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.

The problem with this kind of design philosophy is it burns valuable CP just to get the weapons to work, CP that could be otherwise used on other strats. A full Harlequin's Cuddle (Embrace, Kiss, Caress) burns 4 CP! And if there should be multiple Harlequin units, only one can get the stratagem effect in the same turn. Did the rest just suddenly forget to hit the On switch on their weapons?

Yet we don't see a stratagem for say a SM to get their Melta weapon effect. Overall I don't think any race or faction should be burning CPs just to get their special weapons to do something they should do as standard.

"Harlequin's Cuddle"

Oh please let's make that a thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Why is Jervisifying them a good idea?

I see both sides of this. You're not wrong that Harlequins have just a few melee options to begin with, so it's mildly pointless. HOWEVER, ease of rolling and no "you modeled the wrong weapon so it's not good now" syndrome are highlights. Last I checked for prior Harlequin lists, I don't think they varied the weapons much?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
HOWEVER, ease of rolling and no "you modeled the wrong weapon so it's not good now" syndrome are highlights.

I don't consider this a real concern. If the vagaries of the GW's random rule and meta changes means that Weapon X is slightly worse and Weapon Y is slightly better, then that's just the way it is. It'll switch back eventually, or something else will come along. I don't see it as an excuse to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater, genericise all the weapons and, worse, make them strats.

"Oh no, this weapon isn't perfectly optimal for this specific situation! Truly my life is over!". Utter rot.

It was 3 weapons. It wasn't complex, nor was it complicated. Now it's just stupid.

Iracundus wrote:


These Harlequin weapon names now that I think about it play up the creepy clown image more. What's next? Harlequin's Fondle?

"Guardsman, show me on the doll where the nasty clown touched you"

Yeah, somehow I don't wanna be a Harlequin player anymore...

One of the shroud runner don't have cable connect to the gun, it'd probably be better they just remove the cable on all models, so it's easier to swap bit or using it on other models.

I do agree, having weapon effects rely on CP just feels weird. Either a weapon has it, or it doesn't. What is CP really supposed to be then, other than just a game mechanic? It's supposed to highlight the initiative of battlefield leaders, is it not?

It's an abstracted strategic resource. Needing to use it to use weapons that are already in the field is really strange.

KillerAngel wrote:
I do agree, having weapon effects rely on CP just feels weird. Either a weapon has it, or it doesn't. What is CP really supposed to be then, other than just a game mechanic? It's supposed to highlight the initiative of battlefield leaders, is it not?

It seems to be this nebulous combination of actual tactics by leaders or enforced plot device.

Weapons however should have stable effects. I mean there are separate weapon profiles for power axes vs power swords vs spears etc... We don't have "generic plague weapons", instead we have all sorts of swords, knives, flails, and so on. We don't have "generic power weapon" and use this stratagem to make it hit like an axe and then another to make it pierce like a sword.

If all those other squads can have mixed weapons, why is it suddenly so hard to keep track of 3 types of Harlequin weapons?

A note from one of the places I order from RE: the new Eldar/Chaos box:

"While we unfortunately only have a limited supply of this set up for per-order, there will be a second wave incoming within the next 6 months. We will have the second wave available to order as soon as we have it in stock."

Iracundus wrote:
We don't have "generic power weapon" and use this stratagem to make it hit like an axe and then another to make it pierce like a sword.

Two specific units in the upcoming Chaos Codex are about to.

Iracundus wrote:
If all those other squads can have mixed weapons, why is it suddenly so hard to keep track of 3 types of Harlequin weapons?

It's not, but now we can expect a litany of people going "It's because of balance/tournament meta/having the wrong weapon!" and other nonsense excuses that weren't a problem 3 months ago, but apparently are now.

Iracundus wrote:
The problem with this kind of design philosophy is it burns valuable CP just to get the weapons to work, CP that could be otherwise used on other strats. A full Harlequin's Cuddle (Embrace, Kiss, Caress) burns 4 CP! And if there should be multiple Harlequin units, only one can get the stratagem effect in the same turn. Did the rest just suddenly forget to hit the On switch on their weapons?

Yet we don't see a stratagem for say a SM to get their Melta weapon effect. Overall I don't think any race or faction should be burning CPs just to get their special weapons to do something they should do as standard.

Yeah after seeing this, the only good thing is that I just likely won't waste any money on Harlies. I'll put it more into Craftworlds, which is a huge shame because I really love the Harlies aesthetic.

Ah, yes. The Harlequin weapons. So distinct and useful that...



...people...



...really...



...mixed...



...them up!

Truly a great loss with the new base being better than all the other old versions.

Iracundus wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
I do agree, having weapon effects rely on CP just feels weird. Either a weapon has it, or it doesn't. What is CP really supposed to be then, other than just a game mechanic? It's supposed to highlight the initiative of battlefield leaders, is it not?

It seems to be this nebulous combination of actual tactics by leaders or enforced plot device.

Weapons however should have stable effects. I mean there are separate weapon profiles for power axes vs power swords vs spears etc... We don't have "generic plague weapons", instead we have all sorts of swords, knives, flails, and so on. We don't have "generic power weapon" and use this stratagem to make it hit like an axe and then another to make it pierce like a sword.

If all those other squads can have mixed weapons, why is it suddenly so hard to keep track of 3 types of Harlequin weapons?

Using Plague Marines isn't the best defense here since nobody is using them for melee with the silly ass "1 model may take X" equipment crap.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ah, yes. The Harlequin weapons. So distinct and useful that...

Truly a great loss with the new base being better than all the other old versions.

Given that most Harlequin armies are massive hordes, sometimes with 120-150 models, having 3 different weapons was seen as too tough to remember.

Meanwhile, in the land of Space Marines:



When I was joking about Marines having 18 different types of bolter, I thought I was just engaging in a bit of light Internet Hyperbole. There were probably around 12-ish in reality, right? Nope!

48.
Fourty eight.

And I left off the Combi-Plasma/Flamer/Melta/Grav entries. Those woudl take it to 52. And I wasn't even considering Relics.

Holy hell...

Hot garbage, I legitimately lost all interest in continuing to work on my Harlies. On the shelf they go. I can only hope that Chaos doesn't end up with something equally as stupid. Daemon weapons all turn out to be the same thing but you have the privilege of using CP to make them operate in a way that is baseline for similar weapons in other armies!

Seriously, to me this is the same as if you took Volkite weapons and turned them into a stratagem. Is that a bad idea? No. But at least have some damn parity. I am so sick of GW changing design philosophy codex to codex without regard to how other factions abilities and weapons work. It was annoying when Space Marines got doctrines for free without conditions at the same time that Necrons got Command Protocols which have a litany of conditions for incredibly minor effects. I have been playing this game for over 20 years and never have I been closer to just dropping this game once and for all. 7th edition chased me away but I kept my stuff knowing that one day I might come back, now with 9th I get the feeling that I just can't enjoy this game again.

I honestly enjoy maybe 1 in 10 games of 9th because of how one sided they end up being. I am gonna try the 2022 CA missions but I have so little faith in GW being able to even accomplish a functioning game.

What bugs me particularly is this apparent double standard.

48 bolter type weapons, yet somehow 3 Harlie weapons are "too hard" or "too confusing".

It's like how there are so many supplements for so many individual chapters, yet all Craftworlds get lumped into 1 Codex instead of say having Codex Biel-tan, and now the Harlequins are being lumped in too, after only relatively recently even getting different Troupes differentiated. I actually liked the Iyanden supplement because it was probably the first in depth background on a specific Craftworld in like...ever.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When I was joking about Marines having 18 different types of bolter, I thought I was just engaging in a bit of light Internet Hyperbole. There were probably around 12-ish in reality, right? Nope!

48.
Fourty eight.

And I left off the Combi-Plasma/Flamer/Melta/Grav entries. Those woudl take it to 52. And I wasn't even considering Relics.

Holy hell...

Sure, but you won't find 3 different types of bolter on a single unit. One and sometimes a special heavy version is about all we deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:
What bugs me particularly is this apparent double standard.

It isn't the same.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When I was joking about Marines having 18 different types of bolter, I thought I was just engaging in a bit of light Internet Hyperbole. There were probably around 12-ish in reality, right? Nope!

48.
Fourty eight.

And I left off the Combi-Plasma/Flamer/Melta/Grav entries. Those woudl take it to 52. And I wasn't even considering Relics.

Holy hell...

Sure, but you won't find 3 different types of bolter on a single unit. One and sometimes a special heavy version is about all we deal with.

Intercessors and heavy intercessors would have a word with you. Heavy intercessors have what 7 types of bolters?

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Seriously, to me this is the same as if you took Volkite weapons and turned them into a stratagem. Is that a bad idea? No. But at least have some damn parity.

Flak missiles, hellfire shells, special issue ammo, smoke launchers, melta bombs, frag assault launchers all come to mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When I was joking about Marines having 18 different types of bolter, I thought I was just engaging in a bit of light Internet Hyperbole. There were probably around 12-ish in reality, right? Nope!

48.
Fourty eight.

And I left off the Combi-Plasma/Flamer/Melta/Grav entries. Those woudl take it to 52. And I wasn't even considering Relics.

Holy hell...

Sure, but you won't find 3 different types of bolter on a single unit. One and sometimes a special heavy version is about all we deal with.

Intercessors and heavy intercessors would have a word with you. Heavy intercessors have what 7 types of bolters?

6, via a heavy bolt rifle and one heavy bolter per 5, then the assault and heavy variants of those.

That list of bolt weapons really could be condensed though since some are identical (storm bolter, combi bolter, twin boltgun) as far as rules go, and twin and master crafted are basically just keywords for double shots and +1 damage respectively.

 Galas wrote:
Intercessors and heavy intercessors would have a word with you. Heavy intercessors have what 7 types of bolters?

They're all required to take the same bolter per squad. It isn't the same thing.

And if you wanted to condense bolters...I don't think people would much care.

Maybe if the harlie weapons had like +1A or other effects that differentiated them more I'd be inclined to agree more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:
What bugs me particularly is this apparent double standard.

It isn't the same.

It really is. Just because SM units are sometimes broken into different datasheets based on which trivial gun variation they're carrying doesn't really save it from being a double standard.
You're just being taken in by the illusion of unit variety in the SM codex, which GW uses to justify selling more SM kits.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They're all required to take the same bolter per squad. It isn't the same thing.

You are grasping at the smallest clump of straws here imaginable to justify why 3 weapons had to be converted to a generic profile.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, but you won't find 3 different types of bolter on a single unit. One and sometimes a special heavy version is about all we deal with.

And that's moving the goal posts.

What difference does it matter if it's the same unit? You can still have 5 different types of ranged weapons in a Tac Squad (7 if you count grenades), 3 of them versions of a bolt weapon, so why is 3 in a Harli unit so hard to grasp?

And, again, this specific terminology you've invented: "deal with". When has anyone ever complained about the anguish or the taxing nature of "dealing" with Harli weapons? When was it ever an odeal? Has this ever been a complaint? "I love Harlis, but having to deal with 3 different types of melee weapon... it's just a bridge too far!"

Iracundus wrote:
A full Harlequin's Cuddle (Embrace, Kiss, Caress)

And now I refuse to call it anything else

The ability to ignore invulns is brutal. Goodbye demons and custodes etc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They're all required to take the same bolter per squad. It isn't the same thing.

You are grasping at the smallest clump of straws here imaginable to justify why 3 weapons had to be converted to a generic profile.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, but you won't find 3 different types of bolter on a single unit. One and sometimes a special heavy version is about all we deal with.

And that's moving the goal posts.

What difference does it matter if it's the same unit? You can still have 5 different types of ranged weapons in a Tac Squad (7 if you count grenades), 3 of them versions of a bolt weapon, so why is 3 in a Harli unit so hard to grasp?

And, again, this specific terminology you've invented: "deal with". When has anyone ever complained about the anguish or the taxing nature of "dealing" with Harli weapons? When was it ever an odeal? Has this ever been a complaint? "I love Harlis, but having to deal with 3 different types of melee weapon... it's just a bridge too far!"

The bolter variants have type, range, shot, AP, strength, and damage variety. That means your movement, targeting, and outcome can vary widely. Harlequin melee just...is not even anywhere close to that interesting.

Seeing both Battle Focus and the new Miracle dice, this codex is BONKERS. Getting 2D6 dice A TURN where they nerfed Sisters down to 1-2 depending on some other rules they might have. WOW.

 Togusa wrote:
Seeing both Battle Focus and the new Miracle dice, this codex is BONKERS. Getting 2D6 dice A TURN where they nerfed Sisters down to 1-2 depending on some other rules they might have. WOW.

What?

Fate Dice are 4 in a battle round in total.

Iracundus wrote:
What bugs me particularly is this apparent double standard.

48 bolter type weapons, yet somehow 3 Harlie weapons are "too hard" or "too confusing".

It's like how there are so many supplements for so many individual chapters, yet all Craftworlds get lumped into 1 Codex instead of say having Codex Biel-tan, and now the Harlequins are being lumped in too, after only relatively recently even getting different Troupes differentiated. I actually liked the Iyanden supplement because it was probably the first in depth background on a specific Craftworld in like...ever.

You'd have a point if people were defending the 40 Bolter entries.

It's more that people are acting like this change is a good thing, like 3 whole weapon types was something Harli players were stuck having to 'deal' with.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
What bugs me particularly is this apparent double standard.

48 bolter type weapons, yet somehow 3 Harlie weapons are "too hard" or "too confusing".

It's like how there are so many supplements for so many individual chapters, yet all Craftworlds get lumped into 1 Codex instead of say having Codex Biel-tan, and now the Harlequins are being lumped in too, after only relatively recently even getting different Troupes differentiated. I actually liked the Iyanden supplement because it was probably the first in depth background on a specific Craftworld in like...ever.

You'd have a point if people were defending the 40 Bolter entries.

You mean how Daedalus81 is 3 posts above yours? Saying all those bolter entries are interesting while Harlie weapons are not?