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.

 Jambles wrote:

 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 This means my army is obsolete which is why I am even on here.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.

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army? How would you feel if you could only take certain pre-defined units in order to play the list and that's where I have my issue. I can play a pure wraith list but only using that formation, with those specific units. So only if I feel like taking 3 units of wraiths, 1 knight, 1 lord and 1 spirit seer. They striped our ability to take hmmmm 4 units instead of 3 or 6. What if I want to have 2 spirit seers in there? I feel like I have not missed the point. My point still stands and is legit which is GW has striped the ability for you to build and create an all wraith list. If I wanted to play a pre-determined list I would have never moved past a starter set..... okay maybe that's a bit of a overstatement but similar principle.

But I know this dance I am going to complain and trust me I realize nothing can be done. GW has made the call and made a force designed using last editions book unusable in a bound list. (what am I ever going to do with 10 spirit seer models). Either way I know its a lost cause I just wanted to see if anyone else was as outraged at it as I was.

A good comparison might be Tac Marines being moved to Elites.

With one Formation that consists of 3 Tactical Squads, one unit of Tactical Terminators, one unit of Assault Marines, and one unit of Devestator Centurions.

You could still do an all-battlebrother list, but it would be incredibly limiting.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
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.

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army?

Dude, you're the one who painted himself into a corner, based on an extremely narrow version of an army list. You want the benefits of bound, with the flexibility of unbound - not gonna happen.

As an Eldar player who has been playing longer than you, and likely has more Eldar stuff than you, I kinda question whether your no-Guardian, no-Ranger, no-Aspect army should be considered an army by "the spirit of the game". It's super-narrowly constructed, so I don't think you should be complaining that the ride is over.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 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.

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army? How would you feel if you could only take certain pre-defined units in order to play the list and that's where I have my issue. I can play a pure wraith list but only using that formation, with those specific units. So only if I feel like taking 3 units of wraiths, 1 knight, 1 lord and 1 spirit seer. They striped our ability to take hmmmm 4 units instead of 3 or 6. What if I want to have 2 spirit seers in there? I feel like I have not missed the point. My point still stands and is legit which is GW has striped the ability for you to build and create an all wraith list. If I wanted to play a pre-determined list I would have never moved past a starter set..... okay maybe that's a bit of a overstatement but similar principle.

But I know this dance I am going to complain and trust me I realize nothing can be done. GW has made the call and made a force designed using last editions book unusable in a bound list. (what am I ever going to do with 10 spirit seer models). Either way I know its a lost cause I just wanted to see if anyone else was as outraged at it as I was.

First off, Games Workshop gave you the exact tool you need to achieve whatever it is you want to do with your army; UNBOUND is a thing. If your gaming group doesn't allow that, it is NOT Games Workshop's fault you can't play the army you want. Your own house rules are what is restricting you here.

Second, restrictions have ALWAYS existed in 40k. If you wanted to play with more than three heavy support choices before 7th (Armoured Company, anyone?), you had to put together a custom scenario or force org to accomodate your army yourself, or maybe GW would make a special codex (leman russ troops choices, woo!). The only difference now is that you can CHOOSE to take certain extra restrictions to receive a tangible benefit.

Third, things change, and you can either accept that they have changed or, as is COMPLETELY in your control, choose to play without the changes. I used to only be able to take one unit of Ork boys with a heavy armour upgrade, now I can take as many as I want. I used to be able to take Ghazzie as an HQ choice, and I can't do that anymore. Personally, I prefer to play with the most up-to-date rules, but I know a great many players here on dakka who prefer to use older codexes, even older editions of the rules, and that is 100% acceptable within their gaming groups.

So you want to have an all wraith army, but insist on not being able to play unbound to meet that need, and insist that the formation provided in the new book - designed EXCLUSIVELY with wraith armies in mind - does not meet your needs (you know you can have more than one, right? and that it includes every wraith unit in the book, right? so it necessarily has all of the units you would take anyway, RIGHT?), and insist that you are being victimized by GW somehow.

To which I have to ask; if you genuinely believe all of this to be true, why are you playing 40k?

I'm still curious as to why the only thing you consider "an army" is a CAD. Also, as I stated in an earlier post, a strictly wraith army isn't even that fluffy. Nearly every codex that has come out since 7th has removed the ability to take x as troops. Are you surprised that wraithguard lost the ability to become troops? I really don't see any issue with the way the formations are, especially considering you can give a guaranteed 6" battle focus to your WG by taking the formation. This codex has plenty of things worth complaining about, this isn't one of them.

 Iyanden Keith wrote:

How is that an army? Yes by the definition of a legal playing force that is a usable list. But in the spirit of the game is that an army? How would you feel if you could only take certain pre-defined units in order to play the list and that's where I have my issue. I can play a pure wraith list but only using that formation, with those specific units. So only if I feel like taking 3 units of wraiths, 1 knight, 1 lord and 1 spirit seer. They striped our ability to take hmmmm 4 units instead of 3 or 6. What if I want to have 2 spirit seers in there? I feel like I have not missed the point. My point still stands and is legit which is GW has striped the ability for you to build and create an all wraith list. If I wanted to play a pre-determined list I would have never moved past a starter set..... okay maybe that's a bit of a overstatement but similar principle.

But I know this dance I am going to complain and trust me I realize nothing can be done. GW has made the call and made a force designed using last editions book unusable in a bound list. (what am I ever going to do with 10 spirit seer models). Either way I know its a lost cause I just wanted to see if anyone else was as outraged at it as I was.

Taking only formations or formations + allied or CAD + formations are all perfectly legal ways of playing a battle-forged army. I dunno how to break it to you, but it is in the spirit (and to the letter) of the rules. If you want a little more flexibility, add an allied detachment or CAD. I mean, that 1 troop -- 3 jetbikes -- or 2 troops if you want a CAD is not going to kill you, right?

Your options for playing Iyanden are:

1. Play Wraith Host
2. Play Wraith Host with Allied Detachment
3. Play CAD with Wraith Host
4. Play Warhost with a Wraith Host
5. Play an Unbound (but themed) Wriath-only Iyanden army

I don't see how any of these are bad options, man. It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

 Talys wrote:
It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

Nobody is trying to hear that (despite guardians and every aspect being mentioned in literally every piece of iyanden fluff I've ever read). Can't you see the sky falling?!

 Talys wrote:

Your options for playing Iyanden are:

1. Play Wraith Host
2. Play Wraith Host with Allied Detachment
3. Play CAD with Wraith Host
4. Play Warhost with a Wraith Host
5. Play an Unbound (but themed) Wriath-only Iyanden army

I don't see how any of these are bad options, man. It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

<--- Just picked up the Eldar Codex and flipping through it now. Serious question. Is there a:

6. Play with a CAD per the BRB?

 kronk wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Your options for playing Iyanden are:

1. Play Wraith Host
2. Play Wraith Host with Allied Detachment
3. Play CAD with Wraith Host
4. Play Warhost with a Wraith Host
5. Play an Unbound (but themed) Wriath-only Iyanden army

I don't see how any of these are bad options, man. It's certainly more flexibility than most other factions get (hence the lack of outrage), and really... Craftworld Iyanden DOES have real, living Eldar in it.

<--- Just picked up the Eldar Codex and flipping through it now. Serious question. Is there a:

6. Play with a CAD per the BRB?

Yes, just not if you insist on playing an all wraith army despite the fact that it isn't that strong or all that fluffy. WG aren't troops so you have to take something to fill your 2 troop slots unless you want to play the wraith host.

I don't really care about WG, per say. Nor am I commenting on Iyanden Keith's options. I was just wondering if you can still run them as a normal CAD per the BRB.

Thanks!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
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.

Lol.. we've already stated why it doesn't work.. shown proof from gw that it doesn't work except in friendly games.. game set match? Lost hard sadly.

 kronk wrote:
I don't really care about WG, per say. Nor am I commenting on Iyanden Keith's options. I was just wondering if you can still run them as a normal CAD per the BRB.

Thanks!

yes, you are getting stuck on the Guardian Warhost thinking it's the only way to a field an army outside of detachments. a CAD is still allowed as normal.

 kronk wrote:
Just picked up the Eldar Codex and flipping through it now. Serious question. Is there a:

6. Play with a CAD per the BRB?

Yes. p. 94 calls out BRB CAD as an option.

Thanks.

Hey guys, I know this is a very old thread, but I asked about this very thing and got a response. I didn't see it posted elsewhere, and thought I would post the link to the actual question I asked and the answer. According to the studio rules team if you use the Iyanden supplement wraithguard/blades are troops choices for the purposes of the CAD.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1814724488848182&id=1575682476085719

If this information is listed elsewhere, I guess its not needed.

since all codexes will be null and void for the new edition next month, was this necessary?

Well, I did ask the question before they announced 8E. So if you are going to a 7E tournament and want to run a wraith army...yes it is necessary.