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.

So I've gotten a few games under my belt with the new Craftworlds codex. I've really enjoyed the rules so far. The stratagems give me plenty of options and make me want to take a few troops so that I have enough command points to play around with. The relics are a bit hit and miss but all seem to have their place. The craftworld attributes can all be useful in the right list. The warlord traits are pretty impressive with a couple uninspiring exceptions. However, some of the craftworld-specific rules seem like they were accidentally assigned to the wrong craftworld. For instance...

ATTRIBUTES
* Ulthwe's ability is fine, but surely the craftworld that is all about guardians and psykers would prefer to have Biel-Tan's shuriken weapon rerolls. Plus, the 6+ FNP not stacking with similar rules means you have less of a reason to take Fortune and thus less of a reason to take a bunch of farseers.

*Iyanden basically has Summary Execution meaning you're encouraged to take larger units. Wraith guard, the iconic unit of Iyanden, are usually riding in a wave serpent and already have a very high leadership. So the craftworld with a tiny living population is encouraged to spam warm bodies but doesn't get a benefit for its primary unit.

*Biel-Tan's main bonus is being able to reroll failed hits of 1 with shuriken weapons. Thematically, they're mostly about fielding lots of aspect warriors. Less than half of the available aspect warriors have access to shuriken weapons, and two of those (banshees and scorpions) might risk making a charge more difficult if they shoot too effectively from too far away. So you're kind of incentivized to field a lot of vehicles, avengers, and guardians to get the most out of this rather than fielding a healthy mix of aspects.


RELICS
*Biel-Tan's relic is a psyker-only item. Biel-Tan isn't anti-psyker, but the autarch really fits their aspect warrior theme better. So you have incentive to take a farseer instead of an arguably fluffier autarch if you're only taking one HQ. Meanwhile, Ulthwe is envious of your super psykers and shuriken rerolls...


WARLORD TRAITS

*Biel-Tan basically has a 3" version of Guide. Which is awesome. It's also a little redundant with an autarch's aura. On the other hand, psykers have no such aura, so this can effectively allow your farseer to guide someone twice a turn or let you toss spirit seer buffs around while still getting rerolls to hit. So it's another reason to not take the arguably more fluffy HQ option in a Biel-Tan list.

*Iyanden warlords can attempt to deny an extra time. This isn't super out of place on Iyanden, but you'd kind of expect Ulthwe to be the craftworld that is good at shutting down enemy psykers.



Does all this seem a little odd to anyone else? It's not a big deal. Unless I'm using Yriel or Eldrad, I can just say that my "Ulthwe" army is using Biel-Tan rules or that my bold and aggressive "Biel-Tan" units are using the Iyanden rules on their full-sized aspect squads. It just seems a bit strange that Biel-Tan has the especially potent psykers and the crackshot shuriken-wielding guardians (without spending a command point) while Iyanden is encouraged to spam living bodies. I'm wondering what the design reasoning behind these choices was. Perhaps GW feared that making a given craftworld too good at its gimmick would be too powerful and thus gave them less intuitively fluffy but horizontally useful rules?

Totally agree. While it would be nice to assume that there was some reason behind the sort of wacky choices for some CW attributes, I don't yet have enough faith in GW rules dept. to give the benefit of the doubt. Early days yet I guess.

This doesn't seem odd to me only because they did the same thing with the first codex, space marines. Chapter traits don't quite match up to the fluff of all the chapters, same with craftworld traits.

And your right, I have trouble finding a place for an autarch in my beil-tan army, and my farseer loves his ability to double guide. I don't even bother with the relic, it just doesn't matter to me.

But on the counter to that I use a lot of dire avengers (Beil-tan trait helps a lot). If I wasn't Beil-tan I would not have just finished putting together another 10 man squad of the guys, 30 of them make any horde army rethink 18". But yeah, not really Beil-tan.

Eh, it's not bad to me. I think the 'problem' with the craftworld themes is that many people flanderise them to the extreme, i.e Iyanden = all wraith units, all the time! Saim-hann = everything has a bike!

The traits are actually generalist enough that you're not railed into extremely so-called 'themed' builds for each craftworld, but can put together an army for your craftworld using whatever from the codex lineup and still get good leverage out of it.

The traits areappropriate for the lore of each craftworld, not necessarily the so called 'signature unit' of the craftworld, and there is a difference. 'Guardians' and 'bikes' and 'wraiths' aren't themes. Wild and thirsting for glory in battle = reroll charges, that's a theme. Attunement to the warp through orbitting the Eye of Terror granting a 6th sense = 6's to ignore wounds (lol), that's a theme.

I approve very much.

You know the other half of the lyanden trait is very beneficial to wraithlords and wraithknights.

I like to imagine they wanted al big traits to be generalistand not mono build inducing, you know so list-building can actually be a thing.

Earth127 wrote:
You know the other half of the lyanden trait is very beneficial to wraithlords and wraithknights.

I like to imagine they wanted al big traits to be generalistand not mono build inducing, you know so list-building can actually be a thing.

Except every bit of fluff ever says that the core of Iyanden's army is ghost warriors. I agree with you, the traits should be beneficial to the army as a whole, and the Iyanden trait clearly isn't because it doeas almost nothing for Wraithguard and Wraithblades, the two units that should make up the core of an Iyanden army. In fact it doesn't do a whole lot for Aspect Warriors either. Thats why I run the Ulthwe trait for my Iyanden army, everything benefits.

I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way. A lot of the abilities seem kind of good but they seem like they're only pushing certain parts instead of benefiting an entire Army. There is a reason Alaitoc is considered the best option because it affects everything and does not require certain things to be taken whether they make sense or not.

Earth127 wrote:
You know the other half of the lyanden trait is very beneficial to wraithlords and wraithknights.

I like to imagine they wanted al big traits to be generalistand not mono build inducing, you know so list-building can actually be a thing.

Of course, Ulthwe's is even better for a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as long as you're not also casting Fortune on it. The only reason you'd want Iyanden's on vehicles is if they have spirit stones (or Fortune), and the walkers are some of the only things that can't take them.

I think the Eldar traits are particularly bad case of this, but the trait system in general is a mess.

Ultramarines get traits that make them good at hit and run tactics (should be Scars or Ravens) and more stubborn (should be Fists/Templars) and an anti-psyker relic (should be Templars), whereas Templars get a relic which makes them better leaders (should be Ultras.) And of course the Raven Guard tactic encourages dread gunlines.

Though I think most hilarious example is in the IG book, the Catachans have a trait that makes their Leman Russes arguably the best in game, thus encouraging tank-heavy jungle fighter armies!

This has been a common complaint about the traits, that they tend to encourage armies that do not fit the background.

Yup. Mentioned it as a classic case of GW having only so much creative motivation to go around.

Saim-Hann is another example. Bikes ignore the Move&Fire penalty for Heavy Weapons, yet their most cost-efficient opti9ns are Assault Weapons. Saim-Hann as a whole rerolls charges, but Bikes do not want to be in close combat. Ironically, their trait is best for Assault Aspect Warriors, making them more akin to Biel-Tan.

Easiest way to correct this is using whatever chapter/craftworld trait you want for your army. They’re pretty loose with the theme so unless you’re addicted to special characters it doesn’t matter. I agree that different chapters and Craftworlds ended up with odd rules. White Scars have supreme jump packs and ironclad dreads. Ultras have the best bikers. Salamander trait actively encourages lascannons over flamers (though helps melta too). Raven Guard have the best gunline. Just ridiculous. Craftworld traits are equally upside down, with Biel-Tan being worst imo.

People seem to be willfully obtuse about this I must say.
Bikes, Wraith constructs, etc etc are not traits.
If you look to the unique stratagems, you will see the 'signature units' for the craftworld, as it should be, to represent their fighting tactics.

Eldar traits are really bland and unfitting, and their relics are a combination of mostly flavourless and functionless garbage (the one relic they get that would actually be pretty flavourful and fun can't actually be used by the unit that would benefit from it most...). Thankfully, the rest of the codex is pretty well done, but it's a rotting cherry on an otherwise well made sundae.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
People seem to be willfully obtuse about this I must say.
Bikes, Wraith constructs, etc etc are not traits.
If you look to the unique stratagems, you will see the 'signature units' for the craftworld, as it should be, to represent their fighting tactics.

Stratagems and Warlord Traits don't scale.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Yup. Mentioned it as a classic case of GW having only so much creative motivation to go around.

Saim-Hann is another example. Bikes ignore the Move&Fire penalty for Heavy Weapons, yet their most cost-efficient opti9ns are Assault Weapons. Saim-Hann as a whole rerolls charges, but Bikes do not want to be in close combat. Ironically, their trait is best for Assault Aspect Warriors, making them more akin to Biel-Tan.

I've actually warmed up the initially weird-looking Saim-Hann traits. I had the exact same complaints initially, but realizing that the heavy weapon thing benefits vypers and makes scatter lasers an inefficient but relatively safe (due to kiting tactics) play style makes it a lot more forgivable. The charge rerolls don't make sense for the windriders, but it does help out shining speers, bike councils, and bike characters a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
People seem to be willfully obtuse about this I must say.
Bikes, Wraith constructs, etc etc are not traits.
If you look to the unique stratagems, you will see the 'signature units' for the craftworld, as it should be, to represent their fighting tactics.

The stratagems are fine, yeah, but the traits are just so odd in some cases. would it make more sense to divorce the traits from specific craftworlds and just let people take whatever attributes they want? So the Iyanden stratagems would still be specific to Iyanden, but you could opt to give them Ulthwe's FNP rolls to represent high quality wraith body construction or the tenacious spirits of a dying craftworld or whatever. I don't want to flanderize craftworlds, but the Iyanden one actively encourages you to play against Iyanden fluff by fielding a warhost with lots of warm bodies.

Like, white scars would probably be happier with ultra marine tactics than their own, but at least the tactics they do have encourage you to charge in, fall back, and charge in elsewhere. It's very mobile and thus sort of in-character even if it isn't as mechanically beneficial as the ultramarine tactics. But now imagine that white scars instead got a chapter tactic that lets them shoot twice if they hold still or something. It would be great for stationary gunline armies with lots of dreadnaught gun platforms and devastators, but it certainly wouldn't look like an in-character army for white scars.

The units and options we take are one of the main tools we have for telling our army's stories. There's more to a given craftworld than their preferred units, but at what point are you telling the story of a different craftworld when your army choices don't reflect the faction's fluff? Again. It's not a huge deal. If you want to play Ulthwe, just use Biel-Tan rules, etc. It's just odd.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Like, white scars would probably be happier with ultra marine tactics than their own, but at least the tactics they do have encourage you to charge in, fall back, and charge in elsewhere. It's very mobile and thus sort of in-character even if it isn't as mechanically beneficial as the ultramarine tactics. But now imagine that white scars instead got a chapter tactic that lets them shoot twice if they hold still or something. It would be great for stationary gunline armies with lots of dreadnaught gun platforms and devastators, but it certainly wouldn't look like an in-character army for white scars.

very mobile in a “encourages CC in an army that is mediocre in CC at best. It also basically ruins their bikes; can’t fall back and shoot, yet the bikes are 2-4 times more dangerous at ranges further than 1”. Like Craftworlds, it partially ruins the character of the faction it’s meant to represent.

Bremon wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Like, white scars would probably be happier with ultra marine tactics than their own, but at least the tactics they do have encourage you to charge in, fall back, and charge in elsewhere. It's very mobile and thus sort of in-character even if it isn't as mechanically beneficial as the ultramarine tactics. But now imagine that white scars instead got a chapter tactic that lets them shoot twice if they hold still or something. It would be great for stationary gunline armies with lots of dreadnaught gun platforms and devastators, but it certainly wouldn't look like an in-character army for white scars.

very mobile in a “encourages CC in an army that is mediocre in CC at best. It also basically ruins their bikes; can’t fall back and shoot, yet the bikes are 2-4 times more dangerous at ranges further than 1”. Like Craftworlds, it partially ruins the character of the faction it’s meant to represent.

Eldar Bikes have the Fly keyword though, so they are able to keep falling back and shooting. It is still very inefficient since Bikes are primarily dakka-vectors.

Wyldhunt wrote:
So I've gotten a few games under my belt with the new Craftworlds codex. I've really enjoyed the rules so far. The stratagems give me plenty of options and make me want to take a few troops so that I have enough command points to play around with. The relics are a bit hit and miss but all seem to have their place. The craftworld attributes can all be useful in the right list. The warlord traits are pretty impressive with a couple uninspiring exceptions. However, some of the craftworld-specific rules seem like they were accidentally assigned to the wrong craftworld. For instance...

I'm reasonably sure that this was done on purpose, to widen the possibilities of various craftwords as opposed to encouraging stereotypes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Eh, it's not bad to me. I think the 'problem' with the craftworld themes is that many people flanderise them to the extreme, i.e Iyanden = all wraith units, all the time! Saim-hann = everything has a bike!

What this guy said

Alcibiades wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
So I've gotten a few games under my belt with the new Craftworlds codex. I've really enjoyed the rules so far. The stratagems give me plenty of options and make me want to take a few troops so that I have enough command points to play around with. The relics are a bit hit and miss but all seem to have their place. The craftworld attributes can all be useful in the right list. The warlord traits are pretty impressive with a couple uninspiring exceptions. However, some of the craftworld-specific rules seem like they were accidentally assigned to the wrong craftworld. For instance...

I'm reasonably sure that this was done on purpose, to widen the possibilities of various craftwords as opposed to encouraging stereotypes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Eh, it's not bad to me. I think the 'problem' with the craftworld themes is that many people flanderise them to the extreme, i.e Iyanden = all wraith units, all the time! Saim-hann = everything has a bike!

What this guy said

This makes no sense at all. If a faction is known for a certain thing, then obviously their rules should support making that thing better*. This is like giving Black Templar devastator squads bonus while ignoring their melee elements in order to not 'flanderise' them.

(* Assuming that such faction rules exist in the first place. I am personally not at all convinced that their existence is a good idea.)

 Crimson wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
So I've gotten a few games under my belt with the new Craftworlds codex. I've really enjoyed the rules so far. The stratagems give me plenty of options and make me want to take a few troops so that I have enough command points to play around with. The relics are a bit hit and miss but all seem to have their place. The craftworld attributes can all be useful in the right list. The warlord traits are pretty impressive with a couple uninspiring exceptions. However, some of the craftworld-specific rules seem like they were accidentally assigned to the wrong craftworld. For instance...

I'm reasonably sure that this was done on purpose, to widen the possibilities of various craftwords as opposed to encouraging stereotypes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Eh, it's not bad to me. I think the 'problem' with the craftworld themes is that many people flanderise them to the extreme, i.e Iyanden = all wraith units, all the time! Saim-hann = everything has a bike!

What this guy said

This makes no sense at all. If a faction is known for a certain thing, then obviously their rules should support making that thing better*. This is like giving Black Templar devastator squads bonus while ignoring their melee elements in order to not 'flanderise' them.

(* Assuming that such faction rules exist in the first place. I am personally not at all convinced that their existence is a good idea.)

This. I don't necessarily want every Saim-Hann rule to be exclusively about bikes or for every Iyanden rule to be wraith-centric, but it seems like the attributes, the rules you will using the most consistently regardless of game size or how many CP you have available, would encourage you to build an army that sort of looks the way you'd expect for that faction. White Scars have a non-zero number of devastator squads, I'm sure, but you wouldn't expect/want their chapter tactic to be all about giving bonuses to devastators to avoid flanderizing them.

"Biel-Tan is known for its autarchs and numerous aspect shrines. Which is kind of a shame for them because all their guardians are crackshots with a shuriken catapult, and their psykers are friggin' amazing. Meanwhile, Iyanden is still reeling from its massive population drop which is why they like to field as many bodies as possible in large units."

I think Saim-Hann is a decent example of what the other attributes should be like. It helps out vypers and scatbikes without making them overpowered , and its attribute makes bike-heavy armies very viable, but the rerolling charges part of their attribute makes them at least worth considering if you want to run an assault heavy army.

We don't necessarily want Saim-Hann to be the bikiest bike craftworld that likes to blob about bikes while they're biking on their bikes, but it would be weird if they didn't have something bike related at all. That's not avoiding flanderization. That's failing to represent a primary piece of characterization of the craftworld.

And if they were just mixed up a bit, that would be odd enough, but some craftworld attributes seem to actively promote playing against type. Ulthwe, for instance, doesn't really get anything to promote using guardians or psykers out of its attribute, but it does make Fortune and thus numerous farseers slightly less appealing. Iyanden's pseudo fearless is mechanically useful, but it also encourages you to field large squads of non-wraiths, which is kind of contrary to fluff. Biel-Tan's leadership bonus for aspect warriors is... nice, but you're going to benefit from the main part of their trait by fielding guardians (more shots than avengers for the points) and vehicles with shuriken cannons than by fielding reapers, hawks, dragons, etc.

 Crimson wrote:


This makes no sense at all. If a faction is known for a certain thing, then obviously their rules should support making that thing better*.

(* Assuming that such faction rules exist in the first place. I am personally not at all convinced that their existence is a good idea.)

But their rules do. Open your codex to page 120. Note the bold Keywords in each stratagem:

...Alaitoc Ranger unit...
...Biel-Tan Aspect Warrior unit...
...Iyanden Wraith Construct unit...
...Saim-Hann Biker unit...
...Ulthwe Guardian unit...

What you're asking for is "My Iyanden is known for their Wraiths, so in the game my Iyanden Craftworld Attribute should make my Wraiths better, and my Stratagem is going to boost my Wraiths, and my Spiritseer Warlord Trait is going to really help my Wraiths out, and Iyanden Remnant of Glory is going make my Wraiths unstoppable. Wraithy Wraith Wraiths!"

You're not thinking like a game designer and what they're trying to achieve in making something like a craftworld attributefeel like a craftworld attribute and not a 'army of wraiths!' attribute.
Remember, every major Craftworld Eldar warhost has access to and can call on every type of unit from codex. The attribute is supposed to broadly represent, in a simple game mechanic way, the environment, culture, and the legacy of each craftworld. Attributes are to represent as broadly as possible puritanical Alaitoc, wild Saim Hann, militant Biel-Tan, enduring Iyanden and cursed Ulthwe.

It bears repeating that Wraiths, Bikes, Rangers whatever are not an attribute, they are a feature. One informs the other. Iyanden endure, their attribute reflects the stoic nature of citizens and soldiers of their craftworld as they teeter on the precipice of annihilation. One of the features of this background is that they incorporate more wraith constructs into their army, this informs their strategy and tactics which is represented by the unique stratagems listed above, on page 120.

Between the background, broad benefit attributes, and unique warlord traits, characters, stratagems, and relics, the Craftworlds codex feels like one of the better ones in actually making an big 5 Craftworld warhost feel like an actual flavourful warhost of 'Alaitoc', 'Biel-tan', 'Saim Hann', 'Ulthwe' or 'Iyanden; not 'Ranger army', 'Aspect Army', 'Bike Army', 'Guardian Army', or 'Wraith Army'.

But the point is that the traits often end up playing against what the identity of those Craftworlds is. They often end up actively discouraging the archetype.

 Fafnir wrote:
But the point is that the traits often end up playing against what the identity of those Craftworlds is. They often end up actively discouraging the archetype.

How?

Wyldhunt already established most of those problems. Iyanden works best for hordes and vehicles, Biel Tan helps guardians most, and Ulthwe mitigates the efficiency of its own psykers, while providing trait that gets more mileage for muli-wound models anyway. They encourage you to build towards forces that don't really represent their own factions in the fluff.

 Fafnir wrote:
Wyldhunt already established most of those problems. Iyanden works best for hordes and vehicles, Biel Tan helps guardians most, and Ulthwe mitigates the efficiency of its own psykers, while providing trait that gets more mileage for muli-wound models anyway. They encourage you to build towards forces that don't really represent their own factions in the fluff.

He was wrong from first principles though.

ATTRIBUTES
* Ulthwe's ability is fine, but surely the craftworld that is all about guardians and psykers would prefer to have Biel-Tan's shuriken weapon rerolls. Plus, the 6+ FNP not stacking with similar rules means you have less of a reason to take Fortune and thus less of a reason to take a bunch of farseers.

'All about guardians and psykers' is not an attribute. It's a feature. Ulthwe is all about the taint from the Eye of Terror, and it's comparative enhancement of their psychic attunement. The background gives rise to the foresight attribute.

'All about guardians and psykers' so their attribute should be good with shurikens is putting the cart before the horse.

*Iyanden basically has Summary Execution meaning you're encouraged to take larger units. Wraith guard, the iconic unit of Iyanden, are usually riding in a wave serpent and already have a very high leadership. So the craftworld with a tiny living population is encouraged to spam warm bodies but doesn't get a benefit for its primary unit.

Iconic unit = stratagem.
Again, 'wraiths' is a feature, not an attribute. Iyanden citizens and soldiers don't walk around Iyanden saying to themselves 'We're the Wraith craftworld! Iyanden are known for their tenacity. They get an attribute to reflect that.

*Biel-Tan's main bonus is being able to reroll failed hits of 1 with shuriken weapons. Thematically, they're mostly about fielding lots of aspect warriors. Less than half of the available aspect warriors have access to shuriken weapons, and two of those (banshees and scorpions) might risk making a charge more difficult if they shoot too effectively from too far away. So you're kind of incentivized to field a lot of vehicles, avengers, and guardians to get the most out of this rather than fielding a healthy mix of aspects.

'Lots of aspect warriors' is not an attribute. Biel-Tan are known for their militarism.

I sort of agree and disagree with what is said above. Let's say I'm new, so my army is built but not painted. I put down my army and it has a couple of farseers, a couple of spiritseers, 3 20 man guardian sqds with 2 shuricannons, 3 wave serpents, a couple of Fire Prisms and a unit of warwalkers. At first glance you'd probably think...cool, is that an Ulthwe themed army? No, it's Iyanden.

Could you blame the new player? He's just using what he thinks his army will be good at.

OTOH, the stoic nature of Iyanden is cool and flavourful, it just doesn't work as a rule (well, the second part does for lords and knights)

I concur that the traits do not encourage a fluffy playstyle to match the assigned Craftworld. Argue all day if you want, but they simply don't.