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.

My Dark Eldar Kabal stuff got some pretty positive feedback, so I thought I'd take a stab at making some stuff for their craftworlder cousins. Unlike the true kin, the craftworlders are already pretty well off mechanically right now. I tried to keep this in mind as I wrote the rules for them. I tried to focus on writing rules that would benefit fluffy playstyles that aren't necessarily as popular these days. I also left Lords of War out of these detachments to discourage wraith knight use (you can use the regular CAD if you want to bring those big guys along ) and limited the number of special weapons available to jetbikes. While some may say this discourages players from using Iyanden or Saim-Hann, I feel the benefits you get in exchange for some (arguably much needed) nerfs are fun and flavorful. Of course, feel free to tell me if you disagree!

So what do you think, guys? Have I just handed Eldar players more overpowered toys, or would these rules be something fun to face on the battlefield? Unless feedback indicates that I'm horribly off-track with these creations, I'll likely release rules for the "minor" craftworlds soon as well.

CRAFTWORLD DETACHMENTS
These detachments may not be used in an army that also uses the Craftworld Warhost rules presented in Codex Eldar: Craftworlds. Formations (such as Aspect Hosts or Seer Councils) that have their own dataslates in that book may still be taken as part of an army using the detachments presented here. However, such formations are not part of the Craftworld Detachments presented here and thus may not benefit from the Detachment’s special rules unless that rule specifically notes that it applies to the entire army (rather than just the detachment).

If using multiple different Craftworld Detachments, independent characters joined to units from the other detachment do not share special rules from their detachment and vice versa. For instance, a Biel-Tan farseer would not benefit from the Kinsmen rule found in the Saim-Hann detachment.

SAIM-HANN DETACHMENT


ALAITOC DETACHMENT



BIEL-TAN DETACHMENT


IYANDEN DETACHMENT


ULTHWE DETACHMENT

Overall, they seem pretty cool detachments, though a few notes:

General - I'm not sure Wraithknights need to be outright banned, the most ugly part of them is spamming them in a Warhost detachment. Consider a game size limitation similar to what you've done for the Avatar, and perhaps add a points "tax" (since they are undercosted) to balance them?

Saim-Hann - In my opinion, limiting the heavy weapons on jetbikes is something that should be applied to the main Eldar codex, rather than only one of your detachments. That said, despite the furor that erupted in the wake of the codex, I haven't heard of scatterbike lists EZ-winning their way to the top of tournaments *shrug*.
The melee weapons on the Windriders seems interesting, but maybe have the option of keeping the Shuri-pults and paying points to have CCW's as well (like how the CSM codex gives the option to swap a bolter for a CCW, or buy one for 1pt).

Alaitoc - Explain the method for Sabotage - Is the hit randomly allocated or chosen by the Eldar player (i.e. Artillery style units with guns and crew)? Does this do nothing to a squad of 5 1-wound models?

Biel-Tan - Increase the number of Elite slots available at the expense of Troops perhaps? The Iyanden detachment is 4 and 3, which seems the right number to use here too.

Iyanden - This one seems like the hardest sell, Wraithguard as the required is awesome, adding Warlocks to Wraith units is awesome (though perhaps a touch overcosted, a Spiritseer gets an additional wound and mastery level over one for 10pts), Exarch powers on Wraithlords is awesome, but the drawback of Wraithsight is brutal - as soon as your 1-wound Warlock gets sniped, you're either snap-shotting with with Wraithcannons (not a high-RoF weapon at the best of times) or not firing at all with D-Sythes, whilst there's no actual effect on Wraithblades... Hang on, I've just re-read it, being close to a Wraithlord negates this too? Maybe I'm not up enough on Iyanden fluff to understand that...
Honestly, I'd make it more like the 6th edition version - Each unit has a chance of being completely useless when not around a Psyker, but there is at least a chance of them acting normally without.

Ulthwe - I'm obviously being schooled on Eldar fluff here, as The Maiden's Dreams seems a wierd rule to be trying to fit in. Clarify the CRAFTWORLD DETACHMENTS rule as it applies to the Seer Council formation if taken as part of the detachment.

 Quanar wrote:
Overall, they seem pretty cool detachments, though a few notes:

General - I'm not sure Wraithknights need to be outright banned, the most ugly part of them is spamming them in a Warhost detachment. Consider a game size limitation similar to what you've done for the Avatar, and perhaps add a points "tax" (since they are undercosted) to balance them?

Saim-Hann - In my opinion, limiting the heavy weapons on jetbikes is something that should be applied to the main Eldar codex, rather than only one of your detachments. That said, despite the furor that erupted in the wake of the codex, I haven't heard of scatterbike lists EZ-winning their way to the top of tournaments *shrug*.
The melee weapons on the Windriders seems interesting, but maybe have the option of keeping the Shuri-pults and paying points to have CCW's as well (like how the CSM codex gives the option to swap a bolter for a CCW, or buy one for 1pt).

Alaitoc - Explain the method for Sabotage - Is the hit randomly allocated or chosen by the Eldar player (i.e. Artillery style units with guns and crew)? Does this do nothing to a squad of 5 1-wound models?

Biel-Tan - Increase the number of Elite slots available at the expense of Troops perhaps? The Iyanden detachment is 4 and 3, which seems the right number to use here too.

Iyanden - This one seems like the hardest sell, Wraithguard as the required is awesome, adding Warlocks to Wraith units is awesome (though perhaps a touch overcosted, a Spiritseer gets an additional wound and mastery level over one for 10pts), Exarch powers on Wraithlords is awesome, but the drawback of Wraithsight is brutal - as soon as your 1-wound Warlock gets sniped, you're either snap-shotting with with Wraithcannons (not a high-RoF weapon at the best of times) or not firing at all with D-Sythes, whilst there's no actual effect on Wraithblades... Hang on, I've just re-read it, being close to a Wraithlord negates this too? Maybe I'm not up enough on Iyanden fluff to understand that...
Honestly, I'd make it more like the 6th edition version - Each unit has a chance of being completely useless when not around a Psyker, but there is at least a chance of them acting normally without.

Ulthwe - I'm obviously being schooled on Eldar fluff here, as The Maiden's Dreams seems a wierd rule to be trying to fit in. Clarify the CRAFTWORLD DETACHMENTS rule as it applies to the Seer Council formation if taken as part of the detachment.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed feedback, Quanar!

Wraithknights: Fair point. Wraithknights aren't a thing I particularly wanted to deal with in these detachments. They're not especially strongly tied to a given craftworld's fluff (even though it's easy to think of them as an Iyanden unit), and I don't like how they're balanced right now. Leaving the LoW slot out of the detachments kind of lets me push one of the more complained about units to the side, but I certainly won't complain if people include a Wraith Knight in one of my detachments. I don't really want to put a "tax" on them either as my goal here to make cool craftworld detachment rules rather than to fix the wraith knight. ^_^;

Saim-Hann: While jetbikes aren't quite as bad as the internet thought they'd be, they are still rather powerful compared to most other options out there. As they're central to Saim-Hann's theme, I felt it would be odd to give new bonuses to already very powerful units. Reducing the number of heavy weapons in the unit forces players to cut back on the scatterspam and kiting, but the detachment rules (theoretically) open up new ways to use bikes. I like your suggestion to let them retain the shuripults and gain a ccw + pistol at a cost. I mostly left out such an option initially in order to trim down the amount of text. ^_^;

Alaitoc: Oops. I meant to word that as "model" rather than "unit." You essentially get to deal damage to them before they're deployed, but you can't completely destroy them. So your opponent still gets to use all his toys, but you can make them easier for other units in your army to finish off. No saves, FNP, RP, etc. can be used against sabotage. I suppose I ought to tweak the wording of this so that models like Fuegan who gain buffs for taking damage get their perks. Suggestions?

Biel-Tan: Hmm. Sure! My thinking was that it would be odd to limit the number of troops available even though you could theoretically take dire avengers in that slot. Reducing the number of troops would also leave you with only a single non-avenger option which feels a bit odd. Maybe change the requirement to two troops instead of two avengers, and simply let the restrictions ensure that at least one avenger squad is taken?

Iyanden: Excellent points. My goal was to make it feel like the 4th edition version where psykers serve as a sort of "wraith synapse." Rolling to see whether or not it made a difference is a huge part of that though. I'm reluctant to add the old d6 "wraith sight" roll back in though as it results in additional dice rolling throughout the game. I also managed to completely miss the lack of effect it would have on wraithblades (shame on me). The severe penalty to d-scythes was a calculated choice as the scythes are rather nasty compared to the wraithguns. How about changing it from snapshots to -1BS, -1WS, and an additional -1 penalty to the d-chart roll for d-scythes when not near a psyker? As for wraith lords mitigating this, I saw the bright souls of wraith lords serving as beacons that could help the little wraith constructs to focus on the task at hand. Mechanically, it rewards players more for taking wraith lords.

Ulthwe: The Maiden's Dreams is a reference to Lileath, the eldar maiden who dreamt of the future. She's the counterpart of the Morai-Heg and Isha. Ulthwe is big on foresight and waging battles for the sake of avoiding wars later. I was going for a, "This guy's great-grandkid is going to be really important! Wiping him out now could save a bajillion eldar lives later!" type thing. I was hoping to add a sense that Ulthwe's motives are strange and sometimes hard to read. "Why are these eldar trying so hard to kill that commissar?" If a seer council formation is taken as part of an Ulthwe detachment, it retains its own formation benefits as well as the benefits of the detachment. Like a Decurion style formation, but way less complicated.

I especially like how each Craftworld has an upgrade to the Avatar. It's a nice touch.

I must say, I'm particularly impressed with how much thought you've put into these, and your attempts to produce balanced rules without too much clutter.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Alaitoc: Oops. I meant to word that as "model" rather than "unit." You essentially get to deal damage to them before they're deployed, but you can't completely destroy them. So your opponent still gets to use all his toys, but you can make them easier for other units in your army to finish off. No saves, FNP, RP, etc. can be used against sabotage. I suppose I ought to tweak the wording of this so that models like Fuegan who gain buffs for taking damage get their perks. Suggestions?

Fuegan in particular only triggers at the end of a phase, so, putting my best concise-rules-writing hat on:
3-4 Sabotage: At the start of the first movement phase of the game, select a single enemy model with more than 1 Wound or Hull Point. That model suffers a single unsaved wound or glancing hit that cannot be re-allocated or prevented by any means (including the Feel No Pain or Reanimation Protocols special rules).

Wyldhunt wrote:
Biel-Tan: Hmm. Sure! My thinking was that it would be odd to limit the number of troops available even though you could theoretically take dire avengers in that slot. Reducing the number of troops would also leave you with only a single non-avenger option which feels a bit odd. Maybe change the requirement to two troops instead of two avengers, and simply let the restrictions ensure that at least one avenger squad is taken?

I might be misunderstanding the restriction here - Do you want a unit of Aspects per other choice? I read it as the first two Troops are Dire Avengers, and then the remainder (4 additional) can be non-Aspect units?

Wyldhunt wrote:
Iyanden: Excellent points. My goal was to make it feel like the 4th edition version where psykers serve as a sort of "wraith synapse." Rolling to see whether or not it made a difference is a huge part of that though. I'm reluctant to add the old d6 "wraith sight" roll back in though as it results in additional dice rolling throughout the game. I also managed to completely miss the lack of effect it would have on wraithblades (shame on me). The severe penalty to d-scythes was a calculated choice as the scythes are rather nasty compared to the wraithguns. How about changing it from snapshots to -1BS, -1WS, and an additional -1 penalty to the d-chart roll for d-scythes when not near a psyker? As for wraith lords mitigating this, I saw the bright souls of wraith lords serving as beacons that could help the little wraith constructs to focus on the task at hand. Mechanically, it rewards players more for taking wraith lords.

I can certainly appreciate trying to reduce unnecessary dice rolls - I think this second solution is a really good one (and the additional -1 on the D-chart is particularly inventive if I may say so), encouraging the kind of playstyle you think is appropriate without impeding them too much more than Wraithguard of any other Craftworld.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Ulthwe:

I'll admit, I seem to have had a reading malfunction, I thought it was that your opponent chooses one model in your army, rather than his! The rule makes much more sense to me now.

I like them, although just one small suggestion: allow Eldrad to be taken for the required Ulthwe HQ slot.

I like the Biel Tan rules. My guess is that it should balance well with 7th ed codices using formations.

Thanks a ton for the feedback, everyone!

@roflmajog: Oops! Good catch! Consider Eldrad an option for the Ulthwe mandatory requirements.

@Quanar:
Sabotage: My only problem with that wording is that I had sort of intended for it to be something that happens before deployment so that your opponent knows which models are going to start the game with damage. Maybe declare the models to be harmed before deployment, but have the damage actually come into effect at the beginning of the first player turn?

Biel-Tan: You interpreted it correctly. You could, for instance, take a single dark reaper unit as a heavy support, then take a falcon and a war walker. Similarly, you could take a squad of hawks (or spiders or spears or spectres or a crimson hunter) as a fast attack and then take 2 squads of vypers. You could not, however, take just vypers or just falcons as you would not have the mandatory aspect warrior in that slot. Disregard my incoherent rambling regarding Biel-Tan. The short answer is that I'll add some aspect slots. It just seemed a bit odd (as currently worded) to decrease the number of troops to 3 because the current requirements already fill 2 of those 3 slots in with avenger squads. Which means you'd be unable to field, for instance, both rangers and guardians or even two squads of guardians in a Biel-Tan list. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Biel-Tan relies heavily on its aspect warriors.

Iyanden: Excellent! And thank you!

Ulthwe: So Ulthwe looks good then?

Wyldhunt wrote:
Biel-Tan: You interpreted it correctly. You could, for instance, take a single dark reaper unit as a heavy support, then take a falcon and a war walker. Similarly, you could take a squad of hawks (or spiders or spears or spectres or a crimson hunter) as a fast attack and then take 2 squads of vypers. You could not, however, take just vypers or just falcons as you would not have the mandatory aspect warrior in that slot. Disregard my incoherent rambling regarding Biel-Tan. The short answer is that I'll add some aspect slots. It just seemed a bit odd (as currently worded) to decrease the number of troops to 3 because the current requirements already fill 2 of those 3 slots in with avenger squads. Which means you'd be unable to field, for instance, both rangers and guardians or even two squads of guardians in a Biel-Tan list. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Biel-Tan relies heavily on its aspect warriors.

Ah, I think we've got some wires crossed, I meant the "optional" section. So you'd start with two units of DA, and have the option for three more Troop units (rather than counting the DA as part of the 3). Like how with the Iyanden list the two mandatory Wraithguard units don't count towards the optionals (though these are Elite rather than Troops, which might have been where we got muddled).

Wyldhunt wrote:
Sabotage: My only problem with that wording is that I had sort of intended for it to be something that happens before deployment so that your opponent knows which models are going to start the game with damage. Maybe declare the models to be harmed before deployment, but have the damage actually come into effect at the beginning of the first player turn?

Ok, version 2 (getting increasingly wordy):
3-4 Sabotage: Immediately before your opponent deploys, select a single enemy model with more than 1 Wound or Hull Point. That model suffers a single unsaved wound or glancing hit that cannot be re-allocated or prevented by any means (including the Feel No Pain or Reanimation Protocols special rules). In the case of a Chariot, you chose whether the rider or the chariot itself is affected. For units/models that gain effects/benefits from being damaged, this effect counts as happening at the start of the first Movement phase of the game.

Sorry for the delay between responses/updates, guys. I've been swamped with work and school. Here are some of the minor craftworlds. I'm worried that these may be a bit too much. Mymeara, especially, seems like it might trade too little for too much. Thoughts? Altansar limits your alliance shenanigans and requires you use up a heavy support slot on reapers who, while not bad by any means, are arguably less appealing than many other heavy support options. In exchange, they gain situational anti-daemon bonuses and some extra defense. I'm not sure I like how Il-Kaithe turned out. See the designer nights. Lugganath's abilities seem wordy but appropriate. It's basically the eldar teamup detachment. Iybraesil is built around making Banshees work a bit better. Mymeara is supposed to be "sneaky" and evasive.

ALTANSAR DETACHMENT


IL-KAITHE DETACHMENT


LUGGANATH DETACHMENT

IYBRAESIL DETACHMENT


Designer’s Note: I’ve skipped Yme-Loc because their rules seem like they should really revolve around superheavies, and that’s simply not my area of expertise.

MYMEARA DETACHMENT

Wyldhunt wrote:
Sorry for the delay between responses/updates, guys. I've been swamped with work and school. Here are some of the minor craftworlds. I'm worried that these may be a bit too much. Mymeara, especially, seems like it might trade too little for too much. Thoughts? Altansar limits your alliance shenanigans and requires you use up a heavy support slot on reapers who, while not bad by any means, are arguably less appealing than many other heavy support options. In exchange, they gain situational anti-daemon bonuses and some extra defense. I'm not sure I like how Il-Kaithe turned out. See the designer nights. Lugganath's abilities seem wordy but appropriate. It's basically the eldar teamup detachment. Iybraesil is built around making Banshees work a bit better. Mymeara is supposed to be "sneaky" and evasive.

I'd have to do a bit of reading up on these Craftworlds to have any opinion on the fluffiness aspect, so I'll just make some mechanical suggestions and come back later.

Wyldhunt wrote:
ALTANSAR DETACHMENT
SPECIAL RULES
The Cursed: Altansar fought long and hard against nightmares most beings couldn’t comprehend let alone battle. Non-vehicle models from this detachment have the Feel No Pain and Preferred Enemy (Chaos Space Marines and Daemons) rules. Note that their Preferred Enemy rule applies to both models from Codex: Chaos Daemons and models with the daemon rule in general. Models from this detachment also automatically pass Fear tests.

If you're finding this too powerful, you could easily knock it down to FnP (6+) instead.

Wyldhunt wrote:
IL-KAITHE DETACHMENT
Avatar of Il-Kaithe:[/b] {...} In addition to the rules found in Codex Eldar: Craftworlds, models with the daemon rule or a mark of a chaos god within 12” of the avatar take a -1 penalty to all invulnerable saves.

Needs a note to not affect himself (unless that was the intent?), as an Avatar has the Daemon rule.

Wyldhunt wrote:
LUGGANATH DETACHMENT
Avatar of Lugganath:[/b] {...} In addition to the rules found in Codex Eldar: Craftworlds, non-vehicle units taken as part of a Lugganath detachment that arrive from reserves may opt to arrive within 12” of the avatar. Units that would suffer a deepstrike mishap when arriving in this fashion go into ongoing reserves instead.

Suggest adding a bit: "non-vehicle units taken as part of a Lugganath detachment that arrive from reserves may choose to arrive within 12” of the avatar using the rules for Deep Strike." Otherwise we have no rules to place a non-deepstriking unit when the Avatar is more than 12" from the table edge? Or was this rule meant to only affect models with Deep Strike in the first place?

Wyldhunt wrote:
IYBRAESIL DETACHMENT
Avatar of Iybraesil: {...} In addition to the rules found in Codex Eldar: Craftworlds, at the start of the Eldar player’s turn, the Avatar may extend the range of his Khaine Awakened ability to cover the entire board until the beginning of the next Eldar turn.

A note that this is one-use-only perhaps? It sounds like it was intended as such, rather than simply being activated every turn (in which case, why not make it always on?).

Wyldhunt wrote:
MYMEARA DETACHMENT

Doesn't sound too broken - the Warhost formation from the codex already gives out the 6" run, and you've added a restriction on top of it, the Ghosts in the Wind cover save is equivalent to a guaranteed Warlord Trait (Conqueror of Cities), Shadow Spectres aren't broken and deserve to be able to be taken in Aspect Hosts.
Even combining it all (A unit of Shadow Spectres in the correct area terrain with an Avatar nearby) for a 2+ cover save, they'll still die to any sort of Ignores Cover as they are T3.

Excellent catches, Quanar. I'd prefer to leave Altansar at 5+ FNP for now based on how rarely dark eldar tend to benefit from their own FNP due to their low toughness.

Il-Kaithe's avatar should, in fact, be immune to his own daemon invulnerable save debuff. I'll change the wording to, "enemy models with the daemon rule..."

I'll sprinkle the word deepstrike into the Lugganath rules. The idea is that you basically just get to deepstrike within 12" of the avatar.

Iybraesil's avatar bonus is, in fact, meant to be a once per game thing.

Glad to hear Mymeara seems reasonable!