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.

 plastictrees wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Doomaflatchi wrote:
This is... what the... I don't even...

"A typical Masque might include one Shadowseer and Death Jester per Troupe..."

But if they attach like characters, then the Troupe can't possibly fit in the required Skyweaver transport!!

Where does it say or even imply that they join one of the Troupes in the Masque?

It doesn't. It just means 'for every Troupe a Shadowseer and Death Jester are inclluded".

That was my point.

Also remember that the Skyweavers are the Jetbikes, not the Transport (that's the Starweaver)

But the point still stands that you can't fit a Troupe in a Starweaver if you attach a Shadowseer and Death Jester to them, though you could fit a Troupe with one of the characters (since the minimum sized Troupe is 5-strong)

Im guessing that you aren't going to want to attach a DJ to your Troupes that are ripping around on Starweavers, but who knows.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Also remember that the Skyweavers are the Jetbikes, not the Transport (that's the Starweaver)

You're right; I missed that on my first look. Those names are never going to get confusing, no sir...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
But the point still stands that you can't fit a Troupe in a Starweaver if you attach a Shadowseer and Death Jester to them, though you could fit a Troupe with one of the characters (since the minimum sized Troupe is 5-strong)

And I think that's just weird. Still, it's better than the Venom's old 5 capacity, were we wouldn't even be able to take a Shadowseer. I'm still hoping for the option to take a Webway Portal on the Shadowseers, though...

The 2+ LoS from the flip belt is starting to make more sense now but running a foot harlequin army wouldn't really be viable to get much use out of it.

$205 for the LE Harliequin codex.


Geez. I'm going to have to think about that one. Would've bought it for sure at the typical $165-$185 price. Wonder what it comes with? Better be more than just some cool prints....

Maybe it will come with a LE Harlequin High Avatar HQ data slate....

 Ghaz wrote:

 Doomaflatchi wrote:
This is... what the... I don't even...

"A typical Masque might include one Shadowseer and Death Jester per Troupe..."

But if they attach like characters, then the Troupe can't possibly fit in the required Skyweaver transport!!

Where does it say or even imply that they join one of the Troupes in the Masque?

Sorry I did not post it but it does say that they can join the troupe or be separate.. it will hurt for kp now as each is a Kill point

So, do we have characters yet? The death jester and shadow seer are really the only hq candidates at this point, right?

Shadow seer is going to be,a psyker right, since we have pics of psychic cards

buckero0 wrote:
So, do we have characters yet? The death jester and shadow seer are really the only hq candidates at this point, right?

Shadow seer is going to be,a psyker right, since we have pics of psychic cards

Rumor has it that the Shadowseer and Death Jester are both Characters, but they're Elites choices. Looks like we actually won't have any HQs. And yes, the Shadowseer will almost certainly be a full-fledged Psyker.

Hmmm, being able to join 7 deathjesters to Maugan rha sounds like a fun fire base

 Red Corsair wrote:
Hmmm, being able to join 7 deathjesters to Maugan rha sounds like a fun fire base

Can almost see them strolling onto the battlefield Resevoir Dogs style

 Januine wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Hmmm, being able to join 7 deathjesters to Maugan rha sounds like a fun fire base

Can almost see them strolling onto the battlefield Resevoir Dogs style

F yea! That unit will dump out some heat my friend

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Januine wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Hmmm, being able to join 7 deathjesters to Maugan rha sounds like a fun fire base

Can almost see them strolling onto the battlefield Resevoir Dogs style

F yea! That unit will dump out some heat my friend

....with style and with class!!!!

Well they recommend the Troupe master as the Warlord as he will have the most Warlord trait options apparently 3 tables dark, light and twilight. Shadowseers and deathjesters are limited and the solitaire can not have a warlord trait. Remember any character in 7th edition can be your warlord.

 insaniak wrote:
I foresee a lot of arguments over how to determine the Voidweaver's rear facing...

Why?

 Raesvelg wrote:
Kinda wondering if we can expect to see a change to the regular Eldar version of the holofield (+1 Cover save if moving) to bring it into line with the new Harlequin version (5++ if not immobile).

Not sure how I'd feel about it either way.

That would make it the same as the Dark Eldar Flickerfield.

That would be pretty OK, my vypers wouldn't have to hide in cover to survive. Really hoping this force organization chart is white dwarf specific. It doesn't appear to even have any sort of comma d benefit. That would be the 1st 7th ed detachment to do so.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
That would be pretty OK, my vypers wouldn't have to hide in cover to survive. Really hoping this force organization chart is white dwarf specific. It doesn't appear to even have any sort of comma d benefit. That would be the 1st 7th ed detachment to do so.

It does say at the bottom that they "gain benefits in game", so I'm just assuming that the bonuses aren't printed in WD, and that they'll show up in the Codex. *fingers crossed*

Well if this is what I am limited to (even if I can have a dedicated Harlequin army and not some crappy allies thing) then I am really uninterested and am heavily considering selling what Harlequin stuff I have.
This is the most restrictive, dull thing they could have done...
God I really thought this was what was going to bring me back into the warhammer fold, since the terrible rumours I am hearing about Fantasy will have left that game unplayable...

God I was ready to give them a lot of my money.

Can I ask what your dream army list looked like then?

I was planning on 6 troupes, 4 Starweavers and fill the restof the space with elites and 'stuff'.
I like the look of the Voidweaver so the fact that I need to take at least 2 of them doesn't ruin things for me.
I'm worried about how much room I'll have for DJs and Seers at 1750, hopefully at least 2 of each will fit.

Yeah, I'm pretty happy at the end of the day. Harlequin Troupes got better for the same cost, Shadowseers get more psychic kit, Death Jesters get to go solo again instead of conflicting with their unit's shooting profile, the Starweaver is fantastic for a dedicated transport, freaking Harlequin Jetbikes, and we even got rules for a Solitaire! Sure, I'd wish for a High Avatar and Mimes, but when all is said and done I'm still going to be running pure Harlequins just for the awesomeness of it.

I hope the Death Jester's torso is a separate piece from his crouching legs so there can be some easy conversion work done.

 Doomaflatchi wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty happy at the end of the day. Harlequin Troupes got better for the same cost, Shadowseers get more psychic kit, Death Jesters get to go solo again instead of conflicting with their unit's shooting profile, the Starweaver is fantastic for a dedicated transport, freaking Harlequin Jetbikes, and we even got rules for a Solitaire! Sure, I'd wish for a High Avatar and Mimes, but when all is said and done I'm still going to be running pure Harlequins just for the awesomeness of it.

Completely agree, given how much stuff GW has cut from recent codexes I was happy enough to see the Solitaire return let alone some pretty nice new stuff as it could have easily been a simple plastic reboot of the Troupe.

Voidweaver Prismatic Cannon is a bit underwhelming design-wise, something more like the ones the Shadow Spectre have might look a bit better but easy enough to convert and thats being picky! Going to be an expensive order come Friday as I was waiting to see what else was coming!

People, stop your doomsaying and think for a moment. Has there been any 7th Ed codex without multiple detachments/formations? Nope. So why would this be any different? Just wait for all the formations before you throw your Harlies in the trash.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I foresee a lot of arguments over how to determine the Voidweaver's rear facing...

Why?

Because the 7 th Ed rules are no clearer than previous editions on how to determine the facings on non-rectangular vehicles, and the way you choose to do so will have a large impact on the fire arc of the aft weapon.

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I foresee a lot of arguments over how to determine the Voidweaver's rear facing...

Why?

Because the 7 th Ed rules are no clearer than previous editions on how to determine the facings on non-rectangular vehicles, and the way you choose to do so will have a large impact on the fire arc of the aft weapon.

It's just further evidence the GW rule writers don't read/understand their own rules. Almost any player would have seen "weapon can fire in rear facing arc" and thought "wait, that's stupid given our rules don't define armour facing for vehicles without clearly defined corners".

I wonder how they determine armour facings in the studio, or maybe they just don't bother playing the game any more so it's not relevant

Rear arc is easy. The thing is a triangle, so work out the rear arc that way. Draw a line from the nose to the wingtip and extend it back to figure if something is in the side or rear.

It's the front vs side arcs that are problematic on it.

edit: Snip

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Rear arc is easy. The thing is a triangle, so work out the rear arc that way. Draw a line from the nose to the wingtip and extend it back to figure if something is in the side or rear.

It's the front vs side arcs that are problematic on it.

I'm not sure why side or front would be harder to determine than rear. To make your triangle you either treat it as a 3 cornered shape, in which case you need to define what is the frontal "point", otherwise you treat it as a 4 cornered shape, the 2 front prongs and the edges of the wing-thingies as the rear corners.

Either way, if you can determine the rear arc you simply extend the lines to determine the front and side arcs.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Rear arc is easy. The thing is a triangle, so work out the rear arc that way. Draw a line from the nose to the wingtip and extend it back to figure if something is in the side or rear..

A workable house rule, but not how the rulebook says to do it.