I think Dark Eldar is the first unique and good codex overall GW has made in a while

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ryuken87**

Homeskillet wrote:

I've been waiting to hear results of people running large packs of Grotesques with a Haemonculus. I think the Haemy is necessary to bump up the PFP table for them to get FNP right away, and to buff their leadership unless using the Covens supplement. Have any of you used, say a 10 man Grotesque unit with Haemy and WWP yet? I'd be curious if 10 of those big fellas is overkill, or an awesome murder unit.

Grotesques come with FNP anyway. Still wouldn't run them without an IC.

**Accolade**

Deadawake1347 wrote:
The Shadow wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think the new codices released recently were made in a hasty manner.
Here DE is no exception. No LoW.

I'n not slating your opinion here, but posts like this just show that GW can't win as far as pleasing people like us goes. When the Ork Codex hit, people were complaining about the inclusion of the Stompa and the fact that Gaz was a LoW. Now a Codex drops without one, and we complain.

I like this Codex. GW did remove some characters in what was a rather unnecessary and disappointing move, but added in lots of good, interesting new mechanics and brought a lot of bad units up to par, whilst not hitting anything with the nerf bat too hard.

I think the issue is less that they necessarily want lords of war in the codex, but that GW can't seem to make up their mind as to what they want. I can understand not wanting LoWs in the codex to begin with, but if three of the four 7th edition codices have them, why doesn't the fourth? It just seems like they couldn't be bothered to put the time and effort into designing one, or adjusting any of the existing ones to fit.

I'm not sure what could even be a LOW in the new DE book. There's nothing that really fits the bill except Vect, who is (at least currently) gone.

**Homeskillet**

Templar_Grist wrote:
Homeskillet wrote:
Templar_Grist wrote:
WWP in a big squad like that wouldn't be useful because grots are bulky.

Why would it matter if they're bulky? I don't think WWP is affected by that. If you meant because they can't fit in a raider, I was referring to dropping them in on foot.

My mistake, sir. I completely missed that WWP actually gives Deep Strike. I thought it just prevented scattering. So yeah, I image that unit would be the utmost killy. However, they'd be totally exposed with little in the way of shooting capabilities while they wait for the chance one turn away to assault. If you can get through that one turn of probable heavy loss in a expensive unit you'd be golden...On paper, lol. I may have to pick up some grotesques and try this out.

Yeah they really come down and just have to eat a round of shooting, that's why I'm hoping someone else gives this a run and sees how it plays out. I'd think that even with only a 6+ save and 5+ FNP, at 3 wounds and T5 they should have a lot of staying power. Emphasis "should", lol.

**Deadawake1347**

Accolade wrote:
Deadawake1347 wrote:
The Shadow wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think the new codices released recently were made in a hasty manner.
Here DE is no exception. No LoW.

I'n not slating your opinion here, but posts like this just show that GW can't win as far as pleasing people like us goes. When the Ork Codex hit, people were complaining about the inclusion of the Stompa and the fact that Gaz was a LoW. Now a Codex drops without one, and we complain.

I like this Codex. GW did remove some characters in what was a rather unnecessary and disappointing move, but added in lots of good, interesting new mechanics and brought a lot of bad units up to par, whilst not hitting anything with the nerf bat too hard.

I think the issue is less that they necessarily want lords of war in the codex, but that GW can't seem to make up their mind as to what they want. I can understand not wanting LoWs in the codex to begin with, but if three of the four 7th edition codices have them, why doesn't the fourth? It just seems like they couldn't be bothered to put the time and effort into designing one, or adjusting any of the existing ones to fit.

I'm not sure what could even be a LOW in the new DE book. There's nothing that really fits the bill except Vect, who is (at least currently) gone.

Which I think is the issue here. Most people were expecting Vect to get the lord of war treatment, and possibly an updated model similar to Logan. Yet instead of doing that, and remaining fairly consistent with the 7th Ed. codices, GW said, "screw it" and just removed him.

**Zagaboff**

Hey did anyone hear about this 'bane' model we were getting? All the news on that seams to of dried up

**Hollismason**

I'd say a ten point model that has Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, becomes Fearless, and gains Rage eventually is pretty uh.. good deal.

**Zagaboff**

Hollismason wrote:
I'd say a ten point model that has Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, becomes Fearless, and gains Rage eventually is pretty uh.. good deal.

Not complaining, I was just curious because there was a lot of hype about it.

**Accolade**

Zagaboff wrote:
Hey did anyone hear about this 'bane' model we were getting? All the news on that seams to of dried up

It's because it was made up

**Zagaboff**

Never ruin a good story with the truth I guess

**nosferatu1001**

The problem is that unless someone wants to do a new vect sculpt, and is really enthusiastic about it, GW is a bit stuck - either they force someone to make it, and its likely horrible, or they leave it out.

Given the expense in tooling and logistics for a new character set (presumably vect+dais in a box? cant see them separately) its an awful gamble to take. And since CH its "safer" to just remove the unit entry.

**vipoid**

Honestly, the codex feels far from unique. if anything, it feels utterly generic.

I won't argue that the items and such were good in the last codex, but they were at least interesting and suffered from a combination of overpricing and nerfs to melee weapons.

So, what did the new book bring on that front? Well, it removed the venom blade from virtually every model. Because that's original. Then it nerfed the one other good weapon (Huskblade) to the point of uselessness. The Agoniser became poisoned and more expensive (apparently GW 'forgot' that the old price was for an AP2 weapon), yet they then removed the main reason people wanted it to be poisoned. A whole host of useless weapons lost their unique abilities to be replaced with Concussive - an even worse ability. I think the only melee item that came out remotely well was Scissorhands. Oh, and wych weapons are now pointless.

Then we have the other abilities that got replaced with generic ones (Urien's regeneration, Night Shields, Clone Field etc.). Then we have the characters and wargear that was lost from the previous book (but don't worry - they got a lot of crap artefacts, so it balances out). Oh, and the Djin Blade survived - and is somehow even worse now than it was before. Shadowfields could easily have had the tagline 'this save cannot be rerolled' added to prevent a lot of ally shenanigans, but no, of course not.

In terms of weapons, liquiifier guns got worse for no adequately-explored reason, same with splinter cannons - which also got more expensive. Blasters are still overpriced, dark lances and blasters are still crap, and the codex still lacks any ground weapons that are even remotely good against fliers. There's a host of new weapons that don't work against Fearless or ATSKNF - because we all love weapons that are invalidated at the list-building stage. Hex rifles are a bit cheaper, but still terrible because only the Vindicare is allowed a good sniper rifle.

The internal balance seems appalling. It has two troop choices (while the previous book had up to 4, including FoC switches), and one of them is abysmal. Wyches lost their grenades (the only thing that made them useful before), effectively lost their weapons and gained absolutely nothing to make them useful on the battlefield. Of course, with this in mind, Bloodrides are predictably awful as well. Wracks seem entirely pointless. Oh look, they bring poison melee weapons. Oh look, our troops are cheaper and bring poisoned shooting weapons. Hellions are worse than before (and that's quite an achievement), losing both an extra attack and the HQ that made them even remotely worthwhile.

So, all in all, I find it hard to qualify the new book as either 'unique' or 'good'.

**Mr Morden**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The problem is that unless someone wants to do a new vect sculpt, and is really enthusiastic about it, GW is a bit stuck - either they force someone to make it, and its likely horrible, or they leave it out.

Given the expense in tooling and logistics for a new character set (presumably vect+dais in a box? cant see them separately) its an awful gamble to take. And since CH its "safer" to just remove the unit entry.

I thought they might make a Dark Eldar Knight - to complete the set - but then they haven't done one for Chaos either......

**Sir Arun**

How are Darklight weapons bad? S8 AP2 lance is pretty awesome and this is coming from an Eldar player

**vipoid**

Sir Arun wrote:
How are Darklight weapons bad? S8 AP2 lance is pretty awesome and this is coming from an Eldar player

Against AV10-12, they're Lascannons with -1S and -12" range.
Against AV13 they're Lascannons with -12" range.
Against AV14, they're Lascannons with +1S and -12" range.

So, against everything below AV14, they're just inferior Lascannons. And, Lascannons aren't exactly great to begin with - especially after the chance of exploding a vehicle with AP2 was halved in 7th.

Now, that might not be so bad, if it wasn't for the fact that DE have very few other anti-vehicle weapons - about 90% of their units can only get a dark lance or a blaster (read: a short-range dark lance).

Similarly, they have no TL weapons, and not a single anti-vehicle weapon in their arsenal has multiple shots (they have nothing resembling a scatter laser, autocannon, assault cannon etc.). So, they're awful against fliers, and have nothing that can easily glance light vehicles to death.

**Makumba**

Then why not just run eldar ally for your anti tank. Two guardian squads with melta and a firedragon unit all three in Wave Serpents. All DE are going to play eldar to get a seer anyway.

**vipoid**

Makumba wrote:
Then why not just run eldar ally for your anti tank. Two guardian squads with melta and a firedragon unit all three in Wave Serpents. All DE are going to play eldar to get a seer anyway.

Because you shouldn't have to run allies for something as basic as anti-tank.

Any codex that requires this cannot possibly be a good codex.

**Sir Arun**

Cant you spam Spintercannons?

**vipoid**

Sir Arun wrote:
Cant you spam Spintercannons?

Because I might actually face armies with a lot of AV11-12? Or Flyers?

Also, where are these Eldar armies that use nothing but Bright Lances to cover their anti-vehicle needs?

**Sir Arun**

Brightlances are a solid part of the Eldar player's arsenal. Especially when mounted on Warwalkers or Wraithlords or Falcons or TL'ed on Wave Serpents. EMLs are worse.

Firedragons need a delivery mechanism, making them costlier than the tank they want to pop and only really useful if you know your opponent is gonna bring a parking lot or MCs to the table.

And Swooping Hawks with their haywires are effective, but fragile - T3 and 4+ will only get you so far when youre on AT duty.

**vipoid**

Sir Arun wrote:
Brightlances are a solid part of the Eldar player's arsenal. Especially when mounted on Warwalkers or Wraithlords or Falcons or TL'ed on Wave Serpents. EMLs are worse.

Emphasis mine.

But that's the thing - would you be happy taking Bright Lances as your *only* anti-vehicle weapons with Eldar?

My problem is that it's a niche weapon. It's designed to take out AV14 (maybe AV13) at range, but is inefficient at everything else. Now, if you have other weapons that are good against AV10-12 and Fliers, then Dark/Bright Lances are ok. They're still not a great weapon, because they're not great even against AV14 (AP2 is unreliable, and needing a 5+ to penetrate is very undesirable for such an expensive weapon). However, I'd be more charitable if DE had other weapons to serve against transports and the like.

**Jimsolo**

vipoid wrote:
Honestly, the codex feels far from unique. if anything, it feels utterly generic.

...

So, all in all, I find it hard to qualify the new book as either 'unique' or 'good'.

Couldn't agree more. I think it might still be serviceable, but they definitely took away the majority of the army's unique flair.

**Hollismason**

I'd say it's the least boring army, it has first off tons of great choices with Cads.

1 That's 6 Fast Attack

1 That's 6 Elite if you want to go for wracks

8 Formations all of which have great rules.

Sorry I play Chaos Space Marines, we have no choices.

**Templar_Grist**

[quote=vipoid 618658 727605855b4f23109bb4f5979f77edc0c9a96ba.jpg

My problem is that it's a niche weapon. It's designed to take out AV14 (maybe AV13) at range, but is inefficient at everything else. Now, if you have other weapons that are good against AV10-12 and Fliers, then Dark/Bright Lances are ok. They're still not a great weapon, because they're not great even against AV14 (AP2 is unreliable, and needing a 5+ to penetrate is very undesirable for such an expensive weapon).

**vipoid**

Templar_Grist wrote:

Looks like someone forgot how to math Lance counts everything above AV 12 as 12 .

Please quote where I forgot that.

Templar_Grist wrote:
Glancing AV 10 on 2+ not bad at all.

Wow, yeah, a 1-shot weapon that costs the same as a lascannon and glances AV10 on a 2+. How do marine armies survive?

Templar_Grist wrote:
Glancing AV 11 on 3+ . Still great.

Unless you compare it to a Lascannon - which glances AV11 on a 2+ and has +12" range to boot.

Templar_Grist wrote:
Glancing AV 11 on 3+ . Still great.

1-shot, no TL, needs a 6 to explode a vehicle... not so great.

Templar_Grist wrote:
Still great. AV 12-14 on 4 +. Not too shabby at all if I say so myself.

Yep, Lances are good against AV14. I'm glad AV14 is the most common AV value in the game.

Templar_Grist wrote:
And for a paltry 5pt upgrade on vehicles. How is it expensive? Whereas it's what, 25pts per lascannon?

So, you're assuming that Disintegrators are free and not, you know, already included in the vehicle's price?

In any case, Lascannons on a SM squad - 20pts.
Dark Lance on a Dark Eldar Warrior squad - 20pts.

Gotta love those savings...

**Templar_Grist**

All very solid points. I did misread where I thought you mathed wrong. I read it as glance on 5+ not pen, my mistake. My prime thought is for Ravagers with two raiders with Dark Lances. Yes, they have shorter range than lascannons. Oh wel . It is what we must deal with. And running 5 lances should make up for the lack of the one TL turret predators get.

Personally, I enjoy what I find in the book, for the most part. Every book has issues people will complain about. If you want Imperial tech, play an imperial army. Comparing between the two will get you no where, except to see where the other lacks

**Hollismason**

Wyches are a pretty good tarp it especially if you play to manipulate the turn structure, with Urien or a Animus etc.. you can start off turn two coming in with Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, turn 3 charge you're fearless.

That's pretty damn good.

**SHUPPET**

This is just an absolute sidegrade. The nerf to Wyches, the unplayability of any sort of spammed transport lists, the uselessness of Khymerae, Ravagers becoming unjustifiable point sinks, all have plenty of offset buffs mixed in the codex to make up for, but why did we need those nerfs? With the exception of Khymerae none were at all OP, and even the beasts were arguably just a touch too high... Instead of being able to use all our old models, we now have to continue playing a similarly themed list while spending a bunch of money on new models... I swear GW just pulls up lists of what models are currently doing well in tourneys and nerfs them without ever bothering to understand where the balance lies... Wyches, Ravagers, Beastpack, Venomspam, all made unplayable, Baron and Duke gone... Complete repurchase of an entire army for all DE players!

I don't get the championing of these sort of changes, its like meh, we went from one dex with a few unplayable models to another dex wit a few unplayable models... Except it costs us a gakload of money to buy the dex alone let alone a new freaking army, one with a bunch of less options and themes than before...

Oh and the people who think removing unbalanced units is GW doing a good job, as opposed to just balancing them, I don't know what to say lol... Smh

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and "one playable troop choice" is being generous... You have one that is less crippling for its points cost than the other, that Bein said you will never see more than the minimum number of mandatory troops ever taken and if you didn't have troops you wouldn't see any. Waste of points in this dex.

**vipoid**

SHUPPET wrote:
This is just an absolute sid grade. The nerf to Wyches, the unplayability of any sort of spammed transport lists, the uselessness of Khymerae, Ravagers becoming unjustifiable point sinks, all have plenty of offset buffs mixed in the codex to make up for, but why did we need those nerfs? With the exception of Khymerae none were at all OP, and even the beasts were arguably just a touch too high...

Agreed.

I have a hard time believing anything in the old book was OP. Even with allies, the only thing that was perhaps too strong was the Shadowfield (since it could be made rerollable)... which is the one thing GW didn't fix anyway.

SHUPPET wrote:
Instead of being able to use all our old models, we now have to continue playing a similarly themed list while spending a bunch of money on new models... I swear GW just pulls up lists of what models are currently doing well in tourneys and nerfs them without ever bothering to understand where the balance lies... Wyches, Ravagers, Beastpack, Venomspam, all made unplayable, Baron and Duke gone... Complete repurchase of an entire army for all DE players!

Whoops, sorry, it's year 4 in our 8 year cycle - so now units A-J are playable, and units K-U will be crap for the next 4 years. What's that? You don't own many A-J units because they've been crap for ages? Well you'd better buy some then. Hmm? What happened to V-Z? Oh, we scrapped those. Hope you didn't buy any of our expensive models to convert. You did? HA! Suckers!

SHUPPET wrote:

I don't get the championing of these sort of changes,mits like meh, we went from one dex with a few unplayable models to another dex wit a few unplayable models... Except it costs us a gakload of money to buy the dex alone let alone a new freaking army, one with a bunch of less options and themes than before...

I don't understand the defenders either. Possibly many people just exhibit the sunk-cost fallacy, having already sunk a ton of money and effort into their DE armies.

SHUPPET wrote:

Oh and the people who think removing unbalanced units is GW doing a good job, as opposed to just balancing them, I don't know what to say lol... Smh

Did they remove any unbalanced units? I thought they just removed the units that didn't have models.

Because, obviously, it would just be too much effort for a model company to actually release models for them.

**SHUPPET**

I mean unbalanced from a negative perspective, the argument being "well they never saw play anyway!", or in the case of a Doom of Malantai, the Baron, and a select few others so far, "he was too OP it's a good thing for dex balance that he's gone!" are some of the more ridiculous statements I keep seeing used to defend GWs choice to take the lazy way out when it comes to our codex releases. Why the feth are we taking steps backwards? Why are codexes begin released with LESS units than before and no new ones? Is there any benefit for us, or for the game, and any other reason than to help line GWs pockets? As a customer why would you be OK wi this lol... And Why are we taking steps backwards in the balancing phase, nothing was OP about Wyches and Ravagers, is there any other reason for their nerf other than to further line GWs pockets?

This release is pretty goddamn terrible to be honest. "Oh anyone unhappy with this release just proves that GWs customers will never be satisfied!" Well, it's possible that the codex got stronger I'm not sure yet, but I'm not a power gamer who can be happy with this in return for all the terrible ass crap GW is serving us with this release.

**ClassicCarraway**

Jimsolo wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Honestly, the codex feels far from unique. if anything, it feels utterly generic.

...

So, all in all, I find it hard to qualify the new book as either 'unique' or 'good'.

Couldn't agree more. I think it might still be serviceable, but they definitely took away the majority of the army's unique flair.

Just out of curiosity, what unique flair was lost?