https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/30/codex-drukhari-preview-stratagemsgw-homepage-post-3/

Pretty cool we have a Vect strategem but no rules for Vect. Anyways - this stratagem is immensely powerful and quite possibly will shut down entire armies ability to function.

For example - if playing against 2 fire prisms you basically auto win - Fire Prisms are fething terrible without linked fire. Or Tau marker light stratagem.

I'm glad they made a stratagem like this but it is TOO GOOD. 2-5 dice roll is a joke - it should be a 4+ to cancel and on a 6+ not refund CP and it should cost 2 command points. This just seems too powerful.

Read the whole thing. It isn't finished, but there is a whole list of restrictions including "cannot be used on pre-game stratagems", iirc. Also doesn't it cost 3CP?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Read the whole thing. It isn't finished, but there is a whole list of restrictions including "cannot be used on pre-game stratagems", iirc. Also doesn't it cost 3CP?

True. still though - outside of pregame stuff plenty of armies are reliant on a stratagem to function. Tau for example. It's just too busted to knock it off on a 2+. Also why are pregame stratagems immune to denial? Pregame stratagems already get the stupidity of being allowed to be used more than once.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Read the whole thing. It isn't finished, but there is a whole list of restrictions including "cannot be used on pre-game stratagems", iirc. Also doesn't it cost 3CP?

True. still though - outside of pregame stuff plenty of armies are reliant on a stratagem to function. Tau for example. It's just too busted to knock it off on a 2+. Also why are pregame stratagems immune to denial? Pregame stratagems already get the stupidity of being allowed to be used more than once.

Perhaps this is an attempt by GW to make people carefully consider their use of stratagems instead of just throwing them around willy-nilly? Honestly I could see more of this popping up - perhaps an Agents of the Inquisition stratagem in a future book for Imperium.

As for why not pregame stratagems: because it would be too broken. Stratagems used during the game are important but losing one isn't crippling. Completely removing the opponent's ability to use ANY pregame stratagems is army breaking. Can you imagine if one use of Agents of Vect completely removed the Raven Guard's ability to infiltrate or the Daemons deep strike stratagem?

For 3 CP? I don't see an issue.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also why are pregame stratagems immune to denial? Pregame stratagems already get the stupidity of being allowed to be used more than once.

Because you'd totally bust Daemons from functioning as an army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Read the whole thing. It isn't finished, but there is a whole list of restrictions including "cannot be used on pre-game stratagems", iirc. Also doesn't it cost 3CP?

True. still though - outside of pregame stuff plenty of armies are reliant on a stratagem to function. Tau for example. It's just too busted to knock it off on a 2+. Also why are pregame stratagems immune to denial? Pregame stratagems already get the stupidity of being allowed to be used more than once.

Perhaps this is an attempt by GW to make people carefully consider their use of stratagems instead of just throwing them around willy-nilly? Honestly I could see more of this popping up - perhaps an Agents of the Inquisition stratagem in a future book for Imperium.

As for why not pregame stratagems: because it would be too broken. Stratagems used during the game are important but losing one isn't crippling. Completely removing the opponent's ability to use ANY pregame stratagems is army breaking. Can you imagine if one use of Agents of Vect completely removed the Raven Guard's ability to infiltrate or the Daemons deep strike stratagem?

You would think that a strategem that is supposed to represent tactics would work against these kinds of stratagems specifically. Makes less sense that you'd be able to stop coordinated fire from tau for example rather than assume (know) that raven gaurd will be trying to sneak up on them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also why are pregame stratagems immune to denial? Pregame stratagems already get the stupidity of being allowed to be used more than once.

Because you'd totally bust Daemons from functioning as an army.

Okay so it's okay to deny some armies core abilities but not others?

Pregame stratagems being denied can actually break armies.

Ingame stratagems being denied merely makes things harder.

And that d3 mortal wounds to all psychers w/in 12" strat for 2cp...

As if grey knights weren't bad enough (my templars would kill for this strat)

3 cp is a significant investment to keep your opponent from using a strat. If it didn't go off on a 2+ it wouldn't be powerful enough and at 2 cp w/ a 4+ I don' think it would cost enough to keep it from being used more than 1-2 times per battle.

Most armies show up with 8-12 CP. Usually want to spend 4-5 cps on your own army so with 8 cps the 3 cp strat is only getting used twice while the 2cp one could be used 4 times...

Hell a calidus assassin adds +1 cp to a strat spent in the first round on a 4+ and that's the whole reason I run one in my army. Those first turn strats are super important to a lot of armies. This strat is way more powerful than that.

DE are going to be good (RIP my vanilla marines)

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/30/codex-drukhari-preview-stratagemsgw-homepage-post-3/

Pretty cool we have a Vect strategem but no rules for Vect. Anyways - this stratagem is immensely powerful and quite possibly will shut down entire armies ability to function.

For example - if playing against 2 fire prisms you basically auto win - Fire Prisms are fething terrible without linked fire. Or Tau marker light stratagem.

I'm glad they made a stratagem like this but it is TOO GOOD. 2-5 dice roll is a joke - it should be a 4+ to cancel and on a 6+ not refund CP and it should cost 2 command points. This just seems too powerful.

At 3 CP and only useable once per battle round - you're getting maybe 2 uses out of it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Pregame stratagems being denied can actually break armies.

Ingame stratagems being denied merely makes things harder.

I get your point but it easily could have been worded better to only deny the first use of a pregame stratagem. Not make them entirely immune - like I said - they are already able to be used more than once which is kind of busted already.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/30/codex-drukhari-preview-stratagemsgw-homepage-post-3/

Pretty cool we have a Vect strategem but no rules for Vect. Anyways - this stratagem is immensely powerful and quite possibly will shut down entire armies ability to function.

For example - if playing against 2 fire prisms you basically auto win - Fire Prisms are fething terrible without linked fire. Or Tau marker light stratagem.

I'm glad they made a stratagem like this but it is TOO GOOD. 2-5 dice roll is a joke - it should be a 4+ to cancel and on a 6+ not refund CP and it should cost 2 command points. This just seems too powerful.

At 3 CP and only useable once per battle round - you're getting maybe 2 uses out of it.

We might be seeing DE armies running around with 12-15 command points for all we know.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
And that d3 mortal wounds to all psychers w/in 12" strat for 2cp...

As if grey knights weren't bad enough (my templars would kill for this strat)

3 cp is a significant investment to keep your opponent from using a strat. If it didn't go off on a 2+ it wouldn't be powerful enough and at 2 cp w/ a 4+ I don' think it would cost enough to keep it from being used more than 1-2 times per battle.

Most armies show up with 8-12 CP. Usually want to spend 4-5 cps on your own army so with 8 cps the 3 cp strat is only getting used twice while the 2cp one could be used 4 times...

Hell a calidus assassin adds +1 cp to a strat spent in the first round on a 4+ and that's the whole reason I run one in my army. Those first turn strats are super important to a lot of armies. This strat is way more powerful than that.

DE are going to be good (RIP my vanilla marines)

No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

3CP is extremely prohibitive - and the fact you can use it once per round, it'll be fine.

This game needed more ability to interact with your opponents turn, be it movement/shooting/fighting/ability usage.

As far as tournaments go, we'll see if they limit Dark Eldar to 3 detachments, limiting the amount of CP they'll get from Patrol spamming by a lot. Plus, games don't really last beyond turn 3-4 anyways, so you'll only get a handful of uses out of this stratagem at best.

Lastly, we'll see how the FAQ shakes out for this, but - based on the wording, enemies will likely end up GAINING command points from getting countered - which is a big deal. 3 base (refunded), plus 5+ roll per point spent//when a stratagem is used.

It's honestly not going to be as punishing as you think. Is it good? Absolutely - and this kind of interaction is something the game needs more of; abilities to counter others.

Hmm... What armies does this stratagem completely shut down, exactly? The first to come to mind for me is Blood Angels - I doubt that army is viable at all without its 3d6 charge stratagem.

 Xenomancers wrote:

No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

This doesn't seem right at all. The expected effect of Agents of Vect is that the stratagem doesn't happen, the DE player is down 3 CP, and their opponent's situation is unchanged. I feel like "your opponent loses 3 CP" is generally way better for you than "pay 3 CP to do some mortal wounds". Like, because Orbital Bombardment isn't great it's not a great target for denial.

How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

They get bonus CP for lots of Patrols. Not sure exactly how many, off the top of my head.

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

 JNAProductions wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

They get bonus CP for lots of Patrols. Not sure exactly how many, off the top of my head.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

I generally play marines so I don't really have any stratagems that I'm worried about being countered lol

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

The suggested max for tournaments in matched play is 3.

 Ghaz wrote:

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

If we're going to discuss how balanced something is then we're going to do it within the context of matched play. It doesn't make sense for us to talk about all the options outside of that all the time, because there are way too many.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

The suggested max for tournaments in matched play is 3.

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

Source?

It seems from what GW has hinted at that it was intended for them to have tons of small detachments running around as their own little fighting forces (no overall unifying command element). The 3 detachment "rule" is 1) not a rule, but a guideline, and 2) enforced in non-GW tournaments, which are going to have to review that specifically because of the new Drukhari mechanic.

Regardless, I like the flavor it adds. A stratagem that screws with stratagems. Something we haven't seen, yet.

3 CP is really pricey, especially since there's that 5 out of 6 chance that the CP by the opponent isn't spent and then the 1 in 6 chance that those 3 CP do nothing (unless you spend ANOTHER CP to reroll that).

I really like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

The suggested max for tournaments in matched play is 3.

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

Even if it invalidates the basic function of their codex/army? That's classy.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

The suggested max for tournaments in matched play is 3.

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

I don't know how tournaments are going to respond to this. It seems pretty reasonable to me to adopt a rule like "3 DE Patrols only take a single detachment slot", since clearly the codex is pushing you to bring lots of small detachments. But, yeah, if you hold them to a 3 detachment limit they're going to struggle to get a lot of CP.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

The suggested max for tournaments in matched play is 3.

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

I don't know how tournaments are going to respond to this. It seems pretty reasonable to me to adopt a rule like "3 DE Patrols only take a single detachment slot", since clearly the codex is pushing you to bring lots of small detachments. But, yeah, if you hold them to a 3 detachment limit they're going to struggle to get a lot of CP.

.... are they? how hard would it be for them to just run a brigade?

what do they gain or lose for doing so. if you are doing a butt load of patrolls then you are already taking a bunch of troops.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

If we're going to discuss how balanced something is then we're going to do it within the context of matched play. It doesn't make sense for us to talk about all the options outside of that all the time, because there are way too many.

And again, that is not a Matched play rule. It is a suggestion for an organized event. So in the context of the Matched play rules, a player can indeed bring six detachments.

 Desubot wrote:

.... are they? how hard would it be for them to just run a brigade?

I'm not sure but this might literally be impossible while still getting traits, without resorting to FW for a Heavy Support. The units are split into 3 different kinds of subfaction -- <Cabal>, <Cult>, and <Coven> -- and lots of units are only one or the other. So you have exactly 1 kind of HQ that you can bring in a <Cabal> detachment, 1 kind of Troop, etc.

Well the stratagem still has a 1/6 chance of failing so don't worry so much. And if your whole army is based around the use of a single stratagem there's a problem far deeper than Agents of Vect. I think it's an awesome and fluffy stratagem that for once reflects the brillant mind of an experienced strategist, all armies should have a codex as elaborate as the Drukhari one I believe. It seems they really enjoyed designing it and I think it's a shame early codices (namely AdMech and SM, or GK) didn't have a team as passionate to work on it.

Playing 6 Patrols means playing 6 taxes, as of now the consensus is that Drukhari HQs are just a burden, they have no mobility and as much as they are pictured as "great fighters" in the reviews they can get stomped by a Tech-Priest Dominus in a single round. I'm really hoping they give some mobility options in the codex, but as they didn't previewed it today there's not much chances that it happens now.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Even if it invalidates the basic function of their codex/army? That's classy.

7 CP is a perfectly reasonable amount. That's how much I usually play with with my CSM or Necrons. Why do you feel entitled to more?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

This doesn't seem right at all. The expected effect of Agents of Vect is that the stratagem doesn't happen, the DE player is down 3 CP, and their opponent's situation is unchanged. I feel like "your opponent loses 3 CP" is generally way better for you than "pay 3 CP to do some mortal wounds". Like, because Orbital Bombardment isn't great it's not a great target for denial.

I've actually found I've been using it a lot because of how little offense I can bring in a list. At being only once per battle too it's a bit ridiculous for it to be 3CP. It's a 2CP Strategem max. That's the Marine codex for ya.

The problem becomes this:

When you lock them into 3 detachments, they have to chose Battalions or something else.

1) Do their traits even kick in, or does it reference Patrol detachment?

2) Even if they could trait an entire Battalion, the Codex is clearly not designed for that. It is designed that you'll mix and match Covens to make something that feels very patchwork.

So now, you're punishing them for playing Drukhari (and let's be real... they've been punished enough for poor faction choice). I am serious, you are pointing at them and punishing them for using their codex, in the intended way.

Next, just remove their HQs and call them Corsairs. Forge World set a precedence for that. (hyperbole)

Again: classy

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

good luck fitting that at 1850!

I can absolutely guarantee you that the "intended way" to play Drukhari is to run 3 patrol detachments. 7 CP is standard and a perfectly acceptable amount for a 2000 point game.

gungo wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

good luck fitting that at 1850!

You can easily do that right now. In the Index.

You give



to one army, better give it to everyone else too.

Thing is, this stratagem works best against what might be concidered as a better play and what GW wants you to do - combos. It can shut down that 3d stratagem you use after two others to create some sort of awesomeness, which basically means you get punished for using clever and complicated tactics with a single button. And just like with a card above, it really can make some people butthurt.

Another army that just laughs at GK. The anit-psyker strat and the strat denial strat between them they've gutted my army. Guess it might be time to close up my GK shop.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
The problem becomes this:

When you lock them into 3 detachments, they have to chose Battalions or something else.

1) Do their traits even kick in, or does it reference Patrol detachment?

2) Even if they could trait an entire Battalion, the Codex is clearly not designed for that. It is designed that you'll mix and match Covens to make something that feels very patchwork.

So now, you're punishing them for playing Drukhari (and let's be real... they've been punished enough for poor faction choice). I am serious, you are pointing at them and punishing them for using their codex, in the intended way.

Next, just remove their HQs and call them Corsairs. Forge World set a precedence for that. (hyperbole)

Again: classy

Of course their traits will still apply to Battalions. And you can actually bring a reasonable 2k army with 3 Patrols. That's up to 9 Troops and up to 6 of everything else.

The major impact on tournament list-building is that with only 3 detachments it is very hard to include both Dark Eldar and Craftworld or Harlequin or Ynnari detachments, since you're pushed so hard to bring DE in Patrols. I don't actually have a problem with this, philosophically, but I can't imagine that that's intended given how soup-able Imperium and Chaos are. Which is why I think it's more likely than not that we get a "3 DE Patrols only take up one slot" rule in some big tournament packs.

Without wishing to reignite the 40k/CCG hoohaa the Vect stratagem is essentially a Counterspell / Cancel effect, and whilst its undeniable its strong it can be played around especially as most of the time it refunds CP so means you can bait it out by playing a 2/3cp and then playing another if they bite or dont if they dont

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Without wishing to reignite the 40k/CCG hoohaa the Vect stratagem is essentially a Counterspell / Cancel effect, and whilst its undeniable its strong it can be played around especially as most of the time it refunds CP so means you can bait it out by playing a 2/3cp and then playing another if they bite or dont if they dont

Strategy is a sin around here, apparently

Also: deviating from "What vogue faction Y does" is also a sin.

First sentence on the first preview is that Drukhari are expected to do things differently. Remember, they got bored with conventional warfare centuries ago. I mean, you could force them down into 3 patrol detachments with 7 CP. And they could probably function.

But that seems like a lot of burden all centered around a rule that is not even a rule - it is still a guideline.

A guideline that GW seems to be intent on violating with this army.

I guess people can just throw their hands up and refuse to play dark eldar because they don't play aggro and play counterspell instead... or because the dark eldar bring 4 detachments and there is some (obviously) unwritten rule that says the number you shall count to is 3.

Codex isn't even out and so much foul is being cried because something deviates from the 4S 4T 3+ BS and 3+ Armor template.

Its just going to make CWE better.......

1900pts of CWE
1 DE Patrol of Archon, 2x5man Kabals, stops all best Stratagems in game

GG CWE.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Without wishing to reignite the 40k/CCG hoohaa the Vect stratagem is essentially a Counterspell / Cancel effect, and whilst its undeniable its strong it can be played around especially as most of the time it refunds CP so means you can bait it out by playing a 2/3cp and then playing another if they bite or dont if they dont

Strategy is a sin around here, apparently

Also: deviating from "What vogue faction Y does" is also a sin.

First sentence on the first preview is that Drukhari are expected to do things differently. Remember, they got bored with conventional warfare centuries ago. I mean, you could force them down into 3 patrol detachments with 7 CP. And they could probably function.

But that seems like a lot of burden all centered around a rule that is not even a rule - it is still a guideline.

A guideline that GW seems to be intent on violating with this army.

I guess people can just throw their hands up and refuse to play dark eldar because they don't play aggro and play counterspell instead... or because the dark eldar bring 4 detachments and there is some (obviously) unwritten rule that says the number you shall count to is 3.

Codex isn't even out and so much foul is being cried because something deviates from the 4S 4T 3+ BS and 3+ Armor template.

I wouldn't mind playing a Dark Eldar army with more than 3 detachments. That said I don't think tournaments will allow it (of course the codex may have some language that specifically indicates that they can take more than 3 regardless). While the 'suggestion' is of 3 detachments, that has turned into the rule for most tournaments and so it probably bares keeping any 'competitive' discussion of the book framed in that light.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Your max is 3, which is 7 CP. I'm 99% certain that the 6 patrol rule is just to ensure Drukhari scales into Apoc properly.

No... Dont forget that DE vehicles are paper and the HQs are not very good. We are now a Horde MSU army, we will need the stratagems, CP and multi-detachments. 6 Detachments for more CP's means we are FORCE to take 6 HQs and 6 Troops, its a large tax for an extra 3CP over just taking normal detachments like Outrider/Vanguard etc..

In order to even play how DE is meant to be play we need those detachments, and to use this Stratagem, we need this Obsession, which isnt even that good, making it another tax to even get the stratagem, we will need an Archon and Kabal unit literally just walking and sitting around to gain this 3CP stratagem. Our "free" ability CoM is now a 2CP stratagem, our wargear "Soul Stone" is now a Stratagem, saying we shouldnt have 6 detachments could be painfull for DE

If you, your local, tournaments limit it before even letting players test it out, we will never know if it is really good, needed, or bad.

Edit: Spelling and Note: This is based off of info we have and how it looks like it is moving towards.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

I wouldn't mind playing a Dark Eldar army with more than 3 detachments. That said I don't think tournaments will allow it (of course the codex may have some language that specifically indicates that they can take more than 3 regardless). While the 'suggestion' is of 3 detachments, that has turned into the rule for most tournaments and so it probably bares keeping any 'competitive' discussion of the book framed in that light.

Even to the detriment of an entire army?

That's what I have a problem standing behind.

If the intended build is 4-5 detachments, and the third-party sponsored events (and/or playerbase) refuse to budge on that "suggestion" that there is a 3 detachment limit... is that not in fact punishing a player for his faction selection? Creating a state where the core army is played drastically differently than it is mechanically created to?

That is my big hanging point with all of this. We're trying to shove a left foot into a right shoe. To be fair, it has never been a concern until this exact point. But it is definitely a consideration TOs and players will have to have going forward.

Do we say that Drukhari have another detachment limit? Patrol detachments do not count against the 3 detachment limit? Can a player bring 2 patrols in lieu of 1 normal selection?

But jumping out and just saying NO, I REFUSE TO LET THEM DO THIS! is just being... a person on the internet (not insinuating people are, at this point, but this is in fact the internet)

And now that circles all the way back to the Agents of Vect - people don't like it because it hasn't been done. Flat out negating a Stratagem via a stratagem is just... foreign, and many people are going to react poorly to it without any real critical thought. Because shutting down Endless Cacophony on turn 1 off of Deep Striking Obliterators may enable the opponent to strike back and make the game go past turn 2-3 or something. Or, more pointedly, it directly screws with the plan and people freak out when the plan doesn't go according to plan.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

I wouldn't mind playing a Dark Eldar army with more than 3 detachments. That said I don't think tournaments will allow it (of course the codex may have some language that specifically indicates that they can take more than 3 regardless). While the 'suggestion' is of 3 detachments, that has turned into the rule for most tournaments and so it probably bares keeping any 'competitive' discussion of the book framed in that light.

Even to the detriment of an entire army?

That's what I have a problem standing behind.

If the intended build is 4-5 detachments, and the third-party sponsored events (and/or playerbase) refuse to budge on that "suggestion" that there is a 3 detachment limit... is that not in fact punishing a player for his faction selection? Creating a state where the core army is played drastically differently than it is mechanically created to?

That is my big hanging point with all of this. We're trying to shove a left foot into a right shoe. To be fair, it has never been a concern until this exact point. But it is definitely a consideration TOs and players will have to have going forward.

Do we say that Drukhari have another detachment limit? Patrol detachments do not count against the 3 detachment limit? Can a player bring 2 patrols in lieu of 1 normal selection?

But jumping out and just saying NO, I REFUSE TO LET THEM DO THIS! is just being... a person on the internet (not insinuating people are, at this point, but this is in fact the internet)

And now that circles all the way back to the Agents of Vect - people don't like it because it hasn't been done. Flat out negating a Stratagem via a stratagem is just... foreign, and many people are going to react poorly to it without any real critical thought. Because shutting down Endless Cacophony on turn 1 off of Deep Striking Obliterators may enable the opponent to strike back and make the game go past turn 2-3 or something. Or, more pointedly, it directly screws with the plan and people freak out when the plan doesn't go according to plan.

I think there are plenty of people who'll make the counter argument of why allow Dark Eldar to do it when I can't? Please note this isn't my argument, nor do I agree with it - I play Dark Eldar. That said I'm planning on running a battalion + two support detachments right now because I simply don't believe I will be allowed to exceed 3 detachments. As to Agents of Vect itself? Its a cool stratagem and genuinely interesting - I think at 3 CP its fine because more often than not I'll be playing with 8ish CP so it's a major investment on my part.

Anyone that makes the argument "If cant use more detachments, then why should DE" is just a child and doesnt understand game balance.

here is an example in a different way "My DE doesn't have Psychic powers, so no one else can"

Well DE doesnt have them b.c they are balanced that way, the same way DE is now balanced around multi-detachments.

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Of course that's out for tournaments and generally out of any league/random games. 3 det in 2k is pretty much standard

tneva82 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Of course that's out for tournaments and generally out of any league/random games. 3 det in 2k is pretty much standard

Just b.c it was, doesnt mean it has to be, DE has a core rule in their new codex that says you can take 6, why should they not be allowed?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

If we're going to discuss how balanced something is then we're going to do it within the context of matched play. It doesn't make sense for us to talk about all the options outside of that all the time, because there are way too many.

And again, that is not a Matched play rule. It is a suggestion for an organized event. So in the context of the Matched play rules, a player can indeed bring six detachments.

But if pretty much all use it that "suggestion" has power of rule. Of course if you like playing solo it works

Tell them they, too, can play dark eldar. So they can in fact "do it".

Just kidding around with that, really.

I think the major crux of all of this will come down to how much of the Dark Eldar force is going to center around CP. Availability to those CP could have a major impact on the army. They likely will not have a psychic phase, I would be shocked if they did, so they're going to have to get their force multiplication elsewhere (which is likely auras and stratagems).

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Anyone that makes the argument "If cant use more detachments, then why should DE" is just a child and doesnt understand game balance.

If only you followed along in all the 'soup' threads. And again this isn't my argument, I just have a strong feeling that the 3 detachment limit will stay in place for tournaments.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

If orbital bombardment is bad why would you ever spend 3cp to have the chance to cancel it, usually without cp cost to the opponent? This comment seems bizarre.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Anyone that makes the argument "If cant use more detachments, then why should DE" is just a child and doesnt understand game balance.

If only you followed along in all the 'soup' threads. And again this isn't my argument, I just have a strong feeling that the 3 detachment limit will stay in place for tournaments.

I do follow,and i wasnt meaning it to you but to the ones that are acting like that.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Of course that's out for tournaments and generally out of any league/random games. 3 det in 2k is pretty much standard

Just b.c it was, doesnt mean it has to be, DE has a core rule in their new codex that says you can take 6, why should they not be allowed?

So far no such rule has been previewed.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

If we're going to discuss how balanced something is then we're going to do it within the context of matched play. It doesn't make sense for us to talk about all the options outside of that all the time, because there are way too many.

And again, that is not a Matched play rule. It is a suggestion for an organized event. So in the context of the Matched play rules, a player can indeed bring six detachments.

But if pretty much all use it that "suggestion" has power of rule. Of course if you like playing solo it works

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

Ix_Tab wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

If orbital bombardment is bad why would you ever spend 3cp to have the chance to cancel it, usually without cp cost to the opponent? This comment seems bizarre.

Xeno is known for being fairly...melodramatic...in his/her evaluation of the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How they get 15? Brigade plus battalion isn't easy to fit...

6 Patrols and a Haemonculus warlord trait would get you 12-15.

Of course that's out for tournaments and generally out of any league/random games. 3 det in 2k is pretty much standard

Just b.c it was, doesnt mean it has to be, DE has a core rule in their new codex that says you can take 6, why should they not be allowed?

So far no such rule has been previewed.

yes it was..............

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/26/codex-drukhai-preview-assembling-your-raiding-party/

 Ghaz wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

If we're going to discuss how balanced something is then we're going to do it within the context of matched play. It doesn't make sense for us to talk about all the options outside of that all the time, because there are way too many.

And again, that is not a Matched play rule. It is a suggestion for an organized event. So in the context of the Matched play rules, a player can indeed bring six detachments.

But if pretty much all use it that "suggestion" has power of rule. Of course if you like playing solo it works

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

Sure. Doesn't change that you are strugling to find game without that. Have fun playing solo

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Ix_Tab wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

If orbital bombardment is bad why would you ever spend 3cp to have the chance to cancel it, usually without cp cost to the opponent? This comment seems bizarre.

Xeno is known for being fairly...melodramatic...in his/her evaluation of the game.

I feel like I need an "It's a trap!" meme for this...

It would also be very Vect like, but I do not currently have 3 CP to play it :(

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/26/codex-drukhai-preview-assembling-your-raiding-party/

To play devil's advocate here - that doesn't say we are allowed to only that that is what happens when we do (i.e. if we play past 2,000 points for example).

 Amishprn86 wrote:


yes it was..............

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/26/codex-drukhai-preview-assembling-your-raiding-party/

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/40kDrukhariPreview-Mar26-RaidingForce5lw.jpg

You realize right that is just rule what you get with 6 det's? Not permission to ignore that 3 det limit if it's used. If you take 6 det's so can opponent. Game does have 3 play modes. This just gives you rules for those for the hyper rare cases you don't play the standard matched play 3 det max game.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

So you demand your opponents to abide by your houserules... OK.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.

I'm pretty faithful the competitive scene will make an exception for Drukhari once the Codex drops. Maybe after a tournament or two. Without a full view of their army and knowledge on how much the restriction punishes them in a tabletop environment, all we can do is swing or things in the wind and hope we don't piss on our own faces.

Then again, I'm used to disappointment. One could argue that I crave it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

So you demand your opponents to abide by your houserules... OK.

Not his. Gw'sx

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I've never played with someone who didn't stick to that "suggested" limit and I'm not going to start now.

So you demand your opponents to abide by your houserules... OK.

I mean its a houserule in so much as it is the accepted rule at every major event - you are correct that it is a suggestion rather than a hard limit but plenty of people are working for tournament or event prep and thus would prefer to keep their games in the scope of what they're likely to see.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/26/codex-drukhai-preview-assembling-your-raiding-party/

To play devil's advocate here - that doesn't say we are allowed to only that that is what happens when we do (i.e. if we play past 2,000 points for example).

The counter to this is:

Nothing in the rules says I cannot, so why would they ever need to specify that it is legal to do so?

It is not GW that is enforcing this limit. It is third-party events and local groups that took a suggestion and made it the law.

Insert Judge Dredd meme here.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.

I'm pretty faithful the competitive scene will make an exception for Drukhari once the Codex drops. Maybe after a tournament or two. Without a full view of their army and knowledge on how much the restriction punishes them in a tabletop environment, all we can do is swing or things in the wind and hope we don't piss on our own faces.

Then again, I'm used to disappointment. One could argue that I crave it.

That argument I think is hard to make I think because you're looking at 11 CP which we can still accomplish (or more) for a not dissimilar investment (6 HQs and 6 Troops for 6 Patrols or 6 HQs and 9 Troops for 4 Battalions (and 12 CP)). So its hard to say we'll be any more or less CP starved than any other army given that we have access to the same detachments they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:


The counter to this is:

Nothing in the rules says I cannot, so why would they ever need to specify that it is legal to do so?

It is not GW that is enforcing this limit. It is third-party events and local groups that took a suggestion and made it the law.

Insert Judge Dredd meme here.

Yeah but if tournaments don't come off the limitation it won't mean much. I may get to play with it at my house/club but I won't be able to at major events.

Soooo is all this argument based on what the tourneys would end up doing and we dont know if they will follow the 3 detachment suggestion for de?

side note i know many people dont like maelstrom but there are a hand full of maelstorm missions that have mission specific stratigems that let you pay points to discard your cards. that could be pretty powerful to counter.

a hand full of reinforce counters would be good too.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.

I'm pretty faithful the competitive scene will make an exception for Drukhari once the Codex drops. Maybe after a tournament or two. Without a full view of their army and knowledge on how much the restriction punishes them in a tabletop environment, all we can do is swing or things in the wind and hope we don't piss on our own faces.

Then again, I'm used to disappointment. One could argue that I crave it.

That argument I think is hard to make I think because you're looking at 11 CP which we can still accomplish (or more) for a not dissimilar investment (6 HQs and 6 Troops for 6 Patrols or 6 HQs and 9 Troops for 4 Battalions (and 12 CP)). So its hard to say we'll be any more or less CP starved than any other army given that we have access to the same detachments they do.

Different factions may be balanced differently on scales of access to buffing units, psychic powers, traits, and stratagems.

I'm pretty sure Drukhari are going to be about as psychicly void as the Sororitas at a list building level. That's a pretty big hole that they're going to need to be balanced around. Maybe there will be a requirement to spend more CP to get your army to the same competitive level as CSM with their access to all those Psychic disciplines.

Then is it fair to tell them that they cannot have more access to CP than the CSM player?

We have no idea the weight in which Drukhari armies will place on spending their CP. Which could quickly turn Agents of Vect into a coaster stratagem, as it doesn't help their fighting force directly.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/26/codex-drukhai-preview-assembling-your-raiding-party/

To play devil's advocate here - that doesn't say we are allowed to only that that is what happens when we do (i.e. if we play past 2,000 points for example).

The counter to this is:

Nothing in the rules says I cannot, so why would they ever need to specify that it is legal to do so?

It is not GW that is enforcing this limit. It is third-party events and local groups that took a suggestion and made it the law.

Insert Judge Dredd meme here.

This ^

Farseer_V2 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

It does however bear at least remembering that most tournaments have that restriction so we should at least consider when we're framing up the conversation. I know this is your specific hill you're willing to die on and all but there's some merit in at least discussing how everything plays out in a 3 detachment limited format.

I'm pretty faithful the competitive scene will make an exception for Drukhari once the Codex drops. Maybe after a tournament or two. Without a full view of their army and knowledge on how much the restriction punishes them in a tabletop environment, all we can do is swing or things in the wind and hope we don't piss on our own faces.

Then again, I'm used to disappointment. One could argue that I crave it.

That argument I think is hard to make I think because you're looking at 11 CP which we can still accomplish (or more) for a not dissimilar investment (6 HQs and 6 Troops for 6 Patrols or 6 HQs and 9 Troops for 4 Battalions (and 12 CP)). So its hard to say we'll be any more or less CP starved than any other army given that we have access to the same detachments they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:


The counter to this is:

Nothing in the rules says I cannot, so why would they ever need to specify that it is legal to do so?

It is not GW that is enforcing this limit. It is third-party events and local groups that took a suggestion and made it the law.

Insert Judge Dredd meme here.

Yeah but if tournaments don't come off the limitation it won't mean much. I may get to play with it at my house/club but I won't be able to at major events.

Its not about CP, its not hard to take 3 Battalions in DE, its extremely easy actually, players are scared of mega soups (at least that is what it seems).



Seeing how some of our War Gear options are now stratagems, DE will need more CP than normal i feel and also b.c our Traits are built around MSU detachments, it might be needed to even be competitive.

We need to see them in action before limiting them.

tneva82 wrote:

Not his. Gw'sx

It is a suggestion for organised events and most games are played outside such events. Demanding your opponent to abide by it when not in such an event is a houserule. And of course not all events use that rule in the first place. Our local league doesn't.

 Desubot wrote:
Soooo is all this argument based on what the tourneys would end up doing and we dont know if they will follow the 3 detachment suggestion for de?

It started out about the Stratagem, but no one cares about that b.c everyone is like "the sky is falling DE wants to play with more than 3 detachments"

Like I said fellas, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I hope we're allowed to take 6 Patrols because I'd rather play pure DE than soup (which I will do in a 3 detachment limit environment). I'm just telling you not to get your hopes up.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

There is no rule that limits how many detachments you may take in an army, just a suggestion for organized events.

If we're going to discuss how balanced something is then we're going to do it within the context of matched play. It doesn't make sense for us to talk about all the options outside of that all the time, because there are way too many.

And again, that is not a Matched play rule. It is a suggestion for an organized event. So in the context of the Matched play rules, a player can indeed bring six detachments.

But if pretty much all use it that "suggestion" has power of rule. Of course if you like playing solo it works

No. It's still nothing more than a suggestion for organized events, no matter how many players use it.

Sure. Doesn't change that you are strugling to find game without that. Have fun playing solo

I can find games just fine, thank you.

I'm really excited by this stratagem and by this Codex.

It feels like... GW... Wrote... A Good... Codex...

I'm geninuely shocked.

I'm going to buy it even though I own exactly two Incubi and nothing else.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

The counter to this is:

Nothing in the rules says I cannot, so why would they ever need to specify that it is legal to do so?

It is not GW that is enforcing this limit. It is third-party events and local groups that took a suggestion and made it the law.

Insert Judge Dredd meme here.

Well can imperium soup there bring in say 5 batalion of ig and marine det's? If yes de gets to bring in those. Nothing is different as far as number of detachments. 5 ig battallions easy enough so imperium will have like 20 cp

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Soooo is all this argument based on what the tourneys would end up doing and we dont know if they will follow the 3 detachment suggestion for de?

It started out about the Stratagem, but no one cares about that b.c everyone is like "the sky is falling DE wants to play with more than 3 detachments"

I think it comes back to the Stratagem because of the weighty cost of 3 CP.

So it is slightly on topic? Just a tiny bit?

But I do agree, it seems like a lot of people are wanting to doomsay.

The previews got my wife off of the ghastly Ynnari train and back onto her pure Dark Eldar army, and that makes me VERY happy. I hated seeing her models being relegated to 1 stupid rule.

I'm looking forward to her bringing grips of rag-tag patrols to do battle with organized fighting forces. It truly does seem like service done to the fluff in the face of people gripping onto arbitrary "rules" that are being enforced for... "practical" reasons?

And the only way that noise is going to get broken is if you actually question it and ask: why the heck is that a thing when my army was built by GW to spit at it? One could quietly sit down and take the restriction that makes the fluff taste very vanilla... or one could say: that's total bs, like Orc level 5+ BS vs Alaitoc Spectres.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

The counter to this is:

Nothing in the rules says I cannot, so why would they ever need to specify that it is legal to do so?

It is not GW that is enforcing this limit. It is third-party events and local groups that took a suggestion and made it the law.

Insert Judge Dredd meme here.

Well can imperium soup there bring in say 5 batalion of ig and marine det's? If yes de gets to bring in those. Nothing is different as far as number of detachments. 5 ig battallions easy enough so imperium will have like 20 cp

5 BNs of base guard is what? 1000+ points of nothing but trash that'll get RIPPED by the modern meta? Sure, you can have 18 CP, just good luck fielding a fighting force and using that CP in a constructive way with the matched play rule of 1 play of each stratagem per phase.

Arbitrary limitations are just that. Suggestions are not limitations, they are just there to give you an idea of the intention.

personally thin it's a great strategem that really messes with an opponent's planning. As a RW player, imagine my problem when I try to play Speed of the Raven after Advancing.....oops, no, you can't charge this turn and your guns are -1 to hit or cannot fire. makes you rethink your game, and relying on strategems is ridiculous anyway. I'm all for it, and hope Inquisitors get something similar.
Seeing how this book is turning out, I'm super excited for harlequins and deathwatch.

Here is a simple solution.

Warhammer Fest is in May, and with it the Warhammer World GT finals. I'm assuming DE will be legal by then. So lets see what GW's 'official' word will be and if they allow DE to take more then 3 detachments.

My bet?
DE will keep the same limit.

This seems to me like what a lot of people on this board have been asking for: A reward for the player using one codex. I assure you that GW is aware that the 3 detachment limit has become the standard in tournaments. That's why you get the bonus CP for taking three DE patrols. If your entire tournament list is made up of DE, you get some free points! If you want to soup, you can still do that, too! The benefit is that you get to take some strong unit from the CWE, Harlequins, and Ynnari list!

To my knowledge nothing keeps dark eldar from using more standard formations. Even index dark eldar are priced such that a double battalion (with optional supplementary formation) isn't hard to manage. Can't do it as easy as IG, but on par with most Middle of the road priced armies like Tau/admech.

SilverAlien wrote:
To my knowledge nothing keeps dark eldar from using more standard formations. Even index dark eldar are priced such that a double battalion (with optional supplementary formation) isn't hard to manage. Can't do it as easy as IG, but on par with most Middle of the road priced armies like Tau/admech.

The way de works though is those battalions are either very one dimensional and makes hard to have all 3 de factions or you lose traits

SilverAlien wrote:
To my knowledge nothing keeps dark eldar from using more standard formations. Even index dark eldar are priced such that a double battalion (with optional supplementary formation) isn't hard to manage. Can't do it as easy as IG, but on par with most Middle of the road priced armies like Tau/admech.

Yes, but, again, this severely limits your options if you want traits. A Battalion is 2 Archons and 3 units of Warriors, or 2 Succubi and 3 units of Wyches, or 2 Haemonculi and 3 units of Wracks. And that's also very limiting on what other units you can bring in your other slots.

It seems pretty obvious that the intention for DE is that they use 3 Patrols the way everyone else uses a Battalion. 3 HQs and 3 Troops for 4 CP, with additional restrictions on what other units you can bring with them, seems very much in line with 2 HQs and 3 Troops for 3 CP and then optional slots that can take anything in the codex. Right? It's not like they're an army that's looking to spam HQs.

Dionysodorus wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
To my knowledge nothing keeps dark eldar from using more standard formations. Even index dark eldar are priced such that a double battalion (with optional supplementary formation) isn't hard to manage. Can't do it as easy as IG, but on par with most Middle of the road priced armies like Tau/admech.

Yes, but, again, this severely limits your options if you want traits. A Battalion is 2 Archons and 3 units of Warriors, or 2 Succubi and 3 units of Wyches, or 2 Haemonculi and 3 units of Wracks. And that's also very limiting on what other units you can bring in your other slots.

It seems pretty obvious that the intention for DE is that they use 3 Patrols the way everyone else uses a Battalion. 3 HQs and 3 Troops for 4 CP, with additional restrictions on what other units you can bring with them, seems very much in line with 2 HQs and 3 Troops for 3 CP and then optional slots that can take anything in the codex. Right? It's not like they're an army that's looking to spam HQs.

This ^.

Its part of what ive been trying to say, DE might "need" those extra detachments just to function. Its very hard for DE player with the new rules to play Battalion and Kabals mix with Wych, you lose your traits.

But they got no rule giving them more dets. So either they bring 3 patrols for 7 cp or their opponents can bring more dets as well(at which point 20cp imperium armies are dead easy. Possibly with regenerating ones and getting more from opponents strategems)

tneva82 wrote:
But they got no rule giving them more dets. So either they bring 3 patrols for 7 cp or their opponents can bring more dets as well(at which point 20cp imperium armies are dead easy. Possibly with regenerating ones and getting more from opponents strategems)

DE doesnt really care about CP as much as traits tho (they can easily do brigades too). thats like telling SM only Tac squads can have UM traits

I really hope they don't do something a silly as allowing dark eldar to count 3 patrols as 1 detachment against the 3 detachment limit as they will just become the new CWE CP farm. 6 patrols can currently be had for the princely some of 594 points that still leaves 1406 points for the CWE army detachment which is playing with 12 cp minimum plus whatever its detachment gives it.

Heck even only using 3 patrols gets you to 7 cp for 297 points with 2 detachments and 1703 points to build a list with. Enough to go 1 Alitoc and 1 Ynarri.

tneva82 wrote:
But they got no rule giving them more dets. So either they bring 3 patrols for 7 cp or their opponents can bring more dets as well(at which point 20cp imperium armies are dead easy. Possibly with regenerating ones and getting more from opponents strategems)

Sure, which is why a reasonable TO would say something like: "you can take 3 DE Patrols in a single detachment 'slot'". The army is obviously supposed to be using 3 Patrols in the same way that everyone else uses Battalions, so... just allow that. This isn't hard.

Maybe there's a rule in their Codex that says that they can have multiple patrols inside of a detachment. Or maybe GW is just being GW again and didn't consider the ramifications of what they wrote. Or maybe there's something that we don't know yet that allows patrol detachments to be something else.

Why don't we wait for the Codex before banning/burning/celebrating DE.

Ice_can wrote:
I really hope they don't do something a silly as allowing dark eldar to count 3 patrols as 1 detachment against the 3 detachment limit as they will just become the new CWE CP farm. 6 patrols can currently be had for the princely some of 594 points that still leaves 1406 points for the CWE army detachment which is playing with 12 cp minimum plus whatever its detachment gives it.

Heck even only using 3 patrols gets you to 7 cp for 297 points with 2 detachments and 1703 points to build a list with. Enough to go 1 Alitoc and 1 Ynarri.

Of course, Imperium and Chaos and Tyranids and to a lesser extent Tau and even Eldar without DE can already do this. Like, I have no problem if your objection is to soup and/or CP farming in general and you want to get rid of that, but it seems very strange to want tournaments to disallow it specifically for Eldar when that's clearly how it's supposed to work.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Maybe there's a rule in their Codex that says that they can have multiple patrols inside of a detachment. Or maybe GW is just being GW again and didn't consider the ramifications of what they wrote. Or maybe there's something that we don't know yet that allows patrol detachments to be something else.

Why don't we wait for the Codex before banning/burning/celebrating DE.

Or maybe that rule is what it is. If everybody can bring 6 dets de can bring 6 patrol for 8 cp. No need to make things harder than it is. Remember game has 3 game modes. That rule doesn't need to work on standard game mode to have reason to be in codex. After all open exists as well as narrative

I realy wish I could get behind the it will be balanced positivity train, but right now I dont see this being used to create interesting mutiple patrol dark eldar armies.
I see it turning eldar into the same broken mess of imbalance that imperium and choas factions are.

Well some nice strategems for eldar soup but then no de patrol cp boost. De isn't all that easy faction to soup up. Maybe small det to unlock strategems

Guys don't panic, the March (lol) FAQ is still on the way, they MAY have written something about soups. I dislike the abuse soups can provoke, so if they're still allowed but less powerful I'm all in.

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/30/codex-drukhari-preview-stratagemsgw-homepage-post-3/

Pretty cool we have a Vect strategem but no rules for Vect. Anyways - this stratagem is immensely powerful and quite possibly will shut down entire armies ability to function.
.

'Shut down entire armies abilities to function'?

AHA HA HAA!!!!

Its like people might have to start using their models tactically rather than relying on stratagems out the wazoo.

Emperor knows what we did back in the day before stratagems...

tneva82 wrote:

Or maybe that rule is what it is. If everybody can bring 6 dets de can bring 6 patrol for 8 cp. No need to make things harder than it is. Remember game has 3 game modes. That rule doesn't need to work on standard game mode to have reason to be in codex. After all open exists as well as narrative

It works in standard matched just fine.

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/30/codex-drukhari-preview-stratagemsgw-homepage-post-3/

Pretty cool we have a Vect strategem but no rules for Vect. Anyways - this stratagem is immensely powerful and quite possibly will shut down entire armies ability to function.
.

'Shut down entire armies abilities to function'?

AHA HA HAA!!!!

Its like people might have to start using their models tactically rather than relying on stratagems out the wazoo.

Emperor knows what we did back in the day before stratagems...

Calm down grandpa, did you know the kids can also read the rules on their iPads now?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/30/codex-drukhari-preview-stratagemsgw-homepage-post-3/

Pretty cool we have a Vect strategem but no rules for Vect. Anyways - this stratagem is immensely powerful and quite possibly will shut down entire armies ability to function.
.

'Shut down entire armies abilities to function'?

AHA HA HAA!!!!

Its like people might have to start using their models tactically rather than relying on stratagems out the wazoo.

Emperor knows what we did back in the day before stratagems...

Calm down grandpa, did you know the kids can also read the rules on their iPads now?

What a constructive and on topic comment.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Or maybe that rule is what it is. If everybody can bring 6 dets de can bring 6 patrol for 8 cp. No need to make things harder than it is. Remember game has 3 game modes. That rule doesn't need to work on standard game mode to have reason to be in codex. After all open exists as well as narrative

It works in standard matched just fine.

Seeing standard is 3 det yeah 3 patrols works. Not many wants to play broken soup more dets allow so they play like gw suggests to play.

tneva82 wrote:


Seeing standard is 3 det yeah 3 patrols works. Not many wants to play broken soup more dets allow so they play like gw suggests to play.

Suggested for organised events. If people want to use houserules for their casual games, that's fine, but then it's not GW's fault if that causes problems.

Ice_can wrote:
I see it turning eldar into the same broken mess of imbalance that imperium and choas factions are.

And in that imbalance there is... balance?

I mean, a funny statement to make.

"Imperium and Chaos are imbalanced, so let's make damned sure the Eldar are balanced" - which immediately means they are imbalanced because they are below the power level of the two that are out of balance.

Which way do we go here?

And why are we suggesting we kick unreleased codexes in the nuts because other factions soup too well?

I mean... advocate fixing that instead of making it the defacto due to everyone else having to play to a different standard of power.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Seeing standard is 3 det yeah 3 patrols works. Not many wants to play broken soup more dets allow so they play like gw suggests to play.

Suggested for organised events. If people want to use houserules for their casual games, that's fine, but then it's not GW's fault if that causes problems.

That's hairsplitting. If most use it it's pretty much same as saying not following it is house rule. Sometimes common practice is more powerfull than theoretical rules. If raw trumps common practice i could glue rock from beach to base, write what it represents and play with those. 100% raw. Of course nobody plays with me.

Similarly not many wants to play with broken crap free dets allow so while raw says no limit in practice no limit is the house rule

tneva82 wrote:

That's hairsplitting. If most use it it's pretty much same as saying not following it is house rule. Sometimes common practice is more powerfull than theoretical rules. If raw trumps common practice i could glue rock from beach to base, write what it represents and play with those. 100% raw. Of course nobody plays with me.

Similarly not many wants to play with broken crap free dets allow so while raw says no limit in practice no limit is the house rule

That's completely crazy, you can't expect GW to design their rules based on people's houserules. Furthermore, what 'everyone does' varies locally, I've never used the detachment restriction rule, and I'm even playing in a league with no such restriction in effect.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I see it turning eldar into the same broken mess of imbalance that imperium and choas factions are.

And in that imbalance there is... balance?

I mean, a funny statement to make.

"Imperium and Chaos are imbalanced, so let's make damned sure the Eldar are balanced" - which immediately means they are imbalanced because they are below the power level of the two that are out of balance.

Which way do we go here?

And why are we suggesting we kick unreleased codexes in the nuts because other factions soup too well?

I mean... advocate fixing that instead of making it the defacto due to everyone else having to play to a different standard of power.

No I'm saying you'll get sucky rules and everyones answer of how do I stop getting tabled by list x is take dark reapers.
Doesn't help you build a good dark eldar army. Now if it had said if your dark eldar army contains 3 patrols you get 4 cp and 6 patols gets you 8 cp I would be all for this rule.

Soup means that units that suck never get fixed as tournament players just move to soup in 3+ codexs for a 2k list.

You also get the embrace the soup bro comments. I shouldn't have to play 3 flippin armies just to build a viable force.

Wow! Agents of Vect is a pretty good Ynnari stratagem

 Ordana wrote:
Here is a simple solution.

Warhammer Fest is in May, and with it the Warhammer World GT finals. I'm assuming DE will be legal by then. So lets see what GW's 'official' word will be and if they allow DE to take more then 3 detachments.

My bet?
DE will keep the same limit.

Hopefully we'll get a good idea of how tehy do, Lawrence of Tabletop Tactics has already said he'll be taking Drukhari to the finals, and he won the first heat with Ultramarines.

What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

BA and CWE heavily do. CWE can work without, but not to top 3 levels of tournaments.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

BA and CWE heavily do. CWE can work without, but not to top 3 levels of tournaments.

What stratagems ?

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

The two ones of the top of my head are Poxwalker Farm and Blood Angels. Basically this stratagem kills Poxwalker farm lists.

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

relying on strats to work....probably not many that absolutely depends on them.

but definitely some basic power ones that could mean an objective or a dead unit or the game it self.

for example the counter charge strat keeping some multi charge alive.
or a unit that is about to put the hurt down with something like veterains of the long war. or the multi attack one used to scoot up an extra 3" and an extra swing.
slannesh double shots havocs if they decided to make a list with less long range anti tank.

wasnt cloud of flies like stupid powerful or was that a spell.?

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

Not a ton, although some feel it more than others. Imagine shutting down a critical Blood Angel charge from reserves, for instance. You could also use this to prevent dark reapers from intercepting your deepstriking units, which could be a big deal.


Regarding the detachments thing, I actually don't hate the idea of being forced to choose between running multiple patrols or taking a more conventional list. 7 CP is pretty typical for me, so a trio of patrols and nothing else wouldn't be awful as far as CP access. We can take a relic for 1d3 extra and a trait to help recycle them, after all. On the other hand, I could still see myself taking a batallion of a coven/cult/kabal of m y choice to run alongside some other flavors of eldar.

The only scenario that I see as a little unpleasant is when I really want to field a single batallion that mixes coven/cult/kabal units alongisde my other eldar factions but then have to give up my strats/traits/faction bonuses to do so. So if I just want to field kabal stuff alongside my craftworlders, no problem, but throwing wyches into the mix means I'll need a detachment (and HQ tax points) to spare.

 Galas wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

The two ones of the top of my head are Poxwalker Farm and Blood Angels. Basically this stratagem kills Poxwalker farm lists.

Sounds like a meta-shift to me.

But it comes at a hefty price of 3 CP. And all you're really doing is delaying the stratagem, not nullifying it. MOST of the time there is no CP lost by the affected player.

 Formosa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

BA and CWE heavily do. CWE can work without, but not to top 3 levels of tournaments.

What stratagems ?

Dont know the names well.

BA: 3d6 to charge and fight twice
CWE: Move after shooting (keeps Ynnari 9 man Dark Reaper unit out of LoS, double range of powers for Jinx against
Chaos: IDK know this one, but i am told they are a must (no one at my local plays this lists)

Edit: I might be missing 1-2 i cant remember, no codex in front of me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

The two ones of the top of my head are Poxwalker Farm and Blood Angels. Basically this stratagem kills Poxwalker farm lists.

Sounds like a meta-shift to me.

But it comes at a hefty price of 3 CP. And all you're really doing is delaying the stratagem, not nullifying it. MOST of the time there is no CP lost by the affected player.

But you dont care if they get the CP back, you just stop them from doing their "special niche" to win the game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

BA and CWE heavily do. CWE can work without, but not to top 3 levels of tournaments.

What stratagems ?

Dont know the names well.

BA: 3d6 to charge and fight twice
CWE: Move after shooting (keeps Ynnari 9 man Dark Reaper unit out of LoS, double range of powers for Jinx against

I might be missing 1-2 i cant remember, no codex in front of me.

This is fine. Because it costs the Drukhari player equal or MORE CP to do this. 1/6th of the time it is game-changingly brutal, 1/6th of the time it is a 4 CP trap, and 1/36th of the time it is a 3 CP robbery.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

BA and CWE heavily do. CWE can work without, but not to top 3 levels of tournaments.

What stratagems ?

Dont know the names well.

BA: 3d6 to charge and fight twice
CWE: Move after shooting (keeps Ynnari 9 man Dark Reaper unit out of LoS, double range of powers for Jinx against

I might be missing 1-2 i cant remember, no codex in front of me.

This is fine. Because it costs the Drukhari player equal or MORE CP to do this. 1/6th of the time it is game-changingly brutal, 1/6th of the time it is a 4 CP trap, and 1/36th of the time it is a 3 CP robbery.

yeah but against BA and even Chaos it could win you the game, you dont really care if they get CP back or spending the CP if it means the BA player didnt charge and kill 4 of your units

Maybe we should play lists that can win without absolutely crutching on a stratagem?

Or at least acknowledging that Vect is a damned genius and doesn't like your petty mon-keigh tricks?

This is the funniest thread to read! 1. I'm Orks so I don't care... 2. I feel what DE players are going through. They finally get something cool and the other players are upset that they might maybe ome time play a dark eldar player and not use a strat that phsse... it's like with Orks... some players genuinely complain because there is a 1 in 144 chance our guns might harm a tough unit.

Nice. DE get to be a top tier army for once. I might just get back into them.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
What armies actually rely on stratagems to work? I keep reading that and no one has actually explained it?

BA and CWE heavily do. CWE can work without, but not to top 3 levels of tournaments.

What stratagems ?

Dont know the names well.

BA: 3d6 to charge and fight twice
CWE: Move after shooting (keeps Ynnari 9 man Dark Reaper unit out of LoS, double range of powers for Jinx against

I might be missing 1-2 i cant remember, no codex in front of me.

This is fine. Because it costs the Drukhari player equal or MORE CP to do this. 1/6th of the time it is game-changingly brutal, 1/6th of the time it is a 4 CP trap, and 1/36th of the time it is a 3 CP robbery.

yeah but against BA and even Chaos it could win you the game, you dont really care if they get CP back or spending the CP if it means the BA player didnt charge and kill 4 of your units

This feels about right to me. Personally, I intend to put units in deepstrike basically every game. Between that and using Agents of Vect once, I'll have spent just about all of my CP. Which feels pretty fitting for Vect. One grand gesture that turns the tide of battle. I still think the Black Heart stuff we've seen would arguably be a better fit for Poisoned Tongue, but...

Anyway, I'm pretty okay with this stratagem. It's very expensive, but it can set you up to potentially have one really good turn after you shut down your opponent's clutch play. Assuming those BA don't just make their charge anyway, and those reapers don't make all thehir saves when you shoot them, etc.

It also shuts down some strategums as they are conditional on the target of the stratageum having done a certain action this turn.
Also a number of strategums in the marine codex's require multiples of a certain unit which if you can provent bwing used, allows you a turn to kill one of the units so the strategum can never be played.

For dark eldar it probably isn't game breaking add in ynarri soulburst and it can lead to some super broken combos. Like a CC unit charging for potentially 4 rounds of unanswered CC yeah thats going to be fun to play against.

I see the DE Vect strategem as being powerful, and certainly shifting the meta, but that happens with every release. Others in the thread have pointed out 3 major builds that rely on a key strategem going off at the right time. I think BA are hit hardest by this. CWE have plenty of ways to try to win the game after being denied, so it hurts but isn't an auto lose. Poxwalkers get hurt hard, but there are several other Chaos builds that are strong, so they can avoid being crippled at the list building stage. BA rely on the 3d6 charge and don't really have another competitive build to move into.

I don't think we will be able to tell if this pushes BA out of competition until we have more details on the codex. Considering how glass hammery DE are and the alpha/beta strike nature of the game, I can see them being a very rock/paper/scissors faction. For example, IG and Tyranids don't care if you can shut down a strategem, they care about your ability to clear screens, kill tanks, and absorb/block deepstriking Genestealers/Flying Hive Tyrants.

I agree with others upthread that the big impact of this is going to be determined by how effectively DE can be splashed into other armies. Right now it looks like CWE can add a cheap patrol to gain access to the Vect strategem. If that is how it plays out, BA are going to suffer and the other factions who can't ignore it are going to have to adjust because it will be in every elf army on the table. If the full codex or FAQ somehow limits splashing DE for the strategem, it won't be so bad. Any reason Vectstrat can't be used against Vectstrat? I'm amused by the thought of two elf soup players countering each other with it.

Ironically, I think min patrol DE to get the strategem would be the most fluff supported power gamer cheese move in the game: after all, a handful of Dark Eldar showing up in the middle of someone else's battle, shooting some stuff up, then taking off is very thematic and fluff appropriate.

Opponent: "Ah, your shooting took Guilliman's last wound. Let's see if he gets back up... A 3. Well let me spend a cp to reroll that die."

Me: *evil laugh*

This is going to be so much fun

Dionysodorus wrote:
The major impact on tournament list-building is that with only 3 detachments it is very hard to include both Dark Eldar and Craftworld or Harlequin or Ynnari detachments, since you're pushed so hard to bring DE in Patrols. I don't actually have a problem with this, philosophically, but I can't imagine that that's intended

Why not? Single Codex armies desperately need something over cherrypick brigade. Soups already have enough advantages as it is.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
And now that circles all the way back to the Agents of Vect - people don't like it because it hasn't been done. Flat out negating a Stratagem via a stratagem is just... foreign, and many people are going to react poorly to it without any real critical thought. Because shutting down Endless Cacophony on turn 1 off of Deep Striking Obliterators may enable the opponent to strike back and make the game go past turn 2-3 or something. Or, more pointedly, it directly screws with the plan and people freak out when the plan doesn't go according to plan.

Yup, hopefully now the list building will involve more thought than just spamming whatever broken combo of unit and stratagem people can find over and over, including some planning for the event previously autoplay stuff doesn't work. Hopefully Deathwatch, Inquisition, and (maybe) Harlequins (aka elite, finesse armies) will get something similar.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
I think there are plenty of people who'll make the counter argument of why allow Dark Eldar to do it when I can't?

Because the army is designed that way? What next, Tau players asking for ban of psychic phase since rulebook doesn't explicitly state armies with psykers can use it?

That said, increasing the limit somehow for pure DE army only (no DE soups) is a reasonable compromise.

I think people is overestimating the fact that with a 2-5 the enemy gets the CP back. You don't get extra points if you have CP at the end of the game, they are a resource, useless if you can't use it to win.

If you negate for 1-2 turn that CRITICAL stratagem to your opponent, and by that they lose, does it matter they have 5 CP at the end and you 0? They have lost.

You need only to negate the stratagem that makes poxwalkers intargeteable once to win agaisnt a Poxwalker farm list, for example, unless you have VERY bad luck and roll very badly and don't kill them. The same with a BA bomb and Upon Wings of Fire.

Ice_can wrote:

For dark eldar it probably isn't game breaking add in ynarri soulburst and it can lead to some super broken combos. Like a CC unit charging for potentially 4 rounds of unanswered CC yeah thats going to be fun to play against.

I don't follow. The only "fight again" rule for DE that I'm aware of is Drazhar's special rule, and he can't be Ynnari. Plus, Agents of Vect doesn't really interact with a unit's ability to swing in combat unless we're talking about Counter Attack or something. What am I missing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I think people is overestimating the fact that with a 2-5 the enemy gets the CP back. You don't get extra points if you have CP at the end of the game, they are a resource, useless if you can't use it to win.

If you negate for 1-2 turn that CRITICAL stratagem to your opponent, and by that they lose, does it matter they have 5 CP at the end and you 0? They have lost.

You need only to negate the stratagem that makes poxwalkers intargeteable once to win agaisnt a Poxwalker farm list, for example, unless you have VERY bad luck and roll very badly and don't kill them. The same with a BA bomb and Upon Wings of Fire.

I feel like it's reasonable to mess with your opponent's stratagems here and there at a great cost to your own CP pool. If your opponent auto-loses for having their clutch stratagem shut down once, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that a flaw in your opponent's list.

 Galas wrote:
I think people is overestimating the fact that with a 2-5 the enemy gets the CP back. You don't get extra points if you have CP at the end of the game, they are a resource, useless if you can't use it to win.

If you negate for 1-2 turn that CRITICAL stratagem to your opponent, and by that they lose, does it matter they have 5 CP at the end and you 0? They have lost.

You need only to negate the stratagem that makes poxwalkers intargeteable once to win agaisnt a Poxwalker farm list, for example, unless you have VERY bad luck and roll very badly and don't kill them. The same with a BA bomb and Upon Wings of Fire.

Again:

Stop making bad lists that rely on a stratagem firing to win the game.

Or just realize that you MAY have to do something SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT when facing Drukhari armies and Aeldari armies that splash in Drukhari raiding parties.

You literally can see it coming.

Again, god forbid we have to include our opponents in figuring out how to win the game. I think this is a nice departure from "put X, Y, and Z down... I win to go first, want to concede now?" format that we're turning the game into.

Yeah, if your whole army relies on a single one-time use of a stratagem to win, I think you're doing it wrong.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah, if your whole army relies on a single one-time use of a stratagem to win, I think you're doing it wrong.

Poxwalker farm is hard countered by this. A variation of it got 2nd at Adepticon?
So it was doing something right.

I'm not one of the people that play that kind of one-trick pony lists, and I'm not saying this Vect stratagem is bad for the game or meta for that.

I'm just acknowledging how powerfull is this stratagem agaisnt that kind of lists. Lists that aren't unpopular in tournament top rankings.

Witchs have a fight twice strategum plus soulburst. And their throwing out 41 attacks from 10 models thats 3 rounds of 41 attacks that I dont get to do anything against.

 Ordana wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah, if your whole army relies on a single one-time use of a stratagem to win, I think you're doing it wrong.

Poxwalker farm is hard countered by this. A variation of it got 2nd at Adepticon?
So it was doing something right.

That same list had it's poxwalkers wiped by fire raptors turn 1 and still won. His list wasn't built exclusively around pox walkers.

There are lots of other situations where it can be a big deal. It won't come up every game but it will sometimes come up in a major way, even against pretty normal lists and even just to cancel a 1 CP stratagem.

For example, a psyker suffers a Perils that would kill him and then inflict MWs on a bunch of nearby stuff. Ordinarily this is not a big deal, since you use the re-roll stratagem such that you almost certainly avoid it, but Agents of Vect can negate that, in which case that 3 CP is getting you something several times better than an Orbital Bombardment.

Likewise the "Explodes" rule rarely comes up because you can just re-roll the 6, but suddenly your opponent's vehicles are 6 times more likely to do d3 MWs to everything within 6" of them when they die. This is often a big chunk of the army!

Classic overreaction. I like it, and I don't play DE.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Classic overreaction. I like it, and I don't play DE.

It's exactly what Vect would want.

 Ordana wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah, if your whole army relies on a single one-time use of a stratagem to win, I think you're doing it wrong.

Poxwalker farm is hard countered by this. A variation of it got 2nd at Adepticon?
So it was doing something right.

Debatable. Some things that win tournaments aren't necessarily good for the game.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Classic overreaction. I like it, and I don't play DE.

It's exactly what Vect would want.

Egads... letting the terrorists win.

Meh. It messes with my poxwalker list, but screw it... I'll trade 3 cp for my 1 cp, and they still have a chance to roll a 1.

If anything it means I can't spam the dead walk again, or cloud of flies as much. I don't see this being game breaking, and we haven't seen all the restrictions yet

bananathug wrote:
And that d3 mortal wounds to all psychers w/in 12" strat for 2cp...

As if grey knights weren't bad enough (my templars would kill for this strat)

3 cp is a significant investment to keep your opponent from using a strat. If it didn't go off on a 2+ it wouldn't be powerful enough and at 2 cp w/ a 4+ I don' think it would cost enough to keep it from being used more than 1-2 times per battle.

Most armies show up with 8-12 CP. Usually want to spend 4-5 cps on your own army so with 8 cps the 3 cp strat is only getting used twice while the 2cp one could be used 4 times...

Hell a calidus assassin adds +1 cp to a strat spent in the first round on a 4+ and that's the whole reason I run one in my army. Those first turn strats are super important to a lot of armies. This strat is way more powerful than that.

DE are going to be good (RIP my vanilla marines)

All DE Haemonculus had that ability by default in the index for 0 cp, and you could use it once per Haemonculus. No one took them.

It's not a good stratagem.

blaktoof wrote:

bananathug wrote:
And that d3 mortal wounds to all psychers w/in 12" strat for 2cp...

As if grey knights weren't bad enough (my templars would kill for this strat)

3 cp is a significant investment to keep your opponent from using a strat. If it didn't go off on a 2+ it wouldn't be powerful enough and at 2 cp w/ a 4+ I don' think it would cost enough to keep it from being used more than 1-2 times per battle.

Most armies show up with 8-12 CP. Usually want to spend 4-5 cps on your own army so with 8 cps the 3 cp strat is only getting used twice while the 2cp one could be used 4 times...

Hell a calidus assassin adds +1 cp to a strat spent in the first round on a 4+ and that's the whole reason I run one in my army. Those first turn strats are super important to a lot of armies. This strat is way more powerful than that.

DE are going to be good (RIP my vanilla marines)

All DE Haemonculus had that ability by default in the index for 0 cp, and you could use it once per Haemonculus. No one took them.

It's not a good stratagem.

It's an okay but situational stratagem. Having a 50/50 shot at at putting 2 wounds on units that are right next to you provided they have a semi-rare keyword (psyker) isn't something I'm going to build a list around, but it might be nice to help finish off the librarian that charged your haemonculus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Witchs have a fight twice strategum plus soulburst. And their throwing out 41 attacks from 10 models thats 3 rounds of 41 attacks that I dont get to do anything against.

Ah, I see. I'm still not overly concerned about that, though I'm open to changing my mind if people start wiping the floor with ynnari wyches.

Wyches are 1 attack base (unless they upped it) with 1 extra attack from their standard weapons. So to get up to 41 attacks out of 10 models, you're probably looking at investing in +1 Attack drugs and the +1 Attack on the charge obsession. Which means that they're strength 3 instead of 4 or 5. If you charged that turn, it means that you're probably soul bursting as a result of killing a unit (if you were already in combat in the psychic phase, you didn't charge that turn). So you have to kill off a full unit on the charge to get 41 attacks twice. Potentially very scary, but also requires you spend CP, put a lot of resources into bonus attacks, and not get overwatched/punched back hard enough to dramatically reduce your killing power.

Just for my own curiosity, 41 wych attacks hitting on 3s (assuming no succubus or PFP buff) turns into...
about 27 hits which turns into...
versus guardsmen: 13 or 14 wounds which turns into about 9 dead guardsmen. Pretty decent for their points. You're not unlikely to soulburst against a min-sized squad. Especially if you use the stratagem to fight again.
versus marines: 9 wounds which turns into about 3 dead marines. Still not bad, but nothing to write home about. You probably won't soul burst unless you're finishing off a straggler unit, and then you'll only kill about 3 marines in whatever squad you soul bursted into .

Obviously these numbers will jump up with some sort of buffs present and jump down as any unit you stab (that wasn't already locked in combat) will have had a chance to take away a wych or two in overwatch. (Because you have to declare them a target of your charge to attack them.)

Yes but some stratagems affect army composition. Such as the chapter master stratagem. It wouldn't make sense to deny this and change an opponents list.

Unless I missed something vital I doubt Wyches are going to get obsessions if they are Ynnari.

I am just amazed that people are fearing wyches. A close combat unit that actually has to get into combat, survive shooting with a 6++ save, and then charge and weather overwatch, only to hit on 3+ with str 3 attacks.

Hell, they are Toughness 3 models so they aren't exactly going to survive a whole lot.

I mean, wyches are looking better than before, but they have been utter gak up until now. At best they are decent with the improvements, but they aren't exactly giving me confidence in their abilities.

The whole stratagems system is ending up to be silly.

"My army doesnt work without this one stratagem!"

What a game it has become!

Wyches have indeed gained a 2nd attack according the the Warhammer 40k facebook page. They touted it as one of the 5 improved units, mentioning that in addition to the stuff mentioned in the Wyche Cult article they gained +1A.

I doubt Ynnari units will get Obsessions though - Craftorld Ynnari don't.

Its nice to know that people are so bad that not using a single strategem makes them auto-lose

I kid, I kid...... (or do I?)

Seriously people, we rarely see Dark Eldar players as it is, so lets let them have their fun counterspell nonsense. I find even with a wide variety of strategems most people just burn their CP on rerolls anyways so it usually doesn't matter.

And tournament play is also like ....less than 5% of actual warhammer play. And do you think these top players would bring lists soley based around fighting DE players that use this strategem? I doubt it. I really doubt this strategem changes anything.

Its 3 freaking CP to use it xeno, this is just pointless complaining at this point, if it was 2+ to cancel it without refunding their poitns I could understand, but its not.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Unless I missed something vital I doubt Wyches are going to get obsessions if they are Ynnari.

I am just amazed that people are fearing wyches. A close combat unit that actually has to get into combat, survive shooting with a 6++ save, and then charge and weather overwatch, only to hit on 3+ with str 3 attacks.

Hell, they are Toughness 3 models so they aren't exactly going to survive a whole lot.

I mean, wyches are looking better than before, but they have been utter gak up until now. At best they are decent with the improvements, but they aren't exactly giving me confidence in their abilities.

If I'm not mistaken, having a single Ynnari detachment lets you make any other aeldari (other than exceptions like coven units) gain the Ynnari keyword. It's just that Yvraine, the Yncarne, and the Visarch don't have any craftworld, masque, or kabal/coven/cult keywords themselves. So you take a small ynnari detachment alongside a pure drukhari or craftworld detachment, and you can suddenly have units with both Strength From Death and cult stratagems/traits/relics. You just lose PFP for doing so.

I agree with your post on the whole though. I think wyches are probably solid now, but all of these buffs are on top of a unit that has generally been considered subpar thus far. I think people can make a pretty scary wych force, but I don't think they can make one that would be considered "OP."

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Ix_Tab wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No kidding - orbital bombardment just went from bad to unplayable vs dark eldar. It's okay - Ravengaurd can still infiltrate most their army.

If orbital bombardment is bad why would you ever spend 3cp to have the chance to cancel it, usually without cp cost to the opponent? This comment seems bizarre.

Xeno is known for being fairly...melodramatic...in his/her evaluation of the game.

sarcasm and humor appear lost on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah, if your whole army relies on a single one-time use of a stratagem to win, I think you're doing it wrong.

You were doing it right before. Now any kind of strategey that relies on an in game strategem is void.

mhalko1 wrote:
Yes but some stratagems affect army composition. Such as the chapter master stratagem. It wouldn't make sense to deny this and change an opponents list.

You mean the Chapter Master Strategem nobody uses because just a few more points gives you a character with the same benefit plus probably what is another neat rule?

It isn't even the proliferation of Chapter Master characters either. It just isn't worth that many CP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
Yes but some stratagems affect army composition. Such as the chapter master stratagem. It wouldn't make sense to deny this and change an opponents list.

You mean the Chapter Master Strategem nobody uses because just a few more points gives you a character with the same benefit plus probably what is another neat rule?

It isn't even the proliferation of Chapter Master characters either. It just isn't worth that many CP.

You could use Death Visions of Sanguinius as your example instead. I sure hope you're not going to argue no one uses that.

This will be a very powerful strategem for ig. Just take a de detachment - like 3 archons or something - and block your enemy all day long. Ig have plenty of cp with double refills and don't know where to spend them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can take a de detachment alongside ig detachment and stay battleforged, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if your army is dependent on a strategem, you' re kinda forced to take agents of vect to protect from agents of vect.

Woah Kabalites at 6 pts...that stuff is now too cheap and you'll be seeing Kabalite spam from the codex release onwards

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
Yes but some stratagems affect army composition. Such as the chapter master stratagem. It wouldn't make sense to deny this and change an opponents list.

You mean the Chapter Master Strategem nobody uses because just a few more points gives you a character with the same benefit plus probably what is another neat rule?

It isn't even the proliferation of Chapter Master characters either. It just isn't worth that many CP.

You could use Death Visions of Sanguinius as your example instead. I sure hope you're not going to argue no one uses that.

Correct.
I will instead argue that it (and the Chapter master for example) are pre-game stratagems which the Vect strat specifically says you cannot stop.

 Ordana wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
Yes but some stratagems affect army composition. Such as the chapter master stratagem. It wouldn't make sense to deny this and change an opponents list.

You mean the Chapter Master Strategem nobody uses because just a few more points gives you a character with the same benefit plus probably what is another neat rule?

It isn't even the proliferation of Chapter Master characters either. It just isn't worth that many CP.

You could use Death Visions of Sanguinius as your example instead. I sure hope you're not going to argue no one uses that.

Correct.
I will instead argue that it (and the Chapter master for example) are pre-game stratagems which the Vect strat specifically says you cannot stop.

And we think the cut off part is "During deployment" so redeploys or others stratagems at that time cant be counter as well.

 koooaei wrote:
You can take a de detachment alongside ig detachment and stay battleforged, right?

Nope, no shared keyword.

Use it to block a CP reroll to revive RG. Delicious.

Can the Agents of Vect counter the Agents of Vect in a mirror match of Vect versus Vect?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Can the Agents of Vect counter the Agents of Vect in a mirror match of Vect versus Vect?

It becomes a sequencing rule and that means who ever players turn it is, gets to pick the order, so unless its your turn its pointless to play.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Can the Agents of Vect counter the Agents of Vect in a mirror match of Vect versus Vect?

It becomes a sequencing rule and that means who ever players turn it is, gets to pick the order, so unless its your turn its pointless to play.

Why would it be a sequencing thing? They're not targeting each other. If the player whose turn it is can choose to have the opposing player's Agents of Vect go off after the stratagem it's targeting resolves such that AoV has no effect, then it doesn't actually work at against any stratagem used during a player's own turn.

It's clear from the text that the second AoV is resolved before the first one is. That's the first sentence of the rules.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Can the Agents of Vect counter the Agents of Vect in a mirror match of Vect versus Vect?

It becomes a sequencing rule and that means who ever players turn it is, gets to pick the order, so unless its your turn its pointless to play.

Why would it be a sequencing thing? They're not targeting each other. If the player whose turn it is can choose to have the opposing player's Agents of Vect go off after the stratagem it's targeting resolves such that AoV has no effect, then it doesn't actually work at against any stratagem used during a player's own turn.

It's clear from the text that the second AoV is resolved before the first one is. That's the first sentence of the rules.

I re-read it, i thought it was slightly worded differently. It would counter the counter yes.

Hey. If everyone else can just take more than 3 detachments, looks like my Feculent Gnarlmaw (and the Fort Detachment) is making it into every list I write now. Thanks GW!

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
You can take a de detachment alongside ig detachment and stay battleforged, right?

Nope, no shared keyword.

That's actually a separate Matched play rule, found on page 214 of the main rulebook under 'Army Faction'.

 Ghaz wrote:
That's actually a separate Matched play rule, found on page 214 of the main rulebook under 'Army Faction'.

Matched play is the only relevant game type. Nobody cares about absurd "bring whatever you want" games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That's actually a separate Matched play rule, found on page 214 of the main rulebook under 'Army Faction'.

Matched play is the only relevant game type. Nobody cares about absurd "bring whatever you want" games.

HEY! we all want to play our 1 DE detachment for counter stratagems, while playing our Ynnari Dark Reaper and Shiny Spear units next to the BA smash Captain, and Chaos Poxwalkers! for real man, come on this is the best way to play!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That's actually a separate Matched play rule, found on page 214 of the main rulebook under 'Army Faction'.

Matched play is the only relevant game type. Nobody cares about absurd "bring whatever you want" games.

Speak for yourself.

However, I do agree that seeing as people are bringing the minimum Vect force to be competitive rather than narrative (because I really don't see many circumstances in which taking a tiny Dark Eldar force allied to your IoM force is narrative), it is a Matched Play issue.

Matched Play, however, isn't the only type of play, and are still affected by certain sweeping "fixes" to Matched.

Regardless, saying that your army is "unplayable" because you can't rely on a crutch stratagem (that you can still use later, and the DE player needs to waste 3CP on it, and can only do it once per phase - which they will eventually run out of) is either tactically deficient that they absolutely cannot use another option, or vastly exaggerating.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That's actually a separate Matched play rule, found on page 214 of the main rulebook under 'Army Faction'.

Matched play is the only relevant game type. Nobody cares about absurd "bring whatever you want" games.

It's still a separate rule from Battle-forged (which in and of itself is under 'Advanced Rules' section of the rulebook, not 'Matched Play'). I was just letting koooael know why he couldn't find it under the Battle-forged rules.

I can't see how Agents of Vect will make a difference in most games.

For one, most Eldar armies I have faced have about 8 CPs max. Even if the AoV is successful, that's at most 2 blocked Stratagems. It comes at the cost of rerolls and other Stratagems.

For another, how many armies really rely on Stratagems to the point where this is going to make a difference? I play CSMs, maybe if someone used it to block Tide of Traitors it could affect me capturing a single objective. Or maybe to block Veterans of the Long War / Endless Cacophony on a unit of Obliterators. But it's rare for me to play a game where either makes or breaks me, since so many other factors affect the outcome.

More than happy to have opponents spending 3 command points on a Stratagem that, at best, inconveniences me. The fact it has a 16% chance of burning my command points is not enough to care about.

Thats right techsoldaten. For example I too don't care about this stratagem with my lists.

But as a stratagem, you use it wen it makes a difference, and in games where it doesnt, you just don't use it.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I can't see how Agents of Vect will make a difference in most games.

For one, most Eldar armies I have faced have about 8 CPs max. Even if the AoV is successful, that's at most 2 blocked Stratagems. It comes at the cost of rerolls and other Stratagems.

For another, how many armies really rely on Stratagems to the point where this is going to make a difference? I play CSMs, maybe if someone used it to block Tide of Traitors it could affect me capturing a single objective. Or maybe to block Veterans of the Long War / Endless Cacophony on a unit of Obliterators. But it's rare for me to play a game where either makes or breaks me, since so many other factors affect the outcome.

More than happy to have opponents spending 3 command points on a Stratagem that, at best, inconveniences me. The fact it has a 16% chance of burning my command points is not enough to care about.

It definitely isn't an auto-win button, but there are still situations where it's worth using. You listed several just now, and others have pointed out things like BA 3d6 charges and intercepting dark reapers. Dark Eldar are very fragile and very fond of being the ones on offense. So Agents of Vect lets you mess up your opponent's plans at a key moment, thus either keeping more of your units alive or making it easier to kill enemy units (picture reapers trying to move back into cover with Fire and Fade suddenly being left exposed to enemy fire.) It's expensive, but if you use it in the right place at the right time, you can dramatically alter the momentum of the game.

You're right though. You want use this very many times. I imagine that for armies with only 7 or 8 CP, using this more than once will generally be a mistake. That said, it's worth mentioning that the Black Heart trait gives you a chance to regenerate CP over the course of the game, so that may or may not help with the high cost of AoV.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I can't see how Agents of Vect will make a difference in most games.

For one, most Eldar armies I have faced have about 8 CPs max. Even if the AoV is successful, that's at most 2 blocked Stratagems. It comes at the cost of rerolls and other Stratagems.

For another, how many armies really rely on Stratagems to the point where this is going to make a difference? I play CSMs, maybe if someone used it to block Tide of Traitors it could affect me capturing a single objective. Or maybe to block Veterans of the Long War / Endless Cacophony on a unit of Obliterators. But it's rare for me to play a game where either makes or breaks me, since so many other factors affect the outcome.

More than happy to have opponents spending 3 command points on a Stratagem that, at best, inconveniences me. The fact it has a 16% chance of burning my command points is not enough to care about.

Some armies are going to be much more vulnerable to this. If your game plan hangs on strategem like ba 3d6 charge this can screw them. Otoh ig usually doesn't have strategem that's crucial to go off so apart from reroll at crucial point not going to kill them as badly as 3d6 charge not going off.

3CP are really a lot. Drukhari will not spam brigades or battallions, they usually have 7 CPs in total and we need a few of them to re roll the bad results on the D6 damage on the dark lances.

Right now I don't think I'd use this stratagem regularly.

I loathe everything about this Strategem. It will just encourage more soup hijinx.

Eldar Brigade with Dark Eldar Patrol detachment... Haha, good game nerd. Hope you don't rely on Strategems... Or your models not being dead from Dark Reapers or Shining Spears.

Dark elder get to use patrol detachments for CP unlike other armies yet they don't have to do so. They can take 2 battalions or a brigade just like anyone else for 9+ CP.

They will be fine without their 6 patrols.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Dark elder get to use patrol detachments for CP unlike other armies yet they don't have to do so. They can take 2 battalions or a brigade just like anyone else for 9+ CP.

They will be fine without their 6 patrols.

I don't think DE will play regularly with more than 7-8 points. 3 HQs are already a tax. 2x battallions will not be that common and the brigade won't gonna happen at 2000 points unless the DE player brings only a few (or even zero) transports and I'm not sure he really wants that.

The 6 patrols look a bit more interesting than the brigade. At least you don't have to spam unwanted elites or fast attacks. But the 6 HQs tax may be huge.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I loathe everything about this Strategem. It will just encourage more soup hijinx.

Eldar Brigade with Dark Eldar Patrol detachment... Haha, good game nerd. Hope you don't rely on Strategems... Or your models not being dead from Dark Reapers or Shining Spears.

And then you can be grateful that they can't spend those 3CP on all the really good Craftworld strats.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I loathe everything about this Strategem. It will just encourage more soup hijinx.

Eldar Brigade with Dark Eldar Patrol detachment... Haha, good game nerd. Hope you don't rely on Strategems... Or your models not being dead from Dark Reapers or Shining Spears.

The problem is the soup itself, not the drukhari codex. They have been garbage so far, they deserve a strong codex. Nerfing the soups is something very needed IMHO, it's actually the most important thing I'd like to be included in the upcoming FAQs. More than nerfing the dark reapers or the new tyranids overpowered list.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Hey. If everyone else can just take more than 3 detachments, looks like my Feculent Gnarlmaw (and the Fort Detachment) is making it into every list I write now. Thanks GW!

Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games? I don't see any need for it.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games?

Because that's the rules for normal games.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Hey. If everyone else can just take more than 3 detachments, looks like my Feculent Gnarlmaw (and the Fort Detachment) is making it into every list I write now. Thanks GW!

Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games? I don't see any need for it.

See earlier in this thread where people were complaining that GW obviously intends for DE to bring 6 or more detachments when others bring 3.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games?

Because that's the rules for normal games.

We've scoured the rulebook, again, and only found the suggestion. Please quote for me where this is a rule.

If you're talking about local houserules and 3rd party tournament rules, go ahead.

The only rule we've found is the bit about "an army can contain any number of detachments", which seems right there to spit in the face of everyone saying DE can only take 3.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games?

Because that's the rules for normal games.

We've scoured the rulebook, again, and only found the suggestion. Please quote for me where this is a rule.

If you're talking about local houserules and 3rd party tournament rules, go ahead.

The only rule we've found is the bit about "an army can contain any number of detachments", which seems right there to spit in the face of everyone saying DE can only take 3.

Again, we shall see in May when GW has the finals for their GT. They use the 3 detachment limit aswell.
My bet is on DE not getting an exception in the rulepack.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games?

Because that's the rules for normal games.

We've scoured the rulebook, again, and only found the suggestion. Please quote for me where this is a rule.

If you're talking about local houserules and 3rd party tournament rules, go ahead.

The only rule we've found is the bit about "an army can contain any number of detachments", which seems right there to spit in the face of everyone saying DE can only take 3.

That’s my point. The rule is that in normal game you can have any number of detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Again, we shall see in May when GW has the finals for their GT. They use the 3 detachment limit aswell.
My bet is on DE not getting an exception in the rulepack.

Grand Tournament is not a 'normal game.'

It's a little strange to me that people are so reluctant to allow Dark Eldar to work the way they're clearly supposed to work. Like, a "3 DE Patrols only take up one detachment 'slot'" rule doesn't actually make Eldar soup much stronger, right? What it does is promote more than just a token DE presence. Everyone agrees that as-is you can bring a single DE Patrol to unlock Agents of Vect. Everyone agrees that you can bring a cheap Battalion to generate CPs about as efficiently as the 3 Patrols do (DE HQs are not cheap). The benefit to players here is really just that you can include more than a single kind of DE HQ or Troop without rapidly using up your detachment allowance -- the point is not to punish a player for not spamming a very small number of units. Right? I mean, probably you only prefer 3 Patrols to a Battalion if you actually have a use for both an Archon and a Haemonculus and both Warriors and Wracks. I'm not sure anyone wants to pay for an extra Archon just to get 1 CP.

It does quiet a bit actually as you would actually become a cheaper CP farm than a guard brigade. But its only 8 CP instead of 9 but that extra cp will coat another 78points when IG become 5ppm

Guard battalion is slightly cheaper than the 3 patrols but only generates 3 CP not 4 that the 3 patrols does not to mention you can still bring ynarri soulburst and alitoc factions which arn't exactlly struggling to build competitive lists. But an extra 4 cp for sub 300 points and agents of vect, you can bet that would be a stable of eldar soup

Ice_can wrote:
It does quiet a bit actually as you would actually become a cheaper CP farm than a guard brigade. But its only 8 CP instead of 9 but that extra cp will coat another 78points when IG become 5ppm

Guard battalion is slightly cheaper than the 3 patrols but only generates 3 CP not 4 that the 3 patrols does not to mention you can still bring ynarri soulburst and alitoc factions which arn't exactlly struggling to build competitive lists. But an extra 4 cp for sub 300 points and agents of vect, you can bet that would be a stable of eldar soup

Again, what you're saying here is that it is overpowered to be able to pay 70 points for an Archon and 1 CP. Because otherwise you can already do exactly this with Battalions instead of Patrols. Do you actually think people would make that trade?

The Guard Battalion is also not "slightly cheaper". It is less than 2/3 the price, would be significantly cheaper even with (purely hypothetical!) 5 ppm Infantry, and has the option to upgrade one of the (very useful) Company Commanders to a (very useful) Primaris Psyker. Also it comes with Kurov's Aquila which is easily worth the 1 CP difference by itself.

Edit: Like, the worst-case scenario here is that instead of just bringing 2 Archons and 3 units of Warriors for ~230 points and 3 CP, you instead bring 2 Archons, 2 units of Warriors, 1 Haemonculus, and 1 unit of Wracks for ~320 points and then use a 1 CP stratagem to give the Haemonculus the warlord trait that gives you d3 more CP, for an average of 5 CP. That's still only a small improvement in CP per point and is still less efficient than a Guard Battalion, and now you've got to figure out what to do with a Haemonculus and a unit of Wracks.

I dont understand what you mean by an archon and a cp for 70 points.

A dark eldar battalion is 18 points more than a guard battalion. Ao not like your hurting for ways to get cheap CP.

DE can bring brigades quite easily. The only issue is do they have a competitive unit in each slot?

HQ - not great (we don't know a lot yet about how good they are though)
troops - excellent (cheap)
elites - excellent (core units)
fast attack - excellent(lots of good options now - 3 man bikes?)
Heavy - excellent(ravagers or min sqourge units)

I am really not seeing why people don't think DE will bringe brigade. The only reason they wouldn't bring it is to bring multiple patrols if that was a better option. Seeing how their weak spot is HQ though - I really doubt patrols will work.

So - your best strategem is not going off vs DE. Just accept it. There is even a chance you might have to still pay for it. Hopefully - they will fix this cross codex nonsense with stratgems so we only have to worry about this when playing against DE and not also vs ynnari/craftworlds.

I think the point is that for 9 CP to make a Guard Brigade the cost is X (like 1000 or something), to make a DE 6 patrol match to get 8 CP it costs them 6x70 archons and 6x30 Kabalites.

That is all naked, so like 600 points for 8 CP.

But apparently, there is something broken about paying 1000 points for 9 CP, Imperium players think guard are the only ones allowed to do it.

Edit: Math in the AM is rough.

Edit Edit: Also, with that Guard Brigade, you get A LOT OF STUFF. That Dark Eldar patrol spam is 6 archons and 30 Kabalites, hardly game-winning.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I think the point is that for 9 CP to make a Guard Brigade the cost is X (like 1000 or something), to make a DE 6 patrol match to get 8 CP it costs them 6x70 archons and 6x30 Kabalites.

That is all naked, so like 600 points for 8 CP.

But apparently, there is something broken about paying 1000 points for 9 CP, Imperium players think guard are the only ones allowed to do it.

Edit: Math in the AM is rough.

Edit Edit: Also, with that Guard Battalion, you get A LOT OF STUFF. That Dark Eldar patrol spam is 6 archons and 30 Kabalites, hardly game-winning.

Guard can bring a brigade for around 400 points. What's really silly is they can do it by bringing nothing but their best units.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Dark elder get to use patrol detachments for CP unlike other armies yet they don't have to do so. They can take 2 battalions or a brigade just like anyone else for 9+ CP.

They will be fine without their 6 patrols.

And then no trait for that brigade.

Also: reading the wording on their Patrol detachment ability, they get +4 CP for AT LEAST 3 Patrols, and +8 CP for AT LEAST 6 Patrols.

That means they cannot keep spamming it. If they bring 12 Patrols they only get +8 CP.

So matched play, if they want to hammer CP, they need to now invest in Battalions to continue getting CP after 11 (8+3).

Again, this is not game shattering... especially for a faction with no psychic powers.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Dark elder get to use patrol detachments for CP unlike other armies yet they don't have to do so. They can take 2 battalions or a brigade just like anyone else for 9+ CP.

They will be fine without their 6 patrols.

And then no trait for that brigade.

No additional warlord trait you mean? Remains to be seen if that even matters - though if it does - you can still do brigade plus 2 patrols or 2 battalions if you really want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Also: reading the wording on their Patrol detachment ability, they get +4 CP for AT LEAST 3 Patrols, and +8 CP for AT LEAST 6 Patrols.

That means they cannot keep spamming it. If they bring 12 Patrols they only get +8 CP.

So matched play, if they want to hammer CP, they need to now invest in Battalions to continue getting CP after 11 (8+3).

Again, this is not game shattering... especially for a faction with no psychic powers.

No one is saying it is game shattering. People are just trying to dispel this notion that DE wont be able to play this stratagem 3+ times in a game. They are wrong - DE will be capable of shutting a stratagem down. ALL GAME.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Dark elder get to use patrol detachments for CP unlike other armies yet they don't have to do so. They can take 2 battalions or a brigade just like anyone else for 9+ CP.

They will be fine without their 6 patrols.

And then no trait for that brigade.

Except for their covens being all deoptimized for that "choice"

You know, the whole core of their codex?

No the chapter trait equilavent. They don't have same keyword for all slots so it would be like mixing marines and ig. No chapter bonus etc.

Just settle for 3 patrols or battallions

Ice_can wrote:
I dont understand what you mean by an archon and a cp for 70 points.

A dark eldar battalion is 18 points more than a guard battalion. Ao not like your hurting for ways to get cheap CP.

I'm making explicit the trade-off that you're claiming is overpowered. You're obscuring what's actually going on by making all kinds of comparisons to different things. Like, in your last post you started out by talking DE Patrols being more point-efficient sources of CP than a Guard brigade, ignoring that nobody thinks that brigades are a particularly point-efficient source of CP. Then you start comparing the 3 DE Patrols to a Guard Battalion (incorrectly saying that the Battalion is only slightly cheaper) and talking as if the 3 Patrols alongside Alatoic and Ynnari detachments would be too much.

I'm pointing out that you're not grappling with the trade-off the Eldar player would actually have to make here. Even with a firm 3 detachment limit the Eldar player can obviously bring the Alatoic and Ynnari detachments and then a 3 CP DE Battalion. If you instead adopt a rule that lets 3 DE Patrols only use up one 'slot', then the trade-off is still not "do I take this DE detachment or a Guard Brigade?" Obviously, right? The decision to be made is: "do I take a DE Battalion or 3 DE Patrols?"

The main difference between a Battalion and 3 Patrols is that the Patrols get 1 more CP and require 1 more HQ. So that's the question you have to ask: "do I want to pay 70 points and get an HQ and 1 CP?" I feel like most lists aren't willing to do that. You do it if you actually want to bring a variety of DE units rather than just Archons and Warriors, but in that case you're not just bringing them for the CP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Again, this is not game shattering... especially for a faction with no psychic powers.

No one is saying it is game shattering. People are just trying to dispel this notion that DE wont be able to play this stratagem 3+ times in a game. They are wrong - DE will be capable of shutting a stratagem down. ALL GAME.

 Xenomancers wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Dark elder get to use patrol detachments for CP unlike other armies yet they don't have to do so. They can take 2 battalions or a brigade just like anyone else for 9+ CP.

They will be fine without their 6 patrols.

And then no trait for that brigade.

No additional warlord trait you mean? Remains to be seen if that even matters - though if it does - you can still do brigade plus 2 patrols or 2 battalions if you really want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Also: reading the wording on their Patrol detachment ability, they get +4 CP for AT LEAST 3 Patrols, and +8 CP for AT LEAST 6 Patrols.

That means they cannot keep spamming it. If they bring 12 Patrols they only get +8 CP.

So matched play, if they want to hammer CP, they need to now invest in Battalions to continue getting CP after 11 (8+3).

Again, this is not game shattering... especially for a faction with no psychic powers.

No one is saying it is game shattering. People are just trying to dispel this notion that DE wont be able to play this stratagem 3+ times in a game. They are wrong - DE will be capable of shutting a stratagem down. ALL GAME.

AND? If they're spending all their CP on Agents of Vect... guess what they're NOT spending their CP on?

So...

No one gets stratagems for the game in your hyperbolic world?

Also, this can only be used once per phase. You can use other stratagems in the same phase. So you are still advantaged by getting command rerolls and other codex stratagems AFTER they've used Vect on your "I win" button.

Random amusing thought: Playing with an opponent that agrees you can use the Reroll Stratagem on the Most Important Rule, then using Agents of Vect.

Vect is such a magnificent bastard that his spies can break the 4th Wall.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games?

Because that's the rules for normal games.

We've scoured the rulebook, again, and only found the suggestion. Please quote for me where this is a rule.

If you're talking about local houserules and 3rd party tournament rules, go ahead.

The only rule we've found is the bit about "an army can contain any number of detachments", which seems right there to spit in the face of everyone saying DE can only take 3.

I don't have to quote anything to anyone The majority of people in clubs and tournaments use the suggested max number of detachments that is in the rules. Its a House Rule but a GW suggested one.

If your group is happy to play the rules straight that's also cool.

3CP is a lot but I can def see when it might be worth it - if you have that many CP left at a given moment - eg I have had to re-roll before to get St C to resurrect.

tneva82 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Again, this is not game shattering... especially for a faction with no psychic powers.

No one is saying it is game shattering. People are just trying to dispel this notion that DE wont be able to play this stratagem 3+ times in a game. They are wrong - DE will be capable of shutting a stratagem down. ALL GAME.

Nah cp is going to be low or they lose their chapter trait EQUILavent. Brigades no trait, battalions big hq tax, 3 patrols 7 cp and no allies

 Mr Morden wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Why would anyone including my Dark Eldar get to use more than 3 detachments in normal games?

Because that's the rules for normal games.

We've scoured the rulebook, again, and only found the suggestion. Please quote for me where this is a rule.

If you're talking about local houserules and 3rd party tournament rules, go ahead.

The only rule we've found is the bit about "an army can contain any number of detachments", which seems right there to spit in the face of everyone saying DE can only take 3.

I don't have to quote anything to anyone The majority of people in clubs and tournaments use the suggested max number of detachments that is in the rules. Its a House Rule but a GW suggested one.

If your group is happy to play the rules straight that's also cool.

3CP is a lot but I can def see when it might be worth it - if you have that many CP left at a given moment - eg I have had to re-roll before to get St C to resurrect.

The point I've been trying to hammer home is that this rule is not based off of a rule, thus needs to be examined hard as the intention is for Dark Eldar to bring in the 4-5 detachment range, if not something upwards of 7. They have the rules and the mechanics to support it for something outside of I want to drop 500 points in Guard for 9 CP in my Ultramarine army.

In Dark Eldar's case, the "suggestion" in the base rulebook is just narrowly restrictive to the faction, and if it is not called out for what it is, people will continue to force Dark Eldar into that archiac restriction. Dark Eldar will not be able to mechanically perform as GW intended them to with Covens and Patrols because they're forced into Battalions. Bringing issue to it now allows time for the discussion to happen outside of "the rule is 3!!!!" Because if "the rule is 3!!!!" stands, then DE are gimped right from the deployment of their codex, and no one will have the flexibility to say: you know, maybe we should let them try to do the patrol spam and let's see how bad it is before we slam them with a generalized rule.

This is kind of in the same ballpark as: Hive Tyrants are OP, so let's fix it by limiting all HQs in all armies to 1 per detachment. It fixes the "problem" with one faction in the most destructive way to a lot of other factions.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

The point I've been trying to hammer home is that this rule is not based off of a rule, thus needs to be examined hard as the intention is for Dark Eldar to bring in the 4-5 detachment range, if not something upwards of 7. They have the rules and the mechanics to support it for something outside of I want to drop 500 points in Guard for 9 CP in my Ultramarine army.

In Dark Eldar's case, the "suggestion" in the base rulebook is just narrowly restrictive to the faction, and if it is not called out for what it is, people will continue to force Dark Eldar into that archiac restriction. Dark Eldar will not be able to mechanically perform as GW intended them to with Covens and Patrols because they're forced into Battalions. Bringing issue to it now allows time for the discussion to happen outside of "the rule is 3!!!!" Because if "the rule is 3!!!!" stands, then DE are gimped right from the deployment of their codex, and no one will have the flexibility to say: you know, maybe we should let them try to do the patrol spam and let's see how bad it is before we slam them with a generalized rule.

This is kind of in the same ballpark as: Hive Tyrants are OP, so let's fix it by limiting all HQs in all armies to 1 per detachment. It fixes the "problem" with one faction in the most destructive way to a lot of other factions.

Not any more than other factions. But sure if you are happy to face effective 30 plus cp imperium soup feel free.

Or maybe general lack of cp's is designed feature to put limit on this cp...as if one had lots of cp's there would be entire armies that might just as welj not bother to deploy vs de.

The whole 3 detachment limit is stupid. It serves one purpose, to stop guard gaining insane amount of CP. Why not fix the actual problem, the Guard's too effective CP generation, instead of forcing lame restriction on other armies?

tneva82 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

The point I've been trying to hammer home is that this rule is not based off of a rule, thus needs to be examined hard as the intention is for Dark Eldar to bring in the 4-5 detachment range, if not something upwards of 7. They have the rules and the mechanics to support it for something outside of I want to drop 500 points in Guard for 9 CP in my Ultramarine army.

In Dark Eldar's case, the "suggestion" in the base rulebook is just narrowly restrictive to the faction, and if it is not called out for what it is, people will continue to force Dark Eldar into that archiac restriction. Dark Eldar will not be able to mechanically perform as GW intended them to with Covens and Patrols because they're forced into Battalions. Bringing issue to it now allows time for the discussion to happen outside of "the rule is 3!!!!" Because if "the rule is 3!!!!" stands, then DE are gimped right from the deployment of their codex, and no one will have the flexibility to say: you know, maybe we should let them try to do the patrol spam and let's see how bad it is before we slam them with a generalized rule.

This is kind of in the same ballpark as: Hive Tyrants are OP, so let's fix it by limiting all HQs in all armies to 1 per detachment. It fixes the "problem" with one faction in the most destructive way to a lot of other factions.

Not any more than other factions. But sure if you are happy to face effective 30 plus cp imperium soup feel free.

Or maybe general lack of cp's is designed feature to put limit on this cp...as if one had lots of cp's there would be entire armies that might just as welj not bother to deploy vs de.

30 CP? Really? Exaggerating now?

How many points are you going to dedicate to farming CP? 30 CP is what? 9 BNs? 3 BDEs? A BN for guard is what? 200 points? x 9 = 1800 points. A BDE is 500? x 3 = 1500 points?

What real threats can you present with 200-500 points in a 2000 point game? And, sure, you have 30 CP, but it isn't like Guard alone have game shattering stratagems.

CP have always been a trade of crap models for stratagems. If you want a lot of them, you get exactly what you deserve: a field that's going to get trashed by any decent army.

Edit: funny... 3 BDEs, what stops Guard from doing it now?

I don't know how people say Dark Eldar will have CP problems.

You know that not everyone is Eldar or Imperial Guard playing with brigades and 12-15 CP's everygame.

Most armies out here start the game with 7-8 CP, with a batallion+other detachment (Vanguard, Outrider, etc...)

Dark Eldar start the game with 7 CP if they do 3 patrols and with the 1-3 CP Hoemunculus warlord trait then can start with even more without a problem, and then they can regain even more CP with the Black Heart warlord trait. And with the 1 CP for three warlords traits they can start with both of them.

My Dark Angel lists never has more than 8 CP, 3 for battle forge, 3 for a Batallion, +1 for Vanguard, +1 for Azrael.

If everyone could spam 12-15 CP, whats the point of CP? You should suffer to use stratagems, every one should be a relevant decision.

EDIT: And I'm not saying this like "OMG DARK ELDAR OP INFINTIE CP AGENTS OF VECT LITERALLY NO COUNTERPLAY", but that they are in a better position in relation with CP than literally any other army that is not Craftworld Eldar or Imperial Guard.

And yeah, Dark Eldar can bring a Brigade and two patrols without much of a problem, if they want to have three different factions. Or even two batallions and a patrol.

Different factions are balanced around access to CP, though.

Space Marines are not expected to sport 12-15 CPs, they simply would be choked with units generating CP and not many effective units.

Potency of Stratagems and availability of Force Multipliers go into the equation for balancing CP.

Guard can get a lot of CP, but their Stratagems are decent (not omg awesome!). Blood Angels have some potent stratagems, but their access to those CP are far more restrictive than guard. This is all discounting the affect of souping factions like IG for CP into things like Blood Angels.

Dark Eldar have no psychic phase, so some of that is going to have to be carried by stratagems. Which means CP are likely going to be more valuable to them to compete against armies that can generate a lot of power in that phase (DE neither has psychic buffs, nor access to a lot of counters to those buffs from other armies).

Saying that 1 CP is worth the same to a Guard Player as to a Blood Angel player may be a bit disingenuous. The factions weight CP (per point and max) differently.

Except that argument as you admit falls appart when the mass soup became normal.

The way I view the patrols generating CP was to give dark eldar away to avoid the troops and HQ tax that would come from double battalion without taking the CP hammering of using vanguard, spearhead etc.

And it does have to be considered as to how powerful allowing any army containing dark eldar including soup to ignore the detachment limitations.

Solo dark eldar are probably ok, but nothing in any cidex so far has indicated that GW tests soup builds when writing a codex.
Throwing out the one accepted rule that atleast limits soup just because " the intention is for Dark Eldar to bring in the 4-5 detachment range, if not something upwards of 7" . The minuit the rule is broken for dark eldar, eldar soup will want the same treatment. Once eldar soup has unlimited detachments how do you justify every other faction having a limitation that eldar can ignore.
It ends in a free for all that punishes non soup factions to insane levels.

Soup is a totally different argument.

I dislike soup because the outcome becomes: balance based on soup.

Also, I've always hated that armies that are not imperium, chaos, or elves get shafted so hard by this new allies matrix. But arguing to balance dark eldar because of craftworlds makes even less sense.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Different factions are balanced around access to CP, though.

Space Marines are not expected to sport 12-15 CPs, they simply would be choked with units generating CP and not many effective units.

Potency of Stratagems and availability of Force Multipliers go into the equation for balancing CP.

Guard can get a lot of CP, but their Stratagems are decent (not omg awesome!). Blood Angels have some potent stratagems, but their access to those CP are far more restrictive than guard. This is all discounting the affect of souping factions like IG for CP into things like Blood Angels.

Dark Eldar have no psychic phase, so some of that is going to have to be carried by stratagems. Which means CP are likely going to be more valuable to them to compete against armies that can generate a lot of power in that phase (DE neither has psychic buffs, nor access to a lot of counters to those buffs from other armies).

Saying that 1 CP is worth the same to a Guard Player as to a Blood Angel player may be a bit disingenuous. The factions weight CP (per point and max) differently.

Except there is no indication that this is how it works. Space Marines for example are bad at generating CP, and their stratagems are expensive and mostly suck.

 Crimson wrote:
The whole 3 detachment limit is stupid. It serves one purpose, to stop guard gaining insane amount of CP. Why not fix the actual problem, the Guard's too effective CP generation, instead of forcing lame restriction on other armies?

Guard isn't only issue. This strategem would be too good as well if de had easy way to get cp's.

But guess you aren't interested in balanced games


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

The point I've been trying to hammer home is that this rule is not based off of a rule, thus needs to be examined hard as the intention is for Dark Eldar to bring in the 4-5 detachment range, if not something upwards of 7. They have the rules and the mechanics to support it for something outside of I want to drop 500 points in Guard for 9 CP in my Ultramarine army.

In Dark Eldar's case, the "suggestion" in the base rulebook is just narrowly restrictive to the faction, and if it is not called out for what it is, people will continue to force Dark Eldar into that archiac restriction. Dark Eldar will not be able to mechanically perform as GW intended them to with Covens and Patrols because they're forced into Battalions. Bringing issue to it now allows time for the discussion to happen outside of "the rule is 3!!!!" Because if "the rule is 3!!!!" stands, then DE are gimped right from the deployment of their codex, and no one will have the flexibility to say: you know, maybe we should let them try to do the patrol spam and let's see how bad it is before we slam them with a generalized rule.

This is kind of in the same ballpark as: Hive Tyrants are OP, so let's fix it by limiting all HQs in all armies to 1 per detachment. It fixes the "problem" with one faction in the most destructive way to a lot of other factions.

Not any more than other factions. But sure if you are happy to face effective 30 plus cp imperium soup feel free.

Or maybe general lack of cp's is designed feature to put limit on this cp...as if one had lots of cp's there would be entire armies that might just as welj not bother to deploy vs de.

30 CP? Really? Exaggerating now?

How many points are you going to dedicate to farming CP? 30 CP is what? 9 BNs? 3 BDEs? A BN for guard is what? 200 points? x 9 = 1800 points. A BDE is 500? x 3 = 1500 points?

What real threats can you present with 200-500 points in a 2000 point game? And, sure, you have 30 CP, but it isn't like Guard alone have game shattering stratagems.

CP have always been a trade of crap models for stratagems. If you want a lot of them, you get exactly what you deserve: a field that's going to get trashed by any decent army.

Edit: funny... 3 BDEs, what stops Guard from doing it now?

Nah for about 1000 pts you get 18 cp fos guard of which third regenerates. Thus 24. Add in 5+ chance to get from opponents plus 3 from say marines and another regenerate. 27. Plus some regenerated ones wil' regenerate. 30 is easy. Even without getting more from enemy strategems

And what stops? Can't take 5 guard battalions plus ally battalion(s).