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**

Suzuteo wrote:

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.

Everyone has Heavy Weapon Squads. But that's not what he is talking about. Catachan Vehicles get bonuses to their Heavy stuff in the form of you getting to reroll one of the D6s for determining the random value on a weapon.

Worth mentioning that it's not mentioned in the Regimental thing itself but the fluff for the Catachans that their strength plays into it, allowing the vehicle crews to reload and fire faster than others.

**str00dles1**

Albino Squirrel wrote:
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.

Well, if we wade through the tears of many players here, the real disconnect is that while its fluffy and makes sense, its not that great rulewise.

Marine codex = bland and meh. Ultra is best just cause bobby
Chaos = bland and meh, only good one is alpha legion slaanesh many are copies
Greyknights = got nothing really
Admech = codex of mars, everything else is bland and meh or a copy
Imperuial guard = holy crap! major buffs, fluffy and great faction rules!
Eldar = fluffy thus far but very meh, copy/paste not unique.

Everyone is comparing it off Imperial guard which so far are the best codex released. Plus elder were seen as a power house for so long as people are not used to them being middle of the road. *

Ynarii are still super amazing but generic elder are not

**Knight**

I hope they preview Night Spinner as well (anyone actually used it?).

**Xenomancers**

Knight wrote:
I hope they preview Night Spinner as well (anyone actually used it?).

I've used it - it has potential to be great with a 30-40 point drop and or more standard AP in it's shots.

**pm713**

str00dles1 wrote:
Albino Squirrel wrote:
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.

Well, if we wade through the tears of many players here, the real disconnect is that while its fluffy and makes sense, its not that great rulewise.
Eldar = fluffy thus far but very meh, copy/paste not unique.

Everyone is comparing it off Imperial guard which so far are the best codex released. Plus elder were seen as a power house for so long as people are not used to them being middle of the road. *

Ynarii are still super amazing but generic elder are not

I wouldn't call Eldar fluffy.

**Galef**

Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.

Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top: they cost a bit extra, but tend to be the part you remember.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.

-

**tneva82**

Galef wrote:
Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.

Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.

-

Or you could have say following changes:

Biel-tan: Current Iyanden trait
IYanden: Current Ulthwe trait
Saim-Han: Current Biel-tan trait.
Alaitoc: Good as it is
Ulthwe: Something new needed.

This would not make them any more powerful(same rules!) but would result in traits boosting units you generally see with those craftworlds. As it is we likely see rather many Ulthwe armies with Iyanden rules and Saim-han's with Biel-tan while no Iyanden army actually runs as Iyanden unless you can make like 3-4 wraithknight army with them.

**Vorian**

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

It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.

In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons

**Daedalus81**

Suzuteo wrote:

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.

Oh, i'm aware - that was supposed to be a quote.

**Galef**

tneva82 wrote:
Galef wrote:
Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.

Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.

-

Or you could have say following changes:

Biel-tan: Current Iyanden trait
IYanden: Current Ulthwe trait
Saim-Han: Current Biel-tan trait.
Alaitoc: Good as it is
Ulthwe: Something new needed.

You could do this, but then you create (unfluffy) situations that you have to explain: Why are Biel-tan vehicle resistant to damage? Why are Iyanden Gaurdians more durable that others? Why are Saim-Hann units better with Shurikens?
The traits as they are may not accentuate the traditional units for each CW, but they do portray the "personality" of the CW as it has been described for years.

If it bothers you that the Ulthwe trait is better for Wraithguard, then either take Ulthwe WG, or keep your army painted as Iyanden, but use the Ulthwe trait.

-

**pm713**

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

It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.

In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons

Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.

**Albino Squirrel**

But what sense could it possibly make for (as an example) Iyanden armies to get the Ulthwe trait? It makes no sense. You just want that because it would be good in an army with lots of wraithguard, not because it makes any sense.

Maybe this is just a clever way GW has invented to determine, before a game, how competitive/casual a gamer you are playing against. If they pull out their Iyanden army with no wraith guard, or an Ulthwe army with all wraith guard, you'll know what you're in for.

**pm713**

Albino Squirrel wrote:
But what sense could it possibly make for (as an example) Iyanden armies to get the Ulthwe trait? It makes no sense. You just want that because it would be good in an army with lots of wraithguard, not because it makes any sense.

Maybe this is just a clever way GW has invented to determine, before a game, how competitive/casual a gamer you are playing against. If they pull out their Iyanden army with no wraith guard, or an Ulthwe army with all wraith guard, you'll know what you're in for.

Or they wanted a trait that reflects the lore of their army? Assuming you know what kind of player you're against because of what trait they use with their army says more about you than anything.

**Niiru**

Albino Squirrel wrote:

Maybe this is just a clever way GW has invented to determine, before a game, how competitive/casual a gamer you are playing against. If they pull out their Iyanden army with no wraith guard, or an Ulthwe army with all wraith guard, you'll know what you're in for.

...It will mean you're in for a game with someone who knows the rules?

I have two squads of Wraithguard, and I'll probably be running them as Ulthwe. Would I be doing it because they're painted as Ulthwe colours? No, I'll be doing it because Ulthwe fits my army list best. They do happen to also be painted as Ulthwe, but thats just a coincidence. I could just as easily play them as Ulthwe in one game, and then Alaitoc in the next game.

And I'm an extremely casual player. Being casual doesn't automatically mean you run the worst possible options in your army.

**Vorian**

pm713 wrote:
Vorian wrote:
Bharring wrote:
The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.

It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.

In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons

Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.

I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals

**chosen_of_khaine**

Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...

**pm713**

Vorian wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Vorian wrote:
Bharring wrote:
The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.

It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.

In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons

Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.

I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals

No they aren't. They're a shooting unit in realistic terms and an army of just them is easy to kill. Like an army of just Devastators.

**Niiru**

chosen_of_khaine wrote:
Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...

Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.

People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.

**chosen_of_khaine**

Niiru wrote:
chosen_of_khaine wrote:
Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...

Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.

People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.

It was confirmed on their Facebook page today in the comments on the Saim-Hann article, sadly.

"In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!"
and
"no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."

**Red Corsair**

Galef wrote:
Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.

Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top: they cost a bit extra, but tend to be the part you remember.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.

-

This is much friendlier version of what I wanted to say. Have an exalt for the clever and well put analogy.

The guard book is good because of the point costs on things. They just have more then anyone else. The doctrines are not actually that great. Somehow people are equating guard units from the index that were good, remaining good while poor units (russes) becoming playable again to their doctrines. Someone point out which guard doctrine is so amazing? It's the cheap special weapon carriers and countless immovable bodies that make them so good.

**pm713**

chosen_of_khaine wrote:
Niiru wrote:
chosen_of_khaine wrote:
Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...

Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.

People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.

It was confirmed on their Facebook page today in the comments on the Saim-Hann article, sadly.

"In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!"
and
"no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."

How is that different?

**Niiru**

chosen_of_khaine wrote:
Niiru wrote:
chosen_of_khaine wrote:
Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...

Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.

People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.

It was confirmed on their Facebook page today in the comments on the Saim-Hann article, sadly.

"In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!"
and
"no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."

It's a weird rule. I mean, it lets you move and shoot with weapons (great!) but doesn't work on heavy weapons (shame)... but Eldar only have assault and heavy weapons, and you can already move and shoot assault weapons without penalty. So the rule is really "Battle Focus - You can advance and shoot Assault weapons without a -1 hit penalty". There was not reason for them to write it really ambiguously, and then have to add a whole extra line removing heavy weapons from the rule.

I suppose it also effects pistols, which some Eldar do have... but not sure how often that ever comes up.

But yeh, as battle focus seems to be the same old same old, there's still no reason not to play Ynnari. Unless they change the rules so Ynnari can't be craftworld. Even then, SfD is probably better than battle focus + craftworld trait.

**Albino Squirrel**

See, it's working already.

And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.

**dan2026**

The 'Fade and Fire' stratagem could be cool for Warp Spiders.

**Galef**

Don't forget about Grenades. A Fire Dragon Exarch can swap his Fusion Gun for a Dragons Breathe Flamer to give his unit some versatility, yet he still keeps his Melta Bomb, which Battle Focus allows him to Advance and throw.
True, he has to pick between Melta bomb or Flamer, but it's still a better choice than Fusion gun or Melta bomb.

Battle Focus is also really good for Shuricannon Windriders, but that may be at odds with the Saim-hann trait to give them Scatter lasers (points depending).
Considering everything can benefit (slightly) from Battle Focus, I am happy with it as a rule. If it was any better, we'd be getting too close to the OP-ness of 7th

-

**Vorian**

pm713 wrote:
Vorian wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Vorian wrote:
Bharring wrote:
The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.

It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.

In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons

Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.

I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals

No they aren't. They're a shooting unit in realistic terms and an army of just them is easy to kill. Like an army of just Devastators.

That makes literally no sense.

**Karhedron**

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.

Consider the idea of Banshees in Wave Serpents for Saim Hann. The average charge distance with a reroll is nearly 9". Banshees get a 3" disembark, an 8" move and +3" on their charge move. That gives them an average threat range of 23" from the position of their Serpent at the start of the turn. Chuck in Jain Zar to lead them and negate Overwatch and you have a unit that can be deep in your opponent's deployment zone in T2 or jump on any unit that moves out of your opponents deployment zone on T1. Who needs Webway portals?

**Niiru**

Albino Squirrel wrote:
See, it's working already.

And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.

So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?

Wow. GW must -love- you.

**Kanluwen**

Niiru wrote:
Albino Squirrel wrote:
See, it's working already.

And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.

So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?

Wow. GW must -love- you.

Considering Ravenwing are primarily Bikers and Ultramarines don't really help Bikers...that'd be a really weird thing.
Or did you mean Raven Guard?

In any regards, there's a bit of truth to what he's said. There has been trends over the years with a certain kind of player that builds a Marine army and hopscotches from book to book based upon which book gives them the best bonuses.

**pm713**

Vorian wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Vorian wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Vorian wrote:
Bharring wrote:
The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.

It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.

In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons

Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.

I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals

No they aren't. They're a shooting unit in realistic terms and an army of just them is easy to kill. Like an army of just Devastators.

That makes literally no sense.

It does. Unbalanced army = bad. Just Avengers = Unbalanced. Avenger spam = Not a good representation of Biel Tan.