Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3

 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Interesting. The "special rules" section at the head of the document has the same rules as the earlier version, though they are reordered slightly, and I added bullet points in an attempt to make them clearer.


What I mean is that I prefer the stats as seen in the v0.1 Corsairs list. With too many keywords and abilities, it's just too much to handle. The Solitaire in particular is prone to this.

Quote:
"Speed" was added to redress the loss of RA on most units, which brings these units closer to the stats of other Aspects and is effectively the only addition. There are two parts, the situational Invulnerable Save (borrowed from the Sisters of Battle), and the ability to Withdraw (rather than Hold) to allow the formation to get away from danger. Note, the two moves do not have to be maximum distance, so you can Withdraw as far or little as you wish.
But you can't remove Blastmarkers, which is kind of big deal. Also, I've been playtesting the Sisters of Battle rule a bit, and so far it seems really situational even with both Fearless and Invulnerable, something to do when you're a bit desperate. Because if you fail to activate, you get nothing. With just Invulnerable Save, there's no way I'd take a -1 modifier on an Engage. Way too risky for the quite small added benefit. Maybe if there was a -1 to hit for the enemy as well?

Quote:
Are you saying that you prefer the Harlequin units to have RA in smaller formations, and to drop these rules?


I don't think RA is a good way of representing the Harlequin Holo-suits. Since there's already an established Holofield rule for Eldar Titans, why not just use that, or a variant of that? (see document below for how this might look).

Quote:
Veil of Tears is there to add "colour" and a little jest (appropriate to the Harlequins). You are right that the units need to be carefully positioned, otherwise the Shadowseer will remove the targets of the other Harlequins. Used correctly, this rule allows the smaller Harlequin formations to take on larger enemy formations. The Shadowseer only uses his FF stat against standard targets (he enthrals those in contact), but uses his CC stat against WE. Would you prefer the rule to be simplified to a fixed number (three enemy units) rather than D3?
I'm all for adding colour (especially to Harlequins) but I'd rather the rule be called something else than "Veil of Tears" since that's a defensive psychic power, not an offensive / manipulative one. If you got to have it, maybe you could link it to the Shadowseer's Hallucinogen Grenades instead? And I still think it's a bit situational and potentially even detrimental. Especially as there's no "may" in the rule's instructions. As written, you have to use it even if you don't want to.

I think you could achieve much the same thing in a much simpler way by just making Veil of Tears give the enemy a -1 to hit the formation, and that would work both for FF and for Shooting (see below).

Now, since Kyuss doesn't seem like he wants to take the fanlist Corsairs any further (which is a shame because it's a pretty cool concept with a lot of potential) I've taken the liberty of making a variant on both that list and these Harlequins that I think could be pretty fun.

Please note that this is just a huge suggestion, a document for discussion on how things might work and nothing else.


Attachments:
Void Dragons Eldar Corsairs Beta.pdf [136.25 KiB]
Downloaded 22 times

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5462
Location: London, UK
Mrdiealot wrote:
What I mean is that I prefer the stats as seen in the v0.1 Corsairs list. With too many keywords and abilities, it's just too much to handle. The Solitaire in particular is prone to this.
Ok, though those stats are the earlier version with RA, which you also dislike. I understand the desire to reduce the number of "special rules" at the top of a list, though your list also has 10 special rules that affect the Harlequins (other than the normal Eldar ones) which curiously is the same as the Grand Masque list - but they are different and well worth reviewing / trying out.

Mrdiealot wrote:
But you can't remove Blastmarkers, which is kind of big deal. Also, I've been playtesting the Sisters of Battle rule a bit, and so far it seems really situational even with both Fearless and Invulnerable, something to do when you're a bit desperate. Because if you fail to activate, you get nothing. With just Invulnerable Save, there's no way I'd take a -1 modifier on an Engage. Way too risky for the quite small added benefit. Maybe if there was a -1 to hit for the enemy as well?
Eldar always have the problem with BMs, it is one of the key weaknesses and why there is only one "Leader" in the classic lists. They must Marshal to remove BMs. Now I do agree that the units are small for various reasons, which is why the addition of transport, the Solitaire and the Death Jester are provided.

Mrdiealot wrote:
I don't think RA is a good way of representing the Harlequin Holo-suits. Since there's already an established Holofield rule for Eldar Titans, why not just use that, or a variant of that? (see document below for how this might look).
Not quite sure about this. Holofield really only works on units with RA (providing two different saves like my 'variable armour' suggestion made years ago). What you seem to be proposing here is to make the Harlies more resilient to shooting as well as in assaults - something that was disliked by a number of people since the Harlies are still lightly armoured Eldar infantry; their dazzling speed and acrobatic prowess in assaults are the Harlequin hallmark. That said, your other suggestions do work towards this idea.

Mrdiealot wrote:
Quote:
Veil of Tears is there to add "colour" and a little jest (appropriate to the Harlequins). You are right that the units need to be carefully positioned, otherwise the Shadowseer will remove the targets of the other Harlequins. Used correctly, this rule allows the smaller Harlequin formations to take on larger enemy formations. The Shadowseer only uses his FF stat against standard targets (he enthrals those in contact), but uses his CC stat against WE. Would you prefer the rule to be simplified to a fixed number (three enemy units) rather than D3?
I'm all for adding colour (especially to Harlequins) but I'd rather the rule be called something else than "Veil of Tears" since that's a defensive psychic power, not an offensive / manipulative one. If you got to have it, maybe you could link it to the Shadowseer's Hallucinogen Grenades instead? And I still think it's a bit situational and potentially even detrimental. Especially as there's no "may" in the rule's instructions. As written, you have to use it even if you don't want to.

I think you could achieve much the same thing in a much simpler way by just making Veil of Tears give the enemy a -1 to hit the formation, and that would work both for FF and for Shooting (see below).
Nice ideas, BUT
  • this should not affect enemy shooting at the Harlequin formation,
  • with only 4 units in the basic formation this reduces the enemy formations that can be fought successfully (starting double outnumbererd means you have to kill a lot of stuff for no losses to get a reasonable chance of being ahead in the resolution)
  • the Shadowseer ought to be available to the other three formations IMO, though I do understand that you are presenting the player with the choice of four very different formations to choose from.


Mrdiealot wrote:
Now, since Kyuss doesn't seem like he wants to take the fanlist Corsairs any further (which is a shame because it's a pretty cool concept with a lot of potential) I've taken the liberty of making a variant on both that list and these Harlequins that I think could be pretty fun.

Please note that this is just a huge suggestion, a document for discussion on how things might work and nothing else.
Well, that is an interesting take on the Corsairs + DE + Harlequins. I am a bit of a 'fluffyphobe', so don't know as much as you evidently do about the background of the other races. I have read up on the Harlies, and like the idea of adding the various units you provided - though GW did change the names of stuff least once making our lives a bit harder (grrr).

Well worth trying out your ideas, thanks, though there are a number of things that grate a little (some mentioned above)
  • I am very unsure about giving the army effectively two rerolls should the player take both supreme commanders - basically it should be one who can be used across the entire army, 'fluff' notwithstanding.
  • I would be very carefull about changing the points cost of 'standard' Eldar formations and their content, especially where these are air units - suggest leaving the Vampires, nightwings and Phoenix bombers at their standard costs and numbers.
  • Also unsure about the Mimes (which can teleport) being dependent upon the presence of a Storm Serpent and its Web gate.
  • Are the Void Dreamer and Void Weaver the same character and why he included with the SS rather than optional?
  • The costings and unit numbers of the Harlequin formations are both probably a tad low, especially when considering the abilities of the Solitaire (who should be tougher than all other Harlies). He is the equivalent of a Chaos Daemon Prince and better than a terminator squad (unit), hence my cost of 125 for the unit on its own.
    NB, I presume he should have holo3+ ?
  • You have used 'sniper' as a weapon special rule used in assaults. From memory, I thought this had been disallowed for assaults and was only to be used in shooting (though I personally like the idea, hence my past suggestion of 'assassin' to achieve much the same end). As it is, using 'Sniper' in an assault can cause confusion over hit allocation.
  • Note I have only commented on the Harlequins elements of the list

While I understand you have a lot on, could you try making a DE style army with a few Harlequin formations from the latest version (4.2.3) and give it a try as it is currently presented, and then try the same DE list with your formations and rules as a comparison.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
I understand the desire to reduce the number of "special rules" at the top of a list, though your list also has 10 special rules that affect the Harlequins (other than the normal Eldar ones) which curiously is the same as the Grand Masque list - but they are different and well worth reviewing / trying out.


Well I tried to incorporate as much of the Grand Masque list as I though made sense, and there certainly are a lot of special rules... But I would argue the number of complex (hard to understand / explain) special rules isn't that high. I cut the Harlequin God for example, since while a really interesting idea, it would take a lot of time to explain and to use.

A bigger problem might be the great number of profiles for the Harlequins, but that's unavoidable if you want to cover everything.

Quote:
What you seem to be proposing here is to make the Harlies more resilient to shooting as well as in assaults - something that was disliked by a number of people since the Harlies are still lightly armoured Eldar infantry; their dazzling speed and acrobatic prowess in assaults are the Harlequin hallmark. That said, your other suggestions do work towards this idea.


The Phantom Titan and the Revenants are lightly armoured. Harlequins on the other hand have absolutely no armour at all, just thin clothes. But they survive by bounding around with their flip-belts and the enemy only having a very rough idea of where they are at any given moment. In addition, I kind of like that the best way to get them when they have Holo-fields is by shooting a lot of small shots, with Titan Killer and Macro weapons having just as hard a time to kill them as anything else. And if it turns out to be too good one can always lower it to 4+ save instead... Tho I think that 3+ could work really well. Perhaps that the Harlequin LV could have 4+ Holo-save.

In an earlier iteration I gave -1 modifiers to Ignore Cover weapons and Barrage, but then I just thought it would be a lot more straightforward to simply copy the Eldar Holo-Field, as that's something almost every opponent can be expected to understand immediately.

Quote:
[*]this should not affect enemy shooting at the Harlequin formation,


The way I look at it is that this would be the nastiest and most hard to kill formation of them all, so I think it could be worth testing. A less powerful version would be to have them count as being in cover (i.e. -1 to hit) all the time.

Quote:
[*]with only 4 units in the basic formation this reduces the enemy formations that can be fought successfully (starting double outnumbererd means you have to kill a lot of stuff for no losses to get a reasonable chance of being ahead in the resolution)


A big problem in any list overweight on Harlequin formations I agree, but as mentioned earlier I don't think that's really the main way Harlequins should be used. In the Void Dragon's Corsair list, it would be all about setting up supporting fire in one way or another, or use two Harlequin formations at once with Commander. Two of the formations can also have Transport, which makes them twice as big. The only formation that's hard-locked to 4 stands is the Mimes, but that's kind of standard for Teleporting formations.

Also, having the infantry formations start at 4 stands makes it possible for them to be powerful without being extremely expensive or horribly hard to kill or break.

Quote:
[*]the Shadowseer ought to be available to the other three formations IMO, though I do understand that you are presenting the player with the choice of four very different formations to choose from. [/list]


In this list I think it makes sense. The background for the four different formations is that they represent four different mythical plays (Saedaths) that the Harlequins set up, plays that have direct counterparts in battlefield formations. In other lists you could have different formations, perhaps representing different plays.

Quote:
Well, that is an interesting take on the Corsairs + DE + Harlequins. I am a bit of a 'fluffyphobe', so don't know as much as you evidently do about the background of the other races. I have read up on the Harlies, and like the idea of adding the various units you provided - though GW did change the names of stuff least once making our lives a bit harder (grrr).
I'm probably the opposite of a fluffophobe tbh. Trying to get the rules to reflect the fluff in an elegant way can be very fun indeed.

Harlequins do have a problem in that they've changed quite a lot since Rogue Trader, and that they didn't have a real update for almost two decades. Your list is obviously very influenced by the old fluff, with Harlequins having Falcons and Wraithlords. I don't think that is necessarily wrong, and might be something that makes Harlequins more viable as their own force. But in the current fluff that kind of gear doesn't make much sense unfortunately (note that I'm absolutely not arguing that E:A should be locked to the latest GW fluff btw).

Quote:
Well worth trying out your ideas, thanks, though there are a number of things that grate a little (some mentioned above)
That's completely understandable. Lots of new and very untested ideas.

Quote:
[*]I am very unsure about giving the army effectively two rerolls should the player take both supreme commanders - basically it should be one who can be used across the entire army, 'fluff' notwithstanding.


Would definitely be easier, but definitely not as fluffy. And as special rules go, it's very easy to explain. Also, the basic rules actually explicitly allow several Supreme Commander re-rolls in the same army, it's just that very few armies use this (in fact, the only one I know of is the Traitor Titan Legion that I've designed, and even there it's kind of hard to actually do since you've got to take a Chaos Emperor Titan *and* a Chaos Warlord).

That being said, it's hardly the most important rule... But I do think the associated rule about Harlequins not being able to be BTS is quite important.

Quote:
[*]I would be very carefull about changing the points cost of 'standard' Eldar formations and their content, especially where these are air units - suggest leaving the Vampires, nightwings and Phoenix bombers at their standard costs and numbers.
Well, maybe. It's hardly the most important part of the list so I don't have any strong opinion either way. The Nightwings are however notoriously expensive and seldom used, and the list has a hard time with AA, so I think it's worth trying them at 2 for 200 (or maybe 225). The Phoenix Bombers are different because the Void Dragons got their own take on them. Would need to be playtested obviously.

Code:
[*]Also unsure about the Mimes (which can teleport) being dependent upon the presence of a Storm Serpent and its Web gate.
It's simply a way of restricting them in the list. In another list there could be another type of restriction. It's also a way of reinforcing that they want a way back into the Webway again.

Quote:
[*]Are the Void Dreamer and Void Weaver the same character and why he included with the SS rather than optional?
The same character for sure, that's just a typo. And he's included because I thought it would be something a bit different, and to give the Storm Serpent an Invulnerable Save and an extra FF Macro. The Harlequins are happy if the Storm Serpents survive. In general I think adding compulsory characters to formations is a great way of giving them a bit of personality.

Quote:
[*]The costings and unit numbers of the Harlequin formations are both probably a tad low, especially when considering the abilities of the Solitaire (who should be tougher than all other Harlies). He is the equivalent of a Chaos Daemon Prince and better than a terminator squad (unit), hence my cost of 125 for the unit on its own.
NB, I presume he should have holo3+ ?


You could well be right, but you have to buy an awful amount of other stuff to be able to buy the Harlequins, and the formations are really tiny... Don't think their points are that far off, but that's obviously something that would need to be playtested.

Quote:
[*]You have used 'sniper' as a weapon special rule used in assaults. From memory, I thought this had been disallowed for assaults and was only to be used in shooting (though I personally like the idea, hence my past suggestion of 'assassin' to achieve much the same end). As it is, using 'Sniper' in an assault can cause confusion over hit allocation.


Sniper is absolutely allowed in an engage, as long as the Sniper rule is on the weapon itself and not in the main Unit "Notes" part. E.g. the NetEA Tyranid Lictor has it on their Lictor Talons (shortened to "S", so not super obvious). And Sniper allocation is always a bit messy, but it's a way of giving a boost that's not powerful as MW, while giving a way of eliminating e.g. Supreme Commanders or Chaplains.

Quote:
While I understand you have a lot on, could you try making a DE style army with a few Harlequin formations from the latest version (4.2.3) and give it a try as it is currently presented, and then try the same DE list with your formations and rules as a comparison.


So if I understand you correctly you want to have a Dark Eldar army with Harlequin support? A bit like the Void Dragons Corsair list, but with Dark Eldar as the main force? I could definitely take a look at it, but it could take week or two. I'll probably base it on the new Dark Eldar list.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Last edited by Mrdiealot on Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:08 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6228
Location: Leicester UK
Mrdiealot wrote:
Now, since Kyuss doesn't seem like he wants to take the fanlist Corsairs any further (which is a shame because it's a pretty cool concept with a lot of potential) I've taken the liberty of making a variant on both that list and these Harlequins that I think could be pretty fun.


I've had a few things going on IRL lately that have prevented me from getting on to the forums much, I'm very happy to take the corsairs list to full NetEA, however currently we're without an Eldar AC and down an ERC member, please don't take my relative silence on the matter as a lack of interest, I've had a parent in hospital and work on my back for a few weeks so toy soldiers have taken a back seat

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
kyussinchains wrote:
Mrdiealot wrote:
Now, since Kyuss doesn't seem like he wants to take the fanlist Corsairs any further (which is a shame because it's a pretty cool concept with a lot of potential) I've taken the liberty of making a variant on both that list and these Harlequins that I think could be pretty fun.[/quote

Quote:
I've had a few things going on IRL lately that have prevented me from getting on to the forums much, I'm very happy to take the corsairs list to full NetEA, however currently we're without an Eldar AC and down an ERC member, please don't take my relative silence on the matter as a lack of interest, I've had a parent in hospital and work on my back for a few weeks so toy soldiers have taken a back seat


I do apologize for making that assumption, if you want to keep going with the Corsairs they're all yours... Hope your RL stuff sorts itself out.

But it may still have been a good exercise to make the list, which really is as much of a thought experiment as an actual list. For Harlequins, I think it's very useful to tinker with how they can be integrated with other Eldar.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5462
Location: London, UK
Ok, I think I see where you two are coming from. You would prefer a single list that represents a single representation of the Eldar in some situation. In one case it might be the Eldar Corsairs and their allies, elsewhere it could be the Dark Eldar and their allies etc. This allows a relatively focused approach to any particular situation, where the inbuilt 'flexibility' and the 'fluffy' elements can be controlled. The big issue here is still how to represent the Harlequins appropriately, even if there are only a limited number of formations used in a player's army.

The Harlequin Grand Masque list is designed to work with other Eldar lists, effectively achieving the same aim but providing a single set of unit and formation stats and costs, while also codifying any required 'special rules'. The current problem is that we have not yet managed to reach total agreement on what that actually looks like - though I believe we are pretty close.

Effectively we are approaching the same problem but from different sides, the only difference being the amount of space available for 'Harlequin special rules' at the front of the given list, and the number of units and formations represented.

First of all, could we get the general principles of the Harlequins straight. The biggest conundrum seems to be that while the Harlequins should be almost impossible to hit in assaults, they have no intrinsic armour and hence ought to be vulnerable shooting. Your suggestion of using the Holofield rule to represent Daethdi is interesting; though it does give them a 3+ save against everything, which some 'purists' may disagree with, though I agree it is familiar.

While I understand your intentions, I am still very unsure about the use of 'Sniper' because this tends to make them into specialists for attacking RA targets, WE, Titans etc (though they should be good against Terminators). Sadly this is a function of the E:A rule mechanics that cannot be resolved except through a 'special rule' that makes this an anti-infantry attack. Unfortunately, creating the proposed rule "Assassin" to cover this was rejected by the ERC some years ago, and I do not think their view has changed.

I still think 5 strong formations or larger is the ideal size, depending on the individual unit stats (4 is too vulnerable to shooting and especially BMs irrespective of the armour). I agree the addition of 'transport' makes a difference, which in turn brings us to the stats and cost of these units, and whether for example we should present two formations, one including the relevant transport and the other without.
The same approach could be taken with the different Harlequin units and characters (as you have done in your list), though I personally prefer to give the player a bit more freedom by using upgrades to a sub-optimal formation. So for example a 4 strong formation but allowing the player to use various unit upgrades to make it optimal but in different configurations.

What we really need to do is to agree on these basics which can then be used either way, in bespoke lists such as you have both presented, or in a "Harlequin" list that can be allied to other Eldar lists.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Ginger wrote:
Ok, I think I see where you two are coming from. You would prefer a single list that represents a single representation of the Eldar in some situation. In one case it might be the Eldar Corsairs and their allies, elsewhere it could be the Dark Eldar and their allies etc. This allows a relatively focused approach to any particular situation, where the inbuilt 'flexibility' and the 'fluffy' elements can be controlled. The big issue here is still how to represent the Harlequins appropriately, even if there are only a limited number of formations used in a player's army.


Yes, that's exactly right.

Quote:
The Harlequin Grand Masque list is designed to work with other Eldar lists, effectively achieving the same aim but providing a single set of unit and formation stats and costs, while also codifying any required 'special rules'. The current problem is that we have not yet managed to reach total agreement on what that actually looks like - though I believe we are pretty close.


I think we can all agree that Harlequins struggle be an Epic list of their own, and other Eldar lists are not designed with Harlequins in mind. In my opinion, a list such as the Grand Masque where Harlequins are at the core of the list would have a more realistic chance of getting to a place where it could be approved if you added the type of units and formations that you want to ally with into the list itself. Alternatively, you can refer to other lists and state that the player can choose between different specific formations that are subject to different restrictions.

Otherwise, the player would just be playing a better list of whatever list they're already playing. It would be Biel-Tan + Harlequins, and that probably wouldn't be particularly balanced.

Quote:
First of all, could we get the general principles of the Harlequins straight. The biggest conundrum seems to be that while the Harlequins should be almost impossible to hit in assaults, they have no intrinsic armour and hence ought to be vulnerable shooting. Your suggestion of using the Holofield rule to represent Daethdi is interesting; though it does give them a 3+ save against everything, which some 'purists' may disagree with, though I agree it is familiar.
It does make them powerful I agree, but I think they should be. It also neatly fixes the fact that with an ordinary save they would be more vulnerable against MW and TK than they are against small arms fire or barrage weapons, which there would be no reason for. With the Holofield they would also be immune to disrupt.

The Holofield works by misdirection, not by stopping anything. And if 3+ turns out to be too much, it would be fairly easy to make it 3+ in the Engage and 4+/5+ against shooting (or something). The number is less important, as a weaker Holo-field would mean you could motivate bigger formations. But again, I would like the Harlequins to be few in number but very frustrating for the opponent to deal with.

Quote:
I still think 5 strong formations or larger is the ideal size, depending on the individual unit stats (4 is too vulnerable to shooting and especially BMs irrespective of the armour). I agree the addition of 'transport' makes a difference, which in turn brings us to the stats and cost of these units, and whether for example we should present two formations, one including the relevant transport and the other without.


4 or 5 isn't a huge difference, so I'd be prepared to try that too. Not sure what you mean about two formations, with or without transport is usually handled by offering the possibility of an Upgrade?

Quote:
The same approach could be taken with the different Harlequin units and characters (as you have done in your list), though I personally prefer to give the player a bit more freedom by using upgrades to a sub-optimal formation. So for example a 4 strong formation but allowing the player to use various unit upgrades to make it optimal but in different configurations.
That would be a more standard way of doing it for sure. But I'd like to try the "play-based" way of doing it as well, it's really really fluffy.

Quote:
What we really need to do is to agree on these basics which can then be used either way, in bespoke lists such as you have both presented, or in a "Harlequin" list that can be allied to other Eldar lists.
Or we could do both. Like I wrote above, a Harlequin list that you can ally directly to standard Eldar / Dark Eldar lists will just be "Harlequins + Standard list" with no real drawbacks in terms of choice and power, possibly problems in terms of balance, and quite a lot of overhead in terms of special rules. I really think bespoke lists are the way to go, and that the Grand Masque would be better off if it became one itself.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5462
Location: London, UK
Mrdiealot wrote:
Ginger wrote:
The Harlequin Grand Masque list is designed to work with other Eldar lists, effectively achieving the same aim but providing a single set of unit and formation stats and costs, while also codifying any required 'special rules'. The current problem is that we have not yet managed to reach total agreement on what that actually looks like - though I believe we are pretty close.

I think we can all agree that Harlequins struggle be an Epic list of their own, and other Eldar lists are not designed with Harlequins in mind. In my opinion, a list such as the Grand Masque where Harlequins are at the core of the list would have a more realistic chance of getting to a place where it could be approved if you added the type of units and formations that you want to ally with into the list itself. Alternatively, you can refer to other lists and state that the player can choose between different specific formations that are subject to different restrictions.

Otherwise, the player would just be playing a better list of whatever list they're already playing. It would be Biel-Tan + Harlequins, and that probably wouldn't be particularly balanced.

And this is where we disagree. In summary regardless of how it is achieved, we agree that the Harlequin units are ‘better’ than the standard Eldar equivalent, a kind of Uber-Aspect. The formations in the Grand Masque list are built and costed accordingly to counter that precise problem.

A Biel Tan army can already be built containing only Aspects and transport, which mimics the situation of the Grand Masque list, but it is much weaker than more conventional armies containing one or two Aspect formations. Allowing the player to swap in more expensive Harlequin formations to replace the Aspects will not unbalance the Biel Tan list, providing the Harlequin stats and costs are themselves ‘balanced’.

While I agree that it should be possible to build lists that reflect ‘fluffy’ campaigns or other situations, these lists need to use the same definitions for Harlequin units and formations to avoid total chaos and confusion, and that extends to all the ‘special rules’ needed to reflect their qualities.

So, we come back to the question; just what are the Harlequin formations, units and stats?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2404
Location: UK
Meh, I think there's a lot to be said for the Epic 40k way of representing harlequins: they were just statted as aspect warriors, solitaires were exarchs :) In EA it amounts to 'counts as howling banshees' and done :)

Whilst it's been interesting to see some games played with them as a list, I really didn't think you truly expected them to be reach approval. Maybe the ambition just needs to come down a notch. As has been mentioned, they are barely an army in 40k, let alone in epic scale. I'm sure people are capable of statting up a fun house rule harlequin formation - aspect warriors with first strike, CC2+ and an invulnerable save (or one special rule -1 to hit in CC - unique but simple). If players want to mutually agree to use it an eldar or dark eldar list, they can.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3322
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
+1 on Kyrts comments.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 203
Kyrt wrote:
Meh, I think there's a lot to be said for the Epic 40k way of representing harlequins: they were just statted as aspect warriors, solitaires were exarchs :) In EA it amounts to 'counts as howling banshees' and done :)


This argument doesn't hold water as the same could be said of Blood Angels (red marines), Dark Angels (green marines), White Scars (white marines), and yet these all have lists, one of them put out by GW. The only difference here is more people like Marines than Harlequins, and so gathering a consensus and putting together a list for approval is more difficult. ;)

Harlequins are a great opportunity to add a bit of left field theatre to EA (pun intended).

_________________
Wargame player finder, Epic resource:
http://miniwars.co.uk

Online solutions:
http://cloudlevel.me


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5462
Location: London, UK
I agree Elsemore.

In principle the Harlequins are a bit like chaos daemons; they are effectively a different troop type, with their own stats and special rules, that can be allied with (used by) various Eldar Craftworlds. Usually they are present in small numbers, highly effective in close combat, but don’t stay after their “performance”.

The whole issue is trying to find an approach that people can work with. Perhaps people could help by providing the list of special rules that they dislike and want removed, and those that they are prepared to accept.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2404
Location: UK
elsmore01 wrote:
Kyrt wrote:
Meh, I think there's a lot to be said for the Epic 40k way of representing harlequins: they were just statted as aspect warriors, solitaires were exarchs :) In EA it amounts to 'counts as howling banshees' and done :)


This argument doesn't hold water as the same could be said of Blood Angels (red marines), Dark Angels (green marines), White Scars (white marines), and yet these all have lists, one of them put out by GW. The only difference here is more people like Marines than Harlequins, and so gathering a consensus and putting together a list for approval is more difficult. ;)

Harlequins are a great opportunity to add a bit of left field theatre to EA (pun intended).


Well they would indeed be equivalent, if harlequins were an army-scale force like the space marine chapters are. I don't know if they've been presented that way lately but they certainly didn't use to be (hence the need to ally them in this list). Not to misquote Ginger but they do seem more like a unit type than an army. What we're talking about here is wanting to create a new eldar list with one or two more formations in it. For me, a better analogy is a vespid list. We are unlikely to get a vespid list, but if there's another Tau list we might include some vespid units, and in the mean time someone interested enough could stat them up and use them like kroot in friendly games.

But setting aside the scale, that marines are more popular is exactly the key difference. There's barely a need for those armies you mention, and if very few people were interested in blood angels then they would indeed stay as red marines with a house rule death company. In fact several of those marine lists, despite being vastly more mainstream, still don't have approved army lists - codex is close enough, and not enough demand to push them all the way. So it's not that harlequins aren't important or flavourful enough to deserve being represented somehow, it's just very hard to get a list approved.

To turn your example around, you might say the only reason we have an approved white scars list is because GW published one - the cause-effect is reversed here. GW isn't around to cut out the difficulty in making a harlequin list. As it stands, to make a whole list and get it approved is much harder - especially one as wacky as this.

Wouldn't it be more feasible to break it down to just enough to represent the unique part - the actual harlequins, stat some up and slot them in somewhere? It won't be a tournament army list, but does it need to be?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5462
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Wouldn't it be more feasible to break it down to just enough to represent the unique part - the actual harlequins, stat some up and slot them in somewhere? It won't be a tournament army list, but does it need to be?
LoL, I / we have been trying to “stat them up” for a number of years now. ;)

The stats in the Grand Masque list are pretty close IMO, (though not set in stone, and I do like some of the suggestions made be MrDiealot) but this still leaves the debate over the special rules. I am not saying that the Corsairs list is a waste of space - far from it - and this is the kind of thing you are also suggesting. BUT we need to agree on the stats and rules. . .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harlequin Grand Masque V4.2.3
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2404
Location: UK
Ginger wrote:
LoL, I / we have been trying to “stat them up” for a number of years now. ;)

The stats in the Grand Masque list are pretty close IMO, (though not set in stone, and I do like some of the suggestions made be MrDiealot) but this still leaves the debate over the special rules. I am not saying that the Corsairs list is a waste of space - far from it - and this is the kind of thing you are also suggesting. BUT we need to agree on the stats and rules. . .

That's my point though, you haven't. You've been trying to create stats for them, plus a load of characters, plus no less than 6 special rules (in addition to all the Eldar ones), plus not just one list structure but several all at once. You're trying to create the single most complicated list in the game, for an army that is on the fringes of both playability and popularity.

But OK, special rules: I took a look, and TBH I would say none of them are needed. The only one I think is necessary is May Not Garrison, and that's already covered by Eldar. I would just make a formation that replaces Aspect Warriors, with the choice of Harlequins (2x3+ CC, no armour, inv save, first strike, infiltrate), Mimes (harlequins with teleport) and death jesters (dark reapers). Solitaire same stats as exarch. Shadowseer gives +Farsight and Inspiring.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net