Eldar/Dark Eldar/Harlequins FAQs are up

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The new formation, on the other hand, could be pretty interesting with PE.

If only Preferred Enemy let the Reavers reroll those d6 rolls on 1 for Cluster Caltrops that I get every time... haha. At least it helps when they (try) wound with their single mighty S6 hit.

Now that I think about it, Reavers seem like they benefit a lot. The big focus is all about Trueborn, which is fair enough, everyone wants them to actually be worth a damn, but Reavers... I mean they were already good choices.

Reavers get re rolls of 1 to wound on all their HoW attacks, which has some really nice micro synergy with the inbuilt rending on said HoW attacks. You can fish for those 6's with more success than ever before, which is pretty good when you're only S4.

I have quite forgotten the exact wording on PE, but it seems like Heat Lances would benefit from it quite dramatically too. They may re roll their regular to hit roll, so they're slightly more accurate. More importantly, they may re roll up to 2 of the 2d6 to penetrate if there's any 1's, so there's more chance of converting a hit to a penetrating result. More importantly still, they can re roll their damage result if they get a 1 on the results table, and because they're one of our only sources of AP1 in the entire codex this is actually a much bigger deal than it sounds.

9 Reavers with 3 Heat Lances & 0-3 Cluster Caltrops (points dependent) seems like a really good unit for this formation?

So since there's no mention of the shadowfield in this FAQ edition, we can hope that it will be left out of the final FAQ - leaving us to conform to the main FAQ where saving something with FnP counts as saved, and we get to keep the field.

Nice rulings on Courts and Trueborn. Pity about the Freakish Spectacle.

Does the errata on the Archangel of Pain change anything?

Only clarifies that the wound pool empties. (I can see the argument now: some beardy mcbeardyton argued that without saying excess wounds are lost, the wounds stay in the wound pool until the wound pool IS being applied to a unit they can go to.)

I need to dig out my Iyanden book - from memory though I thought the spirit seers made wraiths troops - not the books rules itself?

PE enemy with Blaster

How did they miss the Crucible in this FAQ. Was their not enough acrimony over it and its equally ridiculous rules??

I don't see how trueborn makes this new formation playable.

Still have to "point" at start of turn...

Still cannot "point" from within a vehicle...

They have not answered about Drazhar Warlord Trait also

Webway in with blaster born, blow up important veichle, then flat out raider between the blaster born and the whatever unit will likely charge them. That's what I would do. Or use raider's dissy to kill a few annoying marines

Lol!
orbs ARE str 1 and cost 25pts

Devilogical wrote:

Lol!
orbs ARE str 1 and cost 25pts

The DE feather-duster.

hydranixx wrote:

I have quite forgotten the exact wording on PE, but it seems like Heat Lances would benefit from it quite dramatically too. They may re roll their regular to hit roll, so they're slightly more accurate. More importantly, they may re roll up to 2 of the 2d6 to penetrate if there's any 1's, so there's more chance of converting a hit to a penetrating result. More importantly still, they can re roll their damage result if they get a 1 on the results table, and because they're one of our only sources of AP1 in the entire codex this is actually a much bigger deal than it sounds.

PE does not allow reroll to armor penetration rolls of 1 only to wound rolls of 1

Skulnbonz wrote:

Trueborn ARE warriors after all...

So, we can run Trueborn anytime a Formation specifies Warriors ie KRP, PC

But, not in say a CAD or RSR:

Lhamaen
5 x Trueborn
5 x Trueborn
+ 1 FA for RSR

Because they change battlefield roles still?

Even if it did, it wouldn't apply to melta weapons in melta range because it is impossible to roll a to pen of 1, 2 ones is not 2 ones: it's 2. Just like how rending on top of melta/armourbane is decidedly mediocre: the text is very clear the roll must be exactly that number (in rendings case 6) with no specifications for alterations to be made due to multiple die roles.

Rewind: Exactly. As I have said from day 1.

Rewind wrote:

Skulnbonz wrote:

Trueborn ARE warriors after all...

So, we can run Trueborn anytime a Formation specifies Warriors ie KRP, PC

But, not in say a CAD or RSR:

Lhamaen
5 x Trueborn
5 x Trueborn
+ 1 FA for RSR

Because they change battlefield roles still?

Yep, upgrading to Trueborn/Bloodbrides specifically says it changes their battlefield role from Troops to Elites, which matters when using a Force Org but but makes no difference to a formation.

The ruling clearly allows us to stack freakish specticle with DA and grotesquery. Maybe trueborn will make a comeback, but 15 pt blasters are still pricy as feth. Dual SC sitting in ruins?

Funny they didnt mention shadowfield...

Venom ruling was out of left field, who asked this in the first place?

fisheyes wrote:

Venom ruling was out of left field, who asked this in the first place?

Someone who is now wishing they hadn't!

I really was surprised by the Court of the Archon ruling.

I know that the "Archon haters" among us have been playing it that way all along but I really thought it was a case of sloppy editing on GW's part. From a fluff perspective, I really didn't think they intended to have a Kabal raiding party being lead by a hooker with a switchblade, or a reptilian club bouncer and have that be a legitimate HQ option. Is a space marines strike force led by a servitor drone or an apothecary?

The one other thing I was surprised that didn't get covered was the crucible of malediction and whether it was intentional that it hit a random model in the unit and not the psyker in the unit. A similar piece of wargear from the Inquisition Codex was FAQ'ed to target the psyker so I was hoping that ours would be clarified as well. Too bad...

In terms of the Freakish Spectacle Errata, the words are now meant to say:
'Freakish Spectacle: Enemy units within 12" of one or more models from any Covenite Coterie Detachments suffer a -1 penalty to their Leadership value.'

So, are the Formations in the Haemonculus Covens supplement considered Covenite Coterie Detachments?

If yes, then Freakish Spectacle doesn't stack, and if no, then it doesn't apply at all.

Kantalla wrote:

If yes, then Freakish Spectacle doesn't stack, and if no, then it doesn't apply at all.

Nice catch. Someone probably ought to comment on the facebook page and let them know so we don't get screwed again.

In my codex, each Formation's Freakish Spectacle rule clearly states 'this detachment,' and is unaffected by the change to Covenite Coteries.

So everybody better keep their mouths shut so we don't repeat the venom snafu.

Jimsolo wrote:

In my codex, each Formation's Freakish Spectacle rule clearly states 'this detachment,' and is unaffected by the change to Covenite Coteries.

That's interesting, mine just lists Freakish Spectacle under each of the formation special rules, so you have to refer back to the Covenite Coterie Detachment to get the actual words.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Nice catch. Someone probably ought to comment on the facebook page and let them know so we don't get not screwed again.

Fixed for you

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Iyanden supplement is still official and allowed to be used with Eldar: Craftworlds. (And I confirmed that this was written in the supplement on page 78: Wraithguard and Wraithblades as troops are back!) This is an important development since wraithguard have access to D-weapons.

Just to update this - no, WGuard are not troops even with the Iyanden supplement. That function was one from the old Spirit seer entry and nothing in the supplement allows it. Also - there is no page 78 in the book?

Just an FYI before DE players went mad for allies...