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.

 Red Corsair wrote:
The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.

That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.

I think the Drukhari Codex might be an interesting aberration in the meta. Either players/tournaments embrace the aberration and allow it to play within its own confines(no detachment limitation for Drukhari), or they kill it off completely.

The sad thing is that players will most likely complain that GW screwed the Drukhari codex when it is house rules that are killing it.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.

That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.

Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the Drukhari Codex might be an interesting aberration in the meta. Either players/tournaments embrace the aberration and allow it to play within its own confines(no detachment limitation for Drukhari), or they kill it off completely.

The sad thing is that players will most likely complain that GW screwed the Drukhari codex when it is house rules that are killing it.

I agree, I think it is a really fun idea and a good way to create armies but it's too early to tell how the meta will treat it. With hostility or encouragement? We will see.

Detachment limits are GW's own house rule.

 daedalus wrote:
Detachment limits are GW's own house rule.

They however created a 3 detachment limit and no limitation on duplication which allows you to run a basic raiding force. This rule they could easily change to support the larger raiding force.

The detachment duplication is a common limit and I know of some tourneys that are limiting detachments to two which would negatively affect Drukhari.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
New info

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/26/codex-drukhai-preview-assembling-your-raiding-party/

So, I hope there won't be detachment limits in tournaments in the future. That might screw with the Drukhari.

Three Patrols allows 6 HQ, 9 Troops, 6 Elites, 6 Fast Attack, 6 Heavy Support, 6 Flyers and up to 45 Transports if you max all that. That seems like plenty for 1500-2000 points. It's not like Dark Eldar have any Lords of War that will get left out.

Just means you lose out their special bonus if you want to soup in Ynnari.

Yeah that was my thought.

Unless there is anything new in the Codex, there is just the FW superheavy but mine is still be made and painted.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.

That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.

Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...

Nope. The words in the rulebook don't change even if everyone does use it. It's still just a suggestion for organized events.

 Eldarsif wrote:

The detachment duplication is a common limit and I know of some tourneys that are limiting detachments to two which would negatively affect Drukhari.

They can hardly be expected to write the rules to fit some TOs’ houserules (and if they do, whose? The deluge of iTC changes is basically a complete game itself and in turn very different from ETC, European formats, “common” tourney houserules Down Under, etc.).

Whoever came up with a no-Detachment-duplication houserule may or may not change it, as may people with a no-Dark-Eldar-houserule or a lets-not-use-Stratagems-at-all-houserule. But that’s their problem and call, not GW’s, no?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.

That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.

Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...

Nope. The words in the rulebook don't change even if everyone does use it. It's still just a suggestion for organized events.

Now your just being pedantic. I never argued against your position. However, if every event currently restricts my ability to use this rule, I am SOL. Spin it however you like, not official, official, suggested, made the frig up lol. Doesn't change the reality of the present meta does it?

 Eldarsif wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Detachment limits are GW's own house rule.

They however created a 3 detachment limit and no limitation on duplication which allows you to run a basic raiding force. This rule they could easily change to support the larger raiding force.

The detachment duplication is a common limit and I know of some tourneys that are limiting detachments to two which would negatively affect Drukhari.

Oh yeah, the duplication limitation is silly and unsupported by GW, totally. I know when I think of any military, the first thing that comes to mind is how unique everything is.

I've just been stuck on the 6 patrol thing and whenever that's ever actually going to come up. I guess it was to throw the narrative/apoc players a bone, which isn't a terrible thing.

Detachment limits are only a problem for tournament players and metas where people voluntarily accept tournament houserules, so it shouldn't genuinely factor in for most players.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.

That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.

Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...

Nope. The words in the rulebook don't change even if everyone does use it. It's still just a suggestion for organized events.

Now your just being pedantic. I never argued against your position. However, if every event currently restricts my ability to use this rule, I am SOL. Spin it however you like, not official, official, suggested, made the frig up lol. Doesn't change the reality of the present meta does it?

No. It's on you and your group or meta or whatever if your using a suggestion for organised play as anything other than what it is. It most definitely not a 'rule' that you are required to use by GW, and GW doesn't check with the meta before writing rules.

Ghaz we all know you are correct. We all also know how a whole bunch of people plays. Let it go.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.

That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.

Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...

Nope. The words in the rulebook don't change even if everyone does use it. It's still just a suggestion for organized events.

Which doesn#t heip you to field more than 3 detachments.

Theory good, practice better. If theory was sufficient i could play with paper slips on itc.

Weli unless you enjoy playing against yourself of course!

 Galas wrote:
Ghaz we all know you are correct. We all also know how 70% of people plays. Let it go.

And players give GW enough grief over things that honestly are their fault. This however,is not one of them. Blame the meta, not Games Workshop.

I don't think anybody here is giving GW grief. Quite the contrary, people is complaining about tournament house rules impacting Dark Eldar in a negative way.

The point of house ruling detachment limits is to put a limit on shenanigins (a fairly high limit, but a limit nonetheless). Given the intention, and the fact that it all started with GW's own suggestion, I find it hard to believe that any event or league organisers will change their rules to accomidate one codex with a really poorly thought out rule. And I say this as a league organiser who wont be changing the rules to accomidate a single codex (even if I am the only one who would be using it).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Some codexes have had rules for models that don't exist in 8th. Thousand sons twrminator sorcerwr- listed as a conversion in the modeling section...

You mean a Sorcerer in Terminator Armour? No, that exists.

I invite you to look at the model for thousand sons terminator Lord. It is neither the terminator sorcerer from the terminator Lord kit, nor is it the scarab occult sorcerer. The core even calls out that the model in the hobby section is a kit Ash to make the model.

I don't get the issue. Is it really so hard for ITC/ETC/whatever to state 'for purposes of duplication rule, patrols don't count' or 'for purposes of duplication rule, Kabal, Wych, and Haemonculus detachments are considered as different, unique subtypes'?

I'd imagine common sense would solve the issue instantly, but then again, I don't know what the procedures for change are, how difficult it is, and to be fair, people coming up with houserules do often lack common sense (these really dumb comp houserules Aussies had in 5th edition come to mind)...

It probably would have been better if it scaled per Patrol, so that even at two detachments, they can still get some use out of it.

Having theory-crafted some very obnoxious lists with a silly number of detachments, I get the point in limiting it, but I think the three detachments at 2000 is more than reasonable for just about anything you could want to do. I do not think there would be much gained by limiting it to two over three, to be honest.

 Imateria wrote:
The point of house ruling detachment limits is to put a limit on shenanigins (a fairly high limit, but a limit nonetheless). Given the intention, and the fact that it all started with GW's own suggestion, I find it hard to believe that any event or league organisers will change their rules to accomidate one codex with a really poorly thought out rule. And I say this as a league organiser who wont be changing the rules to accomidate a single codex (even if I am the only one who would be using it).

you know in 7th there was a quite common restriction in tournaments as only 1x Lord of War unless you playing Imperial Knights and rarely people complained. Can't see why the same can't be done for the Dark Eldar like no limits for them as long all detachments are draw from the Dark eldar codex.

The limit to detachments serves no point.

It was originally put forward to reduce spamming a single unit, but it fails in all formats due to the many different detachments. Most players can just use various detachments to spam the unit they want still in any tournament format.

There is no actual merit in limiting detachments, which is why the base rules don't have any limitations.

 Lord Perversor wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
The point of house ruling detachment limits is to put a limit on shenanigins (a fairly high limit, but a limit nonetheless). Given the intention, and the fact that it all started with GW's own suggestion, I find it hard to believe that any event or league organisers will change their rules to accomidate one codex with a really poorly thought out rule. And I say this as a league organiser who wont be changing the rules to accomidate a single codex (even if I am the only one who would be using it).

you know in 7th there was a quite common restriction in tournaments as only 1x Lord of War unless you playing Imperial Knights and rarely people complained. Can't see why the same can't be done for the Dark Eldar like no limits for them as long all detachments are draw from the Dark eldar codex.

You are expecting tournaments to be reasonable?! HOW DARE YOU!

GWs "House Rule" is 3 detachments at the normal play level. Simply using three patrols would seem doable? Plenty of different units and 7CP plus three warlords with their own Command traits. Will need to see the codex rules obviously but seems seems fine,

Making them all unique detachments as well is a Tourney House rule and seems a bit extreme, but I don't play at that level.

Also we have the Big FAQs coming out at the same time which may make a difference - especially if they restrict HQs as they did with Tau?

 Galas wrote:
I don't think anybody here is giving GW grief. Quite the contrary, people is complaining about tournament house rules impacting Dark Eldar in a negative way.

Well, let TOs adapt or change to go woth it. Doubling up on EW and Maelstrom as many formats do also negatively affects hundreds of armies (and benefits others). Thats the nature of tourney houserules (or every houserule actually). They all change the game and hurt some armies (and help others) in some way. If it were ‘t changing things, there’d be no point to the houserule said tournament introduced, no?

blaktoof wrote:
The limit to detachments serves no point.

It was originally put forward to reduce spamming a single unit, but it fails in all formats due to the many different detachments. Most players can just use various detachments to spam the unit they want still in any tournament format.

There is no actual merit in limiting detachments, which is why the base rules don't have any limitations.

You mean no merit other than actually preventing some of the worst shenigans due to ensuring better balance.

Yep no merit at all.

At present point costs Drukhari can fill 6 patrols for less than 600pts. Now add 2 Craftworld Battalions to get 17 CP and access to about 50 stratagems.

I mean, of course the 3 detachment limit is GW's fault. They suggest it in the rulebook. They likewise suggest a battlefield size of 6 feet by 4 feet, which is also an essentially universal standard even in casual play. They clearly balance around detachment limits as with the Tau Commander limitation. There are lots of even fairly casual players who will take it as a TFG kind of thing if you try to bring more than 3 detachments to a 2k game, and they do this because GW has put forward these rules as the appropriate way to play a fair game of 40k.

And, like, it's a good rule. It's weird to talk about it as if it's so terrible for, e.g., Tau players not to be able to bring unlimited Commanders as long as they bring 5 Fire Warriors for each one beyond 3. It just doesn't mesh well with this specific thing they're doing with Dark Eldar, and clearly the best fix here is to keep on enforcing a detachment limit while relaxing it for DE. Maybe DE Patrols don't count towards that limit, or count half, or whatever. It would be very useful if GW were to come out with a suggestion for this too, since that helps promote standardization.

 Imateria wrote:
At present point costs Drukhari can fill 6 patrols for less than 600pts. Now add 2 Craftworld Battalions to get 17 CP and access to about 50 stratagems.

Thats with what, six archons with splinter pistols and power swords?

Pretty spooky.

I field primarily Kabal units, but I like me some DE Fliers and Talos Pain Engines, too. Being able to easily mix them sounds good. I just hope they'll fix the latter, as well as make our HQs actually useful.