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.

 Kroothawk wrote:
People who don't like the FOC free, regular games Apocalypse formations from Escalation probably won't like the FOC free, regular games Apocalypse formation from Dataslades either. So join the queue of people waiting for constructive new additions to their army.

I think i have a better idea of what my friends are willing to play against than you do.

Anyone pick up the Ghost Warrior Formation?

From natfka-
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-first-look-dataslate-eldar-ghost.html
They come with two new rules;
Desperate Measures: All Friendly units in this unit and those within 6" have Hatred. (re-rolls in the first round of close combat)

Wraithbone Wall: Any friendly unit that receives a cover save from this formation form the intervening models rule, receives a cover save of 4+

Yah, cos I'm a complete pointy-eared freak and I was intrigued to see how it compared to the Tau 'slate.

The special rules aren't earth-shattering; any Eldar units within 6" gain Hatred and any unit getting a cover save from an intervening Ghost unit has it improved (by 1). Not really on the same level of usefulness as PE and Tank Hunters tbh.

Just seems weird to me that a unit hiding behind some Wrathguard from the Formation get an improved cover save but not from an exactly similar Wraithguard unit chosen from the normal codex. If the rule kicked in when there were several formation units close to one another it might make more sense in my mind; it is called "wall of wraithbone" after all.

Ninja'd due to tobacco - I really should finish a post first

Could anyone clarify whether Hatred is conferred on any Friendly unit within 6" or if it is limited only to any Eldar unit within 6"? I would be quite interested in running the Wraithknight close to a Beastpack or Hellions, to maximize the number of attacks that would get to be re-rolled in combat.

Do the three units of Wraithguard have the option of taking Wave Serpents?

Somone on the Natfka post also said that the units are assigned battlefield roles, so the Wraithguard count as Troops and the Wraithknight/lords count as Heavy Support. This appears to be missing from the Tau dataslate.

EDIT: I went ahead and purchased the dataslate, so, to answer my own questions for anyone interested:

Hatred applies only to friendly Eldar units within 6".
The 4+ intervening save applies to any friendly unit (enemy units being shot at through a wraith unit would receive the 5+ instead, for instance).
The formation cannot take any type of dedicated transport.
The Wraithknight and Wraithlord count as Heavy Support, the Wraithguard and Wraithblades count as Elites.

The Death Speaker rules for the Spiritseer state that if your army contains a Spiritseer, then Wraithguard and Wraithblade units count as Troops instead of Elites. I'll let others debate whether that applies to formations or not.

 Oaka wrote:
Could anyone clarify whether Hatred is conferred on any Friendly unit within 6" or if it is limited only to any Eldar unit within 6"? I would be quite interested in running the Wraithknight close to a Beastpack or Hellions, to maximize the number of attacks that would get to be re-rolled in combat.

Do the three units of Wraithguard have the option of taking Wave Serpents?

Dedicated transports are not available unfortunately. As for the Hatred rule, it states in the iPad version that it's only friendly Eldar units that are affected.

Edited for semantic clarity.

 monkeypuzzle wrote:
Please explain to me how cypher could be in codex dark angels? They spend all their time chasing him, he is a fallen dark angel. They are not going to fight along side him are they? How would it work?

Pre-fall of caliban Dark Angels. They were once part of the same army. Letting you field Cypher in normal 40k DA would just be representing that (you know so you aren't forced to play 30k to have him). And I wouldn't nitpick about that countering fluff, when currently you can have Dark Angels fighting like battle brothers with inquisitors. That is a more egregious fluff violation in my opinion (and allowed).

Is anyone going to use the fantasy ones? And are they supposedly legit for regular fantasy games? The "binding scrolls" started with Storm of Magic, but those aren't allowed in normal games.

Who really cares with 9th edition coming in 6 months or so, though

 Oaka wrote:

The Wraithknight and Wraithlord count as Heavy Support, the Wraithguard and Wraithblades count as Elites.

So unlike the Tau Formation, they use FOC slots then? Maybe Tau lacking FOC designations was a mistake and they'll fix it? *crosses fingers*

 Crimson wrote:

 Oaka wrote:

The Wraithknight and Wraithlord count as Heavy Support, the Wraithguard and Wraithblades count as Elites.

So unlike the Tau Formation, they use FOC slots then? Maybe Tau lacking FOC designations was a mistake and they'll fix it? *crosses fingers*

They don't use up slots from the primary detachment, but, unlike the Tau dataslate, they count as Heavy Support and Elites as a 'battlefield role'. The only purposes that come to mind for me are for the Big Guns Never Tire mission and the above-mentioned Spiritseer rule and whether it would allow wraithguard from this formation to count as scoring.

 Oaka wrote:

They don't use up slots from the primary detachment, but, unlike the Tau dataslate, they count as Heavy Support and Elites as a 'battlefield role'. The only purposes that come to mind for me are for the Big Guns Never Tire mission and the above-mentioned Spiritseer rule and whether it would allow wraithguard from this formation to count as scoring.

Ah, I see. So much of that then. I hoped some sanity had returned to this game.

 Crimson wrote:

 Oaka wrote:

They don't use up slots from the primary detachment, but, unlike the Tau dataslate, they count as Heavy Support and Elites as a 'battlefield role'. The only purposes that come to mind for me are for the Big Guns Never Tire mission and the above-mentioned Spiritseer rule and whether it would allow wraithguard from this formation to count as scoring.

Ah, I see. So much of that then. I hoped some sanity had returned to this game.

uhm I can't find the bit about they counting as elite or HS in the ibook dataslate. Where it is?

Directly under the unit entry, it should say Battlefield Role:

Battlefield role for each unit is not in the interactive version....

 airmang wrote:
Battlefield role for each unit is not in the interactive version....

this is getting ugly ....

 Garion wrote:

 airmang wrote:
Battlefield role for each unit is not in the interactive version....

this is getting ugly ....

Hey, it wouldn't be GW if we didn't have poorly written rules and inconsistency across different formats and/or languages.

I thought that was expected now.

 monkeypuzzle wrote:
Please explain to me how cypher could be in codex dark angels? They spend all their time chasing him, he is a fallen dark angel. They are not going to fight along side him are they? How would it work?

Cypher leading a group of fallen that fight pretty much the same way that the Dark Angels fight would be done using Codex: Dark Angels. Leads to hilarity of other Imperial factions thinking they're fighting alongside or against a Dark Angel successor or company, then later the Dark Angels arriving and being unable to tell them otherwise lest the secret get out.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Leads to hilarity of other Imperial factions thinking they're fighting alongside or against a Dark Angel successor or company, then later the Dark Angels arriving KILLING THEM ALL WITHOUT ANY WARNING!

Fixed that for you .

TiamatRoar wrote:

 monkeypuzzle wrote:
Please explain to me how cypher could be in codex dark angels? They spend all their time chasing him, he is a fallen dark angel. They are not going to fight along side him are they? How would it work?

Cypher leading a group of fallen that fight pretty much the same way that the Dark Angels fight would be done using Codex: Dark Angels. Leads to hilarity of other Imperial factions thinking they're fighting alongside or against a Dark Angel successor or company, then later the Dark Angels arriving and being unable to tell them otherwise lest the secret get out.

Exalted. My sentiments exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Leads to hilarity of other Imperial factions thinking they're fighting alongside or against a Dark Angel successor or company, then later the Dark Angels arriving KILLING THEM ALL WITHOUT ANY WARNING!

Fixed that for you .

See now we're getting it. It perfectly sets up the next battle, Forge the narrative.

The GW website specifically says you can use Cypher as a count-as Dark Angels HQ choice. Hopefully whoever is writing his dataslate remembers that.

"Even though there is no Codex entry for Cypher, this model could be used as an unusual Dark Angels Captain - or Chaos Space Marines Lord, depending on your interpretation of his background..."

It's right there on the website!

TiamatRoar wrote:
The GW website specifically says you can use Cypher as a count-as Dark Angels HQ choice. Hopefully whoever is writing his dataslate remembers that.

"Even though there is no Codex entry for Cypher, this model could be used as an unusual Dark Angels Captain - or Chaos Space Marines Lord, depending on your interpretation of his background..."

It's right there on the website!

Fielding Cypher alongside a Dark Angels army would require some very serious retcon. I think it would be more likely that the Cypher dataslate can be taken by any army other than DA, and any army that contains Cypher can not include Dark Angels as allies.

Syphid wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The GW website specifically says you can use Cypher as a count-as Dark Angels HQ choice. Hopefully whoever is writing his dataslate remembers that.

"Even though there is no Codex entry for Cypher, this model could be used as an unusual Dark Angels Captain - or Chaos Space Marines Lord, depending on your interpretation of his background..."

It's right there on the website!

Fielding Cypher alongside a Dark Angels army would require some very serious retcon. I think it would be more likely that the Cypher dataslate can be taken by any army other than DA, and any army that contains Cypher can not include Dark Angels as allies.

.....the official Games Workshop website at games-workshop.com specifically says he can be fielded as an "unusual Dark Angels Captain" "depending on your interpretation of his background". Seriously, I even quoted it and you quoted my quotation of it, and you can go to the website and see it for yourself if you want to right now at this very moment. Considering that description's been there since forever (and thus, Cypher's been OFFICIALLY fieldable as a Dark Angels HQ choice for a looong time), the actual retcon would be Cypher NOT being fieldable as a Dark Angels captain.

Syphid wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The GW website specifically says you can use Cypher as a count-as Dark Angels HQ choice. Hopefully whoever is writing his dataslate remembers that.

"Even though there is no Codex entry for Cypher, this model could be used as an unusual Dark Angels Captain - or Chaos Space Marines Lord, depending on your interpretation of his background..."

It's right there on the website!

Fielding Cypher alongside a Dark Angels army would require some very serious retcon. I think it would be more likely that the Cypher dataslate can be taken by any army other than DA, and any army that contains Cypher can not include Dark Angels as allies.

In the fluff, it says that he tends to draw both Dark Angels and Fallen to him (how many times have DA almost got him). It also says, in the fluff, that not all the fallen have succumbed to being full-fledged CSM but are rather repentant for their betrayal. So knowing this is it so hard to believe that Cypher could have a warband of fallen that still fight like they used to Pre-Fall of Caliban. The fallen are still Dark Angels (somewhat).

That is why a Fallen supplement wouldn't be that hard; especially as we will have Cypher's rules soon. Veterans as troops, new warlord traits, ancient (maybe corrupted) relics, limit (forbid) special characters, allow to ally with CSM and CD. Newer equipment can be explained away by stealing, or salvaging. Maybe have something special for a "Cypher's Fallen" unit. Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Syphid wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The GW website specifically says you can use Cypher as a count-as Dark Angels HQ choice. Hopefully whoever is writing his dataslate remembers that.

"Even though there is no Codex entry for Cypher, this model could be used as an unusual Dark Angels Captain - or Chaos Space Marines Lord, depending on your interpretation of his background..."

It's right there on the website!

Fielding Cypher alongside a Dark Angels army would require some very serious retcon. I think it would be more likely that the Cypher dataslate can be taken by any army other than DA, and any army that contains Cypher can not include Dark Angels as allies.

Like the retcon we got for DA being battle brothers with inquisitors. Which, by fluff, the DA stay away from in order to protect their secret. Ya, I think it is fine to give us Cypher (we have to get something eventually, right?).

The DA and their successor chapters have members in the Deathwatch. Thus at the very least THOSE DA upon returning to the chapter would still be Battlebrothers with Ordos Xenos inquisitors (who logically speaking wouldn't be prying into DA secrets very much since that's not what Ordos Xenos inquisitors do)

Most Ordos Malleus inquisitors also wouldn't particularly be prying into DA affairs unless demons were involved.

I'm not aware of any fluff piece that explicitly says the DA always turn down inquisitor requests for aid, either.

TiamatRoar wrote:
The DA and their successor chapters have members in the Deathwatch. Thus at the very least THOSE DA upon returning to the chapter would still be Battlebrothers with Ordos Xenos inquisitors (who logically speaking wouldn't be prying into DA secrets very much since that's not what Ordos Xenos inquisitors do)

Most Ordos Malleus inquisitors also wouldn't particularly be prying into DA affairs unless demons were involved.

I'm not aware of any fluff piece that explicitly says the DA always turn down inquisitor requests for aid, either.

I was just going by inquisitors as whole, and not really diving into individual ordos since, in game terms, it doesn't matter. And no they wouldn't refuse aid because that would be tantamount to suicide. They just begrudgingly work with them, and keep to themselves (like space wolves, only much worse).

Battle Brothers status probabably doesn't actually take into account "feelings", I think. That's why Space Marines can be Battle Brothers with Tau or Eldar battle brothers with Dark Eldar. What's important regarding your level of Allies relationship is whether or not you're capable of squading up with each other and fighting side-by-side (under the "best" of situations, since I'm positive Marines and Tau don't enter into battle brother alliances that often...)

http://www.blacklibrary.com/2013-advent

Astorath the Grim story and Crypt Scavengers battle scroll.

I haven't been this bored by a GW release in a long time. There is nothing even remotely related to any of the armies I play.

So these are actual new rules for these models? I'm a bit confused.

TiamatRoar wrote:

Syphid wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The GW website specifically says you can use Cypher as a count-as Dark Angels HQ choice. Hopefully whoever is writing his dataslate remembers that.

"Even though there is no Codex entry for Cypher, this model could be used as an unusual Dark Angels Captain - or Chaos Space Marines Lord, depending on your interpretation of his background..."

It's right there on the website!

Fielding Cypher alongside a Dark Angels army would require some very serious retcon. I think it would be more likely that the Cypher dataslate can be taken by any army other than DA, and any army that contains Cypher can not include Dark Angels as allies.

.....the official Games Workshop website at games-workshop.com specifically says he can be fielded as an "unusual Dark Angels Captain" "depending on your interpretation of his background". Seriously, I even quoted it and you quoted my quotation of it, and you can go to the website and see it for yourself if you want to right now at this very moment. Considering that description's been there since forever (and thus, Cypher's been OFFICIALLY fieldable as a Dark Angels HQ choice for a looong time), the actual retcon would be Cypher NOT being fieldable as a Dark Angels captain.

In my view the wording means you can use the 'model' not the character Cypher as a generic Dark Angels Captain. Unless the upcoming rules say he can be used with the Dark Angels, you're stuck with using the model as a generic Dark Angels Captain OR as Cypher. In other words the 'Cypher model' has been officially fieldable while 'Cypher' hasn't.