While comparisons to the effect that this trick can have on other armies are interesting, I don't think they're all that useful.

Eldar can't garrison (well, wraithguard and guardians can't), so supposing that the ability to drop units to gain deployment advantage has been included in their points cost is doubtful.

Being able to deploy a full strength guardians + wraithguard formation via webgate is similar but not similar enough, because wraithgates are fixed locations and storm serpents can be targeted more freely than aircraft. Not to mention aircraft can land anywhere on the table on any given turn.

I'm also a bit surprised that no one has mentioned that a player using this trick could opt to take only 2 wraithguard and get nearly the same capability and save 50 points, thus making the comparison to a 300 or 350 pt aspect formation even more favorable.

In the end, if someone used this against me I'd be unhappy about it. Eldar have far fewer formation upgrade options than the other races do, and I believe that is by design. This is clearly just a way to get around the imposed limits.

I'm not saying I don't think eldar shouldn't be allowed to air assault with wraithguard, I just think that this particular approach wasn't intended and therefore not examined for point cost previous to now. If I were a judge I'd probably not allow it.

Even without leaving off units at deployment I've shown how you can air assault with WG by using the Marshall order, with the Biel Tan list completely uncontraversially.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

While I understand the point that the Eldar list may not have been built with the concept of discarding units in mind, are we really suggesting that doing so to make use of Vampire transport would produce a radically different result?

The point is that Eldar already have the means to deploy strong formations at a distance, so to my mind the comparison between Eldar infantry formation costs and capabilities is largely immaterial.
(note If the Storm Serpent and Wraithgates was not available this debate might be different, because this concept would allow the WG to be deployed somewhere they would not usually be able to get to.)

In this Eldar example of WraithGuards, we are actually comparing the merits of Vampire Vs Storm Serpent, and each has different strengths and uses. Although we can argue which is more prone to destruction, (which really depends upon the opposing army rather than the Eldar) there are more radical differences. Eg, a formation in a Vampire is committed to the transport and is destroyed with it, which is not the case with wraithgates / Storm Serpents. Also, Storm Serpents give you two activations, and a Vampire only one (unless you pay for a spaceship), and these are a far more important considerations IMO.

It is because of these and other existing list constraints that in the end I fail to see how discarding a few Guardians to make use of a Vampire would actually produce a dramatically different result from having them pop out of a Storm Serpent.

Note, the point on the different slots is interesting and not one I had thought of, although that does not seem to make this overly abusive per se. And as I play E-UK tournaments, the option of using the reduced WG upgrade does not exist; though it is possibly a valid point for the wider debate.

That would be the best option, in my opinion.

I'd also say that it probably hasn't been tested to this point because in 90% of situations it is obviously a bad idea to trade units for a deployment option. Even when it's not obviously a bad idea, the psychological impact of "wasting points" by dumping units is enough to stop the entire train of thought.



Yes, but it has some substantial weaknesses compared to an initial deployment - no turn 1 use, the units are on the board until picked up, the Vampire's range of action is restricted during the pickup turn.

What Neal said, plus your scenario provides more opportunity for the enemy to shoot at both the guardian/wraithguard formation AND the vampire (both in the air and on the ground) prior to the action being executed in the following turn.

Agreed, I'm just pointing out that the biel tan list does not ban a very similar tactic.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ginger, we have already gone over these points enough not to dismiss them out of hand, both I and others. Indeed, if it were as much of an irrelevance as you state, we wouldn't still be having this discussion

I think the RAW are clear once you actually analyse them objectively. That is not the same as saying there is no need to FAQ it - as you say, there seem to be different interpretations and no doubt there are several reasons for that. People interpret rules differently all the time (this forum is full of examples), but that doesn't mean there is no correct interpretation for any of them. I am by no means bloody-minded about reading the rules and am quite open to the possibility that someone might point out a rule to the contrary, but so far I am pretty convinced that if the "call" that is made is to make units optional, it would be a change to the rules and not a clarification. Thus by jumping into discussing whether wraithguard in vampires are or aren't balanced, we're somehow assuming that it should be possible if it is balanced. As far as I can see there are plenty of people who are not comfortable with the concept as a whole, irrespective of what the example formation is.

I see this quite similarly to the CAP-a-CAP rule: lots of people think it should be allowed, and some may even assume that it is part of the rules. But ultimately, the rules do not allow it and so it is a house rule. There are other examples: how Lance hits are resolved, for instance. For that reason, I don't think leaving units behind can ever be more than a house rule without going down the slippery slope of forking the ruleset. Worthy of an FAQ to say so, quite possibly, but not to say "yes it is allowed".

Quite beside all of this, what is the point in allowing something that causes a ton of work checking and testing every list and is at best controversial, when nobody has yet to make a strong argument why we need a blanket "yes" ruling at all.

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

I think the relevent passage in the context of the GT scenario is here:



Emphasis mine. The second is the more important, as while the first specifically references formations, the second applies unit by unit. There are two ways to solve the problem, IMO. The first, and my preferred as what I perceive as the intent as well as the less extensive change, is to change "All of the remaining formations" to "All of the remaining units". This eliminates any confusion, and they are still stated to be deployed by formation later in the ph.

The other option is to change "Units kept in reserve" to "Formations kept in reserve", and add a clarification later that explains the process for leaving units behind. This is a more involved change, requiring us to basically make up a paragraph of text from scratch instead of working within the current structure. There is no process because, IMO, no one intended there to be a need.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

on the other hand - list designers have been reminded of an extra trick should they choose to make some units 'optional'.
hmmm.

_________________
My shifting projects

Hello - all IMHO

Reducing the size of a formation before it being on the table and having performed any kind of move action is no legal option.

The army lists give a starting formation size and options.
Once bought the formation has a definite size. This is also true for CA formations, because choosing transports is part of army selection.

There is no general rule that states that you can set up less units than the formations size specifies for whatever reason. To be allowed, it would have to be in the rules.

The only way to reduce the size of one of your formations is by units ending a movement part out of formation.

When setting up, the units must be in formation. So this is not an option, when you setup and even if you could place them out of formation, the reduction wouldnot happen, because the reduction is only triggered at the end of a movement.

It can also not be used in the move you mount a warengine, because the warengine rules specify that you can mount a formation only if it fits entirely - they do not state that you can mount as many as fit. So you can't mount as many as fit, move away and let the rest end their life in heroic sacrifice.
You could of course use a double to move some units out of formation, set them free for a better life, and move the poor surviving members of the formation into contact with the WE in the second move and let them mount.

Still no size reducing option is available before the formation is set up on the table and did make a move.

Regards
SH

Neal: I assume that Jervis' reasoning is available on the old SG forum archive?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter