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.

Aren't all books still valid, if both players agree?
It's only when tournaments put rules together that it will matter.

If a player at the club I go to wanted to run a 2-year-old Eldar codex army against my new version, I would.
Until Codex:ECW turned up, the Codex:Eldar Harlequins were still valid, despite the Codex:Harlequins being around.
If GW released an FAQ changing the Wave Serpent's shield, there's be little need to re-release the new codex at all. Lots of wants, but few needs.

GW Response :


"Lion den? What the flip is a lion-"

"Psspsspss"

"Oh was that one of those things we whipped off the printing press for an easy buck? They want us to update that? *snort* yeah sure we'll get right to it after the sisters of battle plastics.

Oh they just wanna use the old stuff? Yeah, whatever, it'll probably sell more models. Just tell them if the rules don't make sense, they should...do the whatever. What was it?"

"Forge the narrative (trademark pending) sir."

"Right. That. Forge the thing.

Thank Christ that's over, I've got a real job to do. How're the Q4 numbers looking Johnson?"

 TheKbob wrote:
This is entirely gross if the supplement is no longer valid. So not only is your old book replaced in two to three years, but your $50 extra purchase is useless from the game play perspective.

If that's true, then hopefully some folks get rightfully mad. I hope it's not.

This is exactly why when they release a 120 page book that is 7 pages of rules, print the PDF, message sent.

Sigh. 3 pages of arguing and not one person googled it. Nafka had GW's customer service response over a week ago:

apologies for the delay in replying I have been waiting for a answer from our games designers.

The Supplement Ilyanden was meant to go with the Older Eldar Codex and thus was not really designed for the new codex.

However feel free to adapt the rules if you wish in order to keep using it in games.

Iyanden is *technically* illegal, but GW gave us their standard "Make up your own rules, it's YO WORL' BOSS!"

So to answer the question, of your friends are ok with it go ahead.... But that's been the rule of them since gw started updating things... So the only reason to actually ask this question must have been for actual competetive, tourny play.. and to that the answer is no. Unless a TO for some reason decides to make this the first exception ever in the case of using outdated material, it is no longer valid with the new codex.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Aren't all books still valid, if both players agree?

Yes, they are still valid. If someone wanted to play a 3E rulebook list, with all of its limitations, I would allow it.

It's mostly a tournament issue, but I'm not a fan of cherry picking expansions to Codices. .

While I would allow 6E Codex: Iyanden with 6E Codex: Eldar, I would not allow 6E Codex: Iyanden with 7E Codex: Eldar Craftworlds. If you allow that sort of mixing, then you sort of have to allow 3E Codex: Craftworlds with 7E Codex: Eldar Craftworlds, and 3E Codex Blood Angels with 6E Codex: Space Marines.

 Massawyrm wrote:
Sigh. 3 pages of arguing and not one person googled it. Nafka had GW's customer service response over a week ago:

apologies for the delay in replying I have been waiting for a answer from our games designers.

The Supplement Ilyanden was meant to go with the Older Eldar Codex and thus was not really designed for the new codex.

However feel free to adapt the rules if you wish in order to keep using it in games.

Iyanden is *technically* illegal, but GW gave us their standard "Make up your own rules, it's YO WORL' BOSS!"

http://natfka.blogspot.jp/2015/04/iyanden-games-workshop-responds.html



Yeah, that response is pretty much the exact exchange the scotsman theorized about!

the_scotsman wrote:
GW Response :


"Lion den? What the flip is a lion-"

"Psspsspss"

"Oh was that one of those things we whipped off the printing press for an easy buck? They want us to update that? *snort* yeah sure we'll get right to it after the sisters of battle plastics.

Oh they just wanna use the old stuff? Yeah, whatever, it'll probably sell more models. Just tell them if the rules don't make sense, they should...do the whatever. What was it?"

"Forge the narrative (trademark pending) sir."

"Right. That. Forge the thing.

Thank Christ that's over, I've got a real job to do. How're the Q4 numbers looking Johnson?"

Here is my general issue with the whole codex set up. For over a decade I have played Iyanden, when codex craftworlds was originally release I had 15 wraithguard and 3 wraithlords.

The next book came out I went from 6 to 1 troop choices over night. You had to take 10 wraightguard with a spiritseer to make them troops (costing 399 points) but I did it because I love the theme.

Fast forward to this next book and all of a sudden we not only got love but lots of it. The codex eldar book was more they amazing and we got an Iyanden supplement to boot. I drastically increased my selection of Guard and Blades, now people may have called me cheesy but anyone who knew me knows I did it for fluff. I never played with anything but wraith models. So now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.

New book comes out I go from 6 troop choices to 0 overnight. So here is my question how do I make a bound list out of this? The big difference with previous supplements becoming obsolete is you always had a way to play the army after.

Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists. My issue with the book is fairly legit, how would deathwing feel if the next dark angel book said no more deathwing.... what am I to do with all these terminators?

I know I will be called out for being a whiny eldar player complaining about change but I think this is a legit reason to complain.

Unless I am missing something and someone can tell me how I can play a bound list with what I said I have in my eldar army I will gladly listen.... till then I want to know gamesworkshops logic for destroying an army that I am sure a lot of people used.

Iyanden Keith wrote:Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists.

Taking Wraith Host formations doesn't mean your army becomes unbound. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Wraith constructs have never been better and you can take a ton of them.

 Therion wrote:

Iyanden Keith wrote:Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists.

Taking Wraith Host formations doesn't mean your army becomes unbound. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Wraith constructs have never been better and you can take a ton of them.

My complaint is the minimum cost of the formation is 935 points..... that is bare minimum units with no upgrades. Plus they do not count as scoring units. My issue is the army is dead, you can take something that is nothing but wraiths but it has no variety, you cant customize it. I do not find that to be a viable option to replace what used to be a viable army. Also I knew that the formation technically isn't unbound, but that also isn't an acceptable replacement for an army.

It's great that the units got better (which honestly they didn't need) but what good does that do if the ability to play the army is dead?

They might be better, but no variety.

Exactly 3 Wraithguard
Exactly 1 spirit seer
Exactly 1 WL
Exactly 1 WK

No variation. This leads to a few problems:
-No real options for how many of each. You can't try Wraituguard heavy one week, and Wraithlord heavy the next.
-You can never have more than one Spirit Seer for every *3* Wraithguard units.
-Wraithguard units always come in multiples of 3. Want exactly 5? Too bad.
-For every Wraithlord you want, you *must* take a Wraithknight!
-Hitting an exact points level taking only Wraiths will require very constrained list building. Multiples of the one formation with no added/removed units, plus Hemlocks and more Wraithknights

If you can justify two troops fluffwise, options do open up (not much - can't fit in a lot of Spirit Seers in a CAD).

Wraiths are certainly more powerful than the last edition. But its certainly harder to build a custom fluffy or fun Wraith list than it was.

(Another note - the Iyanden supplement, even if allowed, does not allow you to take Wraithguard as troops. That was the core Dex itself.)

The new Craftworlds codex formations are an abject failure at allowing the construction of your own army. Like the Harlequins before them, the formations are about requiring models they want to sell, not opening the game up to players forging their own narrative.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

Fast forward to this next book and all of a sudden we not only got love but lots of it. The codex eldar book was more they amazing and we got an Iyanden supplement to boot. I drastically increased my selection of Guard and Blades, now people may have called me cheesy but anyone who knew me knows I did it for fluff. I never played with anything but wraith models. So now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.

I'm almost in same boat but not as heavily invested as you.

You do have options though...
1. start with a wraith host that requires 1 seer, 3 units of wraithguard/blades, 1 wraithlord and 1 knight (you'll have to add a lord)
2. Add a CAD with 2 spirit seers as HQ options (or just 1...see later), add 2 small units of rangers (they are outcasts and could easily be seen helping out the wraith constructs), then add wraithguard as elites and the hemlock. Add 2nd knight as LOW if points allow.
3. Add seer council formation. Make your 2 best looking seers "farseers" and the rest warlocks (Iyanden version)

doubt your points could allow all of the above, but for crazy large battles it could work and remain fluffy.

the downside is to use all your guard, you'll need to add 2 units of regular Troops. Most people will tell you to take scatter bikes, but I understand your theme and I think rangers fit better. I have 2 units of 5 for this very reason.

Keith,
Of course the Spirit Host is dead. That happened long before they were ever fielded!

Perhaps now the rules match the fluff in that way, at least.

 Maloghurst wrote:
Probably missed a thread on this. But I'm wondering what the consensus is on if you can use the new book with the Iyanden army list or if it still requires the old book?

That's between you and your opponent. This is the first time the parent book with a supplement has been updated, I believe. Bad on GW for not being clear.

I'd allow it. Eldar are pretty strong, whether you use the Iyanden Supplement or not.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I asked for proof and you have provided none.

He was pointing out the obvious fallacy here.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I'll give a reason. Does codex lyaden say to be used with codex eldar and codex: eldar craftworlds or just eldar?

Iyanden is still valid, as it has not been replaced and is thus current, however only with the 6E Codex: Eldar which is invalidated and replaced with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds.

bullyboy wrote:

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

Fast forward to this next book and all of a sudden we not only got love but lots of it. The codex eldar book was more they amazing and we got an Iyanden supplement to boot. I drastically increased my selection of Guard and Blades, now people may have called me cheesy but anyone who knew me knows I did it for fluff. I never played with anything but wraith models. So now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.

I'm almost in same boat but not as heavily invested as you.

You do have options though...
1. start with a wraith host that requires 1 seer, 3 units of wraithguard/blades, 1 wraithlord and 1 knight (you'll have to add a lord)
2. Add a CAD with 2 spirit seers as HQ options (or just 1...see later), add 2 small units of rangers (they are outcasts and could easily be seen helping out the wraith constructs), then add wraithguard as elites and the hemlock. Add 2nd knight as LOW if points allow.
3. Add seer council formation. Make your 2 best looking seers "farseers" and the rest warlocks (Iyanden version)

doubt your points could allow all of the above, but for crazy large battles it could work and remain fluffy.

the downside is to use all your guard, you'll need to add 2 units of regular Troops. Most people will tell you to take scatter bikes, but I understand your theme and I think rangers fit better. I have 2 units of 5 for this very reason.

Iyanden armies traditionally used to include few squads of Guardians, and even a unit of Aspect Warriors. They'd just use more constructs than other craftworlds as their elite troops and heavy support. It doesn't mean the entire army has to be nothing but wraith constructs to be fluffy. Frankly I'm not seeing the problem at all.

I would say it is invalid, you can't use Iyanden with the new dex.

Iyanden says it can be used with Codex: Eldar, the current codex is not called Codex: Eldar. If it was valid with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds it would also have to be valid for Codex: Eldar Harlequins.

I am surprised no-one has pointed out that that is the name on the front of the harlequin dex yet.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:
For over a decade I have played Iyanden, when codex craftworlds was originally release

now I have a list with 30 blades, 30 guard, 10 spirit seers, 2 knights and a hemlock.
- how do I make a bound list out of this?


how would deathwing feel if the next dark angel book said no more deathwing.... what am I to do with all these terminators?

Nice that you've been playing Iyanden for a long time and committed to a themed army

Pick one:
A. Buy a 3x3 Jetbikes and a Vyper. Or 3x10 Guardians, a Vyper and a War Walker. Either of those makes a bound Eldar War Host Core, using (Jetbike) Spiritseers as a Farseer and Warlock, allowing you to play the rest as a Spirit Host (after you buy a Wraithlord).
B. Buy 2x10 Guardians and play as a bound CAD/FOC, allowing you to field 3x 10 Wraiths, a Hemlock and + 1 Knight + Warlock Conclave.
C. Buy 2x5 Rangers instead of Guardians.
You overcommitted to a single aspect of Iyanden, and this result is not surprising.

Dark Angels will still have Deathwing, but it may not be 100% Terminators going forward. They won't disappear, but they very well could require Tactical marines as Troops / Core.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Iyanden Keith wrote:Now I hear but oh you have the formations, but oh you can play unbound..... not around me.... my TO's only allow bound lists.

Taking Wraith Host formations doesn't mean your army becomes unbound. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Wraith constructs have never been better and you can take a ton of them.

My complaint is the minimum cost of the formation is 935 points..... that is bare minimum units with no upgrades. Plus they do not count as scoring units. My issue is the army is dead, you can take something that is nothing but wraiths but it has no variety, you cant customize it. I do not find that to be a viable option to replace what used to be a viable army. Also I knew that the formation technically isn't unbound, but that also isn't an acceptable replacement for an army.

It's great that the units got better (which honestly they didn't need) but what good does that do if the ability to play the army is dead?

There's a whole lot of misconceptions here. They are still scoring units, everything is a scoring unit in 7th (except zooming flyers). They just don't have objective secured. There's a big difference between not scoring and doesn't have obsec. Also, nothing in the army has obsec if you're taking a warhost, which is the "fluffy" way to play the army anyway. Organize them into wraith hosts. It would still be a fluffy iyanden list if you took a wraith host and one of the core formations. Sticking all the WG in serpents and giving them scythes still leaves enough points for a windrider host. I don't see how that isn't fluffy. Iyanden has jetbikes, aspect warriors, guardians, farseers, war walkers, etc. They have a smaller amount than other craftworlds but that's it. Read Valedor if you don't believe me. Why does everyone try to pretend that the iyanden craftworld is just a bunch of dead eldar in wraith suits? Please point me to a single piece of fluff that says that because I've read all the eldar novels and all the codex fluff going back to 3rd and everything states that iyanden has plenty of stuff other than just WG, WL, WK, etc.

Bharring wrote:
They might be better, but no variety.

Exactly 3 Wraithguard
Exactly 1 spirit seer
Exactly 1 WL
Exactly 1 WK

No variation. This leads to a few problems:
-No real options for how many of each. You can't try Wraituguard heavy one week, and Wraithlord heavy the next.
-You can never have more than one Spirit Seer for every *3* Wraithguard units.
-Wraithguard units always come in multiples of 3. Want exactly 5? Too bad.
-For every Wraithlord you want, you *must* take a Wraithknight!
-Hitting an exact points level taking only Wraiths will require very constrained list building. Multiples of the one formation with no added/removed units, plus Hemlocks and more Wraithknights

If you can justify two troops fluffwise, options do open up (not much - can't fit in a lot of Spirit Seers in a CAD).

Wraiths are certainly more powerful than the last edition. But its certainly harder to build a custom fluffy or fun Wraith list than it was.

(Another note - the Iyanden supplement, even if allowed, does not allow you to take Wraithguard as troops. That was the core Dex itself.)

The new Craftworlds codex formations are an abject failure at allowing the construction of your own army. Like the Harlequins before them, the formations are about requiring models they want to sell, not opening the game up to players forging their own narrative.

It is untrue to say that you have no choice in the building of your army. You can play a Wraith Host as a formation (which is what, about a thousand points?) -- your primary if you choose -- and add a CAD or Allied Detachment. Or play a War Host and add an Allied Detachment.

No, you can't have exactly the same army as you had before 7e Eldar. But you know what, you can't play the same Blood Angels army that you had before 7e BA either, or the same Grey Knights army, or the same...

Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Huh? Where the hell did you come up with that arbitrary restriction? Should armies full of robots that stand back up after you kill them be allowed? Should armies full of flying bugs that want to devour your planet be allowed? This is 40k, what does it matter if your army doesn't have "living" models?

I think many players would be fine to ban pure-wraith Iyanden if it resulted in a ban on ALL Necron armies.

TooFast,
Whether said armies should be legit is certainly an arbatraty restriction.

The point of that post was to say so!

Basically, I could see it going either way, but something is wrong in either case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(The point about 'living' was in reference to whether they were Wraith constructs or not. Some people love their almost-all-wraith armies)

roflmajog wrote:
Iyanden says it can be used with Codex: Eldar, the current codex is not called Codex: Eldar. If it was valid with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds it would also have to be valid for Codex: Eldar Harlequins.

I am surprised no-one has pointed out that that is the name on the front of the harlequin dex yet.

I mentioned "Codex: Eldar" becoming a family on Dakka somewhere, suggesting we could see other Eldar books, niche or otherwise.

Eldar could easily support a broader range of things:
- Codex: Eldar - Harlequins
- Codex: Eldar - Craftworlds
- Codex: Eldar - Dark Kin (Dark Eldar, Corsairs)
and, of course:
- Codex: Eldar - Exodites (Rangers, Pathfinders, Dragon Knights)

We could see Codex: Space Marines - Dark Angels / Blood Angels / Space Wolves and Codex: Chaos - Daemons / Marines similarly grouped as a family.

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

Such an army would have 2 WKs. Legal, yes. Decent, not by my meta's understanding, that's for sure.

You can do multiples of that formation, but its still just as rigid.

(I don't run Spirit Hosts myself - a 5 Wraithguard + Cannon and/or Wraithlord(s) are fun, but that many Wraiths isn't my style.)

 Talys wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

I agree with this but there in lies my issue, unbound lists are not allowed in the area I play for tournaments. This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here. I do agree having a formation is not the same as an army. I know I am one specialized case but imagine if they said you can play space marines but only with 3 tactical squads, a chapter master, a land raider and a dreadnought. That is your "army" that is how I feel right about now...... I know that these Formations, detachments and unbound lists are the "future" of 40K but that is not the same as an army.

That is my point currently is not oh no they changed, its they have removed the possibility of a legal bound army. Formations are cool but they are not the same as an army.

Maybe I am just being a whiny little eldar brat who is upset over change, but maybe I also have a valid point.

You want proof you can use it? Here.
When 7th edition came out, they stated that anywhere in the older publications it referred to units in from (blank) codex to instead use the (blank) faction instead. So via FAQ, the rules in the Iyanden supplement are to be used with models from the "eldar" faction now. If you look in the codex eldar: craftworlds book, you will notice the faction for every unit in the book is from the eldar faction.

Game, set, match.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Consider the question: Should Eldar lists with lots of Wraith constructs, but no living models, aside from things likeSpirit Seers Wraithknight pilots and other pilots, be allowed (in a bound format)?

If so, the CAD doesn't do that, and the above applies.

If not, the Spirit Host shouldn't exist either.

I can see both arguments, but wouldn't mind if Wraithguard-heavy lists without "other" troops were allowed.

Well, you could just take 2 wraith hosts. It's a formation on its own.

But this would be a terrible army. If someone wanted to go unbound and take ONLY wraith units and spiritseers, and call it Iyanden, I'd have no problem at all in terms of power level. It would be fluffy and all that. I do not think it would be all that effective compared to other Eldar possibilities.

I agree with this but there in lies my issue, unbound lists are not allowed in the area I play for tournaments. This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here. I do agree having a formation is not the same as an army. I know I am one specialized case but imagine if they said you can play space marines but only with 3 tactical squads, a chapter master, a land raider and a dreadnought. That is your "army" that is how I feel right about now...... I know that these Formations, detachments and unbound lists are the "future" of 40K but that is not the same as an army.

That is my point currently is not oh no they changed, its they have removed the possibility of a legal bound army. Formations are cool but they are not the same as an army.

Maybe I am just being a whiny little eldar brat who is upset over change, but maybe I also have a valid point.

What? I think you're missing something here. How have they removed the possibility of a legal bound army? What exactly is preventing you from running the army you want to play?

An army that consists of only formations is still bound. So you can use the wraithhost formation, even more than one, and still be bound while only using wraith units.