Switch Theme:

How GW could have made Codex: Harlequins, instead of the no-effort attempt it is now.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




So, I pretty much lost interest in 40K when Codex: Harlequins was released and I got it. For an army with such potential regarding special rules, weapons, Masque Forms and something else I'll mention later on, GW has pretty much copy-pasted the Index with a few points changes into the Codex.

So, I'm going to talk about what they could have done, what I came up with in the roughly 5 minutes after I got it.

WEAPONS, and what they should be
Caress
Strength User, but Poison(3+)

Embrace
Roll a D6 per full 3 inches the model charged, 5+ = mortal wound

Kiss
On an unmodified charge roll of 9+, changes to
Strength User + 5, AP -3 and Damage 3

Blade
+1 to hit rolls (mentioned as balanced in the Codex)

Miststave
Wound roll of 6+, roll off. If controlling player wins, he can choose a psychic power the opponent has; they lose it and on a 4+ he gets it and it affects HARLEQUINS units

Neuro Disruptor
Poison(2+), Strength 1. Damage 2(3?)


MASQUE FORMS

Midnight Sorrow
6" pile in and consolidate, and in any direction, not towards closest unit - as long as it remains in combat with all units it was

Twisted Veil
Discard lower result, not higher

Frozen Stars
+1 to wound, hit or attack on the charge. Can choose TWO bonuses, even if they're the same, but must subtract 2 from save rolls (to represent them fighting harder and defending less)

Soaring Spite
No change

Dreaming Shadow
On a 6 for Sombre Sentinels comes back with 1 wound (?)

Silent Shroud
-1 Ld 6", max -3
Roll 2D6 discard lowest for leadership
Any special rules that affect leadership (e.g. Synapse, ATSKNF, Bonding Knife Ritual) do not work when within 6"

Troupe Proficiencies
Before the first battle round, for each HARLEQUINS unit in your army you can choose if they are from Troupes of the Light, Twilight or Dark. They gain these bonuses as well as their Masque Forms.

Light:
+1 to advance and charge, re-roll advance and charge

Twilight:
Roll off if the opponent wishes to Fall Back; can only do so if they win. If they win, you may ALSO Fall Back, as the Twilight can tell what their actions will be.

Dark:
No overwatch against this unit



Yes, I know a lot of this is a lot to wish for (Silent Shroud, Player of the Dark) but I reckon this could be fairly reasonable accompanying a points increase, or if toned down a bit. The troupe Proficiencies part was something of my own invention, as I wanted something unique that no other army had.

I still think that this is magnitudes better than what GW did with the Codex, though they'll never listen to me (or do this) because Harlequins aren't Imperium.

Any more suggestions, please reply, I'll add them in!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/02 19:21:50


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Wow. I don't even know where to start frankly.

   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Yep...that's...something.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Welcome to the forums, Unnamed Harlequin. This is exactly the sort of thing we like to see here in the proposed rules section. As a fellow harlequin player, I absolutely agree that there were some missed opportunities regarding the harlequin codex. However, I do have some thoughts about what you've presented here.

WEAPONS

* The caress. Presumably you mean to have this wound everything including vehicles on 3s (the only "poison" rule these days is specific to the drukhari codex, and it usually doesn't work on vehicles) with the same AP as in the GW rules. That makes this weapon a pretty good all-rounder that will allow a trouper to reliably wound anything in the game once or twice with sufficient AP to matter against anything with an armor save. A weapon that's good against basically everything. Wounding on a 3+ against more targets makes your version a straight up improvement on the GW version and would probably warrant a significant price increase. Against something like a hive tyrant, this is basically a strength 7+ weapon.

* The embrace. Your mechanic is interesting and would feel good when you manage to get off a long charge and inflict a lot of mortal wounds, and it feels very flavorful for the weapon. I can see the anime wire kills now. However, harlequins don't really have much in the way of charge assistance; we typically just get closer to the enemy in the movement phase with rising crescendo, and then execute an easy charge from there. The recent FAQ makes us a little worse at charging than before as we now have to factor in terrain more than in the past. So with that in mind, you'd need a 9" charge (i.e. a charge you will fail more often than not) to average a single mortal wound per embrace. A 6" charge is much more likely to succeed and still gives you a 2/3rds chance per trouper of inflicting a mortal wound, but you're still left with the choice of either getting closer to your charge target and making the embrace's effect less powerful or making your charge harder and potentially failing it.

I'm not sure if you intend for your mechanic to be on top of the benefits of the GW version of the weapon. If not, the caress probably makes up for its lack of mortal wounds by virtue of wounding more often and with AP. If you do retain the GW rules (basically making the embrace a strength 4 power sword), then the roles of the caress and the embrace begin to overlap with both being pretty good against hordes, heavy infantry, and monsters/vehicles alike. Also, am I correct in assuming you intend for the mortal wound mechanic to trigger immediately after the unit makes a charge rather than waiting until the fight phase?

To give this weapon more of a niche and to eliminate the awkward, "Do I stay farther away and risk failing my charge?" effect, consider doing something like this:
Harlequin's Embrace: Strength User, AP 0, Damage 1, Melee, this weapon's wielder doubles the number of attacks made with this weapon on a turn in which they charged.
or...
Harlequins Embrace: Strength User, AP 0, Damage 1, Melee, This weapon treats its strength as 6 on a turn in which the wielder charged.

Either of these profiles would turn the embrace into more of an anti-horde weapon than the caress while retaining the importance of charging with it (just like in 7th edition). The first profile takes a "machine gun" approach. The wielder will still have a crummy strength value, and the weapon has no AP. Thus, the embrace would be pretty bad against heavy infantry or high toughness targets, but you'd be swinging double the number of attacking when going after hordes. This would also synergize well with a troupe master's reroll wounds aura. The second profile makes you even better than the caress at hurting T3 models with bad saves, roughly as good as the caress at hurting T4 models with bad saves, but does not make you better against marines and monsters/vehicles than the caress.

* The kiss. Your rules for the kiss suffer from similar problems to those possessed by your embrace. A 9" charge will fail more often than not, and the kiss can't even benefit from a shorter 6" or even 3" charge like the embrace. When you do manage to roll a 9 on your charge roll, you'll be swinging hard enough to obliterate anything you're facing (including hordes; you'll hit them harder with this than with your caress or embrace on average). This may sound cool from a video gamey perspective, but your opponent that just had their knight one-shotted because you got a little lucky on a charge roll will probably prefer not to play against you or your homebrewed harlequin rules again. So basically, this weapon suffers from either offering no benefit over the caress and thus feeling like a bad investment or else offering so much benefit that your opponent feels bad about playing you. Also, the kiss is meant to be the iconic mainstay of the harlequin arsenal. Turning it into a gambler's weapon feels a bit off in that regard.

In the GW rules, the kiss is roughly as good as the caress against hordes while also having the potential to do 3 wounds of damage per attack to multi-wound models. At strength 4, it's as likely to wound most vehicles (T6 and T7) as a caress, but its worse AP make it less desirable against single-wound targets than the caress or the embrace. What niche do you want this weapon to fill?

* The harlequin's blade. In the GW rules, this is just a free close combat weapon. In your version, it makes the wielder slightly better against all targets (because you'll hit more often), but it doesn't offer any additional strength or AP meaning the shrimpy-armed trouper wielding it will only really be able to meaningfully hurt hordes. So that makes this an anti-horde upgrade. However, I assume you intend for one of the other weapons to be the dedicated anti-horde option. So that means this weapon has less of a niche and also, presumably, is no longer a free option as +1 WS is surely worth at least a couple of points.

So with that in mind, I think I'd personally prefer to keep the harlequin's blade as a free option that allows me to keep a given model's cost relatively low. What niche do you see this weapon filling? For me, it's the "cheap" niche.

* The mist stave is just way too complicated and way too open for abuse. Firstly, the additional roll off feels clunky and will slow the game down, if only a little. Second, different psykers are more or less reliant on their psychic powers to be useful. A daemon prince without powers is still a daemon prince. A sanctioned psyker though? You've basically made him worthless. Can you picture your opponent playing against this rule and feeling that he had a more enjoyable game as a result of you stealing doom from his farseer? Thirdly, this rule opens up the possibility for a shadowseer to have literally any psychic power in the game. That creates a lot of room for broken. This consideration alone would make the miststave very tricky to balance.

So basically, you'd have to up the cost of an already-expensive shadowseer significantly with an effect that won't do anything if your opponent has no psykers, and which has the potential to result in a bad time for your opponent if he does.It's kind of a lose/lose.

* Neuro disruptor. I like this one. We may need to up the cost on the gun to compensate for its new power, but it has a use. I'd stick to Damage 2 to avoid stepping on the fusion pistol's toes.

MASQUE FORMS
* MIdnight Sorrow feels clunky and also has the potential to wrap up a much larger chunk of the enemy. Meaning this is more powerful than what they currently have and would have to result in a higher points cost while also potentially being more frustrating to play against. Does Midnight Sorrow really need a buff? I feel it's pretty good as is. Especially now that we're more reliant upon it to jump to the next unit in light of the recent FAQ.

* Twisted Veil. Your changes are probably alright. I never see anyone using Twisted Veil as-is, so a small boost is probably acceptable. You could split the difference and make it a flat 1d6 roll instead of 2d6. That would be both quicker and less powerful than 2d6 drop the lowest.

* Frozen Stars. Your changes are overly complicated and probably too powerful. Sure, you'll lose that squad next turn, but you won't care to much when you've just erased an imperial knight (or anything else) with your +2 to wound attacks. The GW Frozen Stars rules are elegant and already quite powerful. In what fashion do you see this rule improving the game?

* Dreaming Shadow feels fiddly. Your opponent resolves their attacks. You roll to see if you die. If you do, you roll to see if you attack them. If you do, you resolve your attacks. And then after all that, you might not even be dead in the first place. You could streamline this a bit by just making it a 6+ FNP, but I'm not sure Dreaming Shadow really needs to be more powerful than it already is. Dreaming Shadow with fusion pistol troupers is pretty potent as-is.

* Silent Shroud feels kitchen-sinky. It's a penalty to leadership AND they have reverse ATSKNF AND you ignore a bunch of rules in the game that will be severely more impactful to some armies than others. The last part especially. Tyranid swarms and ork hordes are reliant upon their morale tricks to avoid losing tons of points to the morale phase. Also, we're talking about harlequins here, so you can easily stack a bunch of leadership debuffs onto a unit. Kill one gaunt with a death jester while they're standing near some silent shroud units including a Mask of Secrets shadowseer, and suddenly they're looking at a -7 to their leadership while rolling 2d6 to ensure a relatively high roll. And that's without even considering all the craftworld and drukhari leadership penalties you could stack on top of that.

TROUPE PROFICIENCIES
I do kind of miss the old light/twilight/dark theme. However, stacking these rules on top of Masque Forms (even using the less powerful GW rules) would call for a price increase. Pretty much all of your proposed changes would call for a price increase. 40 point harlequin troupers probably won't win games and are probably a problem if they do. So in the interest of toning things down a bit, how would you feel about turning these proficiencies into additional Masque Forms? That way, players still have a way of representing the fluff of their troupe without stacking bonuses on top of bonuses. Alternatively, you could maybe just introduce a stratagem similar to the Alliance of Agony that Drukhari have that would let you spend CP pre-game to give some of your characters the relevant warlord traits.


SUMMARY
You have some flavorful ideas here. However, these changes would call for a huge points increases that will likely either make harlequins overpowered or else render them too expensive to win games with. Some of these rules are more complicated than they need to be or open the door for problematic rules interactions (miststave). Harlequins are ultra-elite, so an argument can be made for making individual models very powerful. However, giving them bonuses on top of bonuses in a vacuum probably isn't the answer.

Consider that a squad containing kisses will roll a 9+ on their charge roll about 1/3rd of the time. A single kiss trouper can kill a rhino by himself with only a little bit of luck. Command point rerolls are a thing. How much do you think that trouper should cost?

If your intention is to make harlequins more flavorful/interesting but not necessarily to increase their raw power, consider what changes will accomplish that most simply. Rather than adding rules on top of other rules or introducing more powerful rules, look for mechanics that are "different" rather than "stronger." Look for mechanics that replace an existing rule rather than going on top of it.

If your intention is to make harlequins more powerful, then consider what a harlequin force on the table should look and behave like from a big picture perspective. How many models should the army start with? How will they get into combat? How easy will they be to kill? Are they more survivable than they are now? Then they should probably be more expensive, especially if they're also better at killing things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/02 23:46:00



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in au
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller





Harlies seem good to me as is. They are fun to play (it is a niche army) but seem good as a codex (maybe some more fluff in the codex and a few more units, like a hemlock equivalent etc). You don't want to make mechanics or weapons to much different from the standard (confusion etc). However, they feel unique enough that they are fun to play.


14k Generic Space Marine Chapters
20k Deathwatch
10k Sisters of Battle
3k Inquisition
4k Grey Knights
5k Imperial Guard
4k Harlequins
8k Tau



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




They need a little more internal balancing and maybe a couple more units (MIMES) and that's it.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

I'm going to be brutally honest - the way to 'fix' harlequins would have been to not shunt them into their own codex with barely any units. They should have remained as part of the Eldar and Dark Eldar codices.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Sorry to say, but without adding new models, I think the Harlequin Codex is excellent. The weapons do exactly as intended (with exception of neuro disruptor which should be a little cheaper for those stats).

The codex has some of the best relics in the game (by that I mean a player has a hard choice to make and will often spend command points to add 1 or 2 more). It's a shame that the most common used are Starmist, Rose and Curtainfall (because they are good) as I know I'd personally like to use Suit of Hidden Knives and the Mirrorstave more.

Same with the Warlord traits, there are so many good ones. As for strategems, I could probably use 80% of them if I had the command points!

The only thing really lacking is variety of models, but when used as an allied force to Craftworld or Drukhari, it's fine.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 bullyboy wrote:
Sorry to say, but without adding new models, I think the Harlequin Codex is excellent. The weapons do exactly as intended (with exception of neuro disruptor which should be a little cheaper for those stats).

The codex has some of the best relics in the game (by that I mean a player has a hard choice to make and will often spend command points to add 1 or 2 more). It's a shame that the most common used are Starmist, Rose and Curtainfall (because they are good) as I know I'd personally like to use Suit of Hidden Knives and the Mirrorstave more.

Same with the Warlord traits, there are so many good ones. As for strategems, I could probably use 80% of them if I had the command points!

The only thing really lacking is variety of models, but when used as an allied force to Craftworld or Drukhari, it's fine.


I mostly agree with all this. We have a ton of great options in every section of the codex, and our overall options are very solid if you think of harlequins as a force meant to work alongside another force (which they are). Personally, I kind of miss having really unique feeling melee weapons though. Sure, the 7th edition ones were probably more complicated than they needed to be, but they had a lot of personality. Our current options are basically just a power weapon style tradeoff between AP and Strength bonuses with the kiss also having better damage. We basically have a marine strength power sword, a marine strength power axe, and the kiss. Which is fine, but I feel like there's room for more interesting rules with better-defined niches.

Also, I really like our Masque traits, but I kind of wonder if it would make more sense to give harlequins a series of "saedath" traits that could be changed up before the battle. Have the troupe master look at the situation and go, "You know, this reminds me of the story of..." And then your army is doing the saedath that makes the most sense for the situation. I feel a similar approach could be taken with GK, giving them "battle rites" or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
I'm going to be brutally honest - the way to 'fix' harlequins would have been to not shunt them into their own codex with barely any units. They should have remained as part of the Eldar and Dark Eldar codices.


How do you figure? I started playing in 5th. From my start in 5th until they got their own book in 7th, harlequins were always that unit you only took if you wanted to be fluffy and lose games. Plus, being in both the eldar and dark eldar books seemed to create this reluctance on GW's part to update their rules. People missed their rules of yore and ended up creating a number of fan'dexes so that they could have harlequin-themed armies. Having their own book has allowed people to actually have the armies they were converting up anyway, has expanded on their lore, and has made them a more competitive option. And some of those new units that only existed after the 'quins got their own book are among the most competitive harlequin options right now (sky weavers).

So having their own book seems to have served a desire within the community, expanded their lore, and resulted in them having more competitive rules. What is the downside of having their own book?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/11 17:22:23



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Wyldhunt wrote:

How do you figure? I started playing in 5th. From my start in 5th until they got their own book in 7th, harlequins were always that unit you only took if you wanted to be fluffy and lose games.


You could say the same about Mandrakes. Bad units should be improved, not moved to a different codex.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Plus, being in both the eldar and dark eldar books seemed to create this reluctance on GW's part to update their rules.


I mean, if we're just going to assume that GW maintains its terrible design policies, then the thread is a moot point regardless.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Having their own book has allowed people to actually have the armies they were converting up anyway, has expanded on their lore, and has made them a more competitive option.


More competitive is debatable, I think. As it stands they have, what, two units that are actually worth a damn?

Wyldhunt wrote:
So having their own book seems to have served a desire within the community, expanded their lore, and resulted in them having more competitive rules. What is the downside of having their own book?


The downside is that they're now stuck on their own with barely any units to their name.

It's not merely the fact that harlequins go their own codex, it's the whole philosophy behind it that's the issue. When 8th started, it took almost a year for GW to give even 1 Xeno army a codex. And the reason for this is because they've spread themselves so thin. Rather than fixing problems with existing units/armies, they just create new armies. If you enjoy having a single big release of models (when the army is first made), and then no models and minimal effort codices from then on, in addition to having to wait longer and longer for codices while GW updates its ever growing mess of Imperium "armies", then by all means continue to praise the separation of Harlequins.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So because GW can't balance we shouldn't have Harlequins as a separate army? That's some bass ackwards logic if I've ever heard it.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 vipoid wrote:


You could say the same about Mandrakes. Bad units should be improved, not moved to a different codex.

Those aren't mutually exclusive though. When the 7th edition harlie 'dex came out, it gave them access to their snazzy new weapons as well as transports and (arguably) psychic powers that all allowed them to function more effectively than before. They also got the solitaire, which seems to have been a pretty popular include. Getting a new book along with a bunch of new models made them dramatically better over night.



More competitive is debatable, I think. As it stands they have, what, two units that are actually worth a damn?


1. In the context of tournament play, they seem to be doing pretty well with skyweavers alone. 90% of choices in any book aren't considered optimized enough to see the top tables. The fact that every given unit in the harlequin book represents a larger percentage of that book's units than usual doesn't seem very relevant. How many paladin knights do we see? What percentage of the IK 'dex does the Castellan make up?

2. While much of harlequin 'dex isn't seen all that much at top tables, pretty much everything in the book works perfectly well at mid-tables or in relatively casual gamers. Troupe Masters, troupers, and shadowseers are a far cry from things like tactical marines and striking scorpions.



The downside is that they're now stuck on their own with barely any units to their name.

That's simply not how this edition works though. The pros and cons of being able to take allies in the game do warrant their own discussion (and have), but allies are a part of the game. A commonly utilized one even. Your harlequin list can include ranged support from ravagers and dark reapers. It can take kabalite CP batteries and Doomseers. Unless you're playing in a non-standard format that outright bans or severely penalizes allies, you effectively have access to every aeldari unit in the game.

As for having, "barely any units to their name..." When they were sharing a codex with eldar and dark eldar, they were literally a single unit. A unit that could upgrade a couple of its members to the pointless troupe master, mandatory shadowseer, and off-beat death jester, but a single unit all the same. Now, they have all those original models plus a new transport, bike option, the void weaver, and the solitaire. It's still a tiny model range, sure, but it's still way more variety than they had in a single book.


It's not merely the fact that harlequins go their own codex, it's the whole philosophy behind it that's the issue. When 8th started, it took almost a year for GW to give even 1 Xeno army a codex. And the reason for this is because they've spread themselves so thin. Rather than fixing problems with existing units/armies, they just create new armies. If you enjoy having a single big release of models (when the army is first made), and then no models and minimal effort codices from then on, in addition to having to wait longer and longer for codices while GW updates its ever growing mess of Imperium "armies", then by all means continue to praise the separation of Harlequins.


So a few things here.
* I agree that it stinks that it takes so long for some armies or specific units to get any rules attention. However, that doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic at hand. Harlequins were extremely sub-optimal in 5th and 6th edition. GW didn't seem to have the clowns in their cross-hairs, and it was easy for them to remain an afterthought in someone else's book. Once they had their own book on the other hand, they improved significantly. Basically slow rules releases are annoying, but harlequins have received way more attention since getting their own book. You could argue that the large number of books is bad for armies that haven't gotten as much attention of late (orks, for instance), but that's another point entirely and one that doesn't support the premise that being in their own book has been bad for harlies.

* You phrase that like GW can either release a new book or fix a lacking unit. See above about those not being mutually exclusive. Part of the release that gave harlequins their first book also made them more playable than they'd been in a decade. And a lack of new units doesn't mean that old units necessarily get fixed. I'm not aware of any new units in the BA 'dex this edition, but tactical and tech marines still seem pretty unpopular.




ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




My thoughts would be
Caress is strength user ap-1 but any to hit roll of 6+ causes a mortal wound.
Kiss, go back to a single attack of your model being strength 6 with their damage for that attack being d6. A six to wound gives that attack ap-4
Caress is strength user, but when wielding this weapon add 3 to the attacks characteristic for the model.

Let neurodisruptor cause mortal wounds on a 6+ to wound.

As for the other stuff, I've found the army quite capable. Just miss a lot of the flavor I loved from last edition.

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Spoiler:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Welcome to the forums, Unnamed Harlequin. This is exactly the sort of thing we like to see here in the proposed rules section. As a fellow harlequin player, I absolutely agree that there were some missed opportunities regarding the harlequin codex. However, I do have some thoughts about what you've presented here.

WEAPONS

* The caress. Presumably you mean to have this wound everything including vehicles on 3s (the only "poison" rule these days is specific to the drukhari codex, and it usually doesn't work on vehicles) with the same AP as in the GW rules. That makes this weapon a pretty good all-rounder that will allow a trouper to reliably wound anything in the game once or twice with sufficient AP to matter against anything with an armor save. A weapon that's good against basically everything. Wounding on a 3+ against more targets makes your version a straight up improvement on the GW version and would probably warrant a significant price increase. Against something like a hive tyrant, this is basically a strength 7+ weapon.

* The embrace. Your mechanic is interesting and would feel good when you manage to get off a long charge and inflict a lot of mortal wounds, and it feels very flavorful for the weapon. I can see the anime wire kills now. However, harlequins don't really have much in the way of charge assistance; we typically just get closer to the enemy in the movement phase with rising crescendo, and then execute an easy charge from there. The recent FAQ makes us a little worse at charging than before as we now have to factor in terrain more than in the past. So with that in mind, you'd need a 9" charge (i.e. a charge you will fail more often than not) to average a single mortal wound per embrace. A 6" charge is much more likely to succeed and still gives you a 2/3rds chance per trouper of inflicting a mortal wound, but you're still left with the choice of either getting closer to your charge target and making the embrace's effect less powerful or making your charge harder and potentially failing it.

I'm not sure if you intend for your mechanic to be on top of the benefits of the GW version of the weapon. If not, the caress probably makes up for its lack of mortal wounds by virtue of wounding more often and with AP. If you do retain the GW rules (basically making the embrace a strength 4 power sword), then the roles of the caress and the embrace begin to overlap with both being pretty good against hordes, heavy infantry, and monsters/vehicles alike. Also, am I correct in assuming you intend for the mortal wound mechanic to trigger immediately after the unit makes a charge rather than waiting until the fight phase?

To give this weapon more of a niche and to eliminate the awkward, "Do I stay farther away and risk failing my charge?" effect, consider doing something like this:
Harlequin's Embrace: Strength User, AP 0, Damage 1, Melee, this weapon's wielder doubles the number of attacks made with this weapon on a turn in which they charged.
or...
Harlequins Embrace: Strength User, AP 0, Damage 1, Melee, This weapon treats its strength as 6 on a turn in which the wielder charged.

Either of these profiles would turn the embrace into more of an anti-horde weapon than the caress while retaining the importance of charging with it (just like in 7th edition). The first profile takes a "machine gun" approach. The wielder will still have a crummy strength value, and the weapon has no AP. Thus, the embrace would be pretty bad against heavy infantry or high toughness targets, but you'd be swinging double the number of attacking when going after hordes. This would also synergize well with a troupe master's reroll wounds aura. The second profile makes you even better than the caress at hurting T3 models with bad saves, roughly as good as the caress at hurting T4 models with bad saves, but does not make you better against marines and monsters/vehicles than the caress.

* The kiss. Your rules for the kiss suffer from similar problems to those possessed by your embrace. A 9" charge will fail more often than not, and the kiss can't even benefit from a shorter 6" or even 3" charge like the embrace. When you do manage to roll a 9 on your charge roll, you'll be swinging hard enough to obliterate anything you're facing (including hordes; you'll hit them harder with this than with your caress or embrace on average). This may sound cool from a video gamey perspective, but your opponent that just had their knight one-shotted because you got a little lucky on a charge roll will probably prefer not to play against you or your homebrewed harlequin rules again. So basically, this weapon suffers from either offering no benefit over the caress and thus feeling like a bad investment or else offering so much benefit that your opponent feels bad about playing you. Also, the kiss is meant to be the iconic mainstay of the harlequin arsenal. Turning it into a gambler's weapon feels a bit off in that regard.

In the GW rules, the kiss is roughly as good as the caress against hordes while also having the potential to do 3 wounds of damage per attack to multi-wound models. At strength 4, it's as likely to wound most vehicles (T6 and T7) as a caress, but its worse AP make it less desirable against single-wound targets than the caress or the embrace. What niche do you want this weapon to fill?

* The harlequin's blade. In the GW rules, this is just a free close combat weapon. In your version, it makes the wielder slightly better against all targets (because you'll hit more often), but it doesn't offer any additional strength or AP meaning the shrimpy-armed trouper wielding it will only really be able to meaningfully hurt hordes. So that makes this an anti-horde upgrade. However, I assume you intend for one of the other weapons to be the dedicated anti-horde option. So that means this weapon has less of a niche and also, presumably, is no longer a free option as +1 WS is surely worth at least a couple of points.

So with that in mind, I think I'd personally prefer to keep the harlequin's blade as a free option that allows me to keep a given model's cost relatively low. What niche do you see this weapon filling? For me, it's the "cheap" niche.

* The mist stave is just way too complicated and way too open for abuse. Firstly, the additional roll off feels clunky and will slow the game down, if only a little. Second, different psykers are more or less reliant on their psychic powers to be useful. A daemon prince without powers is still a daemon prince. A sanctioned psyker though? You've basically made him worthless. Can you picture your opponent playing against this rule and feeling that he had a more enjoyable game as a result of you stealing doom from his farseer? Thirdly, this rule opens up the possibility for a shadowseer to have literally any psychic power in the game. That creates a lot of room for broken. This consideration alone would make the miststave very tricky to balance.

So basically, you'd have to up the cost of an already-expensive shadowseer significantly with an effect that won't do anything if your opponent has no psykers, and which has the potential to result in a bad time for your opponent if he does.It's kind of a lose/lose.

* Neuro disruptor. I like this one. We may need to up the cost on the gun to compensate for its new power, but it has a use. I'd stick to Damage 2 to avoid stepping on the fusion pistol's toes.

MASQUE FORMS
* MIdnight Sorrow feels clunky and also has the potential to wrap up a much larger chunk of the enemy. Meaning this is more powerful than what they currently have and would have to result in a higher points cost while also potentially being more frustrating to play against. Does Midnight Sorrow really need a buff? I feel it's pretty good as is. Especially now that we're more reliant upon it to jump to the next unit in light of the recent FAQ.

* Twisted Veil. Your changes are probably alright. I never see anyone using Twisted Veil as-is, so a small boost is probably acceptable. You could split the difference and make it a flat 1d6 roll instead of 2d6. That would be both quicker and less powerful than 2d6 drop the lowest.

* Frozen Stars. Your changes are overly complicated and probably too powerful. Sure, you'll lose that squad next turn, but you won't care to much when you've just erased an imperial knight (or anything else) with your +2 to wound attacks. The GW Frozen Stars rules are elegant and already quite powerful. In what fashion do you see this rule improving the game?

* Dreaming Shadow feels fiddly. Your opponent resolves their attacks. You roll to see if you die. If you do, you roll to see if you attack them. If you do, you resolve your attacks. And then after all that, you might not even be dead in the first place. You could streamline this a bit by just making it a 6+ FNP, but I'm not sure Dreaming Shadow really needs to be more powerful than it already is. Dreaming Shadow with fusion pistol troupers is pretty potent as-is.

* Silent Shroud feels kitchen-sinky. It's a penalty to leadership AND they have reverse ATSKNF AND you ignore a bunch of rules in the game that will be severely more impactful to some armies than others. The last part especially. Tyranid swarms and ork hordes are reliant upon their morale tricks to avoid losing tons of points to the morale phase. Also, we're talking about harlequins here, so you can easily stack a bunch of leadership debuffs onto a unit. Kill one gaunt with a death jester while they're standing near some silent shroud units including a Mask of Secrets shadowseer, and suddenly they're looking at a -7 to their leadership while rolling 2d6 to ensure a relatively high roll. And that's without even considering all the craftworld and drukhari leadership penalties you could stack on top of that.

TROUPE PROFICIENCIES
I do kind of miss the old light/twilight/dark theme. However, stacking these rules on top of Masque Forms (even using the less powerful GW rules) would call for a price increase. Pretty much all of your proposed changes would call for a price increase. 40 point harlequin troupers probably won't win games and are probably a problem if they do. So in the interest of toning things down a bit, how would you feel about turning these proficiencies into additional Masque Forms? That way, players still have a way of representing the fluff of their troupe without stacking bonuses on top of bonuses. Alternatively, you could maybe just introduce a stratagem similar to the Alliance of Agony that Drukhari have that would let you spend CP pre-game to give some of your characters the relevant warlord traits.


SUMMARY
You have some flavorful ideas here. However, these changes would call for a huge points increases that will likely either make harlequins overpowered or else render them too expensive to win games with. Some of these rules are more complicated than they need to be or open the door for problematic rules interactions (miststave). Harlequins are ultra-elite, so an argument can be made for making individual models very powerful. However, giving them bonuses on top of bonuses in a vacuum probably isn't the answer.

Consider that a squad containing kisses will roll a 9+ on their charge roll about 1/3rd of the time. A single kiss trouper can kill a rhino by himself with only a little bit of luck. Command point rerolls are a thing. How much do you think that trouper should cost?

If your intention is to make harlequins more flavorful/interesting but not necessarily to increase their raw power, consider what changes will accomplish that most simply. Rather than adding rules on top of other rules or introducing more powerful rules, look for mechanics that are "different" rather than "stronger." Look for mechanics that replace an existing rule rather than going on top of it.

If your intention is to make harlequins more powerful, then consider what a harlequin force on the table should look and behave like from a big picture perspective. How many models should the army start with? How will they get into combat? How easy will they be to kill? Are they more survivable than they are now? Then they should probably be more expensive, especially if they're also better at killing things.



Thanks for the positive response. Been away for a while so I haven't been able to respond recently.

The embrace and kiss were, in my mind based on the charge [b][i]roll[b][i], not on the actual distance moved. So, what you rolled on the dice affects the ability and not how far you actually move.


And sorry for missing this out, but there would definitely be a points increase to most of the stuff in the Codex



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spectral Ceramite wrote:Harlies seem good to me as is. They are fun to play (it is a niche army) but seem good as a codex (maybe some more fluff in the codex and a few more units, like a hemlock equivalent etc). You don't want to make mechanics or weapons to much different from the standard (confusion etc). However, they feel unique enough that they are fun to play.



Perhaps I was too harsh on GW, but in my mind Harlequins are the kind of army you go into because of the deep special-rule possibilities and shenanigans. Part of the reason I personally got into them was that (and their aesthetics, of course).


bullyboy wrote:Sorry to say, but without adding new models, I think the Harlequin Codex is excellent. The weapons do exactly as intended (with exception of neuro disruptor which should be a little cheaper for those stats).

The codex has some of the best relics in the game (by that I mean a player has a hard choice to make and will often spend command points to add 1 or 2 more). It's a shame that the most common used are Starmist, Rose and Curtainfall (because they are good) as I know I'd personally like to use Suit of Hidden Knives and the Mirrorstave more.

Same with the Warlord traits, there are so many good ones. As for strategems, I could probably use 80% of them if I had the command points!

The only thing really lacking is variety of models, but when used as an allied force to Craftworld or Drukhari, it's fine.


The Codex isn't bad, but Harlequins have a great potential regarding special rules. After all, their weapons are described as unique.

And I agree with you on the Warlord Traits and Stratagems, they are quite powerful. It's a shame we don't have some really cheap infantry unit (come on Mimes) to farm CP.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/10/17 10:13:11


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




We do have soup, craftworld rangers and two autarchs get you 5 command points at the expense of one or two units of clowns.

   
Made in au
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller





I think the point is no1 wants to run soup unless they are a tourney win at all player. Can't say for all but all my mates like single army, single books. Soup is for when you are a tourney player or playing fluffy (then you talk to players and organise armies according to the fluff).

If tourney player than yes that option is there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/20 14:43:47


14k Generic Space Marine Chapters
20k Deathwatch
10k Sisters of Battle
3k Inquisition
4k Grey Knights
5k Imperial Guard
4k Harlequins
8k Tau



 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I’m not a tournament player. I like soup.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Harlies seem good to me as is. They are fun to play (it is a niche army) but seem good as a codex (maybe some more fluff in the codex and a few more units, like a hemlock equivalent etc). You don't want to make mechanics or weapons to much different from the standard (confusion etc). However, they feel unique enough that they are fun to play.



Honestly we just need a couple of new kits. I'd kill to get my hands on a light support fighter jet, and some kind of sniper-esque unit of infantry. Maybe, if it wouldn't overpower the codex, I'd love to see a version of the Wraithknight, something that has more cc capacity?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: