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.

Talking with my Friend, that has the new Dark Eldar Codex, basically he made me notice something.




As this Stratagem is before the battle begins, you can use it an infinite number of times. As you can use it an infinite number of times, you can always chose the +1d3 CP with the Haeomunculus, to gain infinite CP, and then repeat the stratagem to make an army of Succubus and Haemunculus that have all the Warlords Traits, all of them repeated to buff them even more.

Is he correct? If you can't have more than one Warlord Trait, then you'll end up with a ton of Succubus and Haeomunculus each one with a Warlord Trait.

Yeah eldar breaking the game with more OP BS.
Seriously GW need to stop allowing Eldar players to wright the eldar codex's.

You can't give a warlord 2 traits. An army of all characters like that isn't going to win anything. I expect this will probably be errata'd to be once per battle like they forgot to do with the early relic stratagems.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't give a warlord 2 traits. An army of all characters like that isn't going to win anything. I expect this will probably be errata'd to be once per battle like they forgot to do with the early relic stratagems.

But they aren't your Warlord, aren't they? They are just receiving Warlord Traits. Theres a written limit in that?

And yeah I agree this will obviously be FAQ'ed to be once per battle.

 Galas wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't give a warlord 2 traits. An army of all characters like that isn't going to win anything. I expect this will probably be errata'd to be once per battle like they forgot to do with the early relic stratagems.

But they aren't your Warlord, aren't they? They are just receiving Warlord Traits. Theres a written limit in that?

And yeah I agree this will obviously be FAQ'ed to be once per battle.

"If your Warlord is a CHARACTER, it can use a Warlord Trait"

A Warlord Trait, singular. You can give multiple ones perhaps, but they can only USE one, so it is a moot point.

Also, the stratagem itself says choose UP TO one, so its limiting you from repeating itself.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Also, the stratagem itself says choose UP TO one, so its limiting you from repeating itself.

The "UP TO" one os for each time you use the stratagem, but you can repeat the stratagem to end with, I don't know, 4 Haeomunculus and 4 Succubus all of them with Warlord Traits.

UP TO means one or less.

sure people are going to say its EVERY TIME you use the strat, but its pretty obvious the intent was once and only once

Yeah obviously meant to be a once a game stratagem, but yeah strictly speaking RAW it is possible to use over and over again. If you had enough Haemonculus you could keep giving them the d3 stratagem points back and farming till you ran out dudes to give warlord traits to. Good luck finding anyone who will play it that way though.

So, if you have 6 patrol detachments with 6 haemonculus you get +8CP (which is not possible in competitive play, you are limited to 3 detachments), if you spend the stratagem on each haemonculus you get 6D3-6, which is 6 on average. 14CP, ridiculous.

Yeah, as it's written you could definitely pull some bonkers stuff with this, but I would bet good money that this stratagem will get FAQed to once a game

 p5freak wrote:
So, if you have 6 patrol detachments with 6 haemonculus you get +8CP (which is not possible in competitive play, you are limited to 3 detachments), if you spend the stratagem on each haemonculus you get 6D3-6, which is 6 on average. 14CP, ridiculous.

I mean, there's nothing inherent in the matched play rules limiting you to three detachments tho, it's just what tournaments ten towards, but the meta does at times adjust. This may not be one of those times, but I'm personally a believer that you should not have tournament rules that have a specifically negative effect on some armies but not others.

Though obviously it's a moot point for any kind of real list. Unless you just want to spam cheap troops, 6 detachments would be hard in a 1750-2000 oh game anyway.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Yeah, as it's written you could definitely pull some bonkers stuff with this, but I would bet good money that this stratagem will get FAQed to once a game

 p5freak wrote:
So, if you have 6 patrol detachments with 6 haemonculus you get +8CP (which is not possible in competitive play, you are limited to 3 detachments), if you spend the stratagem on each haemonculus you get 6D3-6, which is 6 on average. 14CP, ridiculous.

I mean, there's nothing inherent in the matched play rules limiting you to three detachments tho, it's just what tournaments ten towards, but the meta does at times adjust. This may not be one of those times, but I'm personally a believer that you should not have tournament rules that have a specifically negative effect on some armies but not others.

Though obviously it's a moot point for any kind of real list. Unless you just want to spam cheap troops, 6 detachments would be hard in a 1750-2000 oh game anyway.

I have not yet had a matched play game that DIDN'T use the 3 detachment limit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Yeah, as it's written you could definitely pull some bonkers stuff with this, but I would bet good money that this stratagem will get FAQed to once a game

 p5freak wrote:
So, if you have 6 patrol detachments with 6 haemonculus you get +8CP (which is not possible in competitive play, you are limited to 3 detachments), if you spend the stratagem on each haemonculus you get 6D3-6, which is 6 on average. 14CP, ridiculous.

I mean, there's nothing inherent in the matched play rules limiting you to three detachments tho, it's just what tournaments ten towards, but the meta does at times adjust. This may not be one of those times, but I'm personally a believer that you should not have tournament rules that have a specifically negative effect on some armies but not others.

Though obviously it's a moot point for any kind of real list. Unless you just want to spam cheap troops, 6 detachments would be hard in a 1750-2000 oh game anyway.

I have not yet had a matched play game that DIDN'T use the 3 detachment limit.

I have.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Yeah, as it's written you could definitely pull some bonkers stuff with this, but I would bet good money that this stratagem will get FAQed to once a game

 p5freak wrote:
So, if you have 6 patrol detachments with 6 haemonculus you get +8CP (which is not possible in competitive play, you are limited to 3 detachments), if you spend the stratagem on each haemonculus you get 6D3-6, which is 6 on average. 14CP, ridiculous.

I mean, there's nothing inherent in the matched play rules limiting you to three detachments tho, it's just what tournaments ten towards, but the meta does at times adjust. This may not be one of those times, but I'm personally a believer that you should not have tournament rules that have a specifically negative effect on some armies but not others.

Though obviously it's a moot point for any kind of real list. Unless you just want to spam cheap troops, 6 detachments would be hard in a 1750-2000 oh game anyway.

I have not yet had a matched play game that DIDN'T use the 3 detachment limit.

Kinda sounds like you need to find better people to play with then. Because matched play has no prohibition against more than 3 detachments, and it's a potentially crippling thing to impose on some armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I have.

Yeah, but I mean, obviously since one person hasn't, that speaks for the whole community

Yes, dropping your gaming group because they use the suggested detachment limit is the reasonable thing to do.


What armies exactly are "crippled" by it though?

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Kinda sounds like you need to find better people to play with then. Because matched play has no prohibition against more than 3 detachments, and it's a potentially crippling thing to impose on some armies.

No army gets crippled. What it does ensure is some form of balance since more than 3 is invariably used on some broken soup combo. Regular armies get by just fine on 3 detachments and even that's not essential. 2 are often plenty. Except when you want to cheese it up to maximum.

Making it unlimited for example just breaks balance. For example Imperium gets in practice infinent command points for example.

nekooni wrote:Yes, dropping your gaming group because they use the suggested detachment limit is the reasonable thing to do.


What armies exactly are "crippled" by it though?

This is literally in response to the issue of Dark Eldar not being able to utilize their +8CP for 6 patrols, so the painfully obvious answer is Dark Eldar. Like, literally this rule exists because unlike a lot of other armies, running brigades and battalions is not viable, you need smaller detachments in order to be able to utilize the army properly. So, a guard army in a tournament, for example, could easily put together a battalion with the 3 detachment rule and be competitive, but in order for Dark Eldar couldn't put together 6 patrols, which would be competitive for them, while a battalion wouldn't, because of the 3 detachment rule.

Like, the answer to that question was so obvious in the context that it was being discussed, I don't even get what the point was.

tneva82 wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Kinda sounds like you need to find better people to play with then. Because matched play has no prohibition against more than 3 detachments, and it's a potentially crippling thing to impose on some armies.

No army gets crippled. What it does ensure is some form of balance since more than 3 is invariably used on some broken soup combo. Regular armies get by just fine on 3 detachments and even that's not essential. 2 are often plenty. Except when you want to cheese it up to maximum.

Making it unlimited for example just breaks balance. For example Imperium gets in practice infinent command points for example.

Except that your "invariably used on some broken soup combo" argument falls apart in this context because of the fact that it's literally how Dark Eldar are designed to work. If I want to run a proper raiding party, using the entire line of dark eldar, something I should absolutely, reasonably be able to do without people screaming "zomg cheese," at large points values that's going to require either running more than 3 detachments or else crippling my units by mixing them into mixed detachments where they lose obsessions that make them unique because of an arbitrary "rule" (that does not actually exist in non-tournament matched play, and you're under no obligation to accept, which was the point).

Like, seriously, I don't know why people can never understand that you fix problems with poorly written Imperium rules by fixing Imperium rules, not by imposing arbitrary rules on the whole game without considering how they affect everything else.

I fail to see why drukhari are crippled by it. I can easily run three bat's, one for each subfaction.

My planned list right now consists of 1 bat 1 outrider and 1 spearhead and should work fine. "crippled" means "basically unplayable".

DE seem to me perfectly viable even with the 3 detachment limit.

And by the way: I thought it was perfectly obvious that I wanted a clarification on the "some" part. Because it seemed like you tried to claim this was an issue for more than drukhari. So there's really no need for you to channel your inner pumpkin spice latte girl, like, for real.

If you can't even, just don't.

Well, to me, saying "you can't utilize one of your army's inherent rules" is crippling.

Drukhari get +8CP if they run 6 patrols. The designers of the game made that rule for a reason: so you can run multiple detachments from multiple Kabals, Cults, and Covens, because that's how Drukhari work. The fact that Imperium players use more than 3 detachments to run multi-army cheesed up soup is a problem in the design of the <Imperium> faction, one that GW has said they're going to address in the Spring FAQ. But saying "you can't use an ability inherent to your one, single codex, non soup army, because of unrelated soup cheese that GW was already aware of and preparing to address when they designed" is patently ridiculous.

Like, cool, you can run a three detachment DE list that you like. Good for you. That isn't necessarily how every DE player wants to run. The fact that you can make a viable three faction list isn't somehow proof that that's what everyone should do, or even should be okay with doing, in an army with a core rule that specifically incentives multiple small detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
And by the way: I thought it was perfectly obvious that I wanted a clarification on the "some" part. Because it seemed like you tried to claim this was an issue for more than drukhari.

The fact that I'm concerned with a single army doesn't necessarily mean they are the only ones potentially affected. I don't know how every army runs, and leaving an opening for rules I'm not aware of isn't "claiming" anything.

So there's really no need for you to channel your inner pumpkin spice latte girl, like, for real.

If you can't even, just don't.

Reported. If you're going to stoop to insulting people for disagreeing with you, you're not worth my time. I may not necessarily respect your viewpoint, I haven't disrespected you

I wasn't "insulting" you because I disagree with you, I was responding to the tone you used with me previously by making fun of your repeated unnecessary use of "Like,"

I don't think the patrol detachment thing is a defining core rule of drukhari, it's just meant as a gimmick for narrative play. It doesn't make or break the army, that's why I do not think it "cripples" it. Making an exception for drukhari seems rather unfair to any other faction that fluff wise could justify it (eg Imperial Guard), and lifting the limit entirely would break the game basically.

There is a middle ground between keeping the current limit and lifting it entirely, and you wouldn't have to single out the Drukhari. Just allow a greater number - 4 or 5, whatever your group might be comfortable with.

A limit of 3 might not be crippling, but it is hobbling the Drukhari somewhat, given that when they were giving the previews they were talking about running 3-6 detachments for a proper Drukhari raiding force. Limiting that to the smallest number in their recommendation does seem counter to the army's design.

The problem is that without the 3 detachment limit, "Commander Spam" or "Hive Tyrant Spam" which were/will be "fixed" by a 0-1 limit doesn't actually become fixed. You just take Patrols. Commanders are good enough to offset the loss in command points.

Or you take Vanguards and take Commander + Firesight Marksmen, or Outriders with Hive Tyrant + Mucloid Mines.

The entire premise of a 0-1 matched play limitation hinges on you being limited on the amount of detachments you can bring. Dark Eldar shouldn't get an exemption because GW wrote their rules to be a one trick gimmick army.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Dark Eldar shouldn't get an exemption because GW wrote their rules to be a one trick gimmick army.

Uh, yes, they really should. I mean, you're basically defending a house rule by saying "we shouldn't let an army do the thing the actual rules designers designed them to do, just because that's what they designed them to do"

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Patrols don't provide Command Points for most armies. Are all of those T'au Commanders worth it considering you'll only have the base 3 CP?

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Dark Eldar shouldn't get an exemption because GW wrote their rules to be a one trick gimmick army.

Uh, yes, they really should. I mean, you're basically defending a house rule by saying "we shouldn't let an army do the thing the actual rules designers designed them to do, just because that's what they designed them to do"

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Yes, a house rule that is found in the rulebook and is used by literally every single matched play game I've ever seen. One that the rulebook literally tells you to use if running an organised event. Seems like such a house rule. Lets hope tournaments start allowing any amount of detachments to accommodate Dark Eldar, then be shocked and appalled when Tyrant/Commander spam make a comeback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
Patrols don't provide Command Points for most armies. Are all of those T'au Commanders worth it considering you'll only have the base 3 CP?

Ok, so Vanguards then. Having lots of BS3 markerlights is fun!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Dark Eldar shouldn't get an exemption because GW wrote their rules to be a one trick gimmick army.

Uh, yes, they really should. I mean, you're basically defending a house rule by saying "we shouldn't let an army do the thing the actual rules designers designed them to do, just because that's what they designed them to do"

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Yes, a house rule that is found in the rulebook and is used by literally every single matched play game I've ever seen.

It's not a suggested 'house rule'. It's a suggested rule for organised play (i.e., tournaments) where time and space are more of a factor.

 Ghaz wrote:
It's not a suggested 'house rule'. It's a suggested rule for organised play (i.e., tournaments) where time and space are more of a factor.

So it's fair to make Dark Eldar literally impossible to win tournament matches?

Drukhari can still make use of Battalion detachments if they want to.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, a house rule that is found in the rulebook and is used by literally every single matched play game I've ever seen. One that the rulebook literally tells you to use if running an organised event. Seems like such a house rule. Lets hope tournaments start allowing any amount of detachments to accommodate Dark Eldar, then be shocked and appalled when Tyrant/Commander spam make a comeback.

Yes. The actual "rule" that you are referencing says "if you are using matched play for an organized event such as a tournament we suggest using the table below as a helpful guideline. Of course, if you're organizing an event, you should feel free to modify these guidlines to better suit your event's own needs, schedule etc"

Where in there does the rulebook "literally tell you" to use it if running an event? The words "suggest" and "helpful guideline" are almost the exact opposite of "telling you to use it." Telling you to "feel free to modify it" is the exact opposite of "telling you" to use these guidelines. And that decision not to say "these are 100% hard and fast rules" is also in keeping with the ethos that GW is trying to put out in 8th edition, or a more living, constantly maintained game. Things change. 3 detachments made sense as a limit before, that doesn't mean that limit will always make sense.

Where does it tell you to ever, under any circumstances, use these rules in standard, non-event, matched play games? You're using something that isn't even actually a rule for tournaments, just a suggestion, that is never at any point suggested for normal matched play games, and acting like that's a standard part of matched play, that people should just expect, as if your experience is somehow the defining experience of the game. Sorry, homeskillet, a rule you aren't required to use, but simply choose to, is by definition a house rule, and just because you play that way doesn't mean anyone else does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
Drukhari can still make use of Battalion detachments if they want to.

They could also run squads of index Hekatrix Bloodbrides with the exact same profile as Wyches but twice the points, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

For a player who wants to run a fleshed out list of Cult, Coven, and Kabal units, being limited to 3 detachments potentially limits their ability to effective utilize obsessions and sub-faction synergies.

tneva82 wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Kinda sounds like you need to find better people to play with then. Because matched play has no prohibition against more than 3 detachments, and it's a potentially crippling thing to impose on some armies.

No army gets crippled. What it does ensure is some form of balance since more than 3 is invariably used on some broken soup combo. Regular armies get by just fine on 3 detachments and even that's not essential. 2 are often plenty. Except when you want to cheese it up to maximum.

Making it unlimited for example just breaks balance. For example Imperium gets in practice infinent command points for example.

I really dislike that you use invariably here. I run mono Grey Knights and I would love to run more than 3 detachments for them. Getting CP would be less of a struggle for my army.

Also Genestealer cults are somewhat hurt by the detachment limit. They can take 1 astra millitarum detachment per genestealer detachment. You want to run a baneblade? Give up everything else millitarum you wanted to run that is not a LoW.