Topic: New Codex: Happy/Sad Face?

[Ciliano]

There's already a discussion over at Dakka - with no conclusion If I'd hazard a guess, multiple IC's do count as different units of psykers - how else would it work with the Seer's Council's extra bonus at harnessing powers if another Farseer joined this unit? Sure, multiple Warlock flamers are gone now that the conclave is essentially one big psyker by itself.

[Grizzlykin]

Waaaaa thought it was gonna be ok T-T i'm so saaad not like i'm gonna run any until a while but while but i thought i had an exploit ok nvm then >< but i don't think to farseer in the same unit can't cast the same power that woumd be stupid kn my opinion they are distinc individual not like the conclave.

[Partninja]

I would have to look over the rules myself, but an IC is part of the unit - in the BRB I believe it says the unit can only cast a power once. Again, I would have to review the details.

I think the real idea with the Seer Council formation (or even in a CAD with multiple Farseers in a squad) would be to roll for different tables anyway.

[Grizzlykin]

Well i when i play i only roll on eldar table so that does not work i don't power game;) and i barely play more than one psyker

[Fenris]

It seems we are running a bit OT but:
I had the discussion in a local forum, and this is what we agreed upon in the SweFAQ.

"Multiple Psykers in the same unit Multiple Psykers that is not a Brotherhood of Psykers unit that are part of the same unit manifests Psychic Powers just as if they were on their own. For example, two Grey Knight Brother Captains joined to a Strike Squad do not prevent each other (or the unit) from casting Hammerhand more than once, nor can they share the effects of a Perils of the Warp."

The question it came down to was wether the word unit was referring to "the unit" or "the psyker unit".
In the end this was the only wording that made sense both for casting and for suffering perils.
Otherwise a warlock could just let his peril be suffered by a farseer, which would then use his ghosthelm.

Back on topic:
I think there are both good and bad things about the formations, the first bad thing I see is that it encourages spam. 3 units of this and 3 units of that, and so on, you could potentially take 36 units of Dark Reapers in one craftworld host. I would much rather have taken 1 unit of storm guardians, 1 unit of guardians and one unit of windrider jetbikes as a core, now I need to spam 3 of the same.

In addition I think the core formations could have added one with 3 units of Rangers, one with 3 units of wraithguard/blade and one with an Dire Avenger shrine. This rules out fluffy Biel-Tan, Iyanden and Alaitoc.

I also think some of the formation bonuses are just wrong, I mean what use to jetbikes have with running fast. This just encourages saim-hann player to play a CAD instead. Now the only one left of the big 5 craftworlds is Ulthwé.

Then I think some formations are just too big blocks, to build a non apoc army with, I think many of us would be fine if the crimson hunter could be taken as a single model, or at least as a part of the aspect host. I mean the hemlock can be taken as a single model in the craftworld host.
I am also a bit concerned about the amount of psykers you can take, I mean 9 Farseers and 63 warlocks is a bit much for one craftworld host IMHO. Then take 12 hemlocks as well. That's 114 warp charges. Well that does cost roughly 6K points, but 38WC @2K?

Enough criticism, I think the aspect hosts are great, and since Avengers have 2 places to be(aspect host and avenger shrine) it really works out well.
The warlock conclave works OK as well, I am still missing a box of 5 warlocks or 3 warlocks on bike, from GW, but the old box with 2 farseers and 3 warlocks is a good start.
I think we will see a lot of lists starting with:

Warlock
2x3 windriders
@137p
or
Farseer on bike
Warlock on bike
Vyper
3x3 Windriders
@358p

But I hope I am wrong.

[Grizzlykin]

Well indeed we will see. From my point of view games work shop don't encourate spam list, rather they encourage trinity spam  if i may say. When i was reading the books they got back to 3 as an important number rather often. That's why 3 this 3 that. I agree the crimson should be possible to be played alone but i'm guessing they were not selling right, just like the heymlock thatz why they got changed, heymlock even more as it was needing something to be viable. Well the problem is how games workshop push us to buy things and making them more expensive everytime i set foot in a shop compare to the previous price. But that is not the topic.

I will run the formation and the detachment as i run nearly all my unit on foot (don't have serpent, too expensive^^)

[Dread]

Just from the reading I've done, yes I'm in the haven't got to play yet catagorie, it's been hard to figure out some of what GW is trying to do. Ive been a bit confused since the Necron codex came out about this formation stuff. I've always just used a basic building structure for all the years I've played this game and now, brain pains. So, if I want to play my Iyanden army, I can take the formation and it is still a bound army? Or do I have to take the guardian thing to do this? I love Saim Hann so that formation works for me. Can you build an army with just the old structure or do we have to use the one in the book? I'm so lost with that.So instead of giving helpful examples and info, I find myself lost in the abyss of building structures first, once this is resolved and I've gotten some play time in, I hope I get back to my old helpful self.

[Grizzlykin]

The detachment have a bonus, you field a bound army if you respect the schema proposed in here.
Next you have the formation, they are stand alone things that gives you a bonus if respected, you can field them in your detachment to get to requierment of the detachment warhost. Then you can field them in a cad to stay bound but they won't take the bonus from cad. Next you can field them alone wich will probably make you unbound. Not sure about this. And you can just field your guy's in a cad, wich will forfeit the formation bonus.
Was that enought ? Was i wrong somewhere for those who know?

[The Reborn]

Personally, when I build an army I take models I like, and ones I enjoy using.  I've never particularly been into Guardians, Warlocks, councils or heavy weapon platforms.  So Games Berkshop adjusting the rules to get me to purchase them is a non-starter for me.
Even if I wanted to buy them, I haven't got the free cash at the moment to do so.......so it's the Unbound route for me.  If I do go legit, it'll more than likely be the Windrider Host I'll build, both from a cash perspective and one which will enable me to integrate the forced formation into my model collection and playing style.
I'm not going to feel guilty about this.....I may even squeeze-in a second Wraithknight..(boo, hiss).

The other codices will catch up, get their own super rules and destroyer no doubt and I'll be cheering cos hopefully, it will stop them all whining on the interweb with any luck.

Yeah, there's only one thing worse than having an out-dated, under-powered codex.....having a brand spanking new powerful one that causes everyone else to yell cheese....gah!

[murgel]

The other codices will catch up, get their own super rules and destroyer no doubt and I'll be cheering cos hopefully, it will stop them all whining on the interweb with any luck.

I fear they will never stop complaining about Eldar. It comes with playing something else... 

what I like about the formations and the detachments is that it provides a much better guideline to how the designers envisioned the codex army to be structured. The FOC never did that as it was the same for almot every army. The new War hosts tell you what units are commonly used and, together with unit fluff, show you for what purpose to use them. AND the hosts provide boni for using them. This makes it possible to make fluffy lists to an extent not really possible before. It does that by using boni to offset some weaknesses, perceived or real, or offering a bonus to bait you to use certain things.
Just look at the DA shrine. around here I was one of the few to use strong DA squads but with the current installation and the DA shrine bonus they have become a unit of devastating effectiveness. I am sure I will see more DA on the board. The same approach is visual in many a formation.

So all in all I am a fairly happy camper.

[Wonko the Sane]

Games Berkshop adjusting the rules to get me to purchase them is a non-starter for me.
so it's the Unbound route for me.  If I do go legit, it'll more than likely be the Windrider Host.

I think the nice thing about the Bound/Unbound rules is that now you don't really have to worry about GW trying to force certain units via the FOC. It's legit to go unbound, but it's still just as non-legit as ever to make a stupid army like 20 farseers.

You can take a CAD + Aspect host. That's a decent forged army. Or an Aspect Host, DA shrine, and 1 random farseer. That's an interesting unbound army.

I think the thing people will have to adjust to somewhat is that the Craftworld Warhost is very limiting. If you want a Bound, Craftworld Warhost army, you're going to have a very inflexible structure:

Want Warwalkers in a Forged, jetbike-themed Craftworld Warhost? Hah, beslubber you! Can't do it without taking 30 foot troops and another HQ.
Want Jetbikes? You *need* a conclave, vypers, and a farseer too. Ok, that's fine, but what if I wanted 2 farseers? Or What if I want to run the awesome new Seer Council formation with my jetbikes? Now you're looking at 3 farseers and 2 conclaves, just with those 2 formations. It's kind of silly. Even if I want to use a CAD plus the Seer Council formation, I need 3 HQ choices. That just seems like too many points in single models.

So I think the way to go is to take a couple formations, then fill out your army with unbound units. Or just use the CAD, business as usual.

Edit: As far as the whole psyker business goes, it's unfortunate but RAW the BRB does specifically say that a unit can't cast the same power multiple times. Makes no mention or clarification of characters or anything, but there's nothing about it in the FAQ either. So unless you're house ruling, I think you're limited to 1 guide/turn from the Seer Council formation, even if both farseers have it. Can't find anything in the rules supporting the opposite.

[Fenris]

OK, here we go again about the psykers:

p.485 "For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules."
Read this quote a couple of times first, then think about if a farseer joined to a warlock conclave is one or several Psyker units.
Is the farseer a psyker unit? -Yes, a psyker.
Is the conclave a psyker unit? -Yes, a brotherhood of psykers.
Is the combined unit a psyker unit? -No, it's two 'psyker units' in one "unit".
then goto:

p.490 "Assuming you have enough Warp Charge points, you can alternate back and forth between the same Psyker units in this way, but no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase."
My interpretation is that the underlined "unit" is referring to the underlined "Psyker unit" and not to the more arbitrary "unit".
Then to further support this look at:

p.491" 1. Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest."
Again the underlined "unit" seems to be referring to the "psyker unit" and not the more arbitrary "unit", here the reference is more obvious, as any arbitrary "unit" does not know psychic powers.
It is even emphasised further down on the same page:

"Select Psyker and Psychic Power To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units. It does not matter if the selected unit is Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase."
Here is it the third time where the underlined "selected unit" obviously is referring to the "Psyker unit".

The bold text is NOT my emphasis, it's GW's but the underlinings are mine.
There is also wording about how to resolve the perils that supports my interpretation as well.

p.493 "If a unit suffers Perils of the Warp, roll a D6 and consult the Perils of the Warp table below."
What if this "unit" would consist of one spiritseer and one farseer, who would suffer this effect, can you use the ghosthelm if the unit was manifesting a power mutually?
-Obviously, something has gone wrong here.

Conclusion:
The bold text in the first quote p.490 "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase." must be intended to prevent any one 'psyker unit' (in contrast to arbitrary 'unit') to cast the same power twice, not to prevent an arbitrary 'unit' having the same power being cast from two joined 'Psyker units'.

[Wonko the Sane]

That is convincing, Fenris. I certainly want it to be true (as does, no doubt, my regular Chaos Daemon opponent). I was confused by the model/unit distinction that usually seems to apply, but in fact GW defines lone characters, tanks etc as units. So, it seems you're right indeed. A nice bonus! Now I can freely guide/doom/fortune 2 different units, or blast away with 2 eldritch storms should the dice dictate it.

Apologies for causing another derailing.

On topic, one thing I noticed about this codex is that, compared to the last one, it is almost entirely devoid of pinning weapons. All we've got now is the long-rifles, vibro cannon and the maugetar.

[Grizzlykin]

Even in 4th i don't remember us having mich pinning weapon  to begin with it's always  something  i found weird, yeah we have good mobility but we can't lock or opponents very well wich make out move your opponents a muqt fir eldar player (wich i'm far from achieving).

[Nythrulas]

Fenris is absolutely right about Psyker units.  Anyone who says otherwise is basically trying to cheat you out of the full efficacy of your seer council (400+ points...). Yes, it's powerful.  It should be, it's 1/3rd of an army... assuming you don't add any more warlocks.

As for pinning weapons in 4th, my 4th edition army capitalized on pinning by using pathfinders and shadow weavers.  With as many pinning tests as I was forcing, I could basically keep an opponent locked down until my harlequins tore through his line.  Pinning was huge.

Now, between Rangers, a Shadowseer with the Mask of Secrets, hallucinogen grenades, a death jester and a Hemlock Wraithfighter... it's all about psychology shenanigans, and I love it!

Dance, Mon-keigh, dance!

[Dread]

Thanks Grizz, that helped a lot as well as the psychic rules Fenris. Used to that with my GK's, it's like go-go gadget psychic.

[Farseer Jair]

I love the changes to the exarchs

[Grizzlykin]

I love the changes to the exarchs

ah me aswell, it gives a good feeling of this guy know what he is doing

[Partninja]

Just from the reading I've done, yes I'm in the haven't got to play yet catagorie, it's been hard to figure out some of what GW is trying to do. Ive been a bit confused since the Necron codex came out about this formation stuff. I've always just used a basic building structure for all the years I've played this game and now, brain pains. So, if I want to play my Iyanden army, I can take the formation and it is still a bound army? Or do I have to take the guardian thing to do this? I love Saim Hann so that formation works for me. Can you build an army with just the old structure or do we have to use the one in the book? I'm so lost with that.So instead of giving helpful examples and info, I find myself lost in the abyss of building structures first, once this is resolved and I've gotten some play time in, I hope I get back to my old helpful self.

To hopefully clear this up for you, there are a few ways to build a "legal" list these days.

Combined Arms Detachment (CAD) - This is your standard force org chart with 1HQ, 2x Troops minimum with the 3/3/3 elite/FA/heavy, Lords of War, and Fortifications as your Auxiliary choices. Troops units get an ability that gives them priority on objectives over all other models that don't have it (everything is scoring now).

Detachments - These are usually altered versions of the above. They will usually require a certain force org slot in addition to the normal ones (example - 1HQ, 2x Troops, 1x Elite minimum). Troops generally lose the special rule for priority over objectives but the army will gain some other special ability and/or bonuses for building your army this way. Using the above example, you might have to take 1 HQ, 2x Troops, 1x elite as a minimum, but then get access to 5 more elite choices (so 6 in total) and your whole army gets +1 initiative on the charge. This is a pretty tough choice as the extra elite slots, and extra initiative on the charge could outweigh having "better" scoring units.

Formations - Formations are still detachments, just special. Formations usually require very specific units to be taken instead of a variation of the normal force org chart. Formations always have special rules associated with taking the specific units of the formation. So the Aspect host, or Avenger Shrine are an example of a formation.

One thing of note - options in each CAD/Detachment/formation do not count towards other CAD/Detachment/Formation options. Troop choices from a CAD, do not count towards the troop requirement for a Detachment or any combination there of (including formations). They are all their own list of requirements and units do not cross over.

Taking a CAD, is a "legal" list as it has always been. Taking an army made of just a special detachment, is still a "legal" list. You can also make a list of nothing but formations, and still be a "legal" list. You can also mix and match all of these, and STILL have a "legal" list. I have been putting "legal" in quotations because "legal" is relative. Technically speaking, an unbound list consisting of whatever models you want with no regard for any structure is technically still "legal" to field according to the BRB.

In regards to the new way GW is doing it - you have the the Warhosts for example. The Windrider and Guardian hosts are a formation that requires specific units. This group of units get special rules. They get one army wide bonus, and then the formation themselves get their own bonus. You also have to include at least 1-12 other formations along side one of the warhosts. So you would attach, for example, an Aspect host. The aspect host gets their own formation bonus, as well as the army wide bonus (I.E the better run movement). Building this way can net quite a few special rules, but is more restrictive in how you can build. Some times it makes for a more fluffy army to play with/against as you will have a nice mix of units. However a lot of times, it is GW trying to force you into using (thus buying) models not normally used.

So yes, you can run nothing but the Wraith host if you wanted to. You could still create a normal CAD, using the units in their respective slots - however this is more difficult due to the changes of the spiritseer. However, nothing technically is stopping you from just running all of your wraiths if you wanted. You could also make a list of nothing but the Aspect Host (fitting 2-3 in say a 1500 point game) and be a perfectly legal, bound list.

[Wonko the Sane]

Here's another psychic question I asked (Eldar Craftworlds Runes of the Farseer question) in the Rules forum but got no responses.

Edit: thanks for the responses over there, the issue seems closed to me. Apparently my knowledge of the psychic phase has a lot of room to improve.

In other news, although I've been a jetbike fanatic for all of my eldar days, the Guardian Stormhost might be the best value formation of the core selections. With all the free stuff the guardians get, you're looking at a 40-point discount, more than half the value of the base squad. That's not bad at all. Is Close Support also more useful here, since the storm guardians want to close with the enemy anyway?