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.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's horsepucky.

What do you mean, what do I want? It's incredibly obvious. If I even still played the game anymore, what I would want is for Harlies to have the option to follow the normal force organization charts just like everyone else. So I could bring a single Troop choice and HQ model as allies without my entire army becoming Unbound.

Don't even start with the "permission to play whatever you want." There are distinct advantages to having a Battle Forged army, and in this case the Harlequin codex has been structured to force you to pay money for that privilege. This is clearly, absolutely a cash grab, because there's no other reason to set it up like this.

It's a gimmick designed to (practically) force you to buy more models and play them a very specific way, and it's bullcrap.

How is, in this regard, the normal CAD (1 HQ, 2 Troops) for an advantage (Objective Secured, etc..) any different to the Formations/Detachment presented?

You have some constraints/minimum requirements. In turn, you get some advantages? Same thing.

Your entire rant was about how you despise that sort of thing. Yet for some reason, you also dislike the option to pick what you like without constraints (because you miss some advantages?).

So basically, you want unbound AND all the advantages from formations, etc... ?

Wonderwolf wrote:
How is, in this regard, the normal CAD (1 HQ, 2 Troops) for an advantage (Objective Secured, etc..) any different to the Formations/Detachment presented?

You have some constraints. In turn, you get some advantages? Same thing.

Your entire rant was about how you despise that sort of thing. Yet for some reason, you also dislike the option to pick what you like without constraints (because you miss some advantages?).

So basically, you want unbound AND all the advantages from Formations, etc... ?

What is it I want? I feel like you must be trolling, because it's perfectly obvious. What I want is exactly what every other army gets. The option to put together a normal force using either a Combined Arms Detachment, or an Allied Detachment.

How are the Harlie options different from a CAD? Again, you are probably being intentionally obtuse. The normal FOC or allied FOC are distinctly different from the options presented here: the Harlies either have zero flexibility and some special rules, or total flexibility (Unbound) and your entire army loses the benefits of Battle Forged.

It's no coincidence, either, that every single formation presented would be more expensive than a minimum sized Allied Detachment, if you could run a character as an HQ. And the Harlequin FOC is also grossly more expensive and less flexible than a CAD FOC, if everything but the characters are truly required. I maintain that this is exactly the reason to meddle with the FOC and make the characters all elites - it forces you into a specific buying pattern if you want a Battle Forged army, and it's more expensive than it would be otherwise.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I maintain that this is exactly the reason to meddle with the FOC and make the characters all elites - it forces you into a specific buying pattern if you want a Battle Forged army, and it's more expensive than it would be otherwise.

+

Again.

1) The same is true for CAD. It "forces you into a specific buying pattern", as you said, if you want battleforged.

2) You don't need to be battle forged. It cannot be a "money-making scheme" if they give you explicit permission not to go there.



For 1), I don't see how the "buying pattern" imposed by the normal CAD (old-school FOC) is less "despicable" than any other, doubly so for pre-allies days, when the requirements were much, much steeper. As a whole, GW significantly lowered entry costs for people for any army beyond the first (which, arguably was the point of allies and unbound). Thus it was "worse" in the old days than it is now.

For 2), I can only repeat, that you don't need to go battleforged. GW explicitly let you off the hook. They might tempt you with nifty rules-incentives, and seemingly they do a good job, but tempting (not forcing) is still preferably to the "old way" of forcing-no-matter-what. Ergo, it was "worse" in the old days than it is now.

Concluding, GW's "cash-grap-attitude" in this regard has significantly lessened in the past 3 years or so over what it used to be, which contradicts your earlier statement.

One of the Formations available is a Troupe with attached Death Jester and Shadowseer. How is that not basically the same as an Allied Detachment? It's one Troops choice and two relatively inexpensive (points wise) Elites. It's about the same dollar and point cost as a Troop/HQ combo.

Also, not all codex armies can field Combined Arms Detachments and Allied Detachments. Imperial Knights, Inquisition and Legion of the Damned can't to name a few. Officio Assassinorum also can't, but they aren't a proper codex army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

Not sure what you want.

Unlike 5th Edition ... you don't have to buy a whole army of them.
Unlike 6th Edition ... you can just play a Troupe & Solitaire unbound, if that is what you fancy.

Quality of the formations/detachments aside, you don't need them. They are optional. It's hard to argue for a "cash-grab" when GW explicitly gives you permission to just not use them.

I'm sorry, but that's horsepucky.

What do you mean, what do I want? It's incredibly obvious. If I even still played the game anymore, what I would want is for Harlies to have the option to follow the normal force organization charts just like everyone else. So I could bring a single Troop choice and HQ model as allies without my entire army becoming Unbound.

Don't even start with the "permission to play whatever you want." There are distinct advantages to having a Battle Forged army, and in this case the Harlequin codex has been structured to force you to pay money for that privilege. This is clearly, absolutely a cash grab, because there's no other reason to set it up like this.

It's a gimmick designed to (practically) force you to buy more models and play them a very specific way, and it's bullcrap.

If you don't play the game, why do you care? This is an honest question. I see a lot of people complain endlessly and they always preface their complaints with the fact that they don't even play the game.

There is no such thing as "the normal force org chart" anymore. That's a 6th Edition concept. You need to let the past go and embrace the new system. If you want to continue playing Warhammer 40k using only the armies that existed at the end of 6th Edition and only using a Combined Arms Detachment, you can. But if you want to play with the new things GW is putting out, you're going to have to be a little more open-minded and embrace the army creation changes that 7th Edition brought us.

And there are also distinct advantages to having an Unbound army. No restrictions for one. Need a tank killing unit? You have dozens to choose from. Want some assault capability for your Tau army? Go crazy. Unbound also has the advantage that it allows you to really build some interesting fluff lists that Battle-forged doesn't allow for. Want an all scout army led by Scout Warlord Telion? Go for it. Want a rogue Ordo Xenos Inquisitor who has cultivated a small army of mechanically inclined Grots manning Kans and Gunz? Make it happen.

If losing out on the ability to re-roll a Warlord Trait and having Objective Secured for your Troops is enough for you to say the game is unplayable... then maybe you aren't very good at the game. I play Tau and Necrons as my two main armies and choose a very shooting heavy play style. I don't remember the last time I actually had a Troops choice make use of the Objective Secured rule. Regular old scoring has always been enough.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

ORicK wrote:
OK, i am at home and have the codex here.

The force organisation chart of a Harlequin army is called a Harlequin Masque and it exists of:
Compulsory: 3 troops, 2 fast, 1 heavy; Optional: 7 elite

It also states that you can include any of the formations presented as part of a battle-forged army.

The formations are:
1) a complete masque with the 7 elites being 3 death jesters, 3 shadowseers and 1 solitaire
2) 3 troupes, 2 skyweavers, 3 starweavers, 1 voidweavers
3) 1 troupe, 1 death jester, 1 shadowseer
4) 1 troupe, 1 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers
5) solitaire, death jester, shadowseer
6) 2 skyweavers, 1 voidweavers

So if i understand it right you could also use one of the 6 formations mentioned above in any battle forged army...

That's garbage. It's a blatant cash grab: the minimum requirement for the Harlie FOC is grossly inflated, without an HQ you can't run a Combined Arms or Allied detachment, and the formations offer very little flexibility (and are often padded out). If you just wanted to add a Troupe and a Solitaire to your army, you're going to have to play Unbound.

Formations are honestly one of the worst things to come out of GW recently, and for exactly this reason - you are increasingly encouraged to view your army not as a collection of separate units costing $20-60, but as a collection of fixed formations each of whose cost could run into the hundreds of dollars to complete. They honestly want to turn 40k into 28mm Epic.

And since free special rules weren't enough of an incentive before, we now have a mini-dex with almost zero flexibility in what models you can buy and how you can field them, because everything has to be in formations.

It's absolutely disgusting. This should have been an easy home run for GW, especially among veteran players, yet they manage to find a way to redouble my conviction to never buy another model from them again.

So basically. ...you do not play, want to play and after this Codex definitely, definitely don't want to play, is this about right? I don't like eggs, I will not be eating eggs but this does not mean I'm going to have a rage fest about eggs and shout down everyone who suggests maybe eggs might not be so bad as I'm raging about. If you don't want to play the game don't play, if you have something constructive to add, great, comment away.

@Kriswall: Well said! Have an exalt sir!

**Edit: You too Denilsta

Oh, the anger emerges.

Despite the fact that one of the very formations that can be used, freely, with any army is a single troop squad with a Death Jester and Shadowseer...which, to be honest, is what the normal Harlequin squad consisted of from 5th edition onwards anyway, right?

I mean, the original squad was basically harlequins with a Master and options to add a Shadowseer and Death Jester. So....why not just take that formation and call it a day?

Really, that's probably what 90% of the angry I want Harlequin Allies players already had in the form of a squad, so how is this that difficult?

There's also an option for a 'mounted' formation too. Hey, want to use your squad, transport and new bikes? Tada! There we go.

I'm not understanding this absolute obsession with battleforged as a general concept.

The Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment are simply detachments that have Objective Secured as a special rule associated with the,

Battleforged allows for Detachments and Formations - Unbound is essentially whatever you want, plus some formations. So, as long as you are following the structure your list is still Battleforged.

You could field a CAD, BSF and ASF Blood Angel list without worrying.

You could field a CSM CAD, with an Allied Detachment of Crimson Slaughter and a Fallen Angels formation without worrying.

You could even field a Dark Eldar CAD, Eldar CAD, Harlequin Masque detachment and Dark Angel Librarius Conclave formation without worrying.

Really, people are too hung up on the CAD and Allied Detachment as options, not realising that 7th has freely allowed for other detachments to exist.

Perhaps your worry is local tournaments? I mean, I know my local doesn't allow Unbound, LoW and tends to shy away from Formations - but if you have a concern you speak to the local organisers and work out a compromise.

In the local case for me? I've helped figure out the LoW problem - Super Heavies. So the no LoW rule has been amended to the following for fairness.

You can either have a LoW SC or a third HQ. If the 3rd HQ is chosen it must be used for a special character.

That way the 6th edition armies can't complain it's not fair that the 7th ed. lists can effectively have 3 characters....and the 7th ed. armies can't complain they're being denied their figurehead SCs whereas the 6th ed lists aren't.

I see absolutely no reason that they won't allow the formation that has a Death Jester, Shadowseer and Troupe as an option for people or for the mounted version.

I mean, really, you wanted a Harlequin army. You got one. Turns out, they have a very restrictive list as they should. They're an elite, specialiset force. As such they have an odd structure. You were expecting standard...for Harlequins?

So, a vegan of the WH40k community has struck again. Glad to see there are reasonable people here to counter their nonsense.

 sharkticon wrote:
GW just got back to me. If you ordered any models with the books, they are being held until the Codex arrives.

I'm annoyed by this. I've been grabbing the datacards and the dice as they go. So 1 pack of datacards is holding up an order I threw on a piece of terrain that my fiance also wanted to hit the price point for golden ticket entry. At least I didn't throw on anything I needed right away. I guess I can always call and complain, since there was no sign they were going to hold up the entire order.

I can definitely see some beef with the way the detachment/formations are set up. Shadowseers are far and away the all-stars of the book, and the biggest boon to either DE/CWE. ML2 on the phantasmancy chart is insane for either army, and the fact you can get multiple Shadowseers is just plain gravy. The fact that to do so, you need to invest in a lot of pretty bad units (looking at you Voidweaver/Skyweaver) at a fairly high points cost is annoying.

Harlie troupes w/Starweavers isn't a huge deal, they're pretty well balanced for the cost. But the fact I have to take 3 (instead of 1-2 I'd take as an ally), with requisite transports (to eat the FA slot instead of skyweavers) and also take at least one Voidweaver (which I in absolutely no way want) is pretty obnoxious. And that's the minimum I have to take to get the one unit that is an actual stand out in the codex and synergize with my main list.

If this was a way to limit Shadowseer spam and prevent them being OTT, I'd get it. I would. Except A) Troupes are expensive and forcing 3 units of them + FA slots would have been plenty B) GW pretty obviously doesn't understand their own rule set enough to know how good they made the Shadowseer. Case in point for point B- “Faolchu’s Blade” formation exists. The 2 worst units in the codex in a formation together that gives a bonus to jinking.....with both units having blast based weaponry (yes they could be Shricannon boats, but why would you do that?).

I'm still excited about Harlies, and will field them as I have wanted to do since 2nd. It's just annoying that they have made them so restrictive (how often do you really play unbound?), when one extra page in the codex and a simple sculpt that would have been a gigantic seller could have filled out an HQ slot that has already been described in fluff. It's just perplexing that this release came so close to being amazing, and ended up as meh.

@DarkStarSabre - the practical reality is that battleforged is the way to go when deciding on a list, because otherwise you limit your opponents. The problem isn't so much slight deviations from CAD or formations; it's that you can totally abuse unbound to make a ridiculous army. For instance, I want a Solitaire, four hive tyrants, six wave serpents, and five drop pods with something to hold objectives. Oh yes, Dante and Smash, for kicks.

Just because I happen to think all those models are fun!

 Talys wrote:
@DarkStarSabre - the practical reality is that battleforged is the way to go when deciding on a list, because otherwise you limit your opponents. The problem isn't so much slight deviations from CAD or formations; it's that you can totally abuse unbound to make a ridiculous army. For instance, I want a Solitaire, four hive tyrants, six wave serpents, and five drop pods with something to hold objectives. Oh yes, Dante and Smash, for kicks.

Just because I happen to think all those models are fun!

Fair enough. But if you want something more restrictive, there'll be ... drum rolls ... restrictions, and not every conceivable combination of units in the codex will be playable in any number and combination. If they were, it'd be unbound.

It's no secret that unbound isn't everyone's cup of tea ... fair enough.

But the original rant by CalgarsPimpHand was about the non-unbound, more restrictive approach being ... well ... more restrictive than unbound, and accusing GW of a blatant cash-grab for introducing rules that require you to take a certain minimum of troops and or other requirements and not allowing you to take stuff willy-nilly (which they did .. um ... 1986 or so?).

If (!) that is the kind of thing that really grinds your gears ... well ... in that case, unbound would seem a natural fit. Indeed, in that case, any previous version of Warhammer 40K and any other wargame that does not have an "unbound"-mode would seem to be far inferior to 40k 7th with its unbound option.

Overall, even with the restrictions, I'm a bit happier with this release than I'd expected to be. Perhaps not as much as it could have been, but such is life. It doesn't feel like that long ago (recognizing that it's been about 14 years, but I haven't been playing much for the last 6 so it feels shorter!) that Tau only had 14 regular army list entries (one being the Bodyguard Team) and two special characters, so there's room to grow.

Not holding my breath on that, obviously, but hey, I'm happy for now.

Edit: Been playing for 15 years total, but less over the last 6. Awkward sentence structure.

I am hopeful campaigns like Shield of Baal will become a more regular occurance and we might get the missing Harlequin units in one of those.

@Wonderwolf - yup, I get it. I think there is a happy middle ground too.

Part of it is that the game is about making unit choices based on factions, which have individual strengths and weaknesses. So, Necron have no psychic, for example. There are also very good HQ choices that are designed to be limited.

If you go, all models are ok, the problem just becomes that people will never take Tau infantry, any flyer other than an FMC, etc. Even if you don't abuse it overly, there will always be the temptation to snag one more of the above average units instead of an average unit.

Oh yes -- also, I've never met anyone with an issue with Formations. If you don't want to play formations and only want to play against CAD/Allied, that would probably also highly limit play partners.

 Eldarain wrote:
I am hopeful campaigns like Shield of Baal will become a more regular occurance and we might get the missing Harlequin units in one of those.

Depending on the financial response to the release (naturally, forums are a notoriously bad metric for that sort of thing), it might be possible at some point. We shall have to wait and see, but it looked like the Limited Edition codex sold out quickly even despite the price. If nothing else, I look forward to seeing little painted murder-clowns and the occasional batrep over the coming weeks.

 Talys wrote:
@DarkStarSabre - the practical reality is that battleforged is the way to go when deciding on a list, because otherwise you limit your opponents. The problem isn't so much slight deviations from CAD or formations; it's that you can totally abuse unbound to make a ridiculous army. For instance, I want a Solitaire, four hive tyrants, six wave serpents, and five drop pods with something to hold objectives. Oh yes, Dante and Smash, for kicks.

Just because I happen to think all those models are fun!

You missed the point by a mile.

Battleforged consists of detachments and formations. Individual codexes and supplements present alternative detachments which can still be used for a battleforged army.

So, really, people complaining that the Harlequins have a set detachment structure or formations as options for allying with them are missing the point.

Every example I gave? That's a battleforged army. Battleforged is not just Combined Arms and Allied. The other detachments also fit in there as well.

Unbound is no restrictions at all. Battleforged is restrictions according to whichever detachment you chose to use.

You can take multiple detachments in a Battleforged army, provided you are meeting the minimum requirements for each detachment - so yes, you can field an Eldar CAD, an Iyanden CAD, a Dark Eldar Realspace Raider Detachment and an Allied Detachment selected from the Haemonculus Coven supplement. You can add the Ghost Warrior formation and the Harlequin formations.

And still be a Battleforged army.

Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

 Talys wrote:


Oh yes -- also, I've never met anyone with an issue with Formations. If you don't want to play formations and only want to play against CAD/Allied, that would probably also highly limit play partners.

A) It's still no GW-ploy if you decide to further limit your options.

B) It's a paradoxical position. You deliberately choose to use less options than provided by GW, but complain about being too contained by what remains, even though more options are available, yet you refuse to make use of them?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

This. Unbound has a lot of potential for themed forces or scenario games. Reading the Shield of Baal missions had me thinking that a lot of them would be so much better if you went Unbound and themed.

The reason most tournaments etc. avoid them is because you will inevitably get the power gamer who decides they should abuse the hell out of it and shows up with the 3 Riptides, 3 Wraithknights, 3 whatever other power units they shoved in their power lists and called it an army.

Personally, I'd love for local groups to open up more for unbound games - I think they have potential in campaigns as final games for phases or special scenarios.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

Not to mention that the people that already have the models likely have the old full unit size or so, which wouldn't fit in the transport anyway. The Shadowseer wouldn't be able to cast any of his buffs from inside the transport, either. Honestly, the only reason to need the darn thing is if you needed it for something else, and I'm not sure what that would be in Eldar or DE other than for Eldar assault units to bum a ride, which is not worth the turn 1 hop anyway.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wow! That was a lot of craziness. The harlequins in recent years were relegated to being a single unit, that couldnt fill a compulsory slot, that only had 3 weapon options and 3 overcosted characters. Now they have so much of their flavor back, and the ability to be fielded alone without going unbound, all of that is a good thing! If all you have is a single unit + characters, they even included a formation for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE so you absolutely wouldn't have to buy more harlequins. How is that at all a cash grabbing scheme?
My .02

The problem with that formation is that you can't fit them in their own transport. Dumb.

Not worried about the transport, because that would mean you have to buy something new. They deliberately gave you an option to play a Harlequin unit, just like you used to, but with better rules, gear, and their own warlord table, using ONLY the models most people had if they bothered to get Harlequins. If they hadn't included it, people with just those models would be forced to buy other things to make an army out of them. I think that this may actually be GW throwing people a bone, if they wanna bother buying the codex. Also, unbound is a fantastic way to play, just don't be a jerk about it.

That's a fine opinion. Here's mine: If they wanted to throw us a bone, they would have included an HQ in the list. It's really not asking much.

Hey just my 2 cents (probably not worth even that).

Why not just talk to your opponent prior to the game. Most people are fairly reasonable, from my experience. The other day I was playing a CWE list and wanted to try out some of the new Harlequin rules as allies. Before the game I showed my opponent my list that consisted of about a 1000 points of Eldar using a single CAD and 750 points of Unbound Harlequins (nothing over the top just several different units to try them out). He was perfectly cool with it and only asked to see the White Dwarf magazines to skim the rules prior to our game.

We had a blast, I lost, learned some interesting things ( the Solitare is- Oh my damn!), and agreed to a rematch.

I guess something that is commonly forgotten. Is that this game should be more about forging friendships than winning, losing, or assembling an unbeatable list using every rule to your advantage.

In a game of dice there are no absolutes. So grab a cold one, roll some dice, and make friends. Life's to short to let a game of model soldiers dictate whether you're happy or not.

So to whomever may read this post,

Have a blessed day, good luck at the tables, and treat others as you want to be treated.

Why? It is absolutely unnecessary in their game, has no effect on the (revised) fluff for the Harlequins, and doesn't add anything the army is missing in regards to tactics. They simply aren't going to give it a thought because people limit their game system in ways they don't believe you should. If it actually mattered to them, the shadowseer would be an HQ. Even if they wanted you to buy multiple of them, all they needed was to add more HQ slots. It just comes down to how they want the army, as a detachment, to act and feel. People can complain about their group disallowing this and that, but it takes a weird turn when you actually get mad at a company who didn't have anything to do with their decision.

bigbaboonass wrote:

Hey just my 2 cents (probably not worth even that).

Why not just talk to your opponent prior to the game. Most people are fairly reasonable, from my experience. The other day I was playing a CWE list and wanted to try out some of the new Harlequin rules as allies. Before the game I showed my opponent my list that consisted of about a 1000 points of Eldar using a single CAD and 750 points of Unbound Harlequins (nothing over the top just several different units to try them out). He was perfectly cool with it and only asked to see the White Dwarf magazines to skim the rules prior to our game.

We had a blast, I lost, learned some interesting things ( the Solitare is- Oh my damn!), and agreed to a rematch.

I guess something that is commonly forgotten. Is that this game should be more about forging friendships than winning, losing, or assembling an unbeatable list using every rule to your advantage.

In a game of dice there are no absolutes. So grab a cold one, roll some dice, and make friends. Life's to short to let a game of model soldiers dictate whether you're happy or not.

So to whomever may read this post,

Have a blessed day, good luck at the tables, and treat others as you want to be treated.

Every time I read a post like this, I think of a game I played last year, 7th had dropped, but, I thought I had agreed beforehand that the woods we had would be treated as such (5+ cover if you have your base within the terrain piece)

Only for my opponent to subsequently argue, once it became relevant, that they weren't Citadel woods and therefore only provided cover if they obscured the relevant % of the model (making agreeing they were woods beforehand utterly irrelevant.) Something that was impossible because they were specifically modelled with long trunks so models could be placed under the trees without issue.

I told him what I thought of his argument, but went with the RAW (not worth the effort for three bases of Nurglings) but after the game told him that it would be club policy from then on that we treated all club woodland as "Citadel" woodland.

The following week I heard him pull the same gak with our clubs newest and youngest regular attendee.

My point is, you can't write rules for reasonable people, you have to write so the odious little gaks whose self worth is so deeply embedded in their ability to win a game of toy soldiers that they'll pull anything they think they'll get away with to do so.

You have to write rules so these guys have a metaphorical straitjacket, and these guys will be so paranoid that your troupe in a transport is going to cost them a game they'll refuse to play it.

You have to write the rules so reasonable people don't get their fun spoiled by idiots, not write rules for reasonable people.

That strikes me as an issue with the player raather than the game. By your logic, the 9/10 of players that are going to use Unbound to make fun, fluffy or just different lists should lose out because of the 1 idiot in 10 whose self-worth is determined by winning a game of toy soldiers.

Were I writing the rules, I'd write them for the 90% that embrace their spirit, say to hell with the other kind of person and hope the community did the same.

And you'd be wrong.

It's like allies, the guys who were going to use them for fun, fluffy lists were likely already doing it. All their introduction in 6th resulted in was all the douchebag players taking it as a permission to dig up the most broken combos possible.

OK, back on topic. Has anyone seen the death jester sprues yet? I wanna see how much work it will take to convert one into a different pose. (In case I want to field three of them)