Question...

With a pure harlequin force, I'm right to garrison anything so long as it meet the guild lines in the main rule book..? nothing in the special rules section..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

Yeah it's not looking good for the harlies. I still want to do a test with pure webway focus and see how it works. Just, you know, time :/

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

Really good one as well.

The Harlies are the wanderers of the Eldar worlds, a cross between a circus of travelling performers, mystics and sages. So by rights they ought to be capable of camping / garrisoning anywhere. OTOH the general rule for all Eldar is that only Rangers and Walkers etc can garrison, effectively those units with "scout", which in this case is the Mimes - who can teleport in anyway.

On balance I suggest they probably should not garrison - having everything starting halfway across the table would be a little too easy for the Harlies (and potentially make for a very short game), especially when they are added to other Eldar races

From the battle-reports thread, to carry on the discussion here:-

I tend to agree that we might need to do something to the current Harlequin formations, though I am not yet sure quite what that might be.

The point is that, if a 5x unit Harlequin formation gets into CC with an enemy, they will usually inflict ~4 FS hits and an additional 2-4 other hits. Their armour should stop most incoming hits, and the character's special abilities should leave them comfortably ahead in the assault resolution against most 'standard' formations (other factors being equal of course).
The issue comes where they are engaged at long range by enemy fire or enemy FF, where they struggle (intentionally so I might add), or against RA / Fearless opponents which weather the initial FS hits. Here the small formation size and general lack of support fire makes the assault resolution much harder for the Harlie formation to win.

At present, I think we need to push on with tests of the three variations, Pure Harlies, Harlies + allies, and Eldar + Harlie allies to establish whether we can find better Strategies and tactics. Greg's tests have already shown that the mere presence of Harlie formations brings out some respect for their close quarter capabilities. The "whirling blur of colour" that leaves the enemy a decimated and babbling rabble, means people become reluctant to get into range of Harlie formations in the first place, throwing the game into a struggle of opposing strategies (which is how things ought to be IMHO).
Note, their current costs tend to preclude the inclusion of the Solitaire and Death Jesters which are intended both to boost formation size and also give a significant boost to their combat capabilities. However these problems might well change at higher army sizes, or when mixed with other Eldar formations.

Obviously the trick is going to be finding the right levels of abilities and costs . . . . .
As ever, comments and suggestions are always most welcome.

This is covered in the "Speed" rule currently - that no harlequin formations can garrison. At some point it should probably be reflected in its own rule like it is for all the other craftworld lists though.

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

I'm off to get new glasses..Re-read the speed again and there its is.. ...also a bloody good night sleep would help too..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

How many "standard" formations are the harlies actually comfortably ahead vs though? Rater than only firefights they are weak in (which is fine and good), I would contend that any formation that has, say, 2 of these characteristics will cause harlies problems:
1. numbers
2. expendables
3. macro weapons
4. good armour
5. good CC

OK in the report there was firefighting going on, but even in CC orks are an issue:
your first strike hits kill grots, woohoo! and if there are more than that, harlequins end up losing their CC attacks
you kill some orks, but each ork is worth only a fraction of 1 harlequin, and you lose a few in return and will likely have to allocate to the inspiring leader too.

Likewise guard aren't easy simply due to their numbers.

I'd say harlequins are good against
- marines in CC (due to extreme low numbers)
- eldar in CC (only FF specialists though, e.g. not banshees)
- necron infantry in CC
- tau infantry in CC

And not against
- almost any formation in the game in FF
- guard: infantry or tanks
- orks
- tyranids
- titans, gargants
- knights
- chaos w/daemons, assaulty engines etc
- any skimmer

Firefight we know is much more valuable than CC, but it seems harlies have an even further restricted range of targets they can defeat.

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

I'd say the obvious buff is to allow them 2 webway gates. That seems thematic and competitive.

_________________

Several buffs spring to mind:-

• Giving the Harleqins access to Portable Webway gate(s). Initially limited to 0-1 per army, and carried by a 'Webway master' style character for 100-75 points
  (Sorry I don't have access to my notes on the 'fluff' at the moment).
  Very 'fluffy', but really powerful if associated with a Mimc formation. This would essentially permit multiple assaults on a reasonably large part of the table by formations that can escape back into the Webway after the combat. Even if the unit / gate is lost, the damage will have been done, and the Harlie formations can re-emerge elsewhere through the other immobile Wraith gate.
  
  It also raises into sharp focus the as-yet unresolved questions around blocking wraithgates - Storm Serpents (and Necron Monoliths) do not have the same problem and also give the opponents the possibility of destroying the 'gate.
  
  That said, these options are already available through the Biel Tan and DE lists. The associated costs are relatively high and the relevant formation / units relatively fragile, giving chances to both sides. One option I want to try is a formation of two Storm Serpents which is a bit more robust and is not automatically the BTS.
  
  Other possible options are to increase the points generally available to the list by :-
• Restoring the Shadowseer as a separate unit, for 100-75 points.
• Reducing the cost of the Solitaire to 100-75 points.
• Reducing the cost of the Great Harlequin to 100-75 points.
• Considering the cost reductions and stat changes suggested by Kyrt.
• etc.

I am sure there are other aspects that could be improved, but I am wary of removing the current multiple weaknesses in the list both because the player can remedy these through allied formations and also because the Harlie formations rapidly become OTT.

Report up..

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=31924

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

Interesting game against a 'ground-pounding' Marine list.

The Mimic assaults are intriguing. I haven't added up all engagements in all the games, but they are not winning all these assaults by any means. There are obviously a number of factors included, but the amount of support that can be provided to an assault is key, which obviously needs to be planned in turn #1. So turn #2 assaults with suitable support seem to be the way to go, - which potentially impacts the list design and initial deployments.

Using multiple Animations is an interesting idea, which evidently can help supporting Mimic assaults, though I am still unconvinced about the formation. However this raises the question whether the list needs some other type of 'support' formation. Thoughts welcome as always . . .

Yeah it was….

The mimic assaults haven’t always done well in the games I have played. I have lost some by a pip and others by more….I think it’s like you say the support is the key. I don’t know how list goes with 1000 points of allies in it, since I haven’t tested that side yet…… I do think the list needs the ability to have some other support options..

1) Have a formation made up of VENONS, a formation size of 5 for 150 points and can’t transport anything. Points will be the thing..to bloody cheap and they will flood the board..
2) Animations formation, maybe give it upgrade option to allow extra units or Characters up..
3) Maybe a war-walker formation(Same stats basically) , no scout ability and give them jump packs..

On another note any chance, you could get the list into armyforge site ?....

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

Just I thought bubble about 'support' and winning assaults...and I've been playing a bit with Dark Eldar recently. What about army wide Dark Eldar Fleet of Foot rule?

I think it's pretty 'in-fluff' and would give a minor boost to the current units and formations to support assaults, without the need for either new units or formations.

A Harlequin formation with 5 Venoms, or just a Promenade become pretty useful (even with only 5+ FF) to support other unit's assaults from 120cm away.

A Harlequin Troop with 3 Wave Serpents would become a very enticing (if expensive) formation to support other assaults (3 x 4+ and 5 x 5+ FF supporting fire at the end of a 105cm move), or raiders (8 x 5+ FF) to do it mounted leaving the formation available to assault something them self next turn.

This would also give a small boost to dealing with RA (crossfire) and massing even more BMs on formations.

Regards

Harry

@Gunslinger9
So you are alive..Jim drag you to the dark side..oh no...I now can explain to Roboshadow why you've been quite...

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

Caveat - I haven't played this list or the previous ones at all, but I still have a 40k scale Harlequin Land Raider, Dreadnought and Harlequin force, and a small number of individually-painted Epic Harlequins, so have something of an interest.

Like some of the other posters, I strongly dislike the Reinforced Armour, it just feels wrong, even if it's simpler because it uses standard EA rules.

Pure wishlisting:

Daetheidi Field (5+/4+/3+)
A unit with this ability always counts as being in cover and gains a cover save of the level shown. Unlike normal cover, the hit modifier and cover save also apply to Firefight ant Close Combat attacks, even if the unit is assaulting. Ignore Cover weapons will ignore both the hit modifier and save as normal.

This would be combined with an Invulnerable Save on most units but no actual armour value, with basic Players having 5+ and characters taking this up to 4+ etc. as required. This captures some of the old vulnerability to barrage weapons (but in this case for Ignore Cover weapons) while still giving some degree of protection from MW and even TK weapons with the -1 to hit and the INV Save.

This also gives some more room for differentiation between units, with units like Death Jesters getting an armour value that they'd get to use against Ignore Cover weaponry. Units like the Harlequin Dreadnought/Wraithlord would still get their Reinforced Armour which would combine as usual with a cover save, without being as freaking irritating as the effective 3+ INV Save of an EA Holofield.

The -1 to hit modifier applying in engagements would also give them a decent amount of survivability in combat unless facing massed Scorchers etc.


All that said, I'm aware that the current list needs more testing...

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion