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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.

They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, wound roll modifications are strong only when the base unit benefitting from it is already decently resilient. the shadowseer aura isnt the strongest part of the codex.

Only they can also have it apply to their jetbikes with a strat which have three wounds and force a -1 to be hit, which is its most common use case because most competitive Harlequin lists don't actually have any foot troops.

The shadowseer is in every single competitive list and more to the point never actually switches out its -1 to be wounded that I can think of.

The apologist behavior for the strongest faction in the game and the desperate attempts at painting Astartes as a whole as being stronger is pretty embarrassing tbqh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

Yeah they heroically fight to preserve slavery for the vast majority of Imperial citizens and cart countless billions to be sent to their deaths for sometimes trivial reasons, like heroes.

Yeah isn't it strange how eldar player, who claim harlquins are disntict from eldar, do not start 80 pages long rants about how harlis have a 60% win rate, and even have good match ups vs horde armies.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, wound roll modifications are strong only when the base unit benefitting from it is already decently resilient. the shadowseer aura isnt the strongest part of the codex.

Only they can also have it apply to their jetbikes with a strat which have three wounds and force a -1 to be hit, which is its most common use case because most competitive Harlequin lists don't actually have any foot troops.

The shadowseer is in every single competitive list and more to the point never actually switches out its -1 to be wounded that I can think of.

The apologist behavior for the strongest faction in the game and the desperate attempts at painting Astartes as a whole as being stronger is pretty embarrassing tbqh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

Yeah they heroically fight to preserve slavery for the vast majority of Imperial citizens and cart countless billions to be sent to their deaths for sometimes trivial reasons, like heroes.

Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.
So 3+, or 2+ 2w vrs 4++ 1W guess which is easier to kill for most lists. Oh yeah the 1w T3 4++, which even with -1 to wound you wound on 4+, ironically the same as T4, 3+, 2W but the marines make more saves.

Also oh no a Sub T7 vehical so wounding in on 3+/4+, becomes oh wounding on a 4+/5+ vrs T7 or 8 being wounded on 4+ or 5+'s anyway.

Harlequines do have lots of tricks and some really good match ups but outside of hyper competitive those not hard anti marine squew lists with Ap0 and not giving Harlequines nice targets means they have some bad matchups.

Please tell me which faction is the hard counter to Salamanders? Ultramarines?

Ice_can wrote:

Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.

Except Marines (this is most of what you fight btw). And Necrons. And Custodians. And Admech, depending on which troop you take. And Harlequins themselves (with the pistol almost everyone takes). And Imperial or Chaos Knights. And Tau if taking their most competitive troop choice (which still doesn't say much). And Thousand Sons.

All of these have as their "basic shooting" some amount of AP on their guns, which brings the 3+ of an Intercessor up to a 4+ or worse. None can bring a Harlequin to worse than a 4++.

Now let's look at the factions who indeed are limited to AP0 1 damage shooting:

Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Genestealer Cults, Grey Knights, Orks, and Tyranids. Of all these factions, Harlequins only have a negative win rate against Daemons (one of the best armies in the game btw) and Dark Eldar.

"But what if I tailor my list to beat Harlequins for casual play" you say? Tailor them in what way? There is almost no list you can build where Harlequins can't kill what you bring, perhaps no list. Which brings us to why Harlequins are so strong and better than most Marine factions: they will always get to set the terms of engagement. No other army is as fast as Harlequins, no one else really comes close. This is why they have the best go second win rate in the game: they have unrivaled ability to hit the board where it is weakest and take control of the tempo of the game.

So 3+, or 2+ 2w vrs 4++ 1W guess which is easier to kill for most lists. Oh yeah the 1w T3 4++, which even with -1 to wound you wound on 4+, ironically the same as T4, 3+, 2W but the marines make more saves.

Do you live in a fairytale wonderland where people in most games don't bring guns with AP or something? I don't know why you're being such a stickler about the 3+ vs. the 4++: against most good shooting units the 4++ is better. It's the one wound that makes the troupe easier to kill, but who cares? Most of the time they'll be chilling out in one of the best, possibly the best, transports in the game which can move them 22" into and out of LoS with ease.

Also oh no a Sub T7 vehical so wounding in on 3+/4+, becomes oh wounding on a 4+/5+ vrs T7 or 8 being wounded on 4+ or 5+'s anyway.

And most of the time being hit on anywhere from a 4+ to a 5+.

Just about the cheapest T7 is what? A rhino? Which is more expensive than a skyweaver, is much slower, has worse shooting, isn't open-topped, lacks an invulnerable, and doesn't give a -1 to be hit at all times.

So which T7-T8 vehicles are you comparing harlequin vehicles to? And I hope you are talking about harlequin vehicles and not their bikes, because those guys can have a 3++ on top of their other defensive buffs my man. The comparison won't look great.

Harlequines do have lots of tricks and some really good match ups but outside of hyper competitive those not hard anti marine squew lists with Ap0 and not giving Harlequines nice targets means they have some bad matchups.

Harlequins have almost no bad targets. Their haywire cannons on the bikes vaporize tanks, can take chunks out of hordes due to being S4 AP1 and being blast, and can even threaten MEQ a bit. Their melee due to sheer volume of attacks can mulch hordes and are high-quality enough to threaten tougher stuff as well. Their fusion pistol spam blows up tankes and makes gravis units' lives a living knightmare.

They have the occasional bad match-up, but they have very few. What do you consider a bad match-up for Harlequins?

Please tell me which faction is the hard counter to Salamanders? Ultramarines?

Uh, Harlequins.

Were you joking? Because Harlequins buttstomp both of those chapters. They do well against most Marine chapters but they particularly dogstomp most gunline or generalist chapter lists.

Karol wrote:

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

No, Karol. That's bronze-age thinking, and most people have a moral sensibility, including most Poles. If you think that's the case, get better friends.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

No, Karol. That's bronze-age thinking, and most people have a moral sensibility, including most Poles. If you think that's the case, get better friends.

For once he's right though, although I'm not entirely sure how this relates to elite killing secondaries.
As for harlies, never fought them so not sure how to tackle them. But if they get off as light on killing secondaries as marines they need to be looked at. I personally think GW is incapable of balancing armies via a roundabout way such as secondaries. So yeah give us elite army killing secondaries and if magically harlies and SM become balanced or under powered let's address them then.

Karol wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.

They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

Thats really not the premise of the game and if you truly think that the imperium is the good guys, you'll struggle in life and have high chances of joining groups that have dubious ideologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Only they can also have it apply to their jetbikes with a strat which have three wounds and force a -1 to be hit, which is its most common use case because most competitive Harlequin lists don't actually have any foot troops.

The shadowseer is in every single competitive list and more to the point never actually switches out its -1 to be wounded that I can think of.

The apologist behavior for the strongest faction in the game and the desperate attempts at painting Astartes as a whole as being stronger is pretty embarrassing tbqh.

right, i'd forgotten about their PA changes, i played them for so long when the aura only affected infantry and stopped playing them when they became meta so i didnt get that reflex. And i'm not desperatly trying to paint astartes as all being stronger, im just saying that these sorts of buffs are strong on tougher units (which jetbikes do count as).

Ice_can wrote:

Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.
So 3+, or 2+ 2w vrs 4++ 1W guess which is easier to kill for most lists. Oh yeah the 1w T3 4++, which even with -1 to wound you wound on 4+, ironically the same as T4, 3+, 2W but the marines make more saves.

Gotta love Lambdan Lions with their AP-3 HSLGs... Or... Iotan Dragons, whilst with only AP-2 they can deep strike a whole mess of units into RF range and get given FRFSRF to really do some damage to high Sv+, no Inv++ armies...

Primaris Guardsmen ftw!

Karol wrote:
Yeah isn't it strange how eldar player, who claim harlquins are disntict from eldar, do not start 80 pages long rants about how harlis have a 60% win rate, and even have good match ups vs horde armies.

Harlequin ARE distinct from eldar tho.... And no, their winrate isnt a good thing for the game IMO. At least in casual scenes their winrate is much lower because theyre a difficult army to play.

At AP-3, you need 2.4 wounds to kill MEQ.
You need 2 to kill a Harlequin.

Plus the Marines can benefit from cover, while the Quins cannot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
At AP-3, you need 2.4 wounds to kill MEQ.

You need 2 to kill a Harlequin.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
At AP-3, you need 2.4 wounds to kill MEQ.

You need 2 to kill a Harlequin.

So the Marine is 20% more durable against AP3, while being about 30% more expensive than the troupe if it is a mere tactical marine?

But I thought Harliquen Troupe Models were 19 points each because they always take Fusion Pistols?

 Blackie wrote:
T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons.

Looking at this profile misses so much of what makes Harlequins tick. Doing drive-bys with fusion pistols from the back of a Starweaver that moved 22" means none of that profile really matters.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Yet here is the thing your missing
Oh not a 4++, what a shame most factions basic shooting is Ap0 D1.

Except Marines (this is most of what you fight btw). And Necrons. And Custodians. And Admech, depending on which troop you take. And Harlequins themselves (with the pistol almost everyone takes). And Imperial or Chaos Knights. And Tau if taking their most competitive troop choice (which still doesn't say much). And Thousand Sons.

All of these have as their "basic shooting" some amount of AP on their guns, which brings the 3+ of an Intercessor up to a 4+ or worse. None can bring a Harlequin to worse than a 4++.

Now let's look at the factions who indeed are limited to AP0 1 damage shooting:

Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Death Guard, Genestealer Cults, Grey Knights, Orks, and Tyranids. Of all these factions, Harlequins only have a negative win rate against Daemons (one of the best armies in the game btw) and Dark Eldar.

Thats funny I shall need to complain to GW as All the troops in my Tau codex have Ap0 weapons. Even worse so do the drones and even the battlesuits.

Didn't realise you always roll 6's for your Shuriken weapons or are you basing this on everyone having an optional weapon?

Admech don't use Ap0 weapon troops do they not I shall have to inform the locals they are playing their admech wrong then.


So Marines are fine because they are hard countered by Harlequins which make up 6% of the total lists played in 9th edition events.
Must be so tough to be hard countered by a faction your likly to play 1 in 20 games against.

Never said Harlequines can't beat marines just you seem to believe as they are the hard counter to 60% of the armies ie marines they are automatically more OP. Yet when I point out plent of armies actually bring tools that are far more efficient againt Harlequines as a byproduct of needing objective campers you decied to die on the hill that marines arnt the bigger problem in casual play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons.

Looking at this profile misses so much of what makes Harlequins tick. Doing drive-bys with fusion pistols from the back of a Starweaver that moved 22" means none of that profile really matters.

So we need to be nuanced and take in all that makes Harlies tick and win as much as they do but not for Marines, because...?

Go figure the relatively cheap elite infantry faction which can equip its basic troops choice with a melta pistol is really good at killing Space Marines, but thanks to their relative cheapness and 4++ they are a really hard counter to those same Space Marines.

Harlies are not over powered, or if they are very slightly so. The problem is that when SM players run into them they die because guess what those SM players are list building to face? Other SM players. So all those AP-(1-4) weapons are functionally useless, congrats on paying for really expensive bolters. As far as the -1 to wound shenanigans...a basic SM bolter goes from 3s to 4s, which is what its used to fighting against. Yeah the vehicles get tougher, but they were already weaker to begin with.

And as far as harlies beating up everyone else. Against Orkz they are 6 wins 5 losses, and i've seen some of those ork lists and let me put it this way, they deserved to lose.

Honestly, this is just a wonderful example of how an anti-meta faction can throw a monkey wrench into the works. All these people complaining about Harlies were the same ones screaming that Orkz were OP when 8th dropped because we were anti-meta for a bit...right until girlyman gunline took over

Karol wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.

They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

This isn't true at all, even for sci-fi universes where all humans are basically gathered under the same flag. Watch Avatar if you want proof of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
T3 1W 4++ and -1 to hit is actually very weak for 14ppm plus weapons.

Looking at this profile misses so much of what makes Harlequins tick. Doing drive-bys with fusion pistols from the back of a Starweaver that moved 22" means none of that profile really matters.

And Starweavers are 6W T5 4++ -1 to hit. Not exactly that hard to kill for SM, and not all troupes in the list will have fusion pistols.

Just bring something that can deal with Harlies, Daemons or Orks instead of the typical SM lists that are mostly designed to fight other SM.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Yeah isn't it strange how eldar player, who claim harlquins are disntict from eldar, do not start 80 pages long rants about how harlis have a 60% win rate, and even have good match ups vs horde armies.

Harlequin ARE distinct from eldar tho.... And no, their winrate isnt a good thing for the game IMO. At least in casual scenes their winrate is much lower because theyre a difficult army to play.

It is impossible to determine a "casual scene winrate", because casuals don't report their results. You can only tell us what you see harlequins do in the casual environement around you, just like I can only tell you what I have seen.

Void__Dragon has demonstrated pretty well the good stuff all comp players know harlequins to have, and you can argue slaneesh demons are stronger/a bad match up for harlequins, but the rest is quite hard to argue with honestly.

I really don't think a casual player should have any trouble using harlequins effectively. It really isn't rocket science to play with stuff that ignores terrain, you just hide everything and don't worry about circling around terrain and enemy units. Armies with stuff that doesn't fly are IMO much harder to master, because you have to plan your moves a lot more carefully (and in advance).

Karol wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Sounds like you're upset people won't admit that the Imperium is unambiguously heroic.

They aren't and never have been. Read all the fluff, not just the books that came out to sell PEQ models.

If they fight on the human side this makes them automaticaly heroic. That is litteraly how heroes exist nowadays. The dudes fought on your side, ergo they were heroes.

No Karol. that is NOT true, not at ALL.

 addnid wrote:
I really don't think a casual player should have any trouble using harlequins effectively. It really isn't rocket science to play with stuff that ignores terrain, you just hide everything and don't worry about circling around terrain and enemy units. Armies with stuff that doesn't fly are IMO much harder to master, because you have to plan your moves a lot more carefully (and in advance).

I think the point about Harlequins is that you have to control the engagement. So yes, you have to know to hide behind terrain. It should be obvious - but the number of people who put stuff 24" away and just run at each other is very high. In the same way knowing how to tie things up - and then fall back and go into another thing is a skill.

I feel what makes Harlequins the best faction in the game right now is mastering going all in. On paper killing troupes and starweavers - or even the bikes - is not that difficult. But the Harlequin player shouldn't ever let you run through your optimised shooting/assault phase. Its not immediately obvious though how you do this. I think you need to know the game and have a bit of practice.

As per the above, its different to say "I play Marines, he plays Orks, we line up 24" away and run/shoot/charge into each other, but I seem to win more games. Is this because of my mad skills, or just because the odds are stacked in my favour".

BrianDavion 795109 11029751 wrote:

No Karol. that is NOT true, not at ALL.

Show me an example, when this was not the case.

This isn't true at all, even for sci-fi universes where all humans are basically gathered under the same flag. Watch Avatar if you want proof of that.

You mean the movie in which human colonists are butchered, because one guy decides he no longer wants to be human, switchs sides and becomes the hero to the enemy?

Harlies are not over powered, or if they are very slightly so. The problem is that when SM players run into them they die because guess what those SM players are list building to face? Other SM players. So all those AP-(1-4) weapons are functionally useless, congrats on paying for really expensive bolters. As far as the -1 to wound shenanigans...a basic SM bolter goes from 3s to 4s, which is what its used to fighting against. Yeah the vehicles get tougher, but they were already weaker to begin with.

As I said. SM players bad, because they don't know how to play.They just need to tailor and buy a second marine army to play specificaly against harlequins. 60% win rate of harlis is very slightly so better then the norm, but when IH had 63% the world was ending and the game would die in a week time, if GW doesn't do something. This is the same talk non eldar players got to hear when Inari were an actualy played army. Just slightly better, but nothing you couldn't beat, if you played the scenarios, had proper build army and the right skills to play the army. All it lacks is the even if it is a bit too good, harlis are rare played so they only make it unfun for people playing marines. Because somehow making the majority of playerbase unhappy by being clearly skewed against them is somehow okey. But if marines are more or less balanced against each other, and worse in general, then the best armies, they are the ones destroying the game. Got it.

You realise your almost 6 times more likely to play a loyalist Codex Adaptes Astartes based Army in a tournament than a Harlequines Army.

That's excluding Choas Marines, Grey Knights, Thosand Sons and Deathguard.

So your suggestion is that the 70% of the player base that doesn't play marines should suck it up and except being dunked on?

Becuase we can't say that marines as 30% of the player base maybe shouldnt have 50% of the top 10 places in an event incase it offends some marine fan boy?

Also while if your not a tournament regular you might not notice this but that harlequins probably would NOT be doing so well if they didnt keep running into a army they have an easy match up against like Marines Harlequines will drop in win rate when GW actually puts some effort into balance and other factions start being able to actually play 9th edition.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 795109 11029751 wrote:

No Karol. that is NOT true, not at ALL.

Show me an example, when this was not the case.

Easy : Nazis.

They were humans, so automatically that makes them the good guys, right?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:


As I said. SM players bad, because they don't know how to play.They just need to tailor and buy a second marine army to play specificaly against harlequins. 60% win rate of harlis is very slightly so better then the norm, but when IH had 63% the world was ending and the game would die in a week time, if GW doesn't do something. This is the same talk non eldar players got to hear when Inari were an actualy played army. Just slightly better, but nothing you couldn't beat, if you played the scenarios, had proper build army and the right skills to play the army. All it lacks is the even if it is a bit too good, harlis are rare played so they only make it unfun for people playing marines. Because somehow making the majority of playerbase unhappy by being clearly skewed against them is somehow okey. But if marines are more or less balanced against each other, and worse in general, then the best armies, they are the ones destroying the game. Got it.

No, SM players are smart and build their lists to be able to fight the armies that have the biggest meta share right now : Marines. Harlequins and demons prey on these lists that rely on low RoF + AP. If Demons or Quins became a large share of the meta, SM would adapt and run more low ap dakka to raise their chances of winning.

 Castozor wrote:

So we need to be nuanced and take in all that makes Harlies tick and win as much as they do but not for Marines, because...?

Well, yes, because marines are on foot and what makes them work is pretty straightforward. Harlequins get to choose the time and place of their engagement and take a little more planning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:


And Starweavers are 6W T5 4++ -1 to hit. Not exactly that hard to kill for SM, and not all troupes in the list will have fusion pistols.

Just bring something that can deal with Harlies, Daemons or Orks instead of the typical SM lists that are mostly designed to fight other SM.

There are marine lists winning without Eradicators. Ever see what White Scar VV with LC can do while under their super doc, which they can force?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There are marine lists winning without Eradicators. Ever see what White Scar VV with LC can do while under their super doc, which they can force?

Absolutely, SM have so many OP units to choose from that they can even get rid of Eradicators and remain OP. I play full firstborn SM lists and they perform quite well for a sub-optimal selection of units.

As I said before, just bring a more TAC oriented list, and you shouldn't have problems against Harlies or some skew anti meta lists.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 795109 11029751 wrote:

No Karol. that is NOT true, not at ALL.

Show me an example, when this was not the case.

Easy : Nazis.

They were humans, so automatically that makes them the good guys, right?

they're also not exactly considered heros in germany eaither.

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There are marine lists winning without Eradicators. Ever see what White Scar VV with LC can do while under their super doc, which they can force?

Absolutely, SM have so many OP units to choose from that they can even get rid of Eradicators and remain OP. I play full firstborn SM lists and they perform quite well for a sub-optimal selection of units.

As I said before, just bring a more TAC oriented list, and you shouldn't have problems against Harlies or some skew anti meta lists.

Its boiling down to that wonderful old argument where certain players are upset that their specialist unit which is insanely OP and kills its specific target really well isn't as good against its weakest option and therefore the only way to make the game balanced is to make their weapon better at killing EVERYTHING while remaining as good at killing its preferred target.

I've watched too many players complain that their Anti-vehicle unit isn't good at kill hordes so therefore either nerf hordes or increase ROF of their anti-vehicle weapons. Not once in their heads do they think "Huh, maybe I should bring some anti-horde stuff". Or my other favorite is when they do wrap their heads around the logic of bringing Anti-horde stuff they than complain that it isn't fair that they have to bring weapons to deal with horde when they know they are going to face mostly Space Marines.

The concept of TAC to a lot of people doesn't exist. Its either meta net list or nothing.