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.

tneva82 wrote:

 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).

What stops it more is that at that level of investment towards farming CP, you're sacrificing the competitiveness of your army.

That's why it isn't done.

 Xenomancers wrote:
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)

You clearly don't play DE. And I suspect you don't even face them quite regularly.

DE elites are not that good. Fielding three of them plus all the other stuff is very hard. Remeber that they absolutely need the dedicated transports which make the brigade hard to fit. We don't have trueborn anymore so our valuable elites are mandrakes and incubi. Maybe grots, which aren't definitely excellent, but then you need the coven synergies aka more expensive troops or HQs to make them shine.

FA are also not that easy to fit: there's the beastpack which is good but expensive, and hellions and reavers seem very good in large squads now. Scourges (they're FA, not heavy) may be decent now.

Fielding an efficent brigade with also 6+ transports (also our flyer, which are very good will stay out) is almost impossible, going for a battallion and a spearhead/outrider or 3x patrols is way better.

Everyone worrying about using Eldar as a battery for a token DE detachment using Vect - how about this fix (also applies to fix all soup CP issues).

Each detachment has it's own pool of CP. Detachments which share the same <Faction> (ie Chapter, Regiment, Craftworld, Sept, etc etc) count as one detachment for the sake of CP pools. All CP generated by a detachment may only be used by that detachment for Stratagems that detachment has access to.

For example:

I have an <Ultramarines> Battalion (3), an <Ultramarines> Spearhead (1), a <Cadian> Brigade (6), and a <Catachan> Patrol (0), which all together generate 13 CP (+3 for being Battleforged). - Yes, this is 4 Detachments, but frankly, only having 3 is a suggestion, not a hard rule.

Due to my rule, however, my Ultramarines cannot use the CP generated by the Cadians, because they're not <Cadian>. Despite being in different detachments however, they can use eachother's CP as they're both <Ultramarines> so my Spearhead units could benefit from 4CP, using the Battalion to generate their CP. My Catachans would not get any CP except for the 3 CP I can share between my detachments for being Battleforged, which no one detachment generated.

This wouldn't require that much bookkeeping - just have a piece of paper, and mark off how many CP you use for each detachment. This way, using AM as a CP battery for other Factions is limited, and DE need to be a DE army if they want to use DE stratagems all game.

Keep it simple:

Allies bring diversity of models to your game, not diversity of tactics.

Pick a primary force from a codex, probably whatever your <FLEXIBLE> tag is. Detachments with that key provide CP, Warlords, Relics, etc.

Cuts down on a lot of the munchkining that goes on. No more Blood Angels armies with IG Warlords and Relics because they are great. It would be an IG army with Blood Angel support, but won't have access to use Blood Angel stratagems at all since it is an IG army. Or vice versa, the Blood Angel army would not generate CP off of IG detachments, and could not use those traits/relics from IG to reuse CP while still retaining access to Blood Angel stratagems.

Even kills a lot of goofy in-house soup like picking the best Craftworld for a specific detachment (Alaitoc for ranged units, Ulthewe for stuff that won't be sitting with the -1 to be hit most of the time).

I think splitting CP and all between forces creates a situation where cheesing can happen: oh, crap, I deducted from the wrong pool, my bad. Just shut it down and let allies be allies: a secondary force to augment your greater force. They may not work well and feel out of place, but you phoned a friend... they didn't have time to prepare and are not fighting in their preferred element.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DE wouldn't even be screwed over by this thanks to that base rule that grants them CP based off of Patrols. Specific overrides generic? Or a FAQ could clear that up. I don't know of any other factions that are forced to mix keywords as a basic function of their army.

The strategem system has become so silly at this point , I am looking forward to the day it all gets scrapped in the name of "streamlining"

Pancakey wrote:
The strategem system has become so silly at this point , I am looking forward to the day it all gets scrapped in the name of "streamlining"

See you in 10 years.

Wyldhunt wrote:

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 know I'm a bit late but I wanted to clarify this is incorrect. If models are in a Ynnari detachment they lose access to obsessions, covens, etc - a ynnari detachment must all have the ynnari keyword and thus cannot also be a coven/obsession/cult detachment.

As I see it you can stop pox-walker farm.

Not really seeing what other armies fall apart if you can cancel one stratagem.

DE can be built to farm CPs. Not totally convinced people will though (tbf if scourges are good (especially if naked) a Kabal brigade isn't obviously terrible.)

Tournaments might give DE a special rule - but I would be surprised. The big issue would be Eldar soups slotting in a 100 point patrol just to get this and other stratagems - if they were overpowered/meta breaking.

As it stands you can just take a Black Heart brigade for 3 CP rather than 3 patrols for 4 CP. Unless you are married to having an Archon/Succubus/Haemi I don't see why you would care.

Yeah, pox-walker spam is killed by this, I think. But I don't really see any other army that's kneecapped by this stratagem.

Nurgle armies have always been countered by DE. Even during the nightmare garbage of 7th.

I'd say the DE strategy that does mortal wounds to every psyker within 12" is a fiasco for GK. Practically every unit is a psyker so placing 1 model is the middle of a few units could do massive damage to a GK army. All at the cost of a couple of CP and some 50/50 die rolls.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd say the DE strategy that does mortal wounds to every psyker within 12" is a fiasco for GK. Practically every unit is a psyker so placing 1 model is the middle of a few units could do massive damage to a GK army. All at the cost of a couple of CP and some 50/50 die rolls.

Finally a hard counter for those pesky GK!

I know. I've been mopping up so many opponents with my mono-GK army that I was about to get a new bucket.

Seriously, with all of these new books and startegies GK's need a new book or a significant revision of its units via CA and FAQ. Either that, or just drop GK as an army and admit that they made a mistake.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd say the DE strategy that does mortal wounds to every psyker within 12" is a fiasco for GK. Practically every unit is a psyker so placing 1 model is the middle of a few units could do massive damage to a GK army. All at the cost of a couple of CP and some 50/50 die rolls.

This is actually a nerf to DE's ability to deal with GKs. It used to be a free ability that every Haemonculus could use once per game (although I suppose this is still clearly legal given the FAQ on index wargear options, but that seems obviously unintended).

Dionysodorus wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd say the DE strategy that does mortal wounds to every psyker within 12" is a fiasco for GK. Practically every unit is a psyker so placing 1 model is the middle of a few units could do massive damage to a GK army. All at the cost of a couple of CP and some 50/50 die rolls.

This is actually a nerf to DE's ability to deal with GKs. It used to be a free ability that every Haemonculus could use once per game (although I suppose this is still clearly legal given the FAQ on index wargear options, but that seems obviously unintended).

...because you had such a hard time in the first place?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd say the DE strategy that does mortal wounds to every psyker within 12" is a fiasco for GK. Practically every unit is a psyker so placing 1 model is the middle of a few units could do massive damage to a GK army. All at the cost of a couple of CP and some 50/50 die rolls.

I mean... if by massive damage you mean about 1 terminator's worth of wounds in every other unit. If you use this while in range of 6 different terminator units, you'll average about 1 dead terminator in 3 of those 6 units. Even if the laws of probability go out for lunch and you do max damage to each of those 6 units, you'll still only kill 1.5 terminators per squad. And barring any other thus far unmentioned psyker defense, this represents the entirety of a pure drukhari army's anti-psyker "defense." So we're paying command points to flip a coin and maybe kill a terminator in any psyker units crowding a specific HQ once per game. It's nice to have, but I'm really perplexed by the GK doomsaying here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

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 know I'm a bit late but I wanted to clarify this is incorrect. If models are in a Ynnari detachment they lose access to obsessions, covens, etc - a ynnari detachment must all have the ynnari keyword and thus cannot also be a coven/obsession/cult detachment.

The bolded part is the critical piece. My index is in the car at the moment, but I was under the impression that you needed at least one Ynnari detachment to have ynnari at all, but that you could then give the Ynnari keyword to any other aeldari unit (except covens, etc.) in your army. Thus why you can have Ynnari Alaitoc Dark Reapers and why taking a Craftworld detachment alongside your Ynnari detachment grants access to all those stratagems hidden behind the Asuryani detachment wall. Or am I forgetting a line that takes away the Asuryani/Drukhari or Craftworld/Kabal keyword?

If I'm not, then you could do something like...

YNNARI PATROL
HQ: Yvraine
TROOPS: 2 units of rangers

YNNARI FLAYED SKULL BATALLION
HQ: 2 Archons
TROOPS: 3 squads of kabalite warriors.

Your batallion would lose PFP but gain strength from death, and all the dark eldar in the batallion would benefit from the <FLAYED SKULL> rules. Having an entire detachment with the FLAYED SKULL keyword would give you access to drukhari and FLAYED SKULL stratagems. The rangers, in contrast, would not have any craftworld traits or stratagems because they're in a detachment with a non-asuryani model (Yvraine).

The Dark Reapers still have the <Craftworld> keyword, but as they are in a Ynnari detachment (not a <Craftworld> detachment) they don't get to benefit from the Craftworld Traits.
They CAN still benefit from the stratagem of their home <Craftworld> though, as long as you have an Asuryani (or however it's spelled) detachment taken alongside you Ynnari one.

Craftworld Traits (and other subfaction abilities) only work in a <Subfaction> Detachment.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The Dark Reapers still have the <Craftworld> keyword, but as they are in a Ynnari detachment (not a <Craftworld> detachment) they don't get to benefit from the Craftworld Traits.
They CAN still benefit from the stratagem of their home <Craftworld> though, as long as you have an Asuryani (or however it's spelled) detachment taken alongside you Ynnari one.

Craftworld Traits (and other subfaction abilities) only work in a <Subfaction> Detachment.

But can you have Ynnari Alaitoc reapers in an Alaitoc detachment so that they're -1 to hit and can soulburst? As in put Yvraine in a different detachment from that of the reapers, then have her strength from death the reapers.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The Dark Reapers still have the <Craftworld> keyword, but as they are in a Ynnari detachment (not a <Craftworld> detachment) they don't get to benefit from the Craftworld Traits.
They CAN still benefit from the stratagem of their home <Craftworld> though, as long as you have an Asuryani (or however it's spelled) detachment taken alongside you Ynnari one.

Craftworld Traits (and other subfaction abilities) only work in a <Subfaction> Detachment.

But can you have Ynnari Alaitoc reapers in an Alaitoc detachment so that they're -1 to hit and can soulburst? As in put Yvraine in a different detachment from that of the reapers, then have her strength from death the reapers.

No.

The detachment is either craftworlds, or Ynnari, it cannot be both. This is explicitly called out on Codex: Craftworlds pg 116.

"YNNARI is a keyword that some units in this book can gain when taken as part of a Reborn army, as detailed in other publications. If a Detachment includes any YNNARI units, it is no longer a Craftworlds Detachment and will not gain either of the abilities listed below"

So you either get SFD or your craftworld trait, never both.

A Similarly worded rule appears in the new Codex: Drukhari.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The Dark Reapers still have the <Craftworld> keyword, but as they are in a Ynnari detachment (not a <Craftworld> detachment) they don't get to benefit from the Craftworld Traits.
They CAN still benefit from the stratagem of their home <Craftworld> though, as long as you have an Asuryani (or however it's spelled) detachment taken alongside you Ynnari one.

Craftworld Traits (and other subfaction abilities) only work in a <Subfaction> Detachment.

But can you have Ynnari Alaitoc reapers in an Alaitoc detachment so that they're -1 to hit and can soulburst? As in put Yvraine in a different detachment from that of the reapers, then have her strength from death the reapers.

I suggest you re-read the Ynnari index entry because you seem to not understand the basics.

EDIT: My bad, you need the Index Xenos 1 faq. It explains why you can't do what you want.
The Eldar Codex also stops it, page 116

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I know. I've been mopping up so many opponents with my mono-GK army that I was about to get a new bucket.

Seriously, with all of these new books and startegies GK's need a new book or a significant revision of its units via CA and FAQ. Either that, or just drop GK as an army and admit that they made a mistake.

I think that GK as an army ARE a mistake. Same as harlequins or inquisition or SoB or genestealers cult, deathwatch etc. Also Ynnari. They should all be part of a bigger codex.

Drukhari are the only army in the game that doesn't have any psyker, so someway to counter the enemy psykers should be something needed. I don't think that the new specific stratagem is game breaking, even against several units/characters that can get mortal wounds by it, the drukhari player won't cause massive damage. And again, it's the only way drukhari have to counter psykers. Sure they can soup with eldar but also GK can soup with other stuff and be way more competitive, so souping is not a valid argument in this matter.

 Blackie wrote:

Drukhari are the only army in the game that doesn't have any psyker,

Tau? Necrons?

 Crimson wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Drukhari are the only army in the game that doesn't have any psyker,

Tau? Necrons?

Sisters of Battle? Technically Black Templars and World Eaters?
And if you're going to say "They have the Imperium/Chaos Keyword!" Blackie, I'll point out that Drukhari have the Aeldari keyword.

Yeah, tau and necrons were my mistakes, sorry. About SoB, they're one of those independent factions that should be part of a larger codex IMHO, if those armies lack something it's a different matter as they only have a few units available. Black templars don't have their codex, they're part of the SM one, which means lots of psykers available without souping. World eaters are not a real faction either.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, tau and necrons were my mistakes, sorry. About SoB, they're one of those independent factions that should be part of a larger codex IMHO, if those armies lack something it's a different matter as they only have a few units available. Black templars don't have their codex, they're part of the SM one, which means lots of psykers available without souping. World eaters are not a real faction either.

Archon Succubus Haemonculus Urien Drazar Lelith
Kabalites Wyches Wracks
4x court guys incubi mandrakes grotesques
beastmaster+3 beasts
talos chronos ravager
scourges hellions reavers
raider venom
razorwing voidraven

29, vs

canoness celestine command squad Uriah
sisters
crusaders priests hospitalier imagifier Mistress Priest
dominions celestians retributors...flaily arm guys whose name escapes me
penitent engine death cult repentia seraphim
rhino immolator exorcist

I count 22, and I'm unfamiliar with sisters so I could be missing one or two. Before the model relaunch.

Maybe people in rapidly-shrinking houses should not throw rocks.

The point about dark eldar is that they've been already fractioned enough, no more bloodbrides and trueborn. And no more 8 (I remember 8, maybe they're more?) harlequins units as well. They should have 40ish units at least. The three ynnari dudes should be part of their codex as well.

Sob+inquisition+grey knights+custodes would make an army with a decent range of options while remaining quite fluffy. Maybe even ad mech and the imperial knights should be part of the same codex as well. Of course knights should be included also in other imperium books, like rhinos that are shared among different codexes.

 Blackie wrote:
The point about dark eldar is that they've been already fractioned enough, no more bloodbrides and trueborn. And no more 8 (I remember 8, maybe they're more?) harlequins units as well. They should have 40ish units at least. The three ynnari dudes should be part of their codex as well.

Sob+inquisition+grey knights+custodes would make an army with a decent range of options while remaining quite fluffy. Maybe even ad mech and the imperial knights should be part of the same codex as well. Of course knights should be included also in other imperium books, like rhinos that are shared among different codexes.

Ah, yes, the old "give me more, others less, I deserve it, trust me" argument.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The point about dark eldar is that they've been already fractioned enough, no more bloodbrides and trueborn. And no more 8 (I remember 8, maybe they're more?) harlequins units as well. They should have 40ish units at least. The three ynnari dudes should be part of their codex as well.

Sob+inquisition+grey knights+custodes would make an army with a decent range of options while remaining quite fluffy. Maybe even ad mech and the imperial knights should be part of the same codex as well. Of course knights should be included also in other imperium books, like rhinos that are shared among different codexes.

Ah, yes, the old "give me more, others less, I deserve it, trust me" argument.

Why less? Actually an imperium codex with the 4 factions that I listed would have way more option than the dark eldar+ynnari+harlequins one.

It would also make those imperium factions way better than now, while drukhari wouldn't add that much. And trust me, I couldn't care less about the level of competitiveness of those imperium factions and I'm not even interested in adding the harlies or the ynnari guys to my army either

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The point about dark eldar is that they've been already fractioned enough, no more bloodbrides and trueborn. And no more 8 (I remember 8, maybe they're more?) harlequins units as well. They should have 40ish units at least. The three ynnari dudes should be part of their codex as well.

Sob+inquisition+grey knights+custodes would make an army with a decent range of options while remaining quite fluffy. Maybe even ad mech and the imperial knights should be part of the same codex as well. Of course knights should be included also in other imperium books, like rhinos that are shared among different codexes.

Ah, yes, the old "give me more, others less, I deserve it, trust me" argument.

Why less? Actually an imperium codex with the 4 factions that I listed would have way more option than the dark eldar+ynnari+harlequins one.

It would also make those imperium factions way better than now, while drukhari wouldn't add that much. And trust me, I couldn't care less about the level of competitiveness of those imperium factions and I'm not even interested in adding the harlies or the ynnari guys to my army either

As a Sororitas player, feth you.

Seriously, "roll these factions together because they're undeserving of independent support" is just insulting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The point about dark eldar is that they've been already fractioned enough, no more bloodbrides and trueborn. And no more 8 (I remember 8, maybe they're more?) harlequins units as well. They should have 40ish units at least. The three ynnari dudes should be part of their codex as well.

Sob+inquisition+grey knights+custodes would make an army with a decent range of options while remaining quite fluffy. Maybe even ad mech and the imperial knights should be part of the same codex as well. Of course knights should be included also in other imperium books, like rhinos that are shared among different codexes.

Ah, yes, the old "give me more, others less, I deserve it, trust me" argument.

Why less? Actually an imperium codex with the 4 factions that I listed would have way more option than the dark eldar+ynnari+harlequins one.

It would also make those imperium factions way better than now, while drukhari wouldn't add that much. And trust me, I couldn't care less about the level of competitiveness of those imperium factions and I'm not even interested in adding the harlies or the ynnari guys to my army either

As a Sororitas player, feth you.

Seriously, "roll these factions together because they're undeserving of independent support" is just insulting.

I don't think that's exactly what he's saying.

I personally don't mind factions getting their own books. You can combine all those books in an army naturally so the distinction of having them in one book seems pointless other than saving money.