New Craftworlds Codex, Made to Order week etc UPDATED [Pre-order/Made to Order Oct 21st]

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.

**Kanluwen**

Kremling wrote:
Can someone explain to me why a fat, underdeveloped Leman Russ does not receive a penalty on hit while firing a plump 120mm ballistic weapon twice after moving and any Eldar grav tank does while firing a laser?

The Leman Russ only gets to fire its turret weapon twice if it moves half or less(so 5" at 7-12W, 3" at 4-6W, and 2" at 1-3W) of its Movement value.

I am curious on what GWs plans are to improve a Fire Prism(and also the other grav tanks) to a level that it is what an eldar vehicle should be: fast, deadly, fragile. What do the want to do to show superior,fast, eldar tech? BS 2? Add another 12" movement? 4d6 hits for a prism cannon? This is crazy stupid.

We'll find out tomorrow--I'm expecting something like if they move half-speed then they don't suffer a penalty on hit.

**Niiru**

Quark wrote:
If power is based on strategems as you claim, the army with more strategems is more powerful. That army will never be the Eldar because of unit costs.

Exactly.

Red Corsair disagrees. Not sure why, when access to stratagems clearly adds a lot of strength to units, but he does.

**Nightlord1987**

I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

**the cosmic serpent**

Kdash wrote:
the cosmic serpent wrote:
Soooo with the Saim-Hann trait I could take a SH skathach wk place it in deepstrike, and it will have reroll charges? Increases change of success from 33% to just over 55% that's decent. Do the same with Scorpions and spend 2CP to reduce their charge to 7" with a re-roll. If they drop scorpion costs (unlikely because they have always been roughly 17 - 19 points) then this would make them a very efficient first turn harassment unit like AL berserkers. Could be useful for going after heavy weapon squads and the like. Cause some panic in opponent backfield meanwhile the rest of the army gets to run around and cap objectives. Or have some shinning spears fly up the board to offer some aid in CC.

Unfortunately the +2" to charge is the Biel-Tan stratagem, so you wouldn't be able to use it on the Saim-Hann units.

Right missed the Biel-Tan keyword on the strat I thought it was universal, makes sense from the name that it is Biel-Tan only. So what would be a better for scorpions in the case of a Turn 1 assault, reroll 9" or pay 2CP for a 7" charge? My shrines chainswords are revved up and ready for a fight.

**dahayden**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

A weak Eldar codex does nothing for the game. Every codex being fun and balanced with the others (as best as possible) is what's good for the game.

**Galef**

dahayden wrote:
My biggest issue is that the design does not match the fluff of the Craftworlds. It seems almost as if the designers knew little about the Eldar.

While I kind of agree, it could also be that the designers know "more" about Eldar.

Iyanden is stubborn and resilient, ergo not running away and needing more damage to reduce effectiveness makes sense
Ulthwe has a higher level of psychic foresight, thus can avoid damage, so 6+ "FNP" makes sense
Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects
Saim-hann is more aggressive and reckless and have more skilled bike riders

Fluffwise, all these traits make perfect fluff-sense as Obi-wan would say "from a certain point of view"
The only disconnect is that these traits don't always benefit the "perceived" most common units of these Craftworlds. But technically having more of X does not mean your X is better.
For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's

Overal, I like these traits as they don't pin a player down into the traditional play-style.

-

**Cream Tea**

Uriels_Flame wrote:
Well this got out of hand quickly.

Quick question for tomorrow:

What do Fire Prisms have to do with the Alaitoc craftworld?

I thought we would see it in today’s post or yesterday.

They don't have anything interesting to say about Ranger, so they just pick whatever?

The most explicit synergy between trait and Fire Prism is in Iyanden, and they had a lot more Iyanden-themed things to talk about then.

Man, I would have liked a grav tank-focussed craftworld...

**doctortom**

Galef wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
Galef wrote:
I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Until then, Eldar are "ok" and probably still "fun" but hardly tournament worthy in the current meta.

-

Yes this will be really important. I am worried that this will just be the Alatoic infiltration stratagem, which would be far less useful.

The sad thing is that even if they get an any CW available Webway stratagem, Eldar still won't be top-teir because they can't get access to nearly as many CPs as Imperial armies.
But at least they'll be able to participate in competitive games.

-

It would be better as an army wide ability (most likely with keyword limitations on what you can bring through the portal). I suspect a Webway Portal stratagem would be good for only one unit.

**Bharring**

@Galef: "Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects"

Why would this mean that Biel-Tan militia is more skilled at warfare than Uthwe standing armies?

**Cream Tea**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table.

By that logic, Orks should get a codex that completely dominates the meta the entire edition or something.

Wrong opinion is wrong.

**Galef**

Bharring wrote:
@Galef: "Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects"

Why would this mean that Biel-Tan militia is more skilled at warfare than Uthwe standing armies?

Because each individual Aeldari on Biel-tan spends more actual time with a shuriken weapon in their hands. They feel Khaine's touch more and actually volunteer for the militia and attack any perceived threat.
Ulthwe's standing army is decided by the leaders and they meticulously choose their battles.

Basically, Ulthwe drafts their army, Biel-tan gets volunteers. And those volunteers live war, rather than it being their day job.

**Latro_**

Folks thinking of the move shoot move strat for popping up and then hiding.

But also consider the sweet stuff like last min line breaker or grabbing objs.

Interesting things for big guardian blobs you can effective move the whole unit 14" (16-26" with advance) which can be a great tool to put a big unit in awkward positions for your opponent.

**General Kroll**

Imateria wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
Imateria wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
I agree with the Red Corsair, there’s way too much hyperbole in this thread. It seems that unless something is OP, it’s always considered “Garbage.”

It’s no surprise to me that the new Eldar codex hasn’t given tonnes of free buffs. The amount of whining about Eldar as an army in 7th has clearly had an influence on the design team, and while they haven’t nerfed them completely, they have tried to balance things out a little.

Then you and Red Corsair havn't been paying much attention. In and of themselves the traits shown off so far aren't bad, in fact on the right army builds they can be verry good, the problem that most of us are complaining about is that the traits don't particularly fit the fluff of the Craftworlds they are being paired with in a way that makes realistic sense. I mean Iyanden having a trait that favours large blobs of Guardians is moronic, that trait is good but better characterises Ulthwe or Alaitoc.

And as for Strategems Red Corsair will probably be proved to be very wrong, because unless our troops choices have had a massive points drop on all of them we wont be using them often, which means command points will be in short supply even with the Autarchs ability to get some back.

Nope, I’ve been paying attention and fully understand the concerns you have raised about the traits. I just don’t agree. In a competitive sense, the traits could be utilised to greater affect for different units than those intended. However, that doesn’t make them unfluffy, or indeed moronic (there we go with that hyperbole again)

The Iyanden trait, combined with their relic, makes their wrait units tougher, even if it in a hyper competitive meta it won’t make a huge difference.
The Ulthwé trait, again gives a sense of psychic support in that it’s basically quasi fortune.
The Biel Tan trait specifically affects their Aspect warriors, while at the same time showing that their militia is likely some of the best trained.

The leaked Samm Hain and Alaitoc traits also seem pretty fluffy too.

To me the traits are a little overly simplistic, and that’s why in some cases they could be used in a different way than intended. But I think they are like that for a reason. It’s far easier to balance the game if you keep things simple. Guard seems to have bucked the trend so far and over stepped the power mark a little.

As for strategems, they can still add plenty of flavour, even if you’re not using a dozen of them in a game.

That was not hyperbole, that was me being acurate.

The Iyanden trait does not make Wraith units tougher (their base toughnes stat being increased to 6 makes them tougher), Wraithguard are never run in large squads due to the need for transports so at Ld9 the triat will never effect them, and 10 man Wraithblade squads have better options for survivability (the Ulthwe trait for starters). And the relic doesn't make them tougher, it makes them hit harder once per game then take mortal wounds.
No, the Ulthwe trait gives everything FnP, does absolutely nothing to boost Pyskers so gives no impression of extra pyschic support, and at present it actually physically stops Fortune from working in an Ulthwe army due to units with a similar ability being untargetable for that power. So, actively reduces Psychic support since Fortune is better than the trait.
+1Ld, WOW, suddenly Aspects are amazing! The only Aspect that actually gains out of this is Dire Avengers, the only other Apects likely to be run in large enough squads (Banshees and Scorpions) struggle for killing power so much you don't use them. And nothing in Biel-Tan's fluff says they have better trained Guardians, thats Ulthwe.

Saim-Hann's trait is very fluffy for them, I'll certainly agree to that.

I disagree on Alaitoc, they might be known as the Ranger Craftworld but their standing Warhost doesn't rely on a core of Rangers, it's a core of Guardians with Aspect support. They're probably the most generalist of the big 5 Craftworlds, they just have a higher proportion of affiliated Rangers.

When I have to use the Ulthwe trait to get the most out of my Wraith army, you know something has gone wrong.

It’s like you completely ignored the point I was making, just so you could repeat your complaints.

You also conveniently ignore things like the fluff reasons for the pseudo fnp on Ulthwe units. Gw have basically given an army wide quasi version of fortune. Just because you can’t use both abilities, it doesn’t mean you still can’t cast fortune on your units. You just can’t use both.
The advantages it does give, are that a) you still get fortune even if you didn’t cast it, b) it can’t be denied c) you could give your Farseers other powers instead.

It doesn’t take much imagination to accept the fluff explanation for this ability.

For someone so concerned about the fluff matching up to the rules, you seem all too willing to completely ignore it. You seem far more concerned with how powerful it would make your army and which trait your going to switch to to ensure you get the abilities you think are strongest.

As for calling something you find silly “moronic” that’s the very definition of hyperbole.

**pm713**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!

**Kanluwen**

Niiru wrote:

Imperium units aren't being affected any more than Eldar units already are. Ynnari is no different than "Imperium Soup", except that the Imperium can take a soup list without requiring a specific warlord character tax (because Imperium always get the favourtism treatment). There is no reason for Ynnari to gain a rule that punishes people for taking them, more so than being forced to take one of the triumverate as the warlord tax.

If GW did as you say, and added a rule that said "If you become a Ynnari army, then you lose the Asuryani keyword", then Eldar would lose most of their psychic abilities, traits, stratagems, and Ynnari would be a huge disability compared to a craftworld army. It would also be the same for Harlequins and Dark Eldar (after they get their codices). So playing Ynnari would always be significantly weaker than playing a "pure" Eldar or Dark Eldar force. And GW would not do this, as it would mean people being restricted in what models they would buy.

Not necessarily.

Asuryani, Drukhari, and Harlequins having those keywords replaced by Ynnari would be a huge boon...especially if it specified that abilities that targeted Asuryani/Drukhari/whatever also instead target Ynnari items, now wouldn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current keyword system for a Faction Craftworld Eldar unit something like this:

Aeldari, Asuryani, <Craftworld>

You also seem to assume Ynnari will get their own codex. This is far from guaranteed, as Ynnari isn't an army but is just the triumverate (and the rules for them are given in their box). Unless GW do a big Ynnari release (like Death Guard) with a bunch of new units... highly unlikely. If it does happen, it wont be for several years, as we already know their next couple of big releases and they aren't Eldar related.

You might end up being correct, but it's so incredibly unlikely. GW would have to ignore public opinion, good sales tactics, and good game design, in order to make the changes you seem to find so likely. I am doubtful.

Seeing as how they have insinuated that Ynnari are getting their own Codex, I'm pretty okay with assuming that.

**HuskyWarhammer**

pm713 wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!

Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.

**Galas**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!

Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.

Is funny how the "Imperium Civil War" many people wanted for the Lore of 8th edition, has happened, but in a meta-universe sense

**Mandragola**

Galef wrote:
For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's

True.

But, if Ulthwé wraiths are better tha Iyanden ones, we will see players field Ulthwé wraiths and not Iyanden ones.

Technically there's nothing wrong with an Ulthwé wraith-heavy army. They would exist. But if everyone fields their wraiths as Ulthwé and not Iyanden, then the rules have failed to promote fluffy army lists.

It's the same as other codices. A catachan jungle fighter tank company could exist - though it wouldn't be hugely useful in an actual jungle. But if Everyone fields jungle fighters for their tanks, rather than say steel legion, it starts to get weird.

Anyway the Sami Hann trait seems both fluffy and powerful. So that's something.

**Nightlord1987**

Galas wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!

Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.

Is funny how the "Imperium Civil War" many people wanted for the Lore of 8th edition, has happened, but in a meta-universe sense

Idk, call me crazy but a Turn 1 tabling doesent make my games any fun. The complaints I've hear do far were "Underwhelming, waaaah" and my point is that with EVERYONE underwhelming, we are at a better place. And if you're salty about the IG being top dog, welcome to our level. Our local Eldar players stopped showing up during 7th edition. People brought half built Wraith knights and couldn't find games. So yeah. I'm not surprised in the least you all got nerfed.

And I would love for Orks to be decent for once, they're my second army!

**JohnHwangDD**

At this rate, I guess I'll just play my Imperial Guard.

**doctortom**

Nightlord1987 wrote:

Idk, call me crazy but a Turn 1 tabling doesent make my games any fun

Okay, you're crazy.

(Not really)

Nightlord1987 wrote:
And I would love for Orks to be decent for once, they're my second army!

For once? I would say "again" - 3rd edition Orks were decent, especially Speed Freaks. Early 4th I played against someone running that army and he could be anybody with it. Back in the day when taking a looted vehicle meant taking a vehicle from somebody else's codex and getting to use their weapons. Unfortunately, that was long, long ago and they've been nerfed hard since then. Maybe FW will roll around to them again at some point, or GW will decide to revisit Gorkamorka and do stuff to incorporate rebel grots.

**Korlandril**

OP updates an hour or so ago

**tneva82**

General Kroll wrote:
The Iyanden trait, combined with their relic, makes their wrait units tougher, even if it in a hyper competitive meta it won’t make a huge difference.
The Ulthwé trait, again gives a sense of psychic support in that it’s basically quasi fortune.
The Biel Tan trait specifically affects their Aspect warriors, while at the same time showing that their militia is likely some of the best trained.

The leaked Samm Hain and Alaitoc traits also seem pretty fluffy too.

But for wraiths you actually want the Ulthwe while for Saim Hann it's the biel-tan trait you want.

It's like giving rerolls to shooting trait for world eaters. "Yey rerolls for pistols...Well guess it's a bonus but still feels weird..."

**HuskyWarhammer**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
Galas wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.

A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.

Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!

Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.

Is funny how the "Imperium Civil War" many people wanted for the Lore of 8th edition, has happened, but in a meta-universe sense

Idk, call me crazy but a Turn 1 tabling doesent make my games any fun. The complaints I've hear do far were "Underwhelming, waaaah" and my point is that with EVERYONE underwhelming, we are at a better place. And if you're salty about the IG being top dog, welcome to our level. Our local Eldar players stopped showing up during 7th edition. People brought half built Wraith knights and couldn't find games. So yeah. I'm not surprised in the least you all got nerfed.

And I would love for Orks to be decent for once, they're my second army!

Perhaps if you'd just said that bit about everyone being underwhelming, we'd have no issue. I'd agree with that, it's an okay state for the game to take everyone down a power level. That being said, and this might sound weird, but Eldar being strong wasn't fun always for us Eldar mains, either. I worked to avoid OP units, build fairly, and even then got nonstop earfuls of "Eldar are OP" bitching (by people who brought Skyhammer, nonetheless). At this point, it's really just people who enjoy complaining about Eldar for the sake of complaining, and that's what it sounded like you were doing. As the great philosopher Fall Out Boy said, "You can only blame your problems on the world for so long before it all becomes the same old song."

**Suzuteo**

I don't get why you're all so salty. Eldar seem to have a codex on par with everyone but Guard's. All of your attributes seem decent; they aren't meant to be game-breaking like the Grinding Advance rule change was.

Iyanden is a great attribute. It's strictly better than the Valhalla doctrine, and I think you are all underestimating how good having an army-wide Summary Execution is in an environment where large units are favored due to stratagems. Plus, the double wounds apply from everything up to Wraithknights, which is amazing.

Biel-Tan got +1 LD and army-wide reroll 1s on a very common weapon. If SMs got this for Bolters or AdMech for Phosphor, people would be howling.

Ulthwe is a nice universal durability improvement. Everyone has wounds, right?

Saim-Hann has everything you could ask for a Fast Attack option. Mobile Heavy shooting, excellent improvement on charge odds.

And your last option might be -1 to hit at 12", which SM and AdMech have and consider amazingly good.

**Bharring**

The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.

**tneva82**

Suzuteo wrote:
I don't get why you're all so salty. Eldar seem to have a codex on par with everyone but Guard's. All of your attributes seem decent; they aren't meant to be game-breaking like the Grinding Advance rule change was.

Iyanden is a great attribute. It's strictly better than the Valhalla doctrine, and I think you are all underestimating how good having an army-wide Summary Execution is in an environment where large units are favored due to stratagems. Plus, the double wounds apply from everything up to Wraithknights, which is amazing.

Biel-Tan got +1 LD and army-wide reroll 1s on a very common weapon. If SMs got this for Bolters or AdMech for Phosphor, people would be howling.

Ulthwe is a nice universal durability improvement. Everyone has wounds, right?

Saim-Hann has everything you could ask for a Fast Attack option. Mobile Heavy shooting, excellent improvement on charge odds.

And your last option might be -1 to hit at 12", which SM and AdMech have and consider amazingly good.

But would you really want the Iyanden for wraith army or will we run into "lots of wraiths=Ulthwe trait, lots of guardians=Iyanden trait"? That's the issue.

I mean if I wanted to build jetbike themed army you can bet I would not be taking Saim-Han but Biel-tan for that. Unless rest of Saim-han bonuses are amazing for jetbikes compensating that their trait is pants over biel-tan(which meanwhile works great for jetbike heavy force! While being rather crappy for aspect warriors except for one specific type) would have no reason to make saim-han bike heavy force.

That's the key problem I think. Not the power level. Shufle traits around craftworlds and there would be less of complaining.

**Daedalus81**

The discussion you guys are having about which trait belongs to which is the exact same effin' discussion IG players were having. Catachans are about jungles not heavy weapons!

fething get over it already.

**Suzuteo**

tneva82 wrote:

But would you really want the Iyanden for wraith army or will we run into "lots of wraiths=Ulthwe trait, lots of guardians=Iyanden trait"? That's the issue.

I mean if I wanted to build jetbike themed army you can bet I would not be taking Saim-Han but Biel-tan for that. Unless rest of Saim-han bonuses are amazing for jetbikes compensating that their trait is pants over biel-tan(which meanwhile works great for jetbike heavy force! While being rather crappy for aspect warriors except for one specific type) would have no reason to make saim-han bike heavy force.

That's the key problem I think. Not the power level. Shufle traits around craftworlds and there would be less of complaining.

Compared to the mess that is the AdMech codex, the Eldar codex looks as fluffy as cotton candy unicorns. And really, the point of not attaching attributes directly to model types is to give you more freedom. No competitive army can or should consist of one Craftworld.

You would take an Biel-Tan Outrider detachment for Vypers, Saim-Hann for Shining Spears. Windriders as filler for either one.

Daedalus81 wrote:
The discussion you guys are having about which trait belongs to which is the exact same effin' discussion IG players were having. Catachans are about jungles not heavy weapons!

Actually, Catachan heavy weapon squads are a thing in the fluff. They're all monstrously strong.

**Albino Squirrel**

Galef wrote:
dahayden wrote:
My biggest issue is that the design does not match the fluff of the Craftworlds. It seems almost as if the designers knew little about the Eldar.

While I kind of agree, it could also be that the designers know "more" about Eldar.

Iyanden is stubborn and resilient, ergo not running away and needing more damage to reduce effectiveness makes sense
Ulthwe has a higher level of psychic foresight, thus can avoid damage, so 6+ "FNP" makes sense
Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects
Saim-hann is more aggressive and reckless and have more skilled bike riders

Fluffwise, all these traits make perfect fluff-sense as Obi-wan would say "from a certain point of view"
The only disconnect is that these traits don't always benefit the "perceived" most common units of these Craftworlds. But technically having more of X does not mean your X is better.
For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's

Overal, I like these traits as they don't pin a player down into the traditional play-style.

-

Well said. They make sense based on the background. I think GW assumes people will pick the background they like and make an army of that craftworld. What people are actually going to do is pick the units they like (or are best) and then pick the craftworld with the bonuses that benefit those units the most.