Sslyth Tax > Lhamean Tax

Page 71 Court of the Archon, HQ icon, the only rules that it states about fielding them are:

Quote :

A court of the Archon unit consists of between 1 to 12 of the following models, chosen in any combination...

Quote :

For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

So if you don't have an Archon you can take take them as an HQ choice numbering between 1 and 12. If you have an archon as an HQ choice you can take them without them taking up an HQ slot in the detachment.

As it takes up an HQ choice and it doesn't state that they can't be used to meet HQ requirements they are a valid HQ for a detachment.

Wow, I have a hard time swallowing that one. Has GW made any ruling on that?

Here is a link to the most current FAQ/ERRATA: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Dark_Eldar_EN.pdf

Says nothing about them not being a valid HQ choice.

What rule is causing you a conflict with this being valid?

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon" ... "that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart."

The rule, as written leans towards only being available if you take an Archon. Nothing written permits you take take the court as your HQ.

The basis of the argument is based on a symbol at the top of the page.

It just seems fishy. I want to believe it, but....

I will just play it as I interpret it, even if it handicaps me. I don't wish to make an argument.

It only says you get a free HQ slot if you have an Archon.

Like "In this special, if you take a Big Mac, you can have a free small fries"... It doesn't means you can't buy a fries without the big mac.


-_- Damnit, now I'm hungry.

ThePhish wrote:

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon"  ... "that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart."

The rule, as written leans towards only being available if you take an Archon.  Nothing written permits you take take the court as your HQ.

I don't know if this is deliberate, but your quotation marks have altered the sentence structure.

The full quote is:

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart."

You can't split it up because the "that..." part is a dependant clause. If you split it up like you did, then you're altering the meaning of the sentence.

Perhaps this might clarify more:

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart."

The red part has to be read as a continuous phrase - you can't just stop halfway through. For each Archon, you get a court that doesn't take up a HQ slot. The sentence really cannot be read any other way.

Phish, this one has been done to death. RAI, I think you're right, but virtually everyone accepts it. Both ETC and ITC formats, as well as every TO I've ever come across allows it.

I'm relatively new to 7th after playing sporadically through 6th, and I'm getting a very rough 'welcome back' to the game going 1 win/2 losses and getting tabled turn 4 in one of those losses. I would love to do this, because I've thought our HQ slot has sucked since 5th edition, only taking a naked Haemy in the previous edition as a version of this list building tactic.

@The Shredder
Yes, it was deliberate, mainly because that's how I kept reading it. I see your point though, and it does make more sense that way.

I have no doubt this has been beaten to death, because it just seems kind of muddy having to resort to the icon at the top of the page for clarification. It doesn't surprise me though with GW. I still can't help but feel like I'm cheating though if I only take a 15 point HQ that isn't even a character, much less an IC.

So, assuming, that I take something from the Court as an HQ, they are not characters, so they cannot be a Warlord, unless I have no other Characters in the army, correct?

The wording on Warlord does validate the use of a non-character unit to be a Warlord. It almost seems intentional. Still probably an accident.

ThePhish wrote:

So, assuming, that I take something from the Court as an HQ, they are not characters, so they cannot be a Warlord, unless I have no other Characters in the army, correct?

Indeed.

ThePhish wrote:

The wording on Warlord does validate the use of a non-character unit to be a Warlord.  It almost seems intentional.  Still probably an accident.

I think it's part of GW's 'do whatever you like' policy.  

Jimsolo wrote:

Phish, this one has been done to death.  RAI, I think you're right, but virtually everyone accepts it.  Both ETC and ITC formats, as well as every TO I've ever come across allows it.

Here's my suggestion, replace the "that..." clause with something else.

E.g. if the sentence said "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that may take a dedicated transport at no additional point cost." Would we be having this discussion? I seriously doubt it.

I think people just keep thinking back to the 5th edition book, without really reading the new entry. Sentence structure matters. A lot. If you don't believe me, look at how much a comma can change the meaning of a sentence:

"Let's eat, grandpa."


EDIT: Arg, double post.

I'm not arguing the sentence structure makes the RAW support it, Shredder. I just think they wrote it badly, and didn't intend for it to be taken that way, and don't care enough to fix it.

Phish- You can still take any non-HQ character as your warlord. Covens Aberrations are actually a reasonable choice for this.

Jimsolo wrote:

I'm not arguing the sentence structure makes the RAW support it, Shredder.  I just think they wrote it badly, and didn't intend for it to be taken that way, and don't care enough to fix it.

You can always think of it as the Archon (in his glorious arrogance) sees "this" particular raid as below him, and send his lackeys to foresee the raid goes according to plan

"-ggaawwlll! hrrrooooggh! gnaaa!"

"-hum... I think Bobby, our aberation commander in chief said "charge!" "
"-No, I think he is just hungry... *sigh* whathever, charge...."

Court of Archon is a HQ choice and you can take one Slyth (or other choice as your HQ)

Jimsolo wrote:

I'm not arguing the sentence structure makes the RAW support it, Shredder.  I just think they wrote it badly, and didn't intend for it to be taken that way, and don't care enough to fix it.

It seems weird if that's the case, considering that they changed the wording from the last codex.

Also, this is the edition where you can have Grey Knights backed up by allied Chaos Daemons, or SoB backed up by every psyker model in your collection. Frankly, I'm surprised the Court even has an upper limit.

Hi,

Going back to the Lharmaean vs Sslyth debate, why treat them as a tax, another option is to take both. If you want a combat unit at all in your force they are an option. A Lharmaean and a Sslyth costs the same as a Grotesque and don't need a babysitting HQ to give them good leadership, have fleet, and even have a bit of shooting ( a raider worth of them should do 2 wounds to a 3+ save MC before they charge).

I've been running a unit of 4 Lharmaeans and 5 Sslyths, and they have been doing well for their reasonable 165 point cost (I'm tempted to convert up a 5th Lharmaean).

Rathstar

Well, back to the topic, the basic was "1 sslyth instead of 1 lhamaean", but the increased cost doesn't change anything to the efficiency of said unit.

If you want to get rid of the tax, you have to go full out and buy a complete unit that will make something useful. No half-mesure.

You just need to know if you need/want a unit of those.

Rathstar wrote:

Hi,

Going back to the Lharmaean vs Sslyth debate, why treat them as a tax, another option is to take both.  If you want a combat unit at all in your force they are an option.  A Lharmaean and a Sslyth costs the same as a Grotesque and don't need a babysitting HQ to give them good leadership, have fleet, and even have a bit of shooting ( a raider worth of them should do 2 wounds to a 3+ save MC before they charge).

I've been running a unit of 4 Lharmaeans and 5 Sslyths, and they have been doing well for their reasonable 165 point cost (I'm tempted to convert up a 5th Lharmaean).

I'm assuming that you're giving them a transport? If so, you're talking 220pts (minimum). That's the sort of cost I find hard to justify - especially for such a wishy-washy unit.

I mean, for 150pts, I can have 2 Lhamaeans in venoms. They have almost twice the firepower of the 5 Sslyth at double the range, and for about 2/3 of the points.

The Shredder wrote:

Rathstar wrote:

Hi,

Going back to the Lharmaean vs Sslyth debate, why treat them as a tax, another option is to take both.  If you want a combat unit at all in your force they are an option.  A Lharmaean and a Sslyth costs the same as a Grotesque and don't need a babysitting HQ to give them good leadership, have fleet, and even have a bit of shooting ( a raider worth of them should do 2 wounds to a 3+ save MC before they charge).

I've been running a unit of 4 Lharmaeans and 5 Sslyths, and they have been doing well for their reasonable 165 point cost (I'm tempted to convert up a 5th Lharmaean).

I'm assuming that you're giving them a transport? If so, you're talking 220pts (minimum). That's the sort of cost I find hard to justify - especially for such a wishy-washy unit.

I mean, for 150pts, I can have 2 Lhamaeans in venoms. They have almost twice the firepower of the 5 Sslyth at double the range, and for about 2/3 of the points.

You are right in that the Lhamaean in Venoms gives more infantry firepower, and yes I have mine in a raider (so you're spot on with the 220 pts). However if you want something else, like an alternative to Groesques combat unit they can be useful. They aren't too wishy washy with 14 majority T5 wounds, and on the charge 12 attacks that wound on 2+ and another 25 attacks at str5. I find that sometimes units with very good cover saves or vehicles that can jink it's better to kill it in combat rather than trying to shoot them.

If you want no combat units in your army definitely go with 2 Lhamaeans in 2 Venoms to get more Venoms. If you want a couple of assault units then I think a Court could be an option for some people.

Rathstar

Rathstar wrote:

You are right in that the Lhamaean in Venoms gives more infantry firepower, and yes I have mine in a raider (so you're spot on with the 220 pts).  However if you want something else, like an alternative to Groesques combat unit they can be useful.  They aren't too wishy washy with 14 majority T5 wounds, and on the charge 12 attacks that wound on 2+ and another 25 attacks at str5.

Just to clarify, by 'wishy'washy' I more meant that they don't have much focus, if you see what I mean. They have some shooting (though not a great deal, and some of it only at 12"), they have some melee ability (a mixture of S5 and poison), but they don't really excel at either.

Rathstar wrote:

I find that sometimes units with very good cover saves or vehicles that can jink it's better to kill it in combat rather than trying to shoot them.

I know what you mean. However, when I think of the units I struggle to kill at range, all I can say is that I don't think that unit would do any better against them in melee.

Quote :

You are right in that the Lhamaean in Venoms gives more infantry firepower, and yes I have mine in a raider (so you're spot on with the 220 pts). However if you want something else, like an alternative to Groesques combat unit they can be useful. They aren't too wishy washy with 14 majority T5 wounds, and on the charge 12 attacks that wound on 2+ and another 25 attacks at str5. I find that sometimes units with very good cover saves or vehicles that can jink it's better to kill it in combat rather than trying to shoot them.

If you want no combat units in your army definitely go with 2 Lhamaeans in 2 Venoms to get more Venoms. If you want a couple of assault units then I think a Court could be an option for some people.

Rathstar

Absolutely. A sslyth court is a viable alternative to an IC or a tax. When pts are tight or your playing low levels and you want a durable combat element but can't squeeze both a babysitter and grots then sslyth are worth considering. Or when you want a combat unit and more splinter fire. The fact that they fill a compulsory slot is what makes them worth considering.

Compared to say grots they actually stack up decently:

bare bones archon, 3 grots, raider = 220.
Grots average 18 attacks or 21 if charging at S5 poison ID on 6s. No ranged presence.

1 lhamaean, 6 sslyth, raider = 215 (220 w DL).
Sslyth average 24 attacks or 30 if charging at S5 NO poison or ID on 6s.

So they are out performed by the grots in combat against some targets for sure and vice versa against others, but against many the difference is nominal.

Otoh they are less susceptible to ID themselves have slightly better armour (relevant in combat) pack 18 poison shots re-rolling to hit which will out perform double lhamaean venoms (15 hits vs 16 plus the disi cannon), and they have fleet which is HUGE.

That build was just for cost comparison btw. I run mine differently and it varies but overall a sslyth focused court is a solid choice. It fulfills a compulsory slot and combines elements of gunboat warriors with grotesques in one package.

Shredder: The main advantages I think of this unit are:

1) It's toughness, so it can withstand more firepower for it's points that simularly pointed units

2) Killing units such as light infantry, which venoms are really poor at, eg. T3 infantry, venom still wound 4 per turn, and then (cover)saves, but T3 infnatry is normally cheap so the venoms aren't killing many points, eg. imperial guard in ruins. 3 Venoms should kill 6 guard, the Lhamaean and Sslyths should kill them in a turn (but have the issue of getting to them)

3) Killing non-walker vehicles that have av10 or 11 at the back, eg. jinking skimmers (eg. wave serpents) and leman russes in 4+ cover.  Both should take 18 lance shots to kill, while again the 5 Sslyths should wreak it in a turn (again same issue of getting the Court to the vehicle, but I think a 1st turn turbo with the raider should allow a turn 2 charge).

Rathstar

I run a 5 Sslyth, 4 Lhamean gun boat with racks and usually deepstrike. The turn they come in they are able to damage, which is awesome. The next turn fire and assault. That's potentially two turns of decent shooting, while the Grots don't get any