Why are people having conserns over the fact harlequins have no HQ?

[Xaric]

I believe there should be no issue whether they do or do not have a HQ because 7th allows you to play unbound or with a formation that are in the book as a FOC so why is this a concern?

If people refuse to play you because you are using unbound then they must not have been fun to play with to start off with and you just saved yourself 2 hours of a game that could not be fun. :)

[Zaonite]

Harlequins can be played via the formations and the detachment given in their codex without a HQ choice. No big deal. If you want an HQ, take an allied detachment of (Dark) Eldar. You could even have an autarch with The Mantle of the Laughing God, for themed fun-ness.

If I wanted to, I could play a Necron army that is battleforged without an HQ as well.

[Charon]

The problem is not that we want a random HQ but that the harlies have none sio you can't play them as allied detatchment and either have to go formations (which are not that good) or their own detachment which is kinda **** if you just want to ally them.

[Archon Charybdis]

Yeah, it's mostly the fact that I'd really only want to include one Troupe and a character, but I can't.

[Quaade]

There's a pretty barebones formation that's 1 troupe, shadowseer and death jester.

[Zaonite]

Looking at the book, it seems that they'll just require a different playstyle to what we've been used to. So really, formations for battle forged or go unbound.

They are the glassiest glass hammer ever. They shouldn't really need objective secured because I think they're designed to wipe stuff out or make it run away.

[PGBergz]

Looking at the book, it seems that they'll just require a different playstyle to what we've been used to. So really, formations for battle forged or go unbound.

They are the glassiest glass hammer ever. They shouldn't really need objective secured because I think they're designed to wipe stuff out or make it run away.

I have only played 2 games so far. I went first both games and was easily assaulting my opponent on top of 2. the mirage launchers really help deliver against gun lines. my 6man units have 29 attacks with 2d3 HoW attacks as well (when charging) and really bring the pain even against vehicles. I do think at some point i will add an eldar allied attachment for some ranged AA.

[Erik Setzer]

No Allied detachment, and can't use CAD, so they have no chance to get Objective Secured. That's pretty huge.

[Zaonite]

No Allied detachment, and can't use CAD, so they have no chance to get Objective Secured. That's pretty huge.

Harlequins can take an allied detachment of Eldar or Dark Eldar to gain objective secured.

[Thaldin]

The other thing is that they could have had HQ. It's there in the fluff and past, the High Avatar filled that role. While I love what they did, it really makes me wonder why they excluded the High Avatar when they were releasing a full codex.

[Erik Setzer]

Harlequins can take an allied detachment of Eldar or Dark Eldar to gain objective secured.

Sure, but that's not a full Harlequin army. Some people might want an all-Harlequin army.

[deinol]

The other thing is that they could have had HQ. It's there in the fluff and past, the High Avatar filled that role. While I love what they did, it really makes me wonder why they excluded the High Avatar when they were releasing a full codex.

They renamed the High Avatar the Great Harlequin in 2nd edition. I've usually used mine as an autarch or archon up until this point. Haven't had a chance to play since the codex dropped, but maybe the release will sell well and we'll get a Great Harlequin data slate in the future.

For now I look forward to experimenting with the new formations.

[Thaldin]

Hehe, oops that's what I get for thumbing through my Compendium again... or was it the Compilation? I can never remember.. the red one!

[Zaonite]

The all harlequin army has it's own benefits without needing objective secured. The main formatiion (which is essentially a Harlequin detachment anyway) allows the obligatory re-roll warlord trait, you gain run and charge in the same turn - all that with fleet. Plus you get to re-roll invulnerable saves.

Like I said earlier, people will have to get used to the way harlies play; in your opponent's face before he realises you're there. Glassiest of glass hammers.

----

Sure - I was hoping for a Great Harlequin mini and rules for HQ. Although in the background in the book, it seems to have vanished. I think the book is fantastic as is, it does seem to me though that they were designed as an "allies" choice for other armies.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I think we'll see more of this kind of thing with these "mini factions" and they'll give each one their own unique Force orgs. it's not such a bad approach and does differentiate them, allthough i can see why some people would see it as limiting.

[Charistoph]

Looking at the book, it seems that they'll just require a different playstyle to what we've been used to. So really, formations for battle forged or go unbound.

They are the glassiest glass hammer ever. They shouldn't really need objective secured because I think they're designed to wipe stuff out or make it run away.

And probably would be challenged in trying to hold anything, anyway. A Harlequin stopping in combat is a dead Harlequin. There are more solid options to holding an Objective than Harlequins, anyway. Like Grots. ;)

[daboarder]

the biggest issue is that its poor inconsistent games design, GW cannot now alter army creation without significantly hampering the harlequin codex....thats a time bomb waiting to happen

[Charon]

There's a pretty barebones formation that's 1 troupe, shadowseer and death jester.

Problem with that one is that it can't have a transport (unless you ally with DE) as they are 7 models strong with only 6 models capacity on their transports and you can't detatch the DJ and Seer. Which you probably want to do as the DJ performs way better in a shooty unit or even solo while the Seer might be more valuable in another unit you want to protect.


The main formatiion (which is essentially a Harlequin detachment anyway) allows the obligatory re-roll warlord trait

Only the HARLEQUIN WL trait. Thats a big difference. The CAD allows you to reroll ANY trait. The harlie formation (and all other similar formations like realspace raider) only allows rerolls for the traits in the army book but not on the traits in the BRB which are a lot better most of the time.

[40kGamer]

the biggest issue is that its poor inconsistent games design, GW cannot now alter army creation without significantly hampering the harlequin codex....thats a time bomb waiting to happen

Since they jumped aboard the 'unbound' train I expect they'll keep that option going forward as their get out of jail free card.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I wish "the internet" would quit ranting about completely unimportant matters, don't like how Harlequins run? Don't play them then. I'll enjoy them more knowing that they're all mine.

[The Sovereign]

I'm mostly disappointed about the customizability of the formations. It would've been nice if GW gave us a range for what/how many of each unit we can take; for example:

1-3 Troupes
0-1 Shadowseers
0-1 Death Jesters
0-1 Solitaires
0-2 Bikes
0-1 Weavers

Something like that, so we're not locked into taking too many or too few of what we want, and we could still play Battle Forged. Of course I realize they didn't give us more options because this way they can corner us into buying more models we didn't necessarily want to use, but there you go. In my case the lack of customizability actually lost a sale, because I was considering starting Eldar and Harlequin armies to ally with my Dark Eldar, but the Harlie formations just made it a bit of a hassle to make it work narratively how I wanted it to in my force.

[HERO]

My review of the codex here:
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2015/03/codex-review-harlequins.html

[daboarder]

I wish "the internet" would quit ranting about completely unimportant matters, don't like how Harlequins run? Don't play them then. I'll enjoy them more knowing that they're all mine.

:rolleyes:

- - - Updated - - -


Since they jumped aboard the 'unbound' train I expect they'll keep that option going forward as their get out of jail free card.

maybe, but thats still not really good game design, its the rulebook manifestation of GWs "the rules are a guideline" stupidity really

[sfshilo]

Holy cow, the misinformation in this thread is astounding.

"I can't ally them into my army unless it's unbound."

Uh wrong, they are their own detachment, the only thing you cannot do is use the Allies CAD detachment.

"NO objective secured"

It's a book of almost all elites, how strong would this be anyway?

"Unbound, unbound unbound."

Unbound is an army that consists of any model not contained in a detachment. A detachment can be a CAD, Ally CAD, formation, dataslate, or unique army detachment.

The way the book is meant to work is with the harly formations and detachment. If you want a stand alone harly army there are PLENTY of slots in the harly detachment!

"Since they jumped aboard the 'unbound' train I expect they'll keep that option going forward as their get out of jail free card."
None of the books so far are unbound books, they all contain formations, dataslates, or detachments.

Get off your 5th edition FOC crap, it's dead, it ain't coming back.

EDIT: Have any of you actually read the detachment rules? Move, run, then assault with Fleet on turn 2 on? Yeesh, power hungry much?

[-Tom-]

Just to chip in with my 2 pence worth....

I was a little disappointed by the formations allowed, but mostly just for one reason. I really really really hate that Voidweaver model, and it's my ONLY heavy support choice, that I HAVE to take for the main detachment listing, and it's included in many of the other formations too.

Although I can use other formations to get some Harlequins out, either the one with the troupe, Shadowseer and Death Jester, or the one with the Death Jester, Shadowseer and Solitaire. I don't have an option to use the nice Skyweaver models without having to also field that hideous Voidweaver.

In fact, the problem is that for your Heavy Support "choice", you don't have a choice at all. It's just that horrible Voidweaver.

Yeah, I can go unbound so it's not the end of the world. I expect that is probably just what I'd do.

It just saddens me that there are so many possible options that would have meant it didn't HAVE to be included - the Death Jester could have been a Heavy Support choice instead, or if there had been a HQ choice then it would have been possible to treat them as allies, or there could have been more formations that just didn't include the Voidweaver monstrosity... any of those would have done.

Did I mention that I'm not a massive fan of the Voidweaver?

[spycer]

Yeah the mandatory Voidweaver is a downer, I wish the formations had a little more variety allowed, but UNBOUND UNBOUND UNBOUND isn't the answer. I mean, Unbound is cool, but I will be running formations most of the time with my Harlies.

[Charistoph]

So use a different model and equip it so it would operate like the Voidweaver.

Open-topped Falcon anyone?

[Benjamin Peterson]

I have a quick question. Since they don't have an HQ and I have not seen the 'dex, does your opponent lose a victory point for kill the Warlord?

[kublade]

This happened far long ago with Legion of the Damned. We make a single sergeant our warlord if we run them as primary detachment and they are all Elites. So no objective secured or anything.

[Anggul]

Not having HQ means nothing, there are plenty of formations to choose from.

As said above, the only real problem is their big detachment requiring at least one Voidweaver. With Necrons the massed minimum requirements worked because you have a lot to work with and it's quite fluffy for them. Harlequins only have a fraction of the usual unit choice. That's fine and makes sense, but they shouldn't have so many mandatory things in that case.

Mostly though, my only issues with the book are pathetic 5+ saves which are kind of crippling and Solitaires for some reason not understanding how to pick up a power weapon. Lack of HQ is a daft thing to complain about.

[Maxis Lithium]

The fact that this codex exists to shoehorn people in to using formations, or unbound forces is a serious problem for me. I have no interest in this mode of game design, and I simply will not do it. It is money lost for GW.

[SeeDubEE]

I think formations are actually super fluffy for a well-organized and choreographed "dance crew." And if you aren't looking for fluff and want competitiveness, what is not awesome about fleet + run + charge?

[-Tom-]

So use a different model and equip it so it would operate like the Voidweaver.

Open-topped Falcon anyone?


Yeah, probably will at some point. Maybe a vyper, and do an underslung weapon facing out the rear from under the hull instead. But, that's not a 5 second job to do that conversion and make it look good, and 'Harlequinny', so until I get around to that, I will continue to be saddened by the necessity of including the horrible Voidweaver for the vast bulk of the formations.

[deinol]

Yeah, probably will at some point. Maybe a vyper, and do an underslung weapon facing out the rear from under the hull instead. But, that's not a 5 second job to do that conversion and make it look good, and 'Harlequinny', so until I get around to that, I will continue to be saddened by the necessity of including the horrible Voidweaver for the vast bulk of the formations.

Is it the rear weapon you dislike? I'm just building it without the rear gun. I think it looks fine that way.

[-Tom-]

Is it the rear weapon you dislike? I'm just building it without the rear gun. I think it looks fine that way.

That is a large part of it, though I also feel like it, and the transport kit too of course, look a bit too fat/bulky versus a thinner Vyper hull. However, this may just be the angle it is photo'd from and I will reserve judgement on that until I see one built in front of me somewhere.

Love the rest of the stuff though.