Switch Theme:

Eldar Q1 2015 Release - Plastic Harlequin models & Codex book  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Silver Spring, MD

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
 docdoom77 wrote:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02


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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/19 00:03:28


Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 DarkStarSabre wrote:


You missed the point by a mile.

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

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

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

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

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

And still be a Battleforged army.


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/19 00:24:01


 
   
Made in us
Potent Grey Knight Librarian





Fort Worth, TX

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

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

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

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

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Inspiring Icon Bearer





Colorado Springs, CO

I'm just a little confused by these arguments.

Before, you wanted to take Harlequins as allies:

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

Now:

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

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

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

If I've got a trade you're interested in but you don't have anything on my wanted list, just shoot me a PM and ask! I'm easily distracted!  
   
Made in gb
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Devon, UK

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

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


What if you wanted to field a single troupe?

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Silver Spring, MD

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 godswildcard wrote:
I'm just a little confused by these arguments.

Before, you wanted to take Harlequins as allies:

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

Now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/19 00:55:21


Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Paradigm wrote:
Were I writing the rules, I'd write them for the 90% that embrace their spirit, say to hell with the other kind of person and hope the community did the same.
Cool, but when writing rules what you should be doing is making them as clear and concise as possible. Spirit means nothing if the rule has 20 different interpretations. Rules are a form of technical writing. They need to be accurate.


 Azreal13 wrote:
What if you wanted to field a single troupe?
This whole damned problem would have been solved by GW including one extra bit in the Harli box (a big glaive) and writing an entry for a "Great Harlequin" HQ choice.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/19 01:24:23


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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

   
Made in gb
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Devon, UK

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

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control






Not sure if this has been posted but what are the ally charts for harlequins?
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




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


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






 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/19 02:15:21


> + + + + + + +  
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control






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

Got solitaire yesterday (don't play Harleys but love the look of him) and he is a great model.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 scuzz_bucket wrote:
 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!
Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.
   
Made in gb
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Devon, UK

 scuzz_bucket wrote:
 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 scuzz_bucket wrote:
 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!
Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.


First World Problems

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/19 02:32:48


> + + + + + + +  
   
Made in ca
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





British Columbia

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

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

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Frenzied Juggernaut





ft. Bragg

 scuzz_bucket wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 scuzz_bucket wrote:
 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!
Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.


First World Problems

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


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

Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you" 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

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

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

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






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

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


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 quickfuze wrote:
 scuzz_bucket wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 scuzz_bucket wrote:
 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!
Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.


First World Problems

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


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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/19 02:35:43


> + + + + + + +  
   
Made in gb
Multispectral Hsien





Gosport, UK

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






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


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

> + + + + + + +  
   
Made in gb
Multispectral Hsien





Gosport, UK

Not a qualm, just an observation.
   
Made in us
Inspiring Icon Bearer





Colorado Springs, CO

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


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

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

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



Fair enough.


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

If I've got a trade you're interested in but you don't have anything on my wanted list, just shoot me a PM and ask! I'm easily distracted!  
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

Wild card

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

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

Check out the other stuff he did, amazing in my opinion.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 scuzz_bucket wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 scuzz_bucket wrote:
 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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


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

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

I mean come on, these guys ain't runnin a charity!
Every company is trying to make money, a "blatant cash grab" is typically the name assigned to things done to make money with less than the expected effort or at the expense of customers instead of their benefit.


First World Problems

Haha, 'the SM dex is such a benefit to my life, but that new harly dex is at my expense, screw them!' cause we need both to eat.
We're on an internet forum talking about little man dollies. Everything we talk about is a first world problem. Every company is out to make money, that doesn't even need to be mentioned because it's blatantly obvious, but a distinction is made between "blatant cash grab" and "just going about the business of making money".
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




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

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

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

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

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





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





@Tannhauser

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

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

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/02/19 09:42:52


 
   
Made in gb
Multispectral Hsien





Gosport, UK

I like how similar they made the DJ and SS. They've even kept the little shurikens in the base on the DJ.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: