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.

I'm normally just play low points games were we don't focus on points and generally have 3-4 people playing at once. I love the weirdness of the Harlequins and their models, I just think they are very '40k' but don't find them fun to play.

I'm not competitive in the slightest and so just want to cause mayhem on the battlefield rather than just wreck everything.

It is said that Harlequins don't differentiate between performance and war, so would love that aspect to be represented more.

Just wondered if you guys fancy coming up with some new rules, strategems, psychic powers or objectives to make Harlequins really fluffy and emphasise them acting out a play and causing disruption.

Some ideas I need to flesh out:

I sort of remember the old wood elf war dancer rules from Warhammer fantasy where they could choose a variety of dances like dealing no damage but lock a unit up for a turn.

Something like Dark Eldar power from pain to represent different acts in a play?

Death jester gets points for sniping a particular character?

New psychic powers like DnD's hideous laughter spell and irresistible dance?

As someone with 40+ games with Harlequins in 8thand stopped playing them bc they are not fun (and the Fly faq was the final nail in the coffin for me).

IMO they are not fun for a couple main reasons.


1) Extremely close range, all their weapons are either melee, or 6-24", there is no long range weapons
2) They are reliant on a 50/50 roll to survive or not on an elite unit, at all times, this is not fun when you have 20pt+ dudes dying to 2pt SB's
3) The army only has basically 3 weapons, Shuriken, Haywire, FP, this leads to a very boring playstyle, as you must spam each of them an insane amount
4) Lack of units and viable units. Harlequins can have Players (a cheaper troupe choice (think cultist level, but with RC, Flip Belts, and 4++, they wouldnt have options for gear)) The voidweaver is just a Starweaver, same profile, same model, same play style. The DJ rules dont fit the purpose, sure you can have 3 of them, but really its just 3 guys with a shuriken cannon, nothing really good about them. You will basically be playing the same 4 units over and over and over again
5) DE and CWE does everything quins do, but better (Other than Skyweavers HWC's), for example, Wyches are 100pts for a melee focus unit, Troupes are also 100pts, but Wyches are double the wounds, with FnP, and 33% more damage.


These are what i think the army needs, and will make it more fun to play

1) Player: all the same stats of a Troupe with 1 less attack, 1 per 5 can have a melee and pistol weapon, base points 8, use troupe box, but on 25mm base, Troupes on 32mm base
2) Flip belt always works, no matter what
3) DJ rules change
4) Voidweaver needs to be taken in squads and given bonus rules (to hit or re-rolls) if shooting same target

You may ask "Why would i take Troupes of Players?" b.c players wouldnt get most of the stratagems, they are great for filling out battalion tho and take as front assault units or anti-horde large screens.

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but my "fix" would have been to not make Harlequins a separate army in the first place.

Not everything needs to be made into its own separate faction, especially in an already-cluttered game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

3) The army only has basically 3 weapons, Shuriken, Haywire, FP, this leads to a very boring playstyle, as you must spam each of them an insane amount

Well, yeah, because the Harlequin codex were conceived by the same morons who thought it would be a great idea to expand about 3 Grey Knight units into an entire sodding codex. Hope you like having the same basic weapons and weapon options on every single unit.

Um...

Harlequins were their own army decades ago and a lot of people were quite happy to have them back. I for one jumped all in when I found out they were getting their own codex, and am glad to do so.

As for fluffiness in game play, their playstyle is fluffy!

I am constantly misdirecting opponents with my maneuverability, and thwarting plans with how much damage my players can do.

I run the masque that allows 6" pile in and consolidation, meaning the enemy has a pretty tough time actually getting out of combat with me due to my troupes surrounding them alongside their obligatory troupemaster and transport.

I will say that they should have reintroduced the mimes to give us more troop options. They could be slightly cheaper units with 2 less attacks, but they had infiltrate and stealth (so maybe +1 invul while within terrain?) It would add another element to our overall strategy and give us more disruptive deployment options.

Harlequins were literally a single unit in the 4th edition Eldar codex, had no Tabletop rules (in codex form anyway) in 3rd and 4 units (of which 3 were characters) in 2nd edition Eldar Codex. So no, they weren't their "own army decades ago".

Harlies should not be stand alone. Fluff wise anything near 1000pts should begin to include CE or DE and not both. So to make them fluffier just let them do what they do best for others who do the rest. So warwalkers and reapers for support etc...

No clue how the army is not fun though. Yeah, maybe throw in a few units from Craftworld or Drukhari, but they are not dull to play. Tyring out different Masques should spice it up a bit.

 bullyboy wrote:
No clue how the army is not fun though. Yeah, maybe throw in a few units from Craftworld or Drukhari, but they are not dull to play. Tyring out different Masques should spice it up a bit.

I haven't really found them fun since they took away nearly all the flavor of their unique weapons. We went from having some cool stuff in 7th - single use plasma grenades, weapons with charge bonuses, old Kiss insta-deaths - into having a trio of incredibly bland stat buffs (of which one is always going to be superior 100% of the time) and bikes that are just mortal wound hoses rather than the somewhat finesse tool they were before.

dont even get me started on the total loss of gameplay around the death jester and the fact that we lost our "debuff their leadership then twist the blade" psychic power while Eldar got to keep theirs.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Harlequins were literally a single unit in the 4th edition Eldar codex, had no Tabletop rules (in codex form anyway) in 3rd and 4 units (of which 3 were characters) in 2nd edition Eldar Codex. So no, they weren't their "own army decades ago".

2nd ed had four (not three) Harlequin characters and a squad that could either run on foot or be mounted on bikes, which makes it six meaningfull different choices, while entire Craftworld section of that codex excluding Phoenix Lords, Exodites and Pirates had eighteen meaningfull choices (five repeated grav platform entries counted as one). Reintroduced Harlequins have seven different choices. Given how large a typical 2nd ed armies were stating that Harlequins were not a proper "own army" back then is misinformation.

And same as Lythrandire Biehrellian I also got back into 40K only when my favourite faction got reintroduced as a standalone force, so there's that.

Reminds me of my experience trying to play mono Khorne daemons at the beginning of 8th. There are quite a few similarities.

1. Insanely deadly in close combat
2. Little to no ranged damage.
3. Extremely fragile for the points cost.

And also like Khorne daemons, Harlequins can be really powerful in small doses when allied with other factions. That to me seems like the fluffiest and the most formidable way to run them.

Amishprn86, you make some good points. Like you said, the death jester doesn't really fit. Both weapon profiles are essentially the same, think we need one firing choice with multiple damage.

I get that maybe they were designed as a something to include in another army but really lack anything to make them stand apart from their Aeldari brethren. I also think wych units are more fun with choice of combat drugs and all the 'feel no pain' stuff.

I'm and avid Eldar and have to agree...Harlequins never needed to be their own faction. Here's the main issue...GW likes adding factions because they're almost guaranteed sellers - particularly old school stuff (Harlequins, Genestealer Cults, etc.). This also means the sale of codices, cards, and occasionally dice, etc. So it's a good business proposition.

However, GW is then stuck because they want to make just enough kits to barely justify an "army" or a "faction". This then means sub-standard tournament performance and bizarre rules choices trying to make a viable army out of 5-6 model kits. Grey Knights are in the exact same situation. Should have never been an army - fluffwise or tabletop wise it doesn't make much sense. You then have tournament players complaining about "all armies should be viable". Never going to happen when you have a microscopic number of units and models.

If you want Harlequins more fluffy on the tabletop? Stop taking armies of them. Add a single troupe and a character or two. They make more sense in Kill Team, or as a faction in a Rogue Trader style game. They operate as one trick ponies in many instances because that's what they are. They're agile space elf troublemakers...they're not intended to go run into the midst of a Knight banner, or a wave of Space Marine tanks, etc. In order to try to make them viable GW then gives out ridiculous stuff like th haywire guns so that this little fake army has an answer to things like Knights, etc. It has nothing to do with the fluff. Harlequins would simply avoid a battlefield 99% of the time.

The micro-factions in this game are in a bad spot...and shouldn't really be around.

Yuk to all the people saying they shouldn't have a codex at all. This game is balanced around soup. Harlies are, fluff and crunch wise, well suited to soup. They are also one of the more outlandish and funky factions in the game. Long live the clowns!

 grouchoben wrote:
Yuk to all the people saying they shouldn't have a codex at all. This game is balanced around soup. Harlies are, fluff and crunch wise, well suited to soup. They are also one of the more outlandish and funky factions in the game. Long live the clowns!

Yeah, feth the "if it's not a space marine it doesn't belong in muh 40k" attitude. GW has been working to expand the smaller factions in the game, they just don't grab as much of the limelight as the primary factions and without as large a pool of common units to pull from they end up with smaller numbers of units, leading to volatile game balance where when they're good, they're good, when they're bad, they're really bad. GK has been top dog and runt of the litter in its time, but that also doesn't stop GW from making huge armies with vast pools of worthless units - See Ork, Tyranid rules in previous eds.

Harlequins just weren't designed with the same level of love that some of the other "finesse" factions were in 8th edition. As another poster said, it's vastly more fun to play Wyches. They're approximately equal in terms of competitiveness, but wyches get Combat Drugs, cooler relics, better faction traits, and more interesting rules in general while the Harlequins are by very far the blandest eldar faction in 8th. They're colorful murderclowns, but they're utterly boring in their tabletop rules. So much of their incredibly small weapon pool is wasted with options that are essentially non-options:

Neuro Pistol: What the feth is this thing for? We've had 4 chances to redesign the rules for it now, and it's STILL "Pay MORE points over the melta pistol option to reduce strength by 5, divide damage in half, reduce AP by 1, remove melta rule, and only 1 damage vs vehicles"
Star Bolas: The weapon in the kit that was designed to be equippable by the whole squad uses the GRENADE rule meaning ONLY ONE MODEL in the unit can fire it at a time. What? Why? What's the point?
Embrace/Caress: Two of the four melee weapon options total have almost identical statlines to the point that they are in fact identical against 95% of the targets in the game. you have a golden opportunity to make it possible to design different roles for a harlequin squad, why just utterly squander it? Not even getting into the fact that mathematically the embrace is the superior choice of all three upgrade weapons almost all the time...
Harlequins Blade: Hey what if we just made one of the weapons "no weapon"? Yep, the swords that they give you more than enough of for every model in the kit don't...do...anything. Annnnnnything at all. S user Ap- D1.
Power Sword: What should we do for the weapon you can only take on the HQ choice? Should we make it "Pay 1 point less than an embrace, get one point less strength?" Yeah, that sounds great, no need to give them any kind of unique choice.

It sure is going to feel like a faction's roster is paper thin if you don't take ANY opportunity at all to give their different weapons any rules. What does this feel like? Oh yeah

Warding staff force sword force halberd falchions: Hey so what do these do? Basically all the same thing, except one is always better than the others? Ok...so can you make them fill any kind of different role? What's this hammer do? Oh, it gives you a tiny bit more damage vs tanks and it's 15 points, I guess every single model in my entire army will just take the same weapon. That's...that's fun.

the_scotsman wrote:

Harlequins just weren't designed with the same level of love that some of the other "finesse" factions were in 8th edition. As another poster said, it's vastly more fun to play Wyches. They're approximately equal in terms of competitiveness, but wyches get Combat Drugs, cooler relics, better faction traits, and more interesting rules in general while the Harlequins are by very far the blandest eldar faction in 8th. They're colorful murderclowns, but they're utterly boring in their tabletop rules. So much of their incredibly small weapon pool is wasted with options that are essentially non-options:

Sorry, I can't agree with this at all.

1. Let's look at the comparison. Wyches get infantry, bikes, a small transport (that CANNOT take a character with them), hoverboards, 1 HQ choice. and a beastmaster with a few monsters. Harlies get 2 HQ options, the troupe, bikes, an elite character that's a bad-ass, an elite character who's very situational, and a hvy support vehicle. I think the harlies take this one. Sure, you can add in the other Drukhari factions, but you can do that with harlies too (if we're just comparing harlies to wych cult)
2. Masques vs Obsessions...6 vs 3 and I find the harlequins very diverse. You can theme your force completely around your masque choice. I plan to try them all at some point even though I often find myself leaning on Soaring Spite as the quick "easy button" intro to harlies.
3. Relics. No way the wyches win out here. Harlequin relics are some of the best in the game and I generally always take 2 and often so tempted to take 3. Starmist, the Rose, Curtainfall, Suit of Hidden Knives, Faolchu's talon, Mirrorstave. I only wish my Craftworld had any decent relics (worst relics in game?)
4. Warlord Traits. Again, I wish my Craftworld had the same tough choice.
5. Strategems...again, some of the best. I never have enough CPs.

Harlies do suffer from lack of unit choices, agreed, but they're not all terrible. How many people just spam the same few units from their codex anyway, regardless of the number of unit entries? And when you factor in the synergy of the relics/traits/masque forms/strategems, then those few units act extremely differently on the table top.
Out of all my armies, I've had the most fun playing harlequins...even more so than my Ravenwing, and I'll admit that I haven't even scratched the surface yet.

Maybe after extensive playing I'd feel the same way, but I'd pretty much say that with any of my armies if I played them 60+ times, lol.

Bottom line for me though, GW did a stellar job with this codex with such few units. I do agree they could go one or two steps better (improve the neuro disruptor to even make it a choice, maybe add a strategem that allows you to throw all bolas in a shooting phase)

I also don't completelty dismiss the Death Jester either, especially at 45pts. Combining the shrieker (especially if Curtainfall and possibly using an Example Made), a Hemlock or two and it's quite easy to take out some high value infantry. I had a recent game where I had 3 jesters (needed the models to fill up points) including Curtainfall, that absolutely devastated Khorne Bezerkers. Granted, there will be times that the little buggers don't do anything too, but then they're reasonable for holding objectives and denying deep strike zones.