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.

The Kiss, Caress and Embrace are the iconic weapons of the Harlequins. But honestly, their rules feel horrifically uninspired. I find myself having a very hard time choosing my loadout because they honestly all feel like weaker versions of each other.

In the fluff the Caress can punch through solid terminator armor, but by the rules it's S5 -2 1 Dmg. So, so very dull.

So, a question I have is would adding the rule "Wound rolls of a 6 produce an additional mortal wound" for all of these weapons, unbalance them too badly? This idea really fits with the fact that the Harlequins still maintain the highest level of technology from before the Fall available to the Aeldari.

Thoughts?

I think they'd be stronger, but still boring. I'd much rather they go back to something more like what they did in the 7th edition codex - unique, crazy rules, but not super OP.

Also it wouldve been cool if they didnt change around the weapons roles for no reason. Anti-elite Kiss became the "anti-tank" weapon (I assume that was the intention, currently it's actually the "worst at everything" weapon), anti-horde embrace became anti-elite, and anti-tank caress became "almost exactly the same as embrace but slightly worse."

the_scotsman wrote:
I think they'd be stronger, but still boring. I'd much rather they go back to something more like what they did in the 7th edition codex - unique, crazy rules, but not super OP.

Also it wouldve been cool if they didnt change around the weapons roles for no reason. Anti-elite Kiss became the "anti-tank" weapon (I assume that was the intention, currently it's actually the "worst at everything" weapon), anti-horde embrace became anti-elite, and anti-tank caress became "almost exactly the same as embrace but slightly worse."

Thanks! I was having trouble even figuring out the roles for these weapons. I think I will email GW about this, if enough Quin players do it, they might be able to provide some support!

But yes, you're right. They're all very, very boring at the moment. But a quick question: Am I right, the Embrace is the weapon option we want?

 Togusa wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think they'd be stronger, but still boring. I'd much rather they go back to something more like what they did in the 7th edition codex - unique, crazy rules, but not super OP.

Also it wouldve been cool if they didnt change around the weapons roles for no reason. Anti-elite Kiss became the "anti-tank" weapon (I assume that was the intention, currently it's actually the "worst at everything" weapon), anti-horde embrace became anti-elite, and anti-tank caress became "almost exactly the same as embrace but slightly worse."

Thanks! I was having trouble even figuring out the roles for these weapons. I think I will email GW about this, if enough Quin players do it, they might be able to provide some support!

But yes, you're right. They're all very, very boring at the moment. But a quick question: Am I right, the Embrace is the weapon option we want?

Yep. On everything, pretty much, except for the Solitaire who takes the Rose and if you want either the Rose or Storied Sword on a troupe master.

The other option is sword/fusion for a cheaper clown.

I remember when Caress's used to deal an auto wound or autoglance on a hit roll of 6. I think the current problem is that all the weapons are currently way too similar to each other. None of them really excel at one task or another. At this point though with the codex printed I have a feeling that they wouldn't change the weapon profiles much at all.

Sword should give an additional attack

Caress should be str 4, ap -2, D1, mortal wound on hit rolls of 6

Embrace should be str 5, ap -1, D1

Kiss should be str 4, ap -3, D3 damage

RedGriefer wrote:
I remember when Caress's used to deal an auto wound or autoglance on a hit roll of 6. I think the current problem is that all the weapons are currently way too similar to each other. None of them really excel at one task or another. At this point though with the codex printed I have a feeling that they wouldn't change the weapon profiles much at all.

Sword should give an additional attack

Caress should be str 4, ap -2, D1, mortal wound on hit rolls of 6

Embrace should be str 5, ap -1, D1

Kiss should be str 4, ap -3, D3 damage

I really, really like the caress doing a mortal wound, but I would think wound roll of a 6 grants an additional D3 mortal wounds. And only for one attack.

For the Kiss I was thinking S4 AP-3 D3 DMG (Change to 1 v Tanks etc) -2 LD if you kill an Infantry unit with it from a squad.

Embrace S5 AP-2 D1 If you slay a model, the squad takes 1 mortal wound.

How does this sound?

Moved to the proper forum.

 BrookM wrote:
Moved to the proper forum.

Thanks! I wasn't sure where this should have gone.

Does anyone think it would do any good to bring this up with the GW rules team? I mean, weapon changes can theoretically occur in CA correct?

 Togusa wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Moved to the proper forum.

Thanks! I wasn't sure where this should have gone.

Does anyone think it would do any good to bring this up with the GW rules team? I mean, weapon changes can theoretically occur in CA correct?

I'd probably only approach them if A.) you had a strong consensus from a very large group of people about specific changes or B.) the topic you approach them about seems especially likely to change in the near future (due to predictable FAQs or what have you). I doubt anyone has the time in their work day to sit down and consider every single wish list item someone from the fan base throws at them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RedGriefer wrote:
I remember when Caress's used to deal an auto wound or autoglance on a hit roll of 6. I think the current problem is that all the weapons are currently way too similar to each other. None of them really excel at one task or another. At this point though with the codex printed I have a feeling that they wouldn't change the weapon profiles much at all.

Sword should give an additional attack

Caress should be str 4, ap -2, D1, mortal wound on hit rolls of 6

Embrace should be str 5, ap -1, D1

Kiss should be str 4, ap -3, D3 damage

Hmm. I'm curious about your reasoning behind those. Those changes seem like they make the weapons even more homogenous to me, but maybe I'm missing something? The caress and the embrace seem to have sort of swapped roles with the embrace now being better at wounding T4 but worse at getting through armor while the caress is worse at wounding marines but might spike its damage by rolling 6s on the to-wound rolls. The kiss meanwhile seems like it's the obvious best choice as it combines the power sword's APwith the caress's strength boost all while doing d3 damage. The kiss is almost a Storied Sword here. Which means you have...

* The caress kind of kills marines, but probably only roughly breaks even with the embrace in that job. Mortal wound generation potentially makes it better at both horde clearing and at hurting elite stuff. Seems like a gambler's weapon. I'm not sure I'd ever take it over a kiss. I think it maybe comes out ahead of the kiss against T8+, but T8 targets, but a few mortal wounds here and there will be a drop in the bucket next to your fusion weapons or other anti-tank firepower.

* The embrace is better at wounding T4 than the other weapons, but not better against T3. It has no chance of getting some extra mortal wounds in. So it's maybe slightly better against orks than the other weapons? The higher strength means you wound against T8 vehicles more easily, but the AP and Damage mean that its' still worse against those targets than a kiss. I'm not sure I'd prefer it over the AP of the other weapons against elite armies. It's not bad against T4 hordes with poor saves, but I'm not sure how many armies can be described as such thus making it too niche for all-comers lists.

* The kiss is as good at wounding things as the caress (slightly worse than the embrace). It probably makes up for its lack of mortal wound generation against harder targets with its superior AP and damage. Probably the worst against hordes unless those hordes have FNP shenanigans (thinking of pox walkers.) I think I'd take this one every time. Roughly as good as a caress against marines. Better against more durable targets. Situationally useful against certain hordes. Great against characters.

* And then our special off-brand power sword that provides an extra attack. An extra attack increases your maximum and average damage, but you'll still have a harder time wounding with it than with the other weapons. So I guess its niche would become T5 single-wound models? Any higher or lower toughness, and the other options become better. More than 1 wound, and the kiss becomes better.


EDIT
Personally, I think I'd do something like this:

*Return the embrace to being a horde-clearing weapon. Not much in the way of armor penetration, but give the harlequin enough attacks to remove a lot of bodies in a hurry. Give it a high strength so that it will reliably wound swarms of gribblies. The harlequin with this weapon is basically one of t hose guys from anime who fights with wires.

Harlequin's Embrace: Strength 6, AP-, Damage 1, Make an additional d6 attacks with this weapon if the wielder charged in the previous charge phase.

*In contrast to the quantity offered by the embrace, the caress should be about quality. You use the wielder's dexterity to apply the glove's power field to a weak spot. While the embrace is clearing swathes of enemies, the caress is taking out the heavily armored target targets that your other weapons would struggle to hurt. Give it enough strength to reliably hurt elite units (read: marines) but not enough to be as good at wounding gribblies as the embrace. Let it sprinkle in mortal wounds to represent finding the weak point in an enemy's armor and to represent a "critical hit."

Harlequin's Caress: Strength +2, AP-2, Damage 1, Any to-wound rolls of 6 inflict a mortal wound in addition to any other damage caused by this weapon.

*So that leaves the kiss. If the embrace is clearing hordes, and the caress is killing marines, let's make the kiss with its gruesome organ-blending action the go-to for high damage. Many targets that have multiple wounds also have good saves, so let's make it decent at getting through armor without stealing the caress's thunder.

Harlequin's Kiss; Strength +1, AP-1, Damage d3, To-wound rolls of 6 have an AP of -3 instead of -1.

So hopefully, that makes the kiss a decent choice as a generalist weapon (okay against marines, pretty good against MCs and vehicles, not terrible against hordes) while allowing the embrace and caress to be good at their own specialized roles. The kiss and caress basically have the same special rules as shuriken weapons and sniper rifles, so the caress is the only weapon that really introduces a fancy new mechanic that you have to explain to your opponent.

That does leave out the power sword though. Honestly, I'm not sure an actual power sword has much of a role. On a strength 3 model like our troupe master, it's bad against hordes, worse against marines than one of the other weapons described above, pointless against characters with more than a couple of wounds, and way worse against things like MCs and vehicles than a kiss. So with that in mind, I think I'd stop pretending it was a regular power sword and give it its own niche. Maybe steal a page from older rules sets and do something like...

Laughing Blade: Strength: User, AP-3, Damage 1, When a model equipped with this weapon loses a wound during the Fight phase, roll a d6. On a 4+, the wound is not lost.

It's basically a "Parry" mechanic that doesn't get out of hand next to all of the harelquins' to-hit roll modifying powers. Where the other weapons provide more offense, this one allows your troupe master (and his aura and any handy relics or pistols he might be carrying) to survive a little longer. Put it on your troupe master that plans to focus on fusion pistoling stuff. Put it on your troupe master that wants to focus on supporting other squads and carrying around useful relics. Put it on the obligatory HQ choice that you don't expect to do much but whom you'd prefer to keep alive as long as possible. If 4+ is too much, tone it down to a 5+.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Moved to the proper forum.

Thanks! I wasn't sure where this should have gone.

Does anyone think it would do any good to bring this up with the GW rules team? I mean, weapon changes can theoretically occur in CA correct?

I'd probably only approach them if A.) you had a strong consensus from a very large group of people about specific changes or B.) the topic you approach them about seems especially likely to change in the near future (due to predictable FAQs or what have you). I doubt anyone has the time in their work day to sit down and consider every single wish list item someone from the fan base throws at them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RedGriefer wrote:
I remember when Caress's used to deal an auto wound or autoglance on a hit roll of 6. I think the current problem is that all the weapons are currently way too similar to each other. None of them really excel at one task or another. At this point though with the codex printed I have a feeling that they wouldn't change the weapon profiles much at all.

Sword should give an additional attack

Caress should be str 4, ap -2, D1, mortal wound on hit rolls of 6

Embrace should be str 5, ap -1, D1

Kiss should be str 4, ap -3, D3 damage

Hmm. I'm curious about your reasoning behind those. Those changes seem like they make the weapons even more homogenous to me, but maybe I'm missing something? The caress and the embrace seem to have sort of swapped roles with the embrace now being better at wounding T4 but worse at getting through armor while the caress is worse at wounding marines but might spike its damage by rolling 6s on the to-wound rolls. The kiss meanwhile seems like it's the obvious best choice as it combines the power sword's APwith the caress's strength boost all while doing d3 damage. The kiss is almost a Storied Sword here. Which means you have...

* The caress kind of kills marines, but probably only roughly breaks even with the embrace in that job. Mortal wound generation potentially makes it better at both horde clearing and at hurting elite stuff. Seems like a gambler's weapon. I'm not sure I'd ever take it over a kiss. I think it maybe comes out ahead of the kiss against T8+, but T8 targets, but a few mortal wounds here and there will be a drop in the bucket next to your fusion weapons or other anti-tank firepower.

* The embrace is better at wounding T4 than the other weapons, but not better against T3. It has no chance of getting some extra mortal wounds in. So it's maybe slightly better against orks than the other weapons? The higher strength means you wound against T8 vehicles more easily, but the AP and Damage mean that its' still worse against those targets than a kiss. I'm not sure I'd prefer it over the AP of the other weapons against elite armies. It's not bad against T4 hordes with poor saves, but I'm not sure how many armies can be described as such thus making it too niche for all-comers lists.

* The kiss is as good at wounding things as the caress (slightly worse than the embrace). It probably makes up for its lack of mortal wound generation against harder targets with its superior AP and damage. Probably the worst against hordes unless those hordes have FNP shenanigans (thinking of pox walkers.) I think I'd take this one every time. Roughly as good as a caress against marines. Better against more durable targets. Situationally useful against certain hordes. Great against characters.

* And then our special off-brand power sword that provides an extra attack. An extra attack increases your maximum and average damage, but you'll still have a harder time wounding with it than with the other weapons. So I guess its niche would become T5 single-wound models? Any higher or lower toughness, and the other options become better. More than 1 wound, and the kiss becomes better.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean sending them my wishlist, but instead making it known that the weapons lack imagination and creativity and that they should be retooled for specific purposes.

@Togusa: Sure, but then you still want to make sure you adhere to point A.

An email saying, "Your harlequin weapons are boring and lame," isn't very actionable. An email saying, "Have you considered doing X, Y, and Z with these weapons? Such changes would strengthen the niche of each weapon, and you can see from this discussion on dakka that such changes were generally agreed upon by a large number of individuals." That email offers concrete feedback, actionable suggestions for change, and shows that at least a few people would be on board with it thus helping to distinguish it from all of the perfectly good (and not so good) suggestions that they might receive regularly.

You're basically suggesting interrupting someone's work day and telling them how to do their job. Which isn't necessarily bad; feedback form the player base can be useful. However, many players do not, in fact, know what they want or else want something overwrought or overpowered. Demonstrating clear reasoning behind a change and at least some sort of consensus behind said change might help to let them know you're not just some guy going, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..."

Wyldhunt wrote:
@Togusa: Sure, but then you still want to make sure you adhere to point A.

An email saying, "Your harlequin weapons are boring and lame," isn't very actionable. An email saying, "Have you considered doing X, Y, and Z with these weapons? Such changes would strengthen the niche of each weapon, and you can see from this discussion on dakka that such changes were generally agreed upon by a large number of individuals." That email offers concrete feedback, actionable suggestions for change, and shows that at least a few people would be on board with it thus helping to distinguish it from all of the perfectly good (and not so good) suggestions that they might receive regularly.

You're basically suggesting interrupting someone's work day and telling them how to do their job. Which isn't necessarily bad; feedback form the player base can be useful. However, many players do not, in fact, know what they want or else want something overwrought or overpowered. Demonstrating clear reasoning behind a change and at least some sort of consensus behind said change might help to let them know you're not just some guy going, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..."

It likely will be better to hash it all out here. Maybe get a group of the Harli players to band together to help craft suggestions?

The Harlie codex went out two weeks ago. We should get a FAQ very soon (probably Monday or Tuesday). By now I suppose the content of the FAQ is final, since they need to validate/proofread it, then send it for translation, then to the WC team.
So if you want to make suggestions, you should at least wait until after the FAQ. Additionally, I suspect rules comment/inquiries about a Codex are more likely to be read carefully just after the release of said codex or its FAQ.

Personally I sent them an email just after the codex was release to mention (amongst other things and actual rule questions) that the neuro-disruptor is extremely bad. I didn't mention the melee weapon, because while I agree they're very bland, they're functional. They need a major rework, which takes time and probably isn't seen as an emergency by GW. Maybe the next CA will contain a couple rule changes for each army (not to fix glaring issues, but just to make armies more interesting), but I think we're very unlikely to see better melee weapons any time soon, if ever.

fresus wrote:
The Harlie codex went out two weeks ago. We should get a FAQ very soon (probably Monday or Tuesday). By now I suppose the content of the FAQ is final, since they need to validate/proofread it, then send it for translation, then to the WC team.
So if you want to make suggestions, you should at least wait until after the FAQ. Additionally, I suspect rules comment/inquiries about a Codex are more likely to be read carefully just after the release of said codex or its FAQ.

Personally I sent them an email just after the codex was release to mention (amongst other things and actual rule questions) that the neuro-disruptor is extremely bad. I didn't mention the melee weapon, because while I agree they're very bland, they're functional. They need a major rework, which takes time and probably isn't seen as an emergency by GW. Maybe the next CA will contain a couple rule changes for each army (not to fix glaring issues, but just to make armies more interesting), but I think we're very unlikely to see better melee weapons any time soon, if ever.

True, just to be clear I do believe the CC weapons are viable.