Lord Hanaur Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 I was wondering what people thought about allowing the Dark Eldar (specifically) to count 2 or 3 Patrol Detachments as ONE for purposes of list building. Should we allow it? Should it be 2? Should it be 3? Pros? Cons? My knee jerk reaction was to say "whuuuuuuuut"... And until i see the Codex I won't know for sure how good of an idea that is. that's a given here so no sense saying so. But knowing what we know so far, and given that we DO require a Battallion or Brigade to be part of your force as part of the Ambassadorial GT... Maybe? Does it fall under the category of "sure, thats just for narrative/fun games" or should we view it as an army feature that sort of deserves special attention? The slippery slope would be if more armies could do it, because then it's probably not a good idea to allow it but if this is "a Dark Eldar thing" then maybe we do? Input welcome. I'm rambling my thoughts here but yours are solicited! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 It's a bit early to make that decision, you're going to need to see the book and the initial faq that comes out. My gut is that, at minimum, you should allow 3 Patrols to count towards the Brigade/Patrol for DE. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 7 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said: I was wondering what people thought about allowing the Dark Eldar (specifically) to count 2 or 3 Patrol Detachments as ONE for purposes of list building. Should we allow it? Should it be 2? Should it be 3? Pros? Cons? As I've said, not a fan of the detachment limit. Personal suggestion for TOs would be to create tournament specific detachments, rather than using the GW ones. I, for one, would like to see a return of the main detachment from last edition (1-2 HQ, 2-6 troops, 0-3 elites, 0-3 fast, 0-3 heavy, 0-1 LoW, and 0-1 Fort, plus any dedicated transports). Doesn't have to be the only one allowed, but I'd like that one to make a comeback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 1 hour ago, paxmiles said: As I've said, not a fan of the detachment limit. Personal suggestion for TOs would be to create tournament specific detachments, rather than using the GW ones. I, for one, would like to see a return of the main detachment from last edition (1-2 HQ, 2-6 troops, 0-3 elites, 0-3 fast, 0-3 heavy, 0-1 LoW, and 0-1 Fort, plus any dedicated transports). Doesn't have to be the only one allowed, but I'd like that one to make a comeback. I have always been a fan of it in general. The new codex's would have a bit of a problem with the elite slot since so many "Sergeants" now come from that slot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 9 hours ago, paxmiles said: I, for one, would like to see a return of the main detachment from last edition (1-2 HQ, 2-6 troops, 0-3 elites, 0-3 fast, 0-3 heavy, 0-1 LoW, and 0-1 Fort, plus any dedicated transports). Doesn't have to be the only one allowed, but I'd like that one to make a comeback. This is just a Battalion with SH Aux and Fort Network. It fits perfectly in the 3 detachment limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 1 hour ago, pretre said: This is just a Battalion with SH Aux and Fort Network. It fits perfectly in the 3 detachment limit. Sure, but it would be all three detachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 I agree it's too early to decide, but I understand the concerns about it being a potential CP farm. I've stated this elsewhere, but my initial instinct is to essentially make the 3 patrols count as 2 of the 3 detachments. It limits the potential abuse, but also leaves one detachment open to fill out points. I would also add that "slippery slope" arguments almost never hold up to any level of scrutiny. I'll buy a "making exceptions is harder on organizers and attendees" but avoiding that slippery slope is pretty easy. You just don't type other exceptions into the tournament rules. Bear in mind, I won't actually be at the tournament you're discussing, so feel free to dismiss my opinion too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, Munkie said: feel free to dismiss my opinion too. Thats...an odd thing to say. I solicited the opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted March 30, 2018 Report Share Posted March 30, 2018 6 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said: Thats...an odd thing to say. I solicited the opinion. You also called it "our," and he is excluding himself from "us." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted March 30, 2018 Report Share Posted March 30, 2018 23 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said: Thats...an odd thing to say. I solicited the opinion. Poor phrasing, sorry. As I won't be attending, my opinion should count for very little. Obviously, pleasing the greatest number of attendees should be the priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.