Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Eldar(8E)

Definition of SPIRIT HOST and ASPECT WARRIOR in the Faction Keywords section

From the Faction Keywords section:

Two additional tags unique to Craftworlders are the SPIRIT HOST and ASPECT WARRIOR factions, which refer specifically to any of the units beginning with "Wraith" and any specialized non-guardian/non-wraith infantry respectively (and one flyer).

Some issues here.

• The definition of Spirit Host as "units beginning with Wraith" doesn't adequately include Hemlock Wraithfighter, which begins with "Hemlock" as the first word. Perhaps we should define it as "units containing the word "Wraith" in the name" instead?

• The definition of Aspect Warrior as "specialized non-guardian/non-wraith infantry" doesn't adequately rule out Rangers, which lack the Guardian keyword, and are of course clearly non-wraith infantry. It also doesn't adequately include Shining Spears, which are not INFANTRY. This should be updated to be accurate. Whatever definition we go with should be careful not to blanket-include BIKER since, even leaving out HQs, we have Windrider Jetbikes have the BIKER keyword.

This is actually a pretty bad definition for Aspect Warriors, since it includes Rangers, excludes Shining Spears, and has a parenthetical that lists the Crimson Hunter and Crimson Hunter Exarch as "one flyer" which can be confusing.

--FireBatVillain (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring Wounds

In order to avoid an edit war I'd like to expatiate on the topic of ignoring wounds. Let's start with a summary of all the available abilities we have:

• The ghosthelm of Farseers activates when he "suffers a mortal wound"
• Avatar's Molten Body, Fuegan's Last to Fall and Spirit Stones activate as soon as the model "suffers a wound or mortal wound"
• Foresight of the Damned (Ulthwé attribute) and Fate's Messenger (warlord trait) activate whenever the model "loses a wound"
• Fortune activates whenever the unit "suffers a wound"

It seems to be commonly accepted that the ghosthelm can only ignore mortal wounds, but not normal ones, because it only states "mortal wounds". The Avatar etc. explicitly state both types of wounds that will be ignored. Then there is the Ulthwé attribute, which doesn't care for the history of wounding, but only for the fact, that the model reduces its amount of wounds (which could be called health points as well) – therefore this acts on both normal and mortal wounds alike. Last but not least Fortune only explicitly states "wounds", but not mortal wounds. In my understanding this means that it can't be used against mortal wounds, as an exact opposite to the ghosthelm. Or is there anything I haven't been aware of? --Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The confusion seems to mostly be down to sloppy wording on GWs part as they have used inconsistent language across the spectrum of the various ignore pain mechanics, and in particular the wording "suffers a wound" vs "loses a wound". This is problematic because it does not gel with the wording of the "Resolve Attacks" rules in the BRB. Careful reading of this will show that a unit never "suffers a wound"; rather it "suffers damage" and as a result "loses a wound".

There is an excellent article discussing exactly this issue at Bell of Lost Souls http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/07/40k-suffer-not-wound-take.html

Unfortunately while some individual examples of this have been errata'd (e.g. Tyranids) there has been no FAQ to cover the general case, so even now it isn't completely clear whether "suffers a wound" is intended to be equivalent to "loses a wound".

In general, the safest approach seems to be that unless the rule for the particular implementation of "ignore wounds" explicitly states otherwise, that it applies to all wound sources regardless of which wording variant has been used. While this is anecdotal, for what it's worth, this is the approach which has been taken in the major tournament formats.

--Kal Choedan (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice article which sums up the trouble I had, especially with the German version of rules. Here the wording is even more different: "suffer a wound" is "Verwundung erleiden" (suffer an injury) and "loose a wound" is "Lebenspunkt verlieren" (loose a health point). As for me, making Fortune act against both types of wounds, while restricting the Ghosthelm to mortal wounds feels a bit like cherry-picking because of their similar wording, but if I'm not the only one to play like so, I will accept this.

--Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's probably also worth mentioning for anyone referring back to this discussion that abilities with the "loses a wound" wording were explicitly FAQd to note that they do apply to mortal wounds (in the main rulebook FAQ) so the only issue in question here is whether the wording "suffers a wound" was intended to be equivalent to "loses a wound" or if this was meant to be a separate mechanic.

--Kal Choedan (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's probably more suited for the general tactics page. I once got an (unofficial) answer on the German Warhammer 40k Facebook page that the guys over there do not make any difference between "Verwundung ignorieren" (ignore suffered wound) and "Lebenspunktverlust ignorieren" (ignore lost wound).

--Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Copying Rules

Half of the article is currently filled with plain copies of rules and stats that every Eldar player can look up in his Codex/Index. What's the point of this? A Tactics page should give advice on how to use our units and how to build nice combinations. I propose to throw out all copies in order to reduce bloat and make the article more readable as a whole. What do you think about that?--Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly the article is so bloated there's entire sections we can remove and it will make huge improvements ArchonRahal (talk)

A while ago I removed a lot of this sort of thing on other tactics pages for this exact reason. I haven't done it that much for a long time since going it takes a while, but I'll try to get to it this weekend since it is just useless bloat. -- Triacom (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you mind if I delete stats or rules that are NOT explicitly used for comparison with alternatives or tactical advice? This page shouldn't be a replacement for the Codex anyway. --Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

While I do share the view that the tactica should not be a replacement for the rules, I'd personally prefer if the more unique stats are still listed. Anything that has a common descriptor or counterpart, aka bolter-equivalent, melta-equivalent or objective secured, are all pretty common knowledge and can easily be referred to as those equivalents. That being said, when you're dealing with weapons that are only used by one faction or have a unique effect in that faction, I think it should at least get a mention, either in the weapon list or in the only unit that uses that weapon. -- Triacom (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ynnari tactics

Getting advice for playing Ynnari (and making the decision of whether to play them in the first place) is quite difficult at the moment: There is no Ynnari tactics page (only for 7th ed.), snippets are spread out over three tactics articles (Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins), and inside these articles hints are again spread out all over the place. It would be great to have a separate Ynnari tactics page, in which joint tactics of mixed forces can be discussed. Unfortunately, I myself haven't tried Ynnari yet, therefore I can't contribute anything useful for this. I hereby ask those of you who have experience to create such a page. A nice effect would be that bloat and distracting side notes in the original pages could be reduced as well. --Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Right now the Ynnari are, if anything, little different from their non-Ynnari counterparts save for the three unique characters they get. Their main draws of Strength From Death and mixing different Eldar types together were nerfed into the ground and outright removed (respectively) in the FAQs. There's simply no point to making a separate tactics page for them right now unless those two things change. --Newerfag (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

On the new FAQ

Before anyone adds anything more on the FAQ, I'd like them to read the header for the section they're adding. Is the rule or section you're mentioning a part of the beta? If it is, then it isn't a part of the official rules and exists solely for players to try out in friendly games so that you can send your feedback to GW. It is not a part of the official rules yet, and there's a chance it might never be a part of the official rules (just like the old beta rule that prevented you from deep-striking outside your deployment zone on turn 1), as such I feel that the tactics page should ignore those rules since there's no point in trying to make a tactica that isn't based on the official rules. -- Triacom (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree partially. I agree that the focus of the tactics page should stay on the fully official rules, until they are officially changed. However, we shouldn't silently ignore all beta rules, but refer to them as optional rules one can try out, and collect our thoughts about them. Any unit analysis should therefore describe the official situation, and if a beta rule has some influence, this could be written in a subnote.--Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Corsairs

Though they're a drastically reduced faction with only 5 data sheets, perhaps it would help reduce the bloat of the Craftworld tactics if the section on Corsairs and any relevant mentions of them could be moved to a new tactics page of its own? Most of the information on them, while handy, is relatively irrelevant to a standard Craftworld player in much the same way the Drukhari or Harlequin units are. This could also be a handy way for people to offer advice on pairing them with the other three Aeldari factions without bloating their respective vanilla articles.

I don't see why they'd get their own list for the same reason I don't see why the Ynnari would get their own list, there's simply too little there and too much bleed-over to warrant their own list. It's the same reason why the Imperium has so many factions condensed onto one page, splitting the Telepathica into their own list for example wouldn't really do anything besides make it more annoying to navigate similar pages that are meant to be used alongside one another. -- Triacom (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, Triacom, that there are not enough units for a full tactics page. However, I would appreciate if everything concerning them would be condensed into a separate section, rather than thrown around here and there. I personally have never played them and don't have the book, therefore someone else with more experience should clean up this part.--Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Corsairs Rules - Completely Wrong?

Most of the Corsairs section seems to have been written on the basis of a misunderstanding of the Corsairs special rule. It looks to me as though when their rules were updated the line in their rule which says they can "be added to a [...] detachment" was misread as meaning they can "be added to any [...] detachment" and the entire Corsairs section was updated on that basis. But that isn't actually the case, their special rule allows them to be used in a pure Corsairs Patrol, Battalion or Outrider detachment without an HQ. No exception is granted to the rules for creating battle-forged detachments or to the Battle Brothers rule. Without any exception to those rules, you may not have a detachment where the only shared keyword is Aeldari. This also means Corsairs have no route to become Ynnari.

The wording is exactly the same as used for the Imperial Assassins units (ref: FAQ Index: Imperium 2, page 2) which work in the same way.

I haven't gone ahead with any kinda of re-write of the affected sections as it would basically require gutting large parts of the existing material and I wanted to get some input here first. --Kal Choedan (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As it's been two weeks and nobody else has commented, I've gone ahead and edited the incorrect text as per the above. --Kal Choedan (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that a basic analysis of the gun and its intended purpose is still a valid reason to keep them. Peeps using their page's respective armies might want a "second opinion" say, if they were thinking about slapping a Scatter Laser or Shuriken Cannon on their jetbikes, and usually we're pretty good about listing the pros/cons of them. Alternatively, if they're new to the faction or a new player in general, having access to usage advice on the guns themselves (not necessarily their stats) could help them become better at army building. Additionally, I know it can help people who don't normally play a certain faction when they want to look at some details to better understand them. Even though I don't play Tyranids or Necrons, I've still scanned through their tactics to get a better idea on how they function and having the basic info on their weapons kind of helps. Asking players to go out and buy other army codexes just to compare and contrast the equipment of their units seems a bit much of an ask in my opinion. --Lumavah (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

But when does wargear analysis ever become prevalent in a separate entry and not in the unit that can take it? If you want to discuss the missile launcher vs the bright lance for example, you're always going to have to repost what you just said in the wargear entry onto the unit entry. Having the suggestions being just on the unit entries isn't a 'second opinion' when the unit entries themselves look at how the unit can use the wargear available to it, which the wargear section itself does not and cannot cover without being made 10x the size and in turn, rendering the unit entries redundant. As for beginners, usage advice on the guns themselves is already provided in the units that can take them, which is also where they're going to be looking. I don't know a single person who looks at the armouries in books before the units themselves, and then wonders who can take what and needs to flip through the book to find out. I also don't know and haven't heard of anybody who reads up on opponents by looking at their wargear instead of unit entries in the opposing codex; even on these pages you learn what they're good at in their entries. Removing the wargear would not be asking other players to go out and buy another codex or codices, it would only be removing redundant information since there's no reason to cover the same wargear twice. -- Triacom (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So...do any of the unit articles actually compare the bright lance vs the missile launcher? Because from what I saw, almost none of them do. The only time these generic heavy weapons are individually compared is if there's an immediate tactical benefit (like a Saim Hann Windrider with Scatter Lasers) relatively unique to the unit in question. Anyone familiar with the weapons won't need a lecture on how a unit is going to use them, because aside those unique little perks, they're all going to behave the same. People who aren't? Well there's a one-stop-shop for them where they can find out about them without having to parse individual unit entries for them. I'd argue going into details on unit entries about these generic weapons adds far more bloat than a quick little reference to them. If it's the order of the sections that's so troubling, then move the wargear to after the units. Now, if the wargear section were still bloated with all the unit unique weapons, such as Wraithcannons, Prism Rifles, Lasblasters, Reaper Launchers, etc, I might be more inclined to agree with you. --Lumavah (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but they should because the way the entries are written they only say what to take rather than give you reasons for taking them, and they ignore how there's plenty of units that only have access to one and not the other. "Anyone familiar with the weapons won't need a lecture on how a unit is going to use them-" Anyone familiar with 40k stats don't need a lecture on what they can do either, what is important is mentioning when it's a good idea to take one or the other, and what's a good/efficient use for each, and when it's a bad idea to take either. The Dark Reapers are a good example of these, as is the Falcon entry directly below it. They also wouldn't behave the same in either capacity because the Dark Reapers Exarch gains a larger amount of shots if they choose the lesser profile but still hit on a 3+ even if they've moved, and if the Falcons are transporting Dark Reapers then it's definitely a good idea to consider giving them Missile Launchers over a Bright Lance. Your Dark Reapers can already do a lot of damage to vehicles very quickly, which is helped by the Pulse Laser, so adding Bright Lances on top of that risks making the unit redundant. In addition, taking either a Bright Lance or Missile Launcher on Guardian Defenders is a bad idea because there are other units who outperform them with both, and sometimes it's a better idea to put Anti-Armour weapons on tougher units (putting Bright Lances onto a Wraithlord instead of a War Walker for example) because it makes those weaker units less of a target priority for the enemy, allowing them a chance to live longer and do more damage with what they have. "People who aren't? Well there's a one-stop-shop for them where they can find out about them without having to parse individual unit entries for them." If only there was a consolidated wargear section in the Codex that showed all the wargear in the army, damn, a shame that doesn't exist right? Sarcasm aside, people who aren't familiar with the weapons still aren't getting any benefit out of it because it doesn't list who can take what, in what capacity they can take each, and how effective they're going to be with them. "I'd argue going into details on unit entries about these generic weapons adds far more bloat than a quick little reference to them." That depends on how you write it, if you do it poorly then it's absolutely going to add bloat, if you do it well then you cover different aspects of the unit succinctly and don't force whoever is reading to scroll through down, then up then back down again. Adding a quick little reference to the wargear's role or mentioning how effective the types of wargear can be in the unit entry does this just fine rather than trying to redirect the reader, and whenever there's something important to say, the unit entry goes into detail anyway, just check out the Support Weapons entry. "If it's the order of the sections that's so troubling, then move the wargear to after the units." So you want the problem to still remain but instead of scrolling up, now you have to scroll down? I'm sorry but that's a dumb solution that doesn't do anything. -- Triacom (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You're literally the only one who gives a damn about this. The 1d4chan tactics pages have all been doing this for years, why is it such an issue now?

The tactics pages had strikethroughs and arguing on the main pages for years, doesn't mean we should keep them. As for why it's such an issue, it's because it offers nothing of value, why are we keeping it? -- Triacom (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I always found the separate weapons block being detached from the units to be quite superfluous. I agree with Triacom, he pretty much said everything relevant. By the way, I like the new Fast Attack section :-) --Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To note on the Support Weapon section I reworked, the reason I did it like that was because all of its weapons were completely unique to it, something the standard heavy weapons can't claim for all the units that have access to them. I still feel this method is ultimately more redundant since most of those heavy weapons will behave identically between most of the units that can use them and it's definitely going to drastically increase the byte size of the page if that matters. It'll also be a chore if FAQ/CA changes the value of a weapon (like what happened with the AML). That said, as I thought about formatting it in this manner, the more I decided that I liked the idea. It does make it a bit easier to suggest certain combos for the units that do have a bit of synergy with the loadouts. Crunching all of the various Exarch/HW/VU options into collapsible boxes will also help reduce the "physical" size of the page and reduce visual clutter for people only interested in the details on specific units. I'll get around to reworking the other sections when I can. --Lumavah (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

An easy way to cut down on the physical side of things is to just remove the copy-paste unit entries, as I've already mentioned. I don't think hiding the options in a collapsible section is the best move, but the way to fix it would be to do a full rewrite of the page, take this for example:

*Shining Spears: Taking a glance at their stats, they look like Windriders with +1 Ld, and at 31 points per model, they are a lot more expensive. That is before you look at their special abilities and weapons, and the fact that they got to keep their 3+ armor save. You gain a S6 AP 4 D2 weapon (the Exarch can upgrade to a S8 version for basically 2 extra points) in addition to the twin shuriken catapult, and a 4+ invulnerable save vs shooting allowing for some shoot, charge, withdraw, shoot shenanigans that will leave the Mon'Keigh raging. They have been vastly improved from 7th Edition, and can cause some serious damage when charging, though their cost might be prohibitive.

Next to none of it is helpful, because it's all obvious info to anyone reading the datasheet. I get why it was written as the editions transitioned from one to another, but excising the entirety of the section and slightly reorganizing what follows it gives almost the same amount of info without anything bogging it down, the only bit missing is "their cost might be prohibitive." You could also arguably mention the invuln if you're really worried about somebody reading this tactica to learn about an opponent, though I'd still recommend that sort of thing be in an adversary section on the other tacticas as that's what their purpose is. The vast majority of tactics pages could do with that sort of rewrite, the only downside to doing it is that it takes a lot of time for the medium and larger ones, as an example, I used up most of a weekend when I tore through the CSM tactica. If you want to leave the various options in a collapsible section until a full rewrite can be done then I'm not going to object. -- Triacom (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I do agree a good portion of the entries could use a general overhaul, I have noticed a fair amount of unnecessary chunk here and there. My take with the collapsibles is that while they require a touch more effort to immediately read than if it were just openly written, I feel it significantly reduces the effort to scroll through the various sections to find the primary entries themselves. As it only compresses some of the more "optional" aspects of the unit for the people actually reading it (sort of like how the Aspect Warrior Exarch's extra weapons don't really influence the overall unit in a significant way), I didn't necessarily view it as a major detraction from the overall unit summary. My thoughts regarding units like the Vyper or Hornet, where the unit is more affected by its loadout, it at the very least provides the information without drastically expanding the unit's at-a-glance entry size for the people just scrolling through. That said, I can see how spamming collapsibles can be annoying for people who immediately just want the details. But since there's no major objection to my current approach at this time, I suppose I'll go ahead and continue reworking the other sections in a similar manner to the Fast Attack section. If at some point you or someone else wants to flat out rewrite everything, I guess I'll shut up and stay out of the way. --Lumavah (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In order to avoid editing mess, I'll let you enhance the layout, and if I find any time to rewrite some entries, I will focus exclusively on the newly formatted ones. --Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we consolidate related HQ entries into a single one per unit?

For example, the current Farseer entry looks like this:

• Farseer: A classic HQ choice, and long a staple of the common Eldar list. Now he is everything you loved and wanted rolled into a nice 110 points package (115 with a spear). A codex version now is one of the best psykers available in the entire game, just have a look: ability to cast and deny 2 powers per turn -
  • Farseer Skyrunner: Superior in every way to a regular Farseer, and only 25 pts more expensive -

Should we go ahead and consolidate it like this:

• Farseer: A classic HQ choice, and long a staple of the common Eldar list. Now he is everything you loved and wanted rolled into a nice 110 points package (115 with a spear). A codex version now is one of the best psykers available in the entire game, just have a look: ability to cast and deny 2 powers per turn -

Farseer Variants: While standard Farseers are limited to the standard infantry mobility options, for an almost negligible bump in cost you can purchase a Skyrunner jetbike for an overall improvement in firepower, durability and mobility:

• Farseer (base): The cheapest and standard version. For Farseers babysitting a blob of gunline units (such as Dark Reapers) or a couple units in a Wave Serpent (possibly Howling Banshees), sticking with the footslogging version will be ideal. A smaller physical profile lets them hide more easily behind terrain and in instances where they'll not be moving much (again, if they're primarily supporting Dark Reapers), the extra mobility the Skyrunner would provide would largely be unnecessary.
• Farseer Skyrunner: Being on a Jetbike allows for 17-22" of repositioning for his psychic powers and deny the witch aura, while also boosting his resilience - T4 and an extra wound means he can take quite a few more sniper shots than his footslogging counterpart. Stack him with Protect and he becomes quite tanky, perfect for delivering aggressive powers like Executioner and Mind War before swooping in for some melee combat. Don't forget that his twin catapults hit on BS2+.

Melee Weapons: Farseers have access to a shuriken pistol and one of two melee weapons.

• Witchblade
  • The default blade that always wounds all targets-
• Singing Spear
  • A 5 point price bump that-

The reason being that aside a few minor stat changes (like movement, toughness and health, easily noted in the entry), much of what can be said about the regular Farseer (in this example) still very much applies to the Skyrunner variant. Something similar could be said for the Warlock (Conclave) Skyrunner. I feel the Autarch in particular would benefit the most from such a consolidation, given that he has four potential loadout options, several of which barely add anything extra of note. If the core unit behaves differently (such as a Warlock vs a Warlock Conclave), they'd remain separate. I figure I'd ask about this before reworking the HQ section like the Fast Attack section. --Lumavah (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend putting it in a collapsible section because that would screw over anyone trying to find it either by scrolling through or using ctrl+f and using specific names, such as "Skyrunner". If you want to consolidate them however, then I think an easy way to do that would be to treat them like wargear, here's an example:

• Autarch: The Craftworld's generic captain-type character used to manipulate reserves while having all the wargear options to somewhat fit into every niche... ...For some additional points you can make him into one of the following:

• Autarch Skyrunner: For 104 points...
• Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings: For...
• Autarch with Warp Jump Generator (Index Only): The cheapest...

I think you get the idea, a simple note at the top of the HQ section would easily square away any questions that somebody might have about the format and it's very similar to what you've already suggested. Generally a web design rule is the more work your reader needs to put in to read the webpage the worse it is, which is why I feel we should use collapsible sections sparingly. -- Triacom (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a mix of both: collapsibles for weapon loadouts, as it was done in the new fast attack section; and itemize for the unit variants themselves. This will reduce the optical size of the page, but keep the "searchability" Triacom mentioned. --Eldrad Ulthran (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I agree, ultimately seeing as how they're separate datasheets that probably would be a better approach for them. --Lumavah (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)