When the Harlequins won, they waded into a formation of Minervan tanks and killed them all without losing a single stand. Then another formation of Harlequin jetbikes clipped a Mech Inf formation with lots of teleporting support, doing it major damage, and then was later shot at indiscriminately until it vanished into a grease spot. The terrain and rolls went well together with other factors that made me involuntarily smirk as everything I touched I killed. My opponent was unamused.

Payback is a bitch though. The next game there was precious little I could do. Overwatch and artillery were the Achilles heels of a force comprised mostly of CC assault troops. That is to be expected I suppose, but the cost per stand makes them painful to lose.

The problem I ran into was that the stats are actually WORSE than the old Sotec list in which he allowed Harlequins into the Eldar list as a 0-1 formation. That mini-list was widely regarded as the 'oh crap' list when you saw it fielded, knowing you would have your choice of chopped, diced, or pureed troops. When I made the list I toned them down, but even then they excelled in certain situations. And the bad news is (for us at least) we really can't make them much worse without forming disparity with the fluff.

Stats remaining roughly equal or better, plus points adjustment making them either roughly equal or slightly cheaper, equals either more Harlie formations or more formations in general.

I understand your vision of the Harlequins. The 1.0 list I made was done with the same intention. That list was an even bigger killer, albeit the list was played only a handful of times. Honestly, I believe that we may have to be satisfied with only one or two formations 'wading' through the enemy while being supported by other non-Harlequin formations (or Harlequin led formations).

As to the randomness of Harlequins, that doesn't seem to fit well. These are guys who are masters of the webway and rare at best. It seems that were they to show up their purpose and precision would be exact.

We may be reaching a Planck's Constant on the Harlequins as they relate to Epic. Perhaps there is just no way to fit them properly into a typical tourney list.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Nicely summed up Mosc; it seems to match the general experience elsewhere. As you say, the results tend to be very binary - opponents either shoot the Harlies dead at a distance, or they die horribly in assaults. And it is not possible to nerf the stats to a sensible level without removing the essential spirit and feel of the Harlies.

Hence the suggestions for trying to limit them in other ways. Essentially the ideas I presented can be summed up as:

• Reduce the number of independent Harlequin formations (using the 1/3 section etc)
• Reduce the geography where they can operate (tying them to 'gates and their leader etc)
• Reduce the time they are able to operate on the battlefield (delaying their entry in some way, or using the "Avatar" process so they are only around for a single turn)
• Dilute their effect by adding them to other formations (Upgrade characters, units, or perhaps even replacements)

These are not mutually exclusive ideas, perhaps there are other ways we can limit their effectiveness. The intention is to make their use less 'binary' and more dependent on the skillfull deployment and use of the Harlequins as a limited resource.

Also note, the Webway initiative was purely a crude mechanism to try to delay their availability slightly without any basis on 'fluff'. If that or any other idea is viable, we can present the relevant 'fluff' to explain the thinking.

I agree. ALTHOUGH anyone who thinks differently is more than welcome to take the current list out for a spin. Playtesting was severely limited so perhaps I am missing something? I'm not all knowing and maybe your experience will show that my concerns are overstated.

If anyone else has suggestions on the new list (or want to run with it) let me know.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

On first glance without playtests, I think you may be correct that the special rules need reviewing / revising. As written, the Harlequin rule gives the opponent two simple strategies to win; destroy the allies to deny the Harlequins three of the five objectives, and destroy the Great Harlequin to remove all Harlequins at a stroke

Could we try the following changes to the "Harlequin" rule

This latter both compensates for the loss of teleport, concentrates Harlequin activities around the portals, and gives the opponent a third strategy of destroying portals to confine the Eldar activities.

Finally, the 1/3 constraint on Eldar Allies is also too restrictive - it basically rules out the use of titans and airpower.
However with the above clarifications, the list now starts to present the Eldar player with some hard choices on how to use Harlequins, which in turn means we only need restrict Eldar allies to formations taken from any single Eldar list.

Two other thoughts / questions:-
1) How many Solitaire units are allowed; 1 per formation, or 1 for the entire list? I have always assumed the latter, but the list is now becoming ambiguous

2) Why the inclusion of the the Harlequin Wraith Lord? If you like the above, I think it becomes redundant.

Further thoughts:- The Harlequin jetbikes are still the 'must have' formation; even at 275 per formation (with Leader) you can get 13 such formations which is likely both to out-activate enemy and potentially to out fight them with the extra attacks.

Suggest making Promenade, Mimic (and Animation if retained) into 'support' formations at a ratio of 2 for each Troupe (which perhaps ought to be renamed 'Harlequin masque'), and consider revising the cost for the 'promenade' to 275 or even 300.

Also, how would shooting and assaults work when the Venom is transporting other units?

• Can the transported units be targeted and assigned hits?
• How would 'Holofield' work on the Venom?? RAW it replaces the Venom 5+ save; were you intending to give the Venom RA like the other formations (which does seem reasonable)?
• Would the Venom Holofield cover the transported unit?

1) Yes, I think the Great Harlequin should be given Leader.
Note, the addition of 'Leader' to Harlequin formations may be a bit overpowering in it's own right as it allows greater BM removal, although this would reflect the highly elite status of the Harlequins, even within Eldar circles. If it proves overpowering, we can simply change the name and associated condition to 'Commander', which would also more accurately reflect their leading other formations into battle.

2) Re-entry to the Webway would normally be accomplished by moving to a nearby gate. This could be through an activation, consolidation or withdrawal. Note, once in the Webway, BMs would remain and would need to be removed through rallying as usual. However on the loss of all Harlequin 'Leaders' (commanders) by turn 3-4, all the Harlequin formations would simply be removed from the game it being assumed that they have abandoned their 'allies' to their fate.

3) On portals, I was considering the use of Storm Serpents that can be destroyed rather than the purchased Wraithgate. Also, there are still some outstanding issues over the use of portals around blocking and activation etc that need to be reviewed elsewhere.

4) Yes I think the 1/3 allies constraint is too restrictive, and no longer necessary. For example, buying 2-3 Storm Serpents leaves very little room for any more 'normal' formations out of the 1000 points in a 3K army (and we are skewing the list towards that as a significant option).
The list now poses the Eldar player with conflicting choices around mobility, activations, end-game objectives and formation choices etc. which should provide a more challenging and flexible game for both players while still retaining the Harlequin 'look and feel'. While Harlequins are still likely to rip up opposing formations in assault, they must now be used with more consideration of victory conditions.
This does raise the question of whether the 'allies' 1/3 titan and airpower relates to the entire list total, or just to the portion assigned to the allies . . .
Also, I presume the 'allies' would still be allowed to bring on the Avatar near a Farseer . . .

5) I agree 1 Solitaire per list. The wording probably needs revising accordingly to be crystal clear. I also like the increased mobility to 20cm, very characterfull

6) I really like Venoms, the concept is sound overall and presents the ability to treat the 'pilot' and vehicle separately from the 'passenger'. However, the wording probably needs clearing up to explain how they would work; perhaps the following
Given this represents the use of Daethdi fields etc I think the Venom ought to be 5+ RA (like the rest of the Harlequins this represents exquisite skills and speed etc). However, I agree that Holofield would make everything more powerfull and slightly more complex again, and would thus need really carefull consideration.

Cost of the Venom is about right at 20-25 points considering the Wave Serpent at 50 points.
(I have never been a fan of the 65 point Falcon, though I guess we may just have to accept it here.)
The point is that the upgrades of additional units and transport makes for some interesting sums; another reason to remove the 1/3 allies constraint which allows a little more flexibility (and choice) to creep in.

I would keep to 0-1 Wraithgates to allow for destruction etc (keeps the Eldar on their toes )

Leaders (commanders) at 50 points would probably be excessive, though we can fall back on that if needed. Try putting together some practice lists and you will see what I mean about the whole thing becoming self-balancing; if the player wants an all-Harlie list he becomes quickly constrained by the various new list elements.

I quite like tying the 'laughing god' to the Great Harlequin, just unsure whether that fits the 'fluff' or not

I did think of the Venoms being LV not inf so potentially targetable by other weapons (like Vypers) hence the increase to 5+ RA. Also I intended to express the principle of assigning two hits to a Venom carrying a passenger, not one.