplement players must now pay twice as much with EVERY update, I will never pay for another legal codex again.

On a more pragmatic note though, is there actually anything in Craftworlds that would stop the adjustments in Iyanden functioning? The WG-as-Troops was in the codex itself, and is gone, but in theory the actual Iyanded changes still work.

- Wrathknights as Warlords still works (as unsurprisingly Lords of War can be Warlords.. Who'da thunk it? )

- I think it changes which is your Primaris power for Spiritseers, and that should be easy to adjust if the power still exists. If not, then it should still be easy to house rule with the appropriate WC value (if a FAQ didn't already do this for 7th).

Can't recall what else Iyanden changes, but really, I don't see any reason why you couldn't run it alongside the new book.

Five Spiritseers in a single HQ slot. Coupled with the cheap, abundant Venoms in a Realspace Raider detachment, it could be a huge benefit for the Freakshow lists I've been advocating.

 Paradigm wrote:
On a more pragmatic note though, is there actually anything in Craftworlds that would stop the adjustments in Iyanden functioning?

This is a good point. I retract my earlier statement that I think its invalidated, and now I just genuinely don't know.

Input from GW is needed, but I doubt we'd get it, or in a timely manner anyhow.

The last example of this that I can think of is back in edition 4 when the 3.5 eldar codex was replaced and the craftworld supplement became invalid. Ironic...

IMO the supplements should roll over. Clearly just like all the forgeworld books with IG in them work with Astra Militarum (though forgeworld are much better at getting back to you on the issue) any change in codex name should be assumed to work with the old codex supplements. Otherwise should I be allowed to field a CWE with Eldar allies so I can take the old waveserpents? It would be hilarious to field 1 LoW wraithknight and 3 HS wraithknights.

With the WK and Ghost formations in the new Eldar Craftworlds, I think Iyanden is obsolete.

The FW supplements are good examples.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Five Spiritseers in a single HQ slot..

Again, functions perfectly with the new book. I see no reason now why anyone would consider Iyanden invalidated with that in mind, when everything it works just as well as if it had been written for the 7th ed Eldar.

And I believe there's an email from GW floating around somewhere that basically says that while it's not technically 'official' (probably as they no longer sell it), you are encouraged to keep using it (with house ruled tweaks if necessary, but looking at it that shouldn't be needed).

As far as I'm concerned, problem solved.

I'll give a reason. Does codex lyaden say to be used with codex eldar and codex: eldar craftworlds or just eldar?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I'll give a reason. Does codex lyaden say to be used with codex eldar and codex: eldar craftworlds or just eldar?

If you use this logic, then the Craftworlds codex is a brand new army book that doesn't replace Codex: Eldar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Five Spiritseers in a single HQ slot..

Again, functions perfectly with the new book.

Eh? How's that?

Not true. Using that logic, imperial guard is still a legal codex...

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Not true. Using that logic, imperial guard is still a legal codex...

Lol, yes. Your argument that Iyanden is invalid would also make IG legal still.

How exactly? I am staying that codex eldar has been updated AND changed into codex eldar craftworlds. Since we all know raw you can only use lyanden with codex eldar it is not at all unreasonable to say it cannot be used with codex eldar craftworlds. please stop trying to make this happen. It really won't..

It can't be an update of a book and a different book.

If it's an update, Iyanden still flies.

If it's something different, then Iyanden is out, but 6th Ed Eldar are still in.

Unless GW explicitly says something different, I don't see a third option that doesn't involve just making things up sans precedent.

Where do you get your rules stating lyanden still flies? Please show proof.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It can't be an update of a book and a different book.

If it's an update, Iyanden still flies.

If it's something different, then Iyanden is out, but 6th Ed Eldar are still in.

Unless GW explicitly says something different, I don't see a third option that doesn't involve just making things up sans precedent.

The new Eldar Codex is the New eldar Codex and it is named differently. Also if the 6th edition codex was still "in" it would still be on sale on the GW website. In the sense of that Argument the Iyanden Supplement is also no longer on their website. I say that the Codex Craftworlds is the new Eldar Codex because it has the exact same units as the 6th edition Eldar. There is not a single new model in the book, just updates of existing models. They renamed the army just like they renamed IG, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

From the cynical point of view, I could totally imagine GW saying its invalidated, then turn around and sell an updated version for another $50 with a few words changed around.

 Xerics wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
It can't be an update of a book and a different book.

If it's an update, Iyanden still flies.

If it's something different, then Iyanden is out, but 6th Ed Eldar are still in.

Unless GW explicitly says something different, I don't see a third option that doesn't involve just making things up sans precedent.

The new Eldar Codex is the New eldar Codex and it is named differently. Also if the 6th edition codex was still "in" it would still be on sale on the GW website. In the sense of that Argument the Iyanden Supplement is also no longer on their website. I say that the Codex Craftworlds is the new Eldar Codex because it has the exact same units as the 6th edition Eldar. There is not a single new model in the book, just updates of existing models. They renamed the army just like they renamed IG, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

While we had a few words exchanged, I 100% agree with what you said and appreciate the back up

 Jimsolo wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
It can't be an update of a book and a different book.

If it's an update, Iyanden still flies.

If it's something different, then Iyanden is out, but 6th Ed Eldar are still in.

Unless GW explicitly says something different, I don't see a third option that doesn't involve just making things up sans precedent.

The new Eldar Codex is the New eldar Codex and it is named differently. Also if the 6th edition codex was still "in" it would still be on sale on the GW website. In the sense of that Argument the Iyanden Supplement is also no longer on their website. I say that the Codex Craftworlds is the new Eldar Codex because it has the exact same units as the 6th edition Eldar. There is not a single new model in the book, just updates of existing models. They renamed the army just like they renamed IG, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

While we had a few words exchanged, I 100% agree with what you said and appreciate the back up

Glad we can reconcile.

 Toofast wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

Is it then your argument that if a product is not available on GW's web store it isn't legal to use? That's a dangerous precedent to set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:


TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

If so, and the new book replaces the old for rules purposes, then you can still use Iyanden with it.

I asked for proof and you have provided none.

that's no different to you providing proof that the last Eldar codex is not legal. where is that written?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I asked for proof and you have provided none.

With the supplement, it says it's usable with Codex: Eldar, correct? Is the newest book Codex: Eldar? Sadly, it isn't. It's Codex Eldar: Craftworlds.

Personally, I wouldn't care. But if you're trying to play as legit as possible, I don't think using it with the current codex will fly. While some call it semantics, those subtle wording differences matter. And unless there's a FAQ by GW stating otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to get it to pass, me thinks.

 Toofast wrote:
Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

That's really about as simple as it gets, but really, common sense should prevail. The CWE units have changed drastically, so you shouldn't be able to pair the two. It just isn't logical.

You SHOULD be able to play with Iyande+6e Eldar with anyone who is willing to ply the old codex, though. Presuming this is because you have an army bulit on Iyanden+6e anyhow. I have no idea why someone would be building a new Iyanden+6e army.

The fact that gw no longer sells a codex has always been their way of cycling out the old for new. So we know codex eldar craftworlds is the new eldar codex. We also know that lyanden says it works with codex eldar. The new codex is codex eldar craftworlds. now... Where is your proof? Don't argue for the sake of arguing.. bring some facts please. Your pointless arguing is tiresome.

bullyboy wrote:
that's no different to you providing proof that the last Eldar codex is not legal. where is that written?

It's a 'legal' book. But if you enter events, they expect one to use the current rules. Players can use the previous dex if they wish, as it works. But as for 'competitive' legal, the book isn't. It's like any other tabletop game. As newer 'sets' come out, older ones get retired for competitive play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
The fact that gw no longer sells a codex has always been their way of cycling out the old for new. So we know codex eldar craftworlds is the new eldar codex. We also know that lyanden says it works with codex eldar. The new codex is codex eldar craftworlds. now... Where is your proof? Don't argue for the sake of arguing.. bring some facts please. Your pointless arguing is tiresome.

Well, here's another thing. The supplement was made with the 6th edition book in mind. I'm not too familiar with Eldar in general, but using the supp with the current dex with either make the supp too good, or too weak. if it makes it too good, then it's clear that it really isn't going to work. The balances aren't there (Despite GW not really being known for that). If it becomes weak...then I'm not sure why one would WANT to use it with the new book. *shrug*

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

Is it then your argument that if a product is not available on GW's web store it isn't legal to use? That's a dangerous precedent to set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:


TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

If so, and the new book replaces the old for rules purposes, then you can still use Iyanden with it.

For codexes, yes that is my precedent, and the only one that makes any kind of logical sense. To your second point, no you cannot. Codex: eldar and codex: eldar craftworlds are 2 different books. Iyanden says "to be used with codex: eldar". The new book is not codex: eldar, therefore iyanden cannot be used with it. This is not complicated. Your argument is "yes you can, because reasons". Repeating that over and over just because the new codex has the word eldar in the title is not going to convince anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, you have still failed to address my last point. Why would GW known loss and throw out hundreds of copies of the iyanden book if it was still legal? The only LOGICAL answer is, of course, they wouldn't. They would only do that if it was no longer a current book because it was designed to be used with the old eldar codex (like it explicitly says in the book).

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

Is it then your argument that if a product is not available on GW's web store it isn't legal to use? That's a dangerous precedent to set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:


TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

If so, and the new book replaces the old for rules purposes, then you can still use Iyanden with it.

Negative. Says you can use with Codex: Eldar. New Codex is not called Codex: Eldar. It expired with the 6th edition rulebook.

at this stage I would state that it cannot be used with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds due to name change, but there is nothing stopping someone from using it with Codex Eldar. I don't see anywhere where GW has stated that Codex Eldar cannot be played, and I don't care what the usual "precedence" is, it's either a written rule or it isn't. Someone here wanted written proof that it can be used, but failed to provide written proof that Codex Eldar cannot be played. Typical internet BS.
Each event can dictate what they want regarding their events, which books to use, no ranged D or whatever. As an Eldar player, I'd skip any event that said no ranged D AND cannot use Codex: Eldar and Iyanden. I'll take my wraithguard elsewhere thank you.

Here's a fun fact, I believe the Iyanden supplement used to be a digital release.

Black Library keeps on the non-apple release:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Codex

The new Eldar book is specifically named Codex: Craftworlds (strike one), the Iyanden supplement isn't even available digitally (strike two), and I cannot find it in the iTunes store (strike three).

Give that it's not commercially available in any form and the very distinct name change of the new Eldar book, I'd say, sadly, it's not legal.

Which is just another super major bummer of a reason not to buy GW products.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bullyboy wrote:
at this stage I would state that it cannot be used with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds due to name change, but there is nothing stopping someone from using it with Codex Eldar. I don't see anywhere where GW has stated that Codex Eldar cannot be played, and I don't care what the usual "precedence" is, it's either a written rule or it isn't. Someone here wanted written proof that it can be used, but failed to provide written proof that Codex Eldar cannot be played. Typical internet BS.
Each event can dictate what they want regarding their events, which books to use, no ranged D or whatever. As an Eldar player, I'd skip any event that said no ranged D AND cannot use Codex: Eldar and Iyanden. I'll take my wraithguard elsewhere thank you.

The rule of thumb for any wargame is, if you're staying relevant, you play with the recent official release.

To not do so, well, that way madness lies.

bullyboy wrote:
at this stage I would state that it cannot be used with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds due to name change, but there is nothing stopping someone from using it with Codex Eldar. I don't see anywhere where GW has stated that Codex Eldar cannot be played, and I don't care what the usual "precedence" is, it's either a written rule or it isn't. Someone here wanted written proof that it can be used, but failed to provide written proof that Codex Eldar cannot be played. Typical internet BS.
Each event can dictate what they want regarding their events, which books to use, no ranged D or whatever. As an Eldar player, I'd skip any event that said no ranged D AND cannot use Codex: Eldar and Iyanden. I'll take my wraithguard elsewhere thank you.

Cool, one less eldar player to worry about

less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

bullyboy wrote:
less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

Please try to add something to a topic when you post, instead of simply insulting the community. If you have nothing to add, it's as simple as not posting. Thank you. Come again.

Iyanden is gone, ravaged by something far worse than the hunger of the Tyranid hive mind... the Games Workshop Design Team! All that remains is but one formation. One single utterly broken and undercosted formation...

The writing is on the wall. GW no longer sells the codex online or in stores, and the book specifically states that it is for "Codex: Eldar". The current book is Codex: Craftworld Eldar, so Iyanden is not compatible. In addition, there have been changes to the units that make up the Iyanden supplement in the new codex, specifically for the worse. This does not bode well for the Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter supplements when GW updates CSM. I would be feeling quite cheated out of my money.

For the OP, there is some saving grace. The Wraith Host formation is pretty much what most Iyanden armies looked like. You could always try using the 6th edition Distort rules. Or downgrading the Wraithknight to a Monstrous Creature, or mysteriously leaving out 50 points in list building, or swapping it out for another Wraithlord,or something.

The new codex is just awful, if you hadn't already heard.

Awful? I think it's far better than the last one. Nearly every unit is playable. Yes, scatter bikes, D scythes and wraithknights are the go to units but at least all of the aspects can be used, vypers got a point drop, crimson hunters got a point drop, hemlock got an extra psychic level, it's no longer just codex: wave serpents + min unit tax.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

Please try to add something to a topic when you post, instead of simply insulting the community. If you have nothing to add, it's as simple as not posting. Thank you. Come again.

and you have added???

I stated quite clearly what I thought about the Iyanden codex (relevant to the OP).....and as someone who actually plays the list, I probably have more of a voice than yourself anyway. I'm going to play the wraith host from the new book but then again my group wear big boy pants and have no issue with wraithguard in the new book. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have cared if I said I wasn't getting the new book and would continue using the older book and Iyanden.
And to be quite honest, I'm pretty sure that they would allow the Iyanden book with the new Codex since there isn't anything in the Iyanden codex that breaks the game any more than it already is.

as for TOs, they will have to make the call themseleves for their own events. It's going to get really interesting when the new Sm codex drops in regards to those who have bought the IH or IF supplements.

RIP Codex: Eldar

As much as I'd hate to say this, Codex:Eldar is now replaced by Codex craftworld and Iyaden is now irrelevant. If you want to play with the old codex and supplement then you can just like you can play with a 6th edition rule book and the old SM codex. In a friendly setting anything goes but if you were to turn out to a tournament don't expect it to fly.
It is a frightening notion that what you buy has no value and it's a major deterrent tome from buying anything else. Why buy the apocalypse book if it gets outdated the next month after?

Heck, my brother bought the Eldar codex and got the Iyaden supplement right after as a B-day gift. When the new deamon powers came, he bought a chaos deamon book so he can summon monsters (3 books now) and can't use any of them because he bought a 4th book (codex:craftworld).

This also occurred with the Imperial knights. You bought a full codex for 2 models. Got a bit of fluff and 4-5 pages of rules. Fast forward less than a year and you now another book on the same thing with 3 more models that invalidates the previous book....argh

So when I saw the codex for codex skitarii- I was like DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK. It is bait! There will be an updated better version of the same thing down the road.

 Blacksails wrote:
Is this the first case of this in recent memory?

Are there any examples from the past where a book had a supplement then got updated?

Recent? Not that I'm aware of. Previously, the 3rd edition Space Wolf supplement codex, and to a lesser extent the 3rd edition Blood Angels codex, were used with at least the follow on Codex: Space Marines. Those are the two that come to mind.

 Toofast wrote:
Awful? I think it's far better than the last one. Nearly every unit is playable. Yes, scatter bikes, D scythes and wraithknights are the go to units but at least all of the aspects can be used, vypers got a point drop, crimson hunters got a point drop, hemlock got an extra psychic level, it's no longer just codex: wave serpents + min unit tax.

I will admit to exaggerating in my last post.

Like you said, there are a lot of changes for the better in this codex, and I agree with a lot of them. The problem lies in the D weapons and the Wraithknight and scatter bikers. I play in a casual and friendly gaming group, and there were a lot of people who actively despised the top-tier codexes for throwing the balance out of their local meta. Judging by the number of Eldar rage threads this board has going at the moment, people's opinion of Eldar armies and the people who play them have only gotten worse.

I'm just afraid that I'm not going to get as many pick-up games with my favorite army anymore, even if I take and use the units the tournament scene finds "sub-optimal" (I am not saying that the tournament players are wrong, just that I personally don't enjoy playing in that manner).

Going back to the OP, maybe we'll see some Iyanden-themed formations coming out in the new campaign this year? it would certainly help diversify the theme of the army out of just one formation.

Edit: This trend also doesn't bode well for Skitarii. How like GW would it be to put out a book with only half the units, then release a second book and totally invalidate the first?

I am being rather cynical. The next AdMech book is probably just a collection of formations with the new units. Same thing with the new Imperial Knights. But I wouldn't put it past GW to try it.

 Toofast wrote:
Awful? I think it's far better than the last one. Nearly every unit is playable. Yes, scatter bikes, D scythes and wraithknights are the go to units but at least all of the aspects can be used, vypers got a point drop, crimson hunters got a point drop, hemlock got an extra psychic level, it's no longer just codex: wave serpents + min unit tax.

And yet they did nothing for the Wraithlord and massively buffed the Wraithknighht... Seriously incompetent.

The old Dex was more than Wave Seroents and Min Unit Tax, it was super solid codex, most everything in it was good or great, it was just Windriders, Seroents, Wraithknights, and Seer Councils that stole the show.

BS5 Warp Spiders wounding almost everything on 2s... Rending on 6s... With 2 shots... And the ability to jump out of weapon range during your opponents turn... All for 19pts/model...

They fixed the Wave Serpent, thankfully, but they broke so much more... And the formations, damn. Buff a unit, then give them a formation that massively buffs them further.


Edit: To the OP. I doubt Iyanden will stay legal, maybe we'll be lucky and get an FAQ. I hope so for my Farsight!

Raw it doesn't work for Craftworld. But, Raw C:E isn't invalidated either. It's inconclusive and we need clarification.

bullyboy wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

Please try to add something to a topic when you post, instead of simply insulting the community. If you have nothing to add, it's as simple as not posting. Thank you. Come again.

and you have added???

I stated quite clearly what I thought about the Iyanden codex (relevant to the OP).....and as someone who actually plays the list, I probably have more of a voice than yourself anyway. I'm going to play the wraith host from the new book but then again my group wear big boy pants and have no issue with wraithguard in the new book. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have cared if I said I wasn't getting the new book and would continue using the older book and Iyanden.
And to be quite honest, I'm pretty sure that they would allow the Iyanden book with the new Codex since there isn't anything in the Iyanden codex that breaks the game any more than it already is.

as for TOs, they will have to make the call themseleves for their own events. It's going to get really interesting when the new Sm codex drops in regards to those who have bought the IH or IF supplements.

big boy pants? I'm honestly confused on who in this thread you are attempting to prove to that your group is mature, as I'm sure no one cares. Regardless, your group can do as they please. The thread was if the lyanden codex can be used with the new eldar, and we answered as to why it can not, with no real argument as to why it can other than "cause its eldar"

but who says it can't?
GW does not officially come out and say what you can and can't use...they pretty much just release things at a mile a minute and let the public decide. TOs decide, LGS owners decide, groups decide, friends decide. That's why there really is no point to this....there is no official stance, blame GW.
GW has been pretty hush about Iyanden (yes, it's pretty early), but that hush neither confirms or denies it's use currently with the exception of the Codex name. My local GW employee stated he was waiting to hear from GW, that was a few weeks ago.
My expectation is that it's obsolete....too bad you have 5 Seers, play multiple CADs or 5 wraith host formations...that's the GW way. For the most part, there is no real reason to take the Iyanden codex, the wraith host gives you Battle Focus anyway. The spirit mark rule changed and became better so I would say people would only want to use it for the different warlord traits and relics.

but there is still nowhere stated that it can't be used. Gotta love GW's lack of communication for that.

and to add to that, I just checked my new eldar codex.....I don;t see anywhere where it states "7th edition". The FAQ online is dated from 2014. There is literally NO rule that tells you what you can and cannot use in regards to new Eldar, old Eldar or Iyanden. People decide.

No, there isn't a written rule anywhere in a codex stating that it invalidates the last one. I've just never seen a TO or group of players that considers an old codex to be valid after a new one has been released.

 Toofast wrote:
No, there isn't a written rule anywhere in a codex stating that it invalidates the last one. I've just never seen a TO or group of players that considers an old codex to be valid after a new one has been released.

and i agree, but this was mainly a response to the "show me proof!" approach. That just isn't GWs way, we're all just forging a narrative.

Instead of devolving into insults, why not quote the actual rulebooks? SOME of Iyanden supplement is legitimate for play, others are not.

For example, The Army of Iyanden section is no longer applicable (the emphasis is not added; it is in the original) as it specifically relates to Codex: Eldar -

The Army of Iyanden: Alternations and additions to the rules given in Codex: Eldar, that will help you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a warhost worthy of Iyanden Craftworld

However, the Echoes of War section does not refer to Codex: Eldar, so it would be legal to play:

Echoes of War: Five new missions that recreate pivotal battles from Iyanden's History.

The Armies of Iyanden portion particularly doesn't make sense, because it refers to things which are no longer true. For instance:

The Wraithknight is a Jump Monstrous Creature...

There is also the rule of common sense. Very significantly, the Iyanden supplement was written when Death Speaker was a special rule, and taking a Spiritseer allowed Wraithguard and Wraithblades to be a Troops choice instead of Elite. This was important from a fluff and army design perspective because Wraithguard are supposed to replace most Aspect Warriors in an Iyanden army (it says that in so many words). Since Death Speaker is gone, this isn't possible anymore, so from a structural perspective, marrying the two books no longer works.

Also, importantly, the supplement was written when Distort did not mean Destroyer, and there are many references to D-weapons (meaning Distort weapons).

Has the Iyanden Supplement become a total waste of money? I would argue: NO. The first half of the supplement is fluff and pictures of Iyanden armies. This hasn't changed at all. The second half has a small section (the units, warlord traits, relics, etc.) that are no longer applicable.

The campaign/scenario section is pretty much usable as is.

So what have you lost? The Armies section. Yeah, that sucks. What have you gained? A Wraith Host and War Host (cough D weapons cough) -- which is arguably, much, much better. Oh yeah, and all the other Eldar stuff.

The Iyanden Craftworld hasn't disappeared. Just the rules for it have changed, and I can't imagine anyone jumping up and down and screaming that their wraith army has been nerfed.

I don't understand why Codex: Eldar Craftworlds can't replace both Codex: Eldar *and* Codex: Iyanden.

I would definitely not use the word nerf with Iyanden currently
However, by using the wraith host formation, I have now lost the ability to use my 2nd spirit seer and 2nd wraithlord. So now I need to add a CAD with the seer, 2 troop selections (probably 2x rangers or 1x rangers and 1x guardians) and then the wraithlord. Neither this seer or the wraithlord will get battle focus, but that won't make much of a difference. I will probably just end up using the wraith host detachment and then figuring out what else to spend points on (harlies, aspect host etc)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't understand why Codex: Eldar Craftworlds can't replace both Codex: Eldar *and* Codex: Iyanden.

Well, duh! Iyanden is a Craftworld, right? Besides, Iyanden is right in the beginning of muh shiny new book. The way I would see it is that the old Iyanden book is just extra background information, and the rules part of it has been combined into the main Eldar Craftworld book, and you can play their theme by using the Wraith Hosts. If you bought the old Iyanden book, you still have all the neat stories and such, which aren't in the new book. It's not like there were really much rules in Iyanden anyways. I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it.

 TheKbob wrote:
The rule of thumb for any wargame is, if you're staying relevant, you play with the recent official release.

To not do so, well, that way madness lies.

Actually, the rule of thumb for any wargame is, once you buy the rules and the models, they're yours, and you use them any way you want - having permission from your opponents, etc.

The madness (new codex every two-three years make the previous one and its 50$ supplements "illegal") is actually GW and their GWombies' way.

 Chardun wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Is this the first case of this in recent memory?

Are there any examples from the past where a book had a supplement then got updated?

Recent? Not that I'm aware of. Previously, the 3rd edition Space Wolf supplement codex, and to a lesser extent the 3rd edition Blood Angels codex, were used with at least the follow on Codex: Space Marines. Those are the two that come to mind.

Also Codex: Catachans (got invalidated by a new Codex: Imperial Guard) and at least two lists of Codex: Armageddon (by a new Codex: Chaos and a new Codex: Eldar).
Those mostly got hit by the fact that units they referenced changed names or disappeared altogether.

Aren't all books still valid, if both players agree?
It's only when tournaments put rules together that it will matter.

If a player at the club I go to wanted to run a 2-year-old Eldar codex army against my new version, I would.
Until Codex:ECW turned up, the Codex:Eldar Harlequins were still valid, despite the Codex:Harlequins being around.
If GW released an FAQ changing the Wave Serpent's shield, there's be little need to re-release the new codex at all. Lots of wants, but few needs.

GW Response :


"Lion den? What the flip is a lion-"

"Psspsspss"

"Oh was that one of those things we whipped off the printing press for an easy buck? They want us to update that? *snort* yeah sure we'll get right to it after the sisters of battle plastics.

Oh they just wanna use the old stuff? Yeah, whatever, it'll probably sell more models. Just tell them if the rules don't make sense, they should...do the whatever. What was it?"

"Forge the narrative (trademark pending) sir."

"Right. That. Forge the thing.

Thank Christ that's over, I've got a real job to do. How're the Q4 numbers looking Johnson?"

 TheKbob wrote:
This is entirely gross if the supplement is no longer valid. So not only is your old book replaced in two to three years, but your $50 extra purchase is useless from the game play perspective.

If that's true, then hopefully some folks get rightfully mad. I hope it's not.

This is exactly why when they release a 120 page book that is 7 pages of rules, print the PDF, message sent.

Sigh. 3 pages of arguing and not one person googled it. Nafka had GW's customer service response over a week ago:

apologies for the delay in replying I have been waiting for a answer from our games designers.

The Supplement Ilyanden was meant to go with the Older Eldar Codex and thus was not really designed for the new codex.

However feel free to adapt the rules if you wish in order to keep using it in games.

Iyanden is *technically* illegal, but GW gave us their standard "Make up your own rules, it's YO WORL' BOSS!"

So to answer the question, of your friends are ok with it go ahead.... But that's been the rule of them since gw started updating things... So the only reason to actually ask this question must have been for actual competetive, tourny play.. and to that the answer is no. Unless a TO for some reason decides to make this the first exception ever in the case of using outdated material, it is no longer valid with the new codex.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Aren't all books still valid, if both players agree?

Yes, they are still valid. If someone wanted to play a 3E rulebook list, with all of its limitations, I would allow it.

It's mostly a tournament issue, but I'm not a fan of cherry picking expansions to Codices. .

While I would allow 6E Codex: Iyanden with 6E Codex: Eldar, I would not allow 6E Codex: Iyanden with 7E Codex: Eldar Craftworlds. If you allow that sort of mixing, then you sort of have to allow 3E Codex: Craftworlds with 7E Codex: Eldar Craftworlds, and 3E Codex Blood Angels with 6E Codex: Space Marines.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Sigh. 3 pages of arguing and not one person googled it. Nafka had GW's customer service response over a week ago:

apologies for the delay in replying I have been waiting for a answer from our games designers.

The Supplement Ilyanden was meant to go with the Older Eldar Codex and thus was not really designed for the new codex.

However feel free to adapt the rules if you wish in order to keep using it in games.

Iyanden is *technically* illegal, but GW gave us their standard "Make up your own rules, it's YO WORL' BOSS!"

http://natfka.blogspot.jp/2015/04/iyanden-games-workshop-responds.html



Yeah, that response is pretty much the exact exchange the scotsman theorized about!

the_scotsman wrote:
GW Response :


"Lion den? What the flip is a lion-"

"Psspsspss"

"Oh was that one of those things we whipped off the printing press for an easy buck? They want us to update that? *snort* yeah sure we'll get right to it after the sisters of battle plastics.

Oh they just wanna use the old stuff? Yeah, whatever, it'll probably sell more models. Just tell them if the rules don't make sense, they should...do the whatever. What was it?"

"Forge the narrative (trademark pending) sir."

"Right. That. Forge the thing.

Thank Christ that's over, I've got a real job to do. How're the Q4 numbers looking Johnson?"

Here is my general issue with the whole codex set up. For over a decade I have played Iyanden, when codex craftworlds was originally release I had 15 wraithguard and 3 wraithlords.

The next book came out I went from 6 to 1 troop choices over night. You had to take 10 wraightguard with a spiritseer to make them troops (costing 399 points) but I did it because I love the theme.

Fast forward to this next book and all of a sudden we not only got love but lots of it. The codex eldar book was more they amazing and we got an Iyanden supplement to boot. I drastically increased my selection of Guard and Blades, now people may have called me cheesy but anyone who knew me knows I did it for fluff. I never played with anything but wraith models. So now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.

New book comes out I go from 6 troop choices to 0 overnight. So here is my question how do I make a bound list out of this? The big difference with previous supplements becoming obsolete is you always had a way to play the army after.

Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists. My issue with the book is fairly legit, how would deathwing feel if the next dark angel book said no more deathwing.... what am I to do with all these terminators?

I know I will be called out for being a whiny eldar player complaining about change but I think this is a legit reason to complain.

Unless I am missing something and someone can tell me how I can play a bound list with what I said I have in my eldar army I will gladly listen.... till then I want to know gamesworkshops logic for destroying an army that I am sure a lot of people used.

Iyanden Keith wrote:Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists.

Taking Wraith Host formations doesn't mean your army becomes unbound. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Wraith constructs have never been better and you can take a ton of them.

 Therion wrote:

Iyanden Keith wrote:Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists.

Taking Wraith Host formations doesn't mean your army becomes unbound. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Wraith constructs have never been better and you can take a ton of them.

My complaint is the minimum cost of the formation is 935 points..... that is bare minimum units with no upgrades. Plus they do not count as scoring units. My issue is the army is dead, you can take something that is nothing but wraiths but it has no variety, you cant customize it. I do not find that to be a viable option to replace what used to be a viable army. Also I knew that the formation technically isn't unbound, but that also isn't an acceptable replacement for an army.

It's great that the units got better (which honestly they didn't need) but what good does that do if the ability to play the army is dead?

They might be better, but no variety.

Exactly 3 Wraithguard
Exactly 1 spirit seer
Exactly 1 WL
Exactly 1 WK

No variation. This leads to a few problems:
-No real options for how many of each. You can't try Wraituguard heavy one week, and Wraithlord heavy the next.
-You can never have more than one Spirit Seer for every *3* Wraithguard units.
-Wraithguard units always come in multiples of 3. Want exactly 5? Too bad.
-For every Wraithlord you want, you *must* take a Wraithknight!
-Hitting an exact points level taking only Wraiths will require very constrained list building. Multiples of the one formation with no added/removed units, plus Hemlocks and more Wraithknights

If you can justify two troops fluffwise, options do open up (not much - can't fit in a lot of Spirit Seers in a CAD).

Wraiths are certainly more powerful than the last edition. But its certainly harder to build a custom fluffy or fun Wraith list than it was.

(Another note - the Iyanden supplement, even if allowed, does not allow you to take Wraithguard as troops. That was the core Dex itself.)

The new Craftworlds codex formations are an abject failure at allowing the construction of your own army. Like the Harlequins before them, the formations are about requiring models they want to sell, not opening the game up to players forging their own narrative.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

Fast forward to this next book and all of a sudden we not only got love but lots of it. The codex eldar book was more they amazing and we got an Iyanden supplement to boot. I drastically increased my selection of Guard and Blades, now people may have called me cheesy but anyone who knew me knows I did it for fluff. I never played with anything but wraith models. So now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.

I'm almost in same boat but not as heavily invested as you.

You do have options though...
1. start with a wraith host that requires 1 seer, 3 units of wraithguard/blades, 1 wraithlord and 1 knight (you'll have to add a lord)
2. Add a CAD with 2 spirit seers as HQ options (or just 1...see later), add 2 small units of rangers (they are outcasts and could easily be seen helping out the wraith constructs), then add wraithguard as elites and the hemlock. Add 2nd knight as LOW if points allow.
3. Add seer council formation. Make your 2 best looking seers "farseers" and the rest warlocks (Iyanden version)

doubt your points could allow all of the above, but for crazy large battles it could work and remain fluffy.

the downside is to use all your guard, you'll need to add 2 units of regular Troops. Most people will tell you to take scatter bikes, but I understand your theme and I think rangers fit better. I have 2 units of 5 for this very reason.

Keith,
Of course the Spirit Host is dead. That happened long before they were ever fielded!

Perhaps now the rules match the fluff in that way, at least.

 Maloghurst wrote:
Probably missed a thread on this. But I'm wondering what the consensus is on if you can use the new book with the Iyanden army list or if it still requires the old book?

That's between you and your opponent. This is the first time the parent book with a supplement has been updated, I believe. Bad on GW for not being clear.

I'd allow it. Eldar are pretty strong, whether you use the Iyanden Supplement or not.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I asked for proof and you have provided none.

He was pointing out the obvious fallacy here.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I'll give a reason. Does codex lyaden say to be used with codex eldar and codex: eldar craftworlds or just eldar?

Iyanden is still valid, as it has not been replaced and is thus current, however only with the 6E Codex: Eldar which is invalidated and replaced with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds.

bullyboy wrote:

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

Fast forward to this next book and all of a sudden we not only got love but lots of it. The codex eldar book was more they amazing and we got an Iyanden supplement to boot. I drastically increased my selection of Guard and Blades, now people may have called me cheesy but anyone who knew me knows I did it for fluff. I never played with anything but wraith models. So now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.

I'm almost in same boat but not as heavily invested as you.

You do have options though...
1. start with a wraith host that requires 1 seer, 3 units of wraithguard/blades, 1 wraithlord and 1 knight (you'll have to add a lord)
2. Add a CAD with 2 spirit seers as HQ options (or just 1...see later), add 2 small units of rangers (they are outcasts and could easily be seen helping out the wraith constructs), then add wraithguard as elites and the hemlock. Add 2nd knight as LOW if points allow.
3. Add seer council formation. Make your 2 best looking seers "farseers" and the rest warlocks (Iyanden version)

doubt your points could allow all of the above, but for crazy large battles it could work and remain fluffy.

the downside is to use all your guard, you'll need to add 2 units of regular Troops. Most people will tell you to take scatter bikes, but I understand your theme and I think rangers fit better. I have 2 units of 5 for this very reason.

Iyanden armies traditionally used to include few squads of Guardians, and even a unit of Aspect Warriors. They'd just use more constructs than other craftworlds as their elite troops and heavy support. It doesn't mean the entire army has to be nothing but wraith constructs to be fluffy. Frankly I'm not seeing the problem at all.

I would say it is invalid, you can't use Iyanden with the new dex.

Iyanden says it can be used with Codex: Eldar, the current codex is not called Codex: Eldar. If it was valid with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds it would also have to be valid for Codex: Eldar Harlequins.

I am surprised no-one has pointed out that that is the name on the front of the harlequin dex yet.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:
For over a decade I have played Iyanden, when codex craftworlds was originally release

now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.
- how do I make a bound list out of this?


how would deathwing feel if the next dark angel book said no more deathwing.... what am I to do with all these terminators?

Nice that you've been playing Iyanden for a long time and committed to a themed army

Pick one:
A. Buy a 3x3 Jetbikes and a Vyper. Or 3x10 Guardians, a Vyper and a War Walker. Either of those makes a bound Eldar War Host Core, using (Jetbike) Spiritseers as a Farseer and Warlock, allowing you to play the rest as a Spirit Host (after you buy a Wraithlord).
B. Buy 2x10 Guardians and play as a bound CAD/FOC, allowing you to field 3x 10 Wraiths, a Hemlock and + 1 Knight + Warlock Conclave.
C. Buy 2x5 Rangers instead of Guardians.
You overcommitted to a single aspect of Iyanden, and this result is not surprising.

Dark Angels will still have Deathwing, but it may not be 100% Terminators going forward. They won't disappear, but they very well could require Tactical marines as Troops / Core.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Iyanden Keith wrote:Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists.

Taking Wraith Host formations doesn't mean your army becomes unbound. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Wraith constructs have never been better and you can take a ton of them.

My complaint is the minimum cost of the formation is 935 points..... that is bare minimum units with no upgrades. Plus they do not count as scoring units. My issue is the army is dead, you can take something that is nothing but wraiths but it has no variety, you cant customize it. I do not find that to be a viable option to replace what used to be a viable army. Also I knew that the formation technically isn't unbound, but that also isn't an acceptable replacement for an army.

It's great that the units got better (which honestly they didn't need) but what good does that do if the ability to play the army is dead?

There's a whole lot of misconceptions here. They are still scoring units, everything is a scoring unit in 7th (except zooming flyers). They just don't have objective secured. There's a big difference between not scoring and doesn't have obsec. Also, nothing in the army has obsec if you're taking a warhost, which is the "fluffy" way to play the army anyway. Organize them into wraith hosts. It would still be a fluffy iyanden list if you took a wraith host and one of the core formations. Sticking all the WG in serpents and giving them scythes still leaves enough points for a windrider host. I don't see how that isn't fluffy. Iyanden has jetbikes, aspect warriors, guardians, farseers, war walkers, etc. They have a smaller amount than other craftworlds but that's it. Read Valedor if you don't believe me. Why does everyone try to pretend that the iyanden craftworld is just a bunch of dead eldar in wraith suits? Please point me to a single piece of fluff that says that because I've read all the eldar novels and all the codex fluff going back to 3rd and everything states that iyanden has plenty of stuff other than just WG, WL, WK, etc.

Bharring wrote:
They might be better, but no variety.

Exactly 3 Wraithguard
Exactly 1 spirit seer
Exactly 1 WL
Exactly 1 WK

No variation. This leads to a few problems:
-No real options for how many of each. You can't try Wraituguard heavy one week, and Wraithlord heavy the next.
-You can never have more than one Spirit Seer for every *3* Wraithguard units.
-Wraithguard units always come in multiples of 3. Want exactly 5? Too bad.
-For every Wraithlord you want, you *must* take a Wraithknight!
-Hitting an exact points level taking only Wraiths will require very constrained list building. Multiples of the one formation with no added/removed units, plus Hemlocks and more Wraithknights

If you can justify two troops fluffwise, options do open up (not much - can't fit in a lot of Spirit Seers in a CAD).

Wraiths are certainly more powerful than the last edition. But its certainly harder to build a custom fluffy or fun Wraith list than it was.

(Another note - the Iyanden supplement, even if allowed, does not allow you to take Wraithguard as troops. That was the core Dex itself.)

The new Craftworlds codex formations are an abject failure at allowing the construction of your own army. Like the Harlequins before them, the formations are about requiring models they want to sell, not opening the game up to players forging their own narrative.

It is untrue to say that you have no choice in the building of your army. You can play a Wraith Host as a formation (which is what, about a thousand points?) -- your primary if you choose -- and add a CAD or Allied Detachment. Or play a War Host and add an Allied Detachment.

No, you can't have exactly the same army as you had before 7e Eldar. But you know what, you can't play the same Blood Angels army that you had before 7e BA either, or the same Grey Knights army, or the same...

Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Huh? Where the hell did you come up with that arbitrary restriction? Should armies full of robots that stand back up after you kill them be allowed? Should armies full of flying bugs that want to devour your planet be allowed? This is 40k, what does it matter if your army doesn't have "living" models?

I think many players would be fine to ban pure-wraith Iyanden if it resulted in a ban on ALL Necron armies.

TooFast,
Whether said armies should be legit is certainly an arbatraty restriction.

The point of that post was to say so!

Basically, I could see it going either way, but something is wrong in either case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(The point about 'living' was in reference to whether they were Wraith constructs or not. Some people love their almost-all-wraith armies)

roflmajog wrote:
Iyanden says it can be used with Codex: Eldar, the current codex is not called Codex: Eldar. If it was valid with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds it would also have to be valid for Codex: Eldar Harlequins.

I am surprised no-one has pointed out that that is the name on the front of the harlequin dex yet.

I mentioned "Codex: Eldar" becoming a family on Dakka somewhere, suggesting we could see other Eldar books, niche or otherwise.

Eldar could easily support a broader range of things:
- Codex: Eldar - Harlequins
- Codex: Eldar - Craftworlds
- Codex: Eldar - Dark Kin (Dark Eldar, Corsairs)
and, of course:
- Codex: Eldar - Exodites (Rangers, Pathfinders, Dragon Knights)

We could see Codex: Space Marines - Dark Angels / Blood Angels / Space Wolves and Codex: Chaos - Daemons / Marines similarly grouped as a family.

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

Such an army would have 2 WKs. Legal, yes. Decent, not by my meta's understanding, that's for sure.

You can do multiples of that formation, but its still just as rigid.

(I don't run Spirit Hosts myself - a 5 Wraithguard + Cannon and/or Wraithlord(s) are fun, but that many Wraiths isn't my style.)

 Talys wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

I agree with this but there in lies my issue, unbound lists are not allowed in the area I play for tournaments. This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here. I do agree having a formation is not the same as an army. I know I am one specialized case but imagine if they said you can play space marines but only with 3 tactical squads, a chapter master, a land raider and a dreadnought. That is your "army" that is how I feel right about now...... I know that these Formations, detachments and unbound lists are the "future" of 40K but that is not the same as an army.

That is my point currently is not oh no they changed, its they have removed the possibility of a legal bound army. Formations are cool but they are not the same as an army.

Maybe I am just being a whiny little eldar brat who is upset over change, but maybe I also have a valid point.

You want proof you can use it? Here.
When 7th edition came out, they stated that anywhere in the older publications it referred to units in from (blank) codex to instead use the (blank) faction instead. So via FAQ, the rules in the Iyanden supplement are to be used with models from the "eldar" faction now. If you look in the codex eldar: craftworlds book, you will notice the faction for every unit in the book is from the eldar faction.

Game, set, match.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

I agree with this but there in lies my issue, unbound lists are not allowed in the area I play for tournaments. This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here. I do agree having a formation is not the same as an army. I know I am one specialized case but imagine if they said you can play space marines but only with 3 tactical squads, a chapter master, a land raider and a dreadnought. That is your "army" that is how I feel right about now...... I know that these Formations, detachments and unbound lists are the "future" of 40K but that is not the same as an army.

That is my point currently is not oh no they changed, its they have removed the possibility of a legal bound army. Formations are cool but they are not the same as an army.

Maybe I am just being a whiny little eldar brat who is upset over change, but maybe I also have a valid point.

What? I think you're missing something here. How have they removed the possibility of a legal bound army? What exactly is preventing you from running the army you want to play?

An army that consists of only formations is still bound. So you can use the wraithhost formation, even more than one, and still be bound while only using wraith units.

 Jambles wrote:

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

I agree with this but there in lies my issue, unbound lists are not allowed in the area I play for tournaments. This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here. I do agree having a formation is not the same as an army. I know I am one specialized case but imagine if they said you can play space marines but only with 3 tactical squads, a chapter master, a land raider and a dreadnought. That is your "army" that is how I feel right about now...... I know that these Formations, detachments and unbound lists are the "future" of 40K but that is not the same as an army.

That is my point currently is not oh no they changed, its they have removed the possibility of a legal bound army. Formations are cool but they are not the same as an army.

Maybe I am just being a whiny little eldar brat who is upset over change, but maybe I also have a valid point.

What? I think you're missing something here. How have they removed the possibility of a legal bound army? What exactly is preventing you from running the army you want to play?

An army that consists of only formations is still bound. So you can use the wraithhost formation, even more than one, and still be bound while only using wraith units.

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army? How would you feel if you could only take certain pre-defined units in order to play the list and that's where I have my issue. I can play a pure wraith list but only using that formation, with those specific units. So only if I feel like taking 3 units of wraiths, 1 knight, 1 lord and 1 spirit seer. They striped our ability to take hmmmm 4 units instead of 3 or 6. What if I want to have 2 spirit seers in there? I feel like I have not missed the point. My point still stands and is legit which is GW has striped the ability for you to build and create an all wraith list. If I wanted to play a pre-determined list I would have never moved past a starter set..... okay maybe that's a bit of a overstatement but similar principle.

But I know this dance I am going to complain and trust me I realize nothing can be done. GW has made the call and made a force designed using last editions book unusable in a bound list. (what am I ever going to do with 10 spirit seer models). Either way I know its a lost cause I just wanted to see if anyone else was as outraged at it as I was.

A good comparison might be Tac Marines being moved to Elites.

With one Formation that consists of 3 Tactical Squads, one unit of Tactical Terminators, one unit of Assault Marines, and one unit of Devestator Centurions.

You could still do an all-battlebrother list, but it would be incredibly limiting.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
An army that consists of only formations is still bound. So you can use the wraithhost formation, even more than one, and still be bound while only using wraith units.

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army?

Dude, you're the one who painted himself into a corner, based on an extremely narrow version of an army list. You want the benefits of bound, with the flexibility of unbound - not gonna happen.

As an Eldar player who has been playing longer than you, and likely has more Eldar stuff than you, I kinda question whether your no-Guardian, no-Ranger, no-Aspect army should be considered an army by "the spirit of the game". It's super-narrowly constructed, so I don't think you should be complaining that the ride is over.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

I agree with this but there in lies my issue, unbound lists are not allowed in the area I play for tournaments. This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here. I do agree having a formation is not the same as an army. I know I am one specialized case but imagine if they said you can play space marines but only with 3 tactical squads, a chapter master, a land raider and a dreadnought. That is your "army" that is how I feel right about now...... I know that these Formations, detachments and unbound lists are the "future" of 40K but that is not the same as an army.

That is my point currently is not oh no they changed, its they have removed the possibility of a legal bound army. Formations are cool but they are not the same as an army.

Maybe I am just being a whiny little eldar brat who is upset over change, but maybe I also have a valid point.

What? I think you're missing something here. How have they removed the possibility of a legal bound army? What exactly is preventing you from running the army you want to play?

An army that consists of only formations is still bound. So you can use the wraithhost formation, even more than one, and still be bound while only using wraith units.

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army? How would you feel if you could only take certain pre-defined units in order to play the list and that's where I have my issue. I can play a pure wraith list but only using that formation, with those specific units. So only if I feel like taking 3 units of wraiths, 1 knight, 1 lord and 1 spirit seer. They striped our ability to take hmmmm 4 units instead of 3 or 6. What if I want to have 2 spirit seers in there? I feel like I have not missed the point. My point still stands and is legit which is GW has striped the ability for you to build and create an all wraith list. If I wanted to play a pre-determined list I would have never moved past a starter set..... okay maybe that's a bit of a overstatement but similar principle.

But I know this dance I am going to complain and trust me I realize nothing can be done. GW has made the call and made a force designed using last editions book unusable in a bound list. (what am I ever going to do with 10 spirit seer models). Either way I know its a lost cause I just wanted to see if anyone else was as outraged at it as I was.

First off, Games Workshop gave you the exact tool you need to achieve whatever it is you want to do with your army; UNBOUND is a thing. If your gaming group doesn't allow that, it is NOT Games Workshop's fault you can't play the army you want. Your own house rules are what is restricting you here.

Second, restrictions have ALWAYS existed in 40k. If you wanted to play with more than three heavy support choices before 7th (Armoured Company, anyone?), you had to put together a custom scenario or force org to accomodate your army yourself, or maybe GW would make a special codex (leman russ troops choices, woo!). The only difference now is that you can CHOOSE to take certain extra restrictions to receive a tangible benefit.

Third, things change, and you can either accept that they have changed or, as is COMPLETELY in your control, choose to play without the changes. I used to only be able to take one unit of Ork boys with a heavy armour upgrade, now I can take as many as I want. I used to be able to take Ghazzie as an HQ choice, and I can't do that anymore. Personally, I prefer to play with the most up-to-date rules, but I know a great many players here on dakka who prefer to use older codexes, even older editions of the rules, and that is 100% acceptable within their gaming groups.

So you want to have an all wraith army, but insist on not being able to play unbound to meet that need, and insist that the formation provided in the new book - designed EXCLUSIVELY with wraith armies in mind - does not meet your needs (you know you can have more than one, right? and that it includes every wraith unit in the book, right? so it necessarily has all of the units you would take anyway, RIGHT?), and insist that you are being victimized by GW somehow.

To which I have to ask; if you genuinely believe all of this to be true, why are you playing 40k?

I'm still curious as to why the only thing you consider "an army" is a CAD. Also, as I stated in an earlier post, a strictly wraith army isn't even that fluffy. Nearly every codex that has come out since 7th has removed the ability to take x as troops. Are you surprised that wraithguard lost the ability to become troops? I really don't see any issue with the way the formations are, especially considering you can give a guaranteed 6" battle focus to your WG by taking the formation. This codex has plenty of things worth complaining about, this isn't one of them.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army? How would you feel if you could only take certain pre-defined units in order to play the list and that's where I have my issue. I can play a pure wraith list but only using that formation, with those specific units. So only if I feel like taking 3 units of wraiths, 1 knight, 1 lord and 1 spirit seer. They striped our ability to take hmmmm 4 units instead of 3 or 6. What if I want to have 2 spirit seers in there? I feel like I have not missed the point. My point still stands and is legit which is GW has striped the ability for you to build and create an all wraith list. If I wanted to play a pre-determined list I would have never moved past a starter set..... okay maybe that's a bit of a overstatement but similar principle.

But I know this dance I am going to complain and trust me I realize nothing can be done. GW has made the call and made a force designed using last editions book unusable in a bound list. (what am I ever going to do with 10 spirit seer models). Either way I know its a lost cause I just wanted to see if anyone else was as outraged at it as I was.

Taking only formations or formations + allied or CAD + formations are all perfectly legal ways of playing a battle-forged army. I dunno how to break it to you, but it is in the spirit (and to the letter) of the rules. If you want a little more flexibility, add an allied detachment or CAD. I mean, that 1 troop -- 3 jetbikes -- or 2 troops if you want a CAD is not going to kill you, right?

Your options for playing Iyanden are:

1. Play Wraith Host
2. Play Wraith Host with Allied Detachment
3. Play CAD with Wraith Host
4. Play Warhost with a Wraith Host
5. Play an Unbound (but themed) Wriath-only Iyanden army

I don't see how any of these are bad options, man. It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

 Talys wrote:
It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

Nobody is trying to hear that (despite guardians and every aspect being mentioned in literally every piece of iyanden fluff I've ever read). Can't you see the sky falling?!

 Talys wrote:

Your options for playing Iyanden are:

1. Play Wraith Host
2. Play Wraith Host with Allied Detachment
3. Play CAD with Wraith Host
4. Play Warhost with a Wraith Host
5. Play an Unbound (but themed) Wriath-only Iyanden army

I don't see how any of these are bad options, man. It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

<--- Just picked up the Eldar Codex and flipping through it now. Serious question. Is there a:

6. Play with a CAD per the BRB?

 kronk wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Your options for playing Iyanden are:

1. Play Wraith Host
2. Play Wraith Host with Allied Detachment
3. Play CAD with Wraith Host
4. Play Warhost with a Wraith Host
5. Play an Unbound (but themed) Wriath-only Iyanden army

I don't see how any of these are bad options, man. It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

<--- Just picked up the Eldar Codex and flipping through it now. Serious question. Is there a:

6. Play with a CAD per the BRB?

Yes, just not if you insist on playing an all wraith army despite the fact that it isn't that strong or all that fluffy. WG aren't troops so you have to take something to fill your 2 troop slots unless you want to play the wraith host.

I don't really care about WG, per say. Nor am I commenting on Iyanden Keith's options. I was just wondering if you can still run them as a normal CAD per the BRB.

Thanks!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You want proof you can use it? Here.
When 7th edition came out, they stated that anywhere in the older publications it referred to units in from (blank) codex to instead use the (blank) faction instead. So via FAQ, the rules in the Iyanden supplement are to be used with models from the "eldar" faction now. If you look in the codex eldar: craftworlds book, you will notice the faction for every unit in the book is from the eldar faction.

Game, set, match.

Lol.. we've already stated why it doesn't work.. shown proof from gw that it doesn't work except in friendly games.. game set match? Lost hard sadly.

 kronk wrote:
I don't really care about WG, per say. Nor am I commenting on Iyanden Keith's options. I was just wondering if you can still run them as a normal CAD per the BRB.

Thanks!

yes, you are getting stuck on the Guardian Warhost thinking it's the only way to a field an army outside of detachments. a CAD is still allowed as normal.

 kronk wrote:
Just picked up the Eldar Codex and flipping through it now. Serious question. Is there a:

6. Play with a CAD per the BRB?

Yes. p. 94 calls out BRB CAD as an option.

Thanks.

Hey guys, I know this is a very old thread, but I asked about this very thing and got a response. I didn't see it posted elsewhere, and thought I would post the link to the actual question I asked and the answer. According to the studio rules team if you use the Iyanden supplement wraithguard/blades are troops choices for the purposes of the CAD.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1814724488848182&id=1575682476085719

If this information is listed elsewhere, I guess its not needed.

since all codexes will be null and void for the new edition next month, was this necessary?

Well, I did ask the question before they announced 8E. So if you are going to a 7E tournament and want to run a wraith army...yes it is necessary.