Granted, their list of skilled players is definitely up and down, but Steve seems to be doing pretty well with his Dark Eldar force over on MiniWarGaming. This, combined with the two DEldar players at my store both being excellent players, makes me wonder what makes the DEldar so "bottom tier". Is it that they are so fragile or over priced, or is there a deeper flaw that I'm missing? Is it merely that they are completely outclassed by top tier armies?
Very fragile, especially as more and more armies gain the ability to ignore cover. Many units are kinda meh because assault is meh and they lack psychic powers/defense. They can allie in things to fix this but as a pure army they suffer.
They are also pre necron so they don't have a mega formation that gives crazy bonuses.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Very fragile, especially as more and more armies gain the ability to ignore cover. Many units are kinda meh because assault is meh and they lack psychic powers/defense. They can allie in things to fix this but as a pure army they suffer.
They are also pre necron so they don't have a mega formation that gives crazy bonuses.
They only bothered to do any work on one part of the army and screwed over most of the rest of the codex - Wyches, Ravagers etc.
Compare it to the 7.5 edition Eldar Codex where everything got better or at the very worst stayed similar.
Its frankly pathetic that Wyches and even elite versions of the same are WS 4 - the same as an Eldar guardian............... they could have made them decent combatants but they could not be bothered to even look at the rules except to take haywire grenades away.
Their biggest issu is they are eldar -5, they are slower than eldar, do not pack that big a punch compared.
Their HQ selection is terrible, unless using covens, then really meh. Elites have 1 decent selection and 1 that is situational. Troops have only 1 usable option. FA is only good for transports and the heavy is only good with covens.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Poor play skill... I've won / placed in prize bracket in many RTT's I've gone to, with my dark eldar, since hte new book's been out.
Their main forms of damaging units, Poison and Lance, aren't nearly as effective as they were before.
Ignore Cover becomes more and more prevalent and they don't have good armour saves, like Necrons/SM, or the bodies to not care, like Orks and Tyranids.
HQ does nothing for the army, unlike Warbosses, Librarians, Synapse creatures, Farseers, Autarchs etc.
Horribly outclassed by Craftworlds. Whatever DE can bring, Craftworlds can usually match it and better (e.g. Fire Dragons > BlasterBorn. Swooping Hawks > Scourge. Windrider Jetbikes > Venoms).
A mechanic that favours longevitity in battle when DE are all about fast lightning strikes.
No flavour in the Codex. Only really catered for one aspect of the whole of DE fluff, neglecting the other parts.
So ignoring the fact that Eldar exist, do you think less Ignores Cover would make them a viable army, or like the IG codex, would they still be bogged down by bland units?
To be fair, the two really good DE players at my store spam much of the same units and their lists are almost identical.
There HQ section is still a mess. Succubus and Archons bring near nothing to the army, mostly cause assault is meh and overwatch rocks them hard. The Hemi is ok but still meh. the best is really to take a single court member in a venom to fill the slot and load up on troops and bikes.
Dark Eldar's biggest problem is that they were designed before the 7.5 edition change in design philosophy. While they do have some great formations in the Haemonculus Covens book, the main codex has only Realspace Raiders in terms of usefulness, and only if you just want to spam empty Venoms or Raiders.
Dark Eldar units lack flexibility, and have limited options for anti-tank. Poison works on infantry and MCs, and nothing else. Their anti-vehicle ability boils down to spamming Dark Lances and Hayvire Scourges at range; everything else has to close to melee range.
Unit quality in the book in all over the place. Some units are borderline unusable (except Hellions, who just are unusable), while others are great, and most of the rest is of middling quality. Granted, the Covens book makes their units much better, but that's only about a third of the book.
Furthermore, Dark Eldar have been overshadowed by their Craftworld cousins. Why play DE when you can play the most overpowered single book in the game? Craftworld Eldar eclipse Dark Eldar in everything except melee capability, and the Wraithknight more than makes up for that. From a purely competitive standpoint, mono-DE are bottom tier. They are only taken either as allies to Craftworld Eldar or as part of a Freakshow army with Harlequins.
With all that said, at anything other than GTs Dark Eldar are a middle-tier army. The good and decent units they do have are very capable in the right hands, and they have some nasty melee abilities. Thier shooting, while relying on spam, can decimate anything with a Toughness value and they render heavy armour units irrelevant. In friendly games, Dark Eldar are a force to be reckoned with, and they can ally with Harlequins to make a top-tier Freakshow army.
Currently, Dark Eldar suffer from being a glass cannon army, minus the cannon.
This is especially evident in melee. I mean, you'd think that glass cannon units would hit harder than the more resilient units of other armies. Nope. Instead, we're stuck with a bunch of S3 guys with naff-all in the way of special rules. And, our Archon has no AP2 weapons, and pays as much as a power fist for a AP3 weapon with poison 4+. In fact, our HQ section is probably the worst of any codex. They all have pitiful offence, pitiful defence, and no support abilities.
In terms of shooting, our weapons are badly outdated. Dark Lances were never good weapons, but at least they worked in 5th. Now, we're paying premium prices for a single-shot weapon (which is never twin-linked) that struggles to penetrate AP12, and which needs a 6 to explode it. They just end up as badly-overpriced hull-point strippers. And, we can't even rely on meltaguns at close range because our warriors and trueborn aren't allowed them. All we get is yet more overpriced lances.
Poison is... outdated. It was pretty nice in 5th, but that was before you could get Gargantuan Creatures in regular games - which are immune to what is supposed to be our best weapon against such creatures. Also, with the number of 2+ saves, FNP, extra wounds and such, poison just isn't very useful anymore. Especially when other armies are touting Grav and D-weapons. We also recieved no bonuses in terms of skyfire or ignores cover... or anything to indicate that this was a 7th edition book.
And then there were the nerfs. So many units and wargear were nerfed into oblivion - none of which needed to be, and are now utterly worthless. Not to mention the number of units and bits of wargear that were just removed outright.
The worst thing for me though, is that the book is so boring. There's no life or flavour in it. Anything with the merest hint of fluff or effort from the last book was deleted and replaced with generic, useless drivel (assuming it was replaced at all). Not including special characters, there are 5 unique rules in the entire book. One of those is PfP, and 3 more are 'Dodge'. So much wargear and so many units are abysmal to the point where taking them is handicapping yourself, and we didn't have an abundance of either to begin with. There's no flexibility or interesting options, just a load of bland, repetitive choices. Our HQs are probably the worst for this - with no interesting rules (no rules whatsoever, in fact) and laughably tiny wargear selections. Even PfP was blandified (with the original rule basically being stolen for Daemonkin, and turned into the far better Blood Point system), leaving us with a single table that's about as thrilling as watching an Archon fill out his tax returns. Also, rather than rewarding us for killing enemies, it just withholds our special abilities until long after we needed them - to the point where the game can literally end before we're allowed all our special rules.
jreilly89 wrote: So ignoring the fact that Eldar exist, do you think less Ignores Cover would make them a viable army, or like the IG codex, would they still be bogged down by bland units?
To be fair, the two really good DE players at my store spam much of the same units and their lists are almost identical.
Ignores cover has a lot to do with it. When Ap 2 spam was king, DE did well by relying on cover saves and strong alpha firepower.
However, other codexes have now overshadowed the army by changing what they take. Being able to destroy 4 transports a turn is not crazy for many of the top tier armies any longer, more than that is possible for many, and DE need their transports to stay viable.
They also lack punch. Poison doesn't work against GMCs very well, and MC's come with 2+ saves nowadays. Dark lances are way to expensive to spam in decent numbers. Haywire is good against tanks, but you don't see tank spam anymore. It's mainly MC, bikes, really tough infantry spam, which DE fail against.
The speed increase of other armies has also really hurt the DE. While they used to be the fastest army by a wide margin, eldar now outrace them, and many SM, Necron, and even tau armies can compete in speed for a majority of their units (especially when the transports start to die).
A big problem is one that BA suffer from as well. They are closely related to another army that is better in every way, and this makes them look even worse.
[quote=TheNewBlood 670200 8254043 e288ea0d33fa04b886d3e7e4e17ba5ac.jpg
With all that said, at anything other than GTs Dark Eldar are a middle-tier army. The good and decent units they do have are very capable in the right hands, and they have some nasty melee abilities. Thier shooting, while relying on spam, can decimate anything with a Toughness value and they render heavy armour units irrelevant. In friendly games, Dark Eldar are a force to be reckoned with, and they can ally with Harlequins to make a top-tier Freakshow army.
That's a good point. Like I said, at my store and on MWG they seem to do well, but it's not against top tier cheese and most of the lists are almost identical.
The above has really hit it right on the head, Dark Eldar do nothing better then everybody else and do a lot of things worse. Admittedly, i enjoy my Dark Eldar and like Dalymiddleboro I have had a lot of success in local tournaments but at no point did i feel i was winning due to my army rather then either my skill or their mistakes. Dark Eldar are just about as fast as Eldar, and in maelstrom missions this *can* be enough to pull wins from a lot of armies, but we just don't hold a candle to a fully efficient and well played competitive army.
But speed can only go so far, our firepower is mediocre at best, our non-coven melee (I have a soft spot for Incubi, but i am under no illusions they are good) are not anything to write home about and finally our speed does not make up for our fragility. We have just been out paced armybook wise, and i look forward to a new book which hopefully fixes all our problems with fluffy and unique rules and formations. I CAN DREAM.
If we get a crummy little reprint like Tau have gotten, i will be thoroughly miffed.
Dark eldar codexes were written before the "Decurion" and their power level is much more tame than all the codexes which have come more recently. This is a problem for all of the early 7th codexes.
Outside of a WWP letting another unit pop somewhere and kill something, they have very little synergy. Most of the newer codexes have layers of rules for units chosen in formations within a detachment which allow them to synergise well with each other.
They also suffer from the moderate balacing of early 7th codexes, where the units were left more or less the same- or made worse by stripping options and upping unit size so as not to be "overpowered" compared to the still 6th codexes, the more recent 7th codexes did not have to worry about this so you saw no real removal of options/power/rules from units and generally an addition of more rules/ options/ and or a lowering of cost.
I think a comparison might be useful. Let's compare out elite anti-tank to that of Eldar - Blasterborn vs Fire Dragons.
5 Blasterborn with 4 blasters - 4 S8 AP2 Lance shots at 18", PfP, 5+ armour, no grenades - 120pts
5 Fire Dragons with 5 Fusion Guns - 5 S8 AP1 Melta shots at 12", +1 to the damage table (so, explode any vehicle on a 4+), Battle Focus, 3+ armour, melta bombs, can be BS5 in formation - 110pts.
So, the blasterborn have slightly more range. In exchange, they have to sacrifice:
- Melta (vastly better than lance)
- AP1
- +1 to damage table
- 1 special weapon
- Melta Bombs
- 3+ armour
And, they actually pay 10pts for the privilege of losing all the above.
All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the Corsairs book, which seems to be 'Dark Eldar: Good Version".
vipoid wrote: I think a comparison might be useful. Let's compare out elite anti-tank to that of Eldar - Blasterborn vs Fire Dragons.
5 Blasterborn with 4 blasters - 4 S8 AP2 Lance shots at 18", PfP, 5+ armour, no grenades - 120pts
5 Fire Dragons with 5 Fusion Guns - 5 S8 AP1 Melta shots at 12", +1 to the damage table (so, explode any vehicle on a 4+), Battle Focus, 3+ armour, melta bombs, can be BS5 in formation - 110pts.
So, the blasterborn have slightly more range. In exchange, they have to sacrifice:
- Melta (vastly better than lance)
- AP1
- +1 to damage table
- 1 special weapon
- Melta Bombs
- 3+ armour
And, they actually pay 10pts for the privilege of losing all the above.
All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the Corsairs book, which seems to be 'Dark Eldar: Good Version".
I don't think that's exactly a fair comparison. Trueborn may occupy the same slot as Fire Dragons, but the Dark Eldar's best equivalent are Scourges. 120 points gets you a 4+/6++ save, PfP, Jump Infantry, and four Haywire shots at twenty-four inches and BS4. At ranges, they are much better at stripping Hull Points than Fire Dragons, and cheaper when you consider the Exarch requirement.
vipoid wrote: I think a comparison might be useful. Let's compare out elite anti-tank to that of Eldar - Blasterborn vs Fire Dragons.
5 Blasterborn with 4 blasters - 4 S8 AP2 Lance shots at 18", PfP, 5+ armour, no grenades - 120pts
5 Fire Dragons with 5 Fusion Guns - 5 S8 AP1 Melta shots at 12", +1 to the damage table (so, explode any vehicle on a 4+), Battle Focus, 3+ armour, melta bombs, can be BS5 in formation - 110pts.
So, the blasterborn have slightly more range. In exchange, they have to sacrifice:
- Melta (vastly better than lance)
- AP1
- +1 to damage table
- 1 special weapon
- Melta Bombs
- 3+ armour
And, they actually pay 10pts for the privilege of losing all the above.
All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the Corsairs book, which seems to be 'Dark Eldar: Good Version".
I don't think that's exactly a fair comparison. Trueborn may occupy the same slot as Fire Dragons, but the Dark Eldar's best equivalent are Scourges. 120 points gets you a 4+/6++ save, PfP, Jump Infantry, and four Haywire shots at twenty-four inches and BS4. At ranges, they are much better at stripping Hull Points than Fire Dragons, and cheaper when you consider the Exarch requirement.
I have to agree with you here. DE can do just fine in a casual environment (thus why I'm not too worried about starting them). But they are not competitive. Not against the new shiny 7.5 ed codexes
TheNewBlood wrote: I don't think that's exactly a fair comparison. Trueborn may occupy the same slot as Fire Dragons, but the Dark Eldar's best equivalent are Scourges. 120 points gets you a 4+/6++ save, PfP, Jump Infantry, and four Haywire shots at twenty-four inches and BS4. At ranges, they are much better at stripping Hull Points than Fire Dragons, and cheaper when you consider the Exarch requirement.
Why is that more appropriate?
Aside from being in a different slot and a different type of unit, you've also given them much more limited weapons. If the enemy has no vehicles, Fire Dragons can still go MC-hunting, whilst Scourges are pretty dire against anything that isn't a vehicle.
Furthermore, I still don't see why this excuses Trueborn being so abysmal.
vipoid wrote: I think a comparison might be useful. Let's compare out elite anti-tank to that of Eldar - Blasterborn vs Fire Dragons.
5 Blasterborn with 4 blasters - 4 S8 AP2 Lance shots at 18", PfP, 5+ armour, no grenades - 120pts
5 Fire Dragons with 5 Fusion Guns - 5 S8 AP1 Melta shots at 12", +1 to the damage table (so, explode any vehicle on a 4+), Battle Focus, 3+ armour, melta bombs, can be BS5 in formation - 110pts.
So, the blasterborn have slightly more range. In exchange, they have to sacrifice:
- Melta (vastly better than lance)
- AP1
- +1 to damage table
- 1 special weapon
- Melta Bombs
- 3+ armour
And, they actually pay 10pts for the privilege of losing all the above.
All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the Corsairs book, which seems to be 'Dark Eldar: Good Version".
I don't think that's exactly a fair comparison. Trueborn may occupy the same slot as Fire Dragons, but the Dark Eldar's best equivalent are Scourges. 120 points gets you a 4+/6++ save, PfP, Jump Infantry, and four Haywire shots at twenty-four inches and BS4. At ranges, they are much better at stripping Hull Points than Fire Dragons, and cheaper when you consider the Exarch requirement.
While that may be a closer comparison Fire dragons will most likely be taken in the aspect host formation, so one of the models will be a exarch(4 FD+1 exarch)- putting them at the same points cost as the scourges. They still have a better save, melta bombs, and now are all BS5 and will most likely be able to run 6" and fire at full BS, so effectively now have a 6" move+ 6" run and then a 12" shooting range- should they for some reason not be in a transport or some such. Haywire is of no real use versus MCs or infantry, meltaguns still do nasty things to both and in many infantry cases remove FnP or worsen RP rolls due to causing ID versus T4 or lower.
However the really important thing is the scourges look way cooler.
The problem with Deldar is that they were a weaker codex in 5e, and when they were updated what they lost was nearly double for what they gained. Currently there is only 1.5 ways to play them: kabalite warriors in raiders, one raider being an archon caddy for the webway with blasterborn, and maybe a unit or two of scourges. The half is the same thing, but allying in eldar or harlequins to cover them in Divination or biker spam. Want to use wyches? Go cry in a corner. Want an archon with a venom blade and ghostplate? HA! Want to use those cool mandrake models you painted up? To bad, watch them explode off the field.
It's essentially the same problem that chaos and BA has: there is only one specific way to play competetively
autumnlotus wrote: The problem with Deldar is that they were a weaker codex in 5e, and when they were updated what they lost was nearly double for what they gained. Currently there is only 1.5 ways to play them: kabalite warriors in raiders, one raider being an archon caddy for the webway with blasterborn, and maybe a unit or two of scourges. The half is the same thing, but allying in eldar or harlequins to cover them in Divination or biker spam. Want to use wyches? Go cry in a corner. Want an archon with a venom blade and ghostplate? HA! Want to use those cool mandrake models you painted up? To bad, watch them explode off the field.
It's essentially the same problem that chaos and BA has: there is only one specific way to play competetively
I disagree. Dark Eldar have some decent options competitively. There's Venom/Raider Kabalite spam, Haemonculus Covens, and allying with Harlequins for a Freakshow.
Also, if this thread has proven anything, Trueborn suck. Scourges, on the other hand....
I'm not going to argue that Hellions are good, but isn't their price reflective of DE being designed as a reserve-based army (I think this is obvious both from looking at all the units that can deep strike and from the way that power from pain works), and they can deep strike, whereas Reavers cannot?
autumnlotus wrote: The problem with Deldar is that they were a weaker codex in 5e, and when they were updated what they lost was nearly double for what they gained. Currently there is only 1.5 ways to play them: kabalite warriors in raiders, one raider being an archon caddy for the webway with blasterborn, and maybe a unit or two of scourges. The half is the same thing, but allying in eldar or harlequins to cover them in Divination or biker spam. Want to use wyches? Go cry in a corner. Want an archon with a venom blade and ghostplate? HA! Want to use those cool mandrake models you painted up? To bad, watch them explode off the field.
It's essentially the same problem that chaos and BA has: there is only one specific way to play competetively
I disagree. Dark Eldar have some decent options competitively. There's Venom/Raider Kabalite spam, Haemonculus Covens, and allying with Harlequins for a Freakshow.
Also, if this thread has proven anything, Trueborn suck. Scourges, on the other hand....
First off: discussing allies as an advantage adds nothing to the discussion since it is just the ally carrying the lists. Second haemonculus cult is so far away from the book I consider it a separate army entirely, and better then Deldar. In most ways. Ultimately they are similar to Sisters of Battle in power and choices: you have only one real choice, and the lists are always identical.
Alcibiades wrote:I'm not going to argue that Hellions are good, but isn't their price reflective of DE being designed as a reserve-based army (I think this is obvious both from looking at all the units that can deep strike and from the way that power from pain works), and they can deep strike, whereas Reavers cannot?
Hellions are 13ppm. They can't get any cheaper at their current statline.
Sure, they can Deep Strike, if they want to get shot off the board. Hellions have a 5+ save and nothing else. Any cover saves comre from terrain, and they're T3, so the Feel No Pain from PfP doesn't do a whole lot for them.
Hellions in combat are like Wyches, but worse. They're only slightly more durable against shooting, and don't have the Wych's 4++ in melee. Hellions have the same statline and access to Combat Drugs, but fewer attacks base and on the charge due to Hellglaives being two-handed and no grenades of any type. The Helliarch's stunclaw is terrible, and he doesn't have the durability to win any challenges. Basically, Hellions are Wyches, but worse in every conceivable way. I would sooner run Hecatrix Bloodbrides and Mandrakes than Hellions. Those units have somewhat more durability, and are leagues better in CC (which isn't much). I could find a use of Bloodbrides and Oni-wannabees. I cannot say the same for Hellions.
autumnlotus wrote:First off: discussing allies as an advantage adds nothing to the discussion since it is just the ally carrying the lists. Second haemonculus cult is so far away from the book I consider it a separate army entirely, and better then Deldar. In most ways. Ultimately they are similar to Sisters of Battle in power and choices: you have only one real choice, and the lists are always identical.
Freakshow is usually about 50/50 in points between Harlequins and Dark Eldar, split between one allying with the other. And by looking at tournament placings, it's clear which army is carrying the other.
Haemonculus Covens is not a different book from the Dark Eldar codex. It is an expansion. You cannot use the Covens book without the Dark Eldar codex, as the Covens book contains no unit or wargear listings other than new relics. The two books both have the Dark Eldar faction, which is why you can use the formations and detachments from one source in the other (and why you can't have either as an Allied Detachment). For all intensive purposes, the two books are both Dark Eldar and should be treated as such.
I agree that at a GT-level tournament mono-DE are near the bottom in power and rely heavily on the monobuild. In any other meta, Dark Eldar are in okay shape, being solidly mid-tier in power and criminally overshadowed by Craftworld Eldar.
autumnlotus wrote: Ultimately they are similar to Sisters of Battle in power and choices: you have only one real choice, and the lists are always identical.
But the Dark Eldar usually pay a much heavier price for every mistake. My CSM mate found this out the hard way when he tried out a small Deldar force vs my SoB. He just forgot how soft those Raider things are and thought sending two (one with Warriors, one with Wyches) at the lone 10-girl squad holding an objective would be a win. So he scooted up ready to destroy me next turn and for some reason also had both Raiders very close together. Flamer+Hflamer open up with some added bolters, both Raiders explode and most passengers die. My sisters then charged and killed the rest in CC. Only an Ork Trukk blows up as easily and even then fewer orks die. Other armies would have fared better still.
You have to be really good at using your army to make the Deldar work.
autumnlotus wrote: Ultimately they are similar to Sisters of Battle in power and choices: you have only one real choice, and the lists are always identical.
But the Dark Eldar usually pay a much heavier price for every mistake. My CSM mate found this out the hard way when he tried out a small Deldar force vs my SoB. He just forgot how soft those Raider things are and thought sending two (one with Warriors, one with Wyches) at the lone 10-girl squad holding an objective would be a win. So he scooted up ready to destroy me next turn and for some reason also had both Raiders very close together. Flamer+Hflamer open up with some added bolters, both Raiders explode and most passengers die. My sisters then charged and killed the rest in CC. Only an Ork Trukk blows up as easily and even then fewer orks die. Other armies would have fared better still.
You have to be really good at using your army to make the Deldar work.
To be fair to deldar if you face sisters with them you shouldn't ever use raiders xD way too many flamers and melta to murder open topped vehicles. If I had to make a list to fight them it would likely be reavers and scourges with grotesques deepstruck in with webway.
autumnlotus wrote: To be fair to deldar if you face sisters with them you shouldn't ever use raiders xD way too many flamers and melta to murder open topped vehicles. If I had to make a list to fight them it would likely be reavers and scourges with grotesques deepstruck in with webway.
Aye, that would have worked much better. But this wasn't a preplanned Deldar vs SoB game - we had collected a few of the guys around three battlefields with all-comers lists and randomly drew opponents. The Raiders worked much better against his other foes that day.
But the point was that one single mistake cost him heavily, probably worse than any other army would have suffered if they sent two transports into the same spot.
jreilly89 wrote: Granted, their list of skilled players is definitely up and down, but Steve seems to be doing pretty well with his Dark Eldar force over on MiniWarGaming. This, combined with the two DEldar players at my store both being excellent players, makes me wonder what makes the DEldar so "bottom tier". Is it that they are so fragile or over priced, or is there a deeper flaw that I'm missing? Is it merely that they are completely outclassed by top tier armies?
If you're *not* an amazing player, the army just doesn't work at all and gets blown to pieces by an equally low skilled opponent with another army in most cases. The army is just very hard to play fundamentaly.
Beyond that, the advantages its built on really are not as great as they once were. Dark Lances aren't as capable as they once were, nor as spammable as they once were. DE Mobility is no longer nigh unmatched, but rather the mobility of the game in general has dramatically increased (due to the profusion of things like Cavalry, Flyer transports, FMC's Drop Pods, etc relative to older editions), leaving the DE's relative advantage here rather weak. It also doesn't help when you have armies like Craftworld Eldar with, if anything, even more mobility, while also being significantly more resilient (compare particularly the Jetbikes) while also packing far more firepower, and all the Eldar units got their WS & BS increased as well, leaving DE with very few, if any, advantages over their Craftworld kin who are basically better in every way. Add to that their army-wide poisoned weaponry is incraesingly less functional in a game with things like Decurion RP, GC's, Knights, TWC-deathstars, etc.
TL;DR the speed advantages they used to have are no longer as great as they once were, the weapons they rely on are not as functional as they once were, and all of their disadvantages are just as relevant as they've always been.
I realize all the anger towards poisoned weapons against certain creatures here but do ossefactors help this fight a little? It's 24" str 1 ap 2 fleshbane with d6 hits with a strength the same as the dead model's toughness. By itself it's not too hot but combined with blaster fire on monsters with ossefactors to finish them off when somebody takes squads it should be ok vs stuff like monsters.
Even if that doesn't work there's still a couple fleshbane weapons in the DE armory. The necrotoxin missile I wouldn't count on but the fact Talos can take ichor injectors (being monsters they also avoid armor) and in the haemonculus book can amass quite a lot of Talos with them means gargantuan creatures should cry at least a bit. Not to mention Lethal dose is still there even if it's somewhat unlikely.
Even the Dark Eldar Flyers were screwed by the new Codex - do they get Vector Dancer - no they don't. Is the fluff all about the flyers being supremely agile?
Yep - they even use the wings as precision weapons.
Dark Eldar are a poor 7th edition codex in a world of 7.5 Codexes........
flamingkillamajig wrote: I realize all the anger towards poisoned weapons against certain creatures here but do ossefactors help this fight a little? It's 24" str 1 ap 2 fleshbane with d6 hits with a strength the same as the dead model's toughness.
Bear in mind that those d6 hits only hit the model's unit. So, if you're aiming at a single monster, then they're worthless.
In any case, the problem with the Osseffactor is that it's only available in Wrack squads, and then only 1-per-5. Because whilst every other army is allowed weapon-spamming elites, ours have the same weapon limitations as troops.
But who cares, right? I mean, it's such an amazing weapon that it solves all our problems taking down Wraithknights and such. I mean, all we need is... 1040pts of Wracks. Yep. A mere 16 units of Wrack will be able to take down a Wraithknight. The Osseffactor is just that awsome.
Even if that doesn't work there's still a couple fleshbane weapons in the DE armory. The necrotoxin missile I wouldn't count on but the fact Talos can take ichor injectors (being monsters they also avoid armor) and in the haemonculus book can amass quite a lot of Talos with them means gargantuan creatures should cry at least a bit. Not to mention Lethal dose is still there even if it's somewhat unlikely.
There are two problems there.
1) Talos move 6" per turn. Wraithknights move 12". Are you seeing the problem yet? A Wraithknight has no reason to let a Talos get anywhere near it, unless I wants to for some reason.
2) And that's assuming that the Wraithknight is merely ignoring the Talos. The Talos has no meaningful shooting, let alone against the WK. Hence, it can neither force the WK to come to it, nor inflict any meaningful damage on it. In contrast, a Wraithknight has 2 D-weapons. If it feels obliged, it can easily turn the Talos into a puddle of goo.
Put it this way - there's a reason you don't see Eldar players asking on forums how to deal with Talos or Ossefactors.
Once again I said wracks would 'finish off' a monster. In the case of the talos vs wraithknight maybe there's a way you can hold it down for a while with something till the talos get there (if that's even possible).
Not gonna lie that I've been gone since 5th edition and will be starting up dark eldar so I'm sure you know more than me about it. I'm just throwing up suggestions. I'm sure you've thought of it already though.
The only way I can see the cronos or talos being somewhat useful is through the covens formations, either corpsetheif or dark artisan. On their own kinda terrible as MCs go.
I know Wyches got boned. Glad i wasn't overly invested in any of those!
I love the Dark Eldar codex though. It took away the Baron which people were pretty mad about (good riddance though) Made Wyches suck. On the plus side? Made Mandrakes suck less. and the haemonculus Coven book is pretty good with its formations.
The Grotesquerie is awesome.
Dark Eldar require a stomach for losses a lot of players don't have. I expect to lose all my Raiders turn one. All part of the plan. There's people who cannot handle that thought. Lol.
Jancoran wrote: I know Wyches got boned. Glad i wasn't overly invested in any of those!
I love the Dark Eldar codex though. It took away the Baron which people were pretty mad about (good riddance though) Made Wyches suck. On the plus side? Made Mandrakes suck less. and the haemonculus Coven book is pretty good with its formations.
The Grotesquerie is awesome.
Dark Eldar require a stomach for losses a lot of players don't have. I expect to lose all my Raiders turn one. All part of the plan. There's people who cannot handle that thought. Lol.
Unfortunately for me I'm planning on starting a Wych Cult Army to go with my upcoming Eldar army, so this'll be interesting.
Jancoran wrote: I know Wyches got boned. Glad i wasn't overly invested in any of those!
I love the Dark Eldar codex though. It took away the Baron which people were pretty mad about (good riddance though) Made Wyches suck. On the plus side? Made Mandrakes suck less. and the haemonculus Coven book is pretty good with its formations.
The Grotesquerie is awesome.
Dark Eldar require a stomach for losses a lot of players don't have. I expect to lose all my Raiders turn one. All part of the plan. There's people who cannot handle that thought. Lol.
Unfortunately for me I'm planning on starting a Wych Cult Army to go with my upcoming Eldar army, so this'll be interesting.
Oh dear. Well I suggest the Raiders over venom as transports if you want to shove them right into somone's facesI the extra hull point can really matter and the Wyches seem, to me, to need a feew more bodies to pull off their missions. which is totally fine. Just need to be aware of it.
Possibly, but it's not the kind of praise you'd boast about in the blurb.
Jancoran wrote: I expect to lose all my Raiders turn one. All part of the plan.
"I defeated his minions, and he cackled and said, 'Exactly as I planned.'
I discovered his secret fortress. 'Exactly as I planned.'
I breached his defenses, and still he said, 'Exactly as I planned.'
I slew him in single combat, and with his dying breath he gasped, 'Exactly as I planned.'
I stood over his grave and I said, 'You never really got the hang of planning, did you?'"
— Jenna Moran, Nobilis
Possibly, but it's not the kind of praise you'd boast about in the blurb.
Jancoran wrote: I expect to lose all my Raiders turn one. All part of the plan.
"I defeated his minions, and he cackled and said, 'Exactly as I planned.'
I discovered his secret fortress. 'Exactly as I planned.'
I breached his defenses, and still he said, 'Exactly as I planned.'
I slew him in single combat, and with his dying breath he gasped, 'Exactly as I planned.'
I stood over his grave and I said, 'You never really got the hang of planning, did you?'"
— Jenna Moran, Nobilis
I just love the whole feel of it.
the Baron was abused badly and never used for his real intended purpose so he had to go.
I happened to use mandrakes (Mandrake fun) and then they changed them. so they got Balefire all the time in the updated codex which was an upgrade from the tactica you see utilized in this bat rep where a Haemonculus had to go join the unit. They were more of a themed type of thing and though i wouldn't really recommend them as a real strong tournament option, they are absolutely a little surprising and pickup game worthy.
As for losing Raiders: I have a pretty cavalir attitude towards that given my strategy with them. Relatively annoying to remove. fast. Assault vehicles. so good. And of course if some survive all the better! and some usually do. Well turn one anyways. Yay for surviving Raiders
the Baron was abused badly and never used for his real intended purpose so he had to go.
The reason he was never used for his intended purpose was that Hellions were so bloody abysmal.
Also, he was only abused because of the stupid battle-brothers ally system. Even if you wanted to leave Battle Brothers intact, removing Fortune from Eldar would have served the same purpose, whilst also purging rerollable invulnerable saves from the game.
Perhaps. But he had to go. If they made him an "upgrade character", it would have been far better. They didn't go that route. So yeah. Glad to see him gone. I play Dark Eldar and Eldar got more use out of him than we did. It was just... It was bad.
Jancoran wrote: Perhaps. But he had to go. If they made him an "upgrade character", it would have been far better. They didn't go that route. So yeah. Glad to see him gone. I play Dark Eldar and Eldar got more use out of him than we did. It was just... It was bad.
Why on earth did he ''have to go''? He was litterally the only thing that made Beast Packs worthwhile, have you tried using a Beast Pack recently? I have. I spent ages converted up a Baron and a full beast pack which is just...underwhelming. No Hit'n'run means when their startling amount of attacks bounce off armour, they can't leave combat. No stealth means i have to put the Khymerae at the front to get any save at all, yet the Khymerae do most of the damage. No grenades means when i charge into an ork horde behind a wall, i strike last and hence lose half my models, losing combat.
The Baron, The Lady and The Duke didn't need to go, the reason they went was because GW was to lazy to make models for them and didn't want 3rd parties to make money off doing so. If you think there was some tactical sense behind their removal your giving GW FAR to much credit.
Well... I don't think it matters much what GW's thinking was on it. I was offering my reason for being glad of his departure. Though it is very easily within the realms of possibility to see a Dataslate for him come out. Ultimately it's their call not mine but He was asking me, not GW, so that's why I don't miss him.
I still use beast Packs so I don't really know what to say on that. In my normal Dark Eldar army they really help me saturate the place and i prefer armored targets for them to go after, generally. So i try to have them avoid normal troops unless the normal troops are trimmed down to size already.
Beastpacks are one of the things I do like in the codex also. Sslyth are pretty damn cool. And i love Grotesques.
Jancoran wrote: Perhaps. But he had to go. If they made him an "upgrade character", it would have been far better. They didn't go that route. So yeah. Glad to see him gone. I play Dark Eldar and Eldar got more use out of him than we did. It was just... It was bad.
Why on earth did he ''have to go''? He was litterally the only thing that made Beast Packs worthwhile, have you tried using a Beast Pack recently? I have. I spent ages converted up a Baron and a full beast pack which is just...underwhelming. No Hit'n'run means when their startling amount of attacks bounce off armour, they can't leave combat. No stealth means i have to put the Khymerae at the front to get any save at all, yet the Khymerae do most of the damage. No grenades means when i charge into an ork horde behind a wall, i strike last and hence lose half my models, losing combat.
The Baron, The Lady and The Duke didn't need to go, the reason they went was because GW was to lazy to make models for them and didn't want 3rd parties to make money off doing so. If you think there was some tactical sense behind their removal your giving GW FAR to much credit.
It was that change that finally made my friend who played DE just thrown in the towel and sell off his army. He took the time to carefully convert a baron up, painted it well. Took the time to plan out a hellion army... including ordering a ton of boxes of them. Then the update dropped, he saw how pitiful it was and noticed Baron was gone. Put lightly, he was angry. Cancelled his order, packed his stuff up. It was all on ebay two days later. The guy ran an army heavy on raiders, ravagers,venoms and wyches, and was really excited about running hellions. The way he put it, the codex update specifically made everything he owned unplayable and he just did not want any more disappointment. From what I've been reading in this thread, he may not of been far off.
Jancoran wrote: Perhaps. But he had to go. If they made him an "upgrade character", it would have been far better. They didn't go that route. So yeah. Glad to see him gone. I play Dark Eldar and Eldar got more use out of him than we did. It was just... It was bad.
Why on earth did he ''have to go''? He was litterally the only thing that made Beast Packs worthwhile, have you tried using a Beast Pack recently? I have. I spent ages converted up a Baron and a full beast pack which is just...underwhelming. No Hit'n'run means when their startling amount of attacks bounce off armour, they can't leave combat. No stealth means i have to put the Khymerae at the front to get any save at all, yet the Khymerae do most of the damage. No grenades means when i charge into an ork horde behind a wall, i strike last and hence lose half my models, losing combat.
The Baron, The Lady and The Duke didn't need to go, the reason they went was because GW was to lazy to make models for them and didn't want 3rd parties to make money off doing so. If you think there was some tactical sense behind their removal your giving GW FAR to much credit.
It was that change that finally made my friend who played DE just thrown in the towel and sell off his army. He took the time to carefully convert a baron up, painted it well. Took the time to plan out a hellion army... including ordering a ton of boxes of them. Then the update dropped, he saw how pitiful it was and noticed Baron was gone. Put lightly, he was angry. Cancelled his order, packed his stuff up. It was all on ebay two days later. The guy ran an army heavy on raiders, ravagers,venoms and wyches, and was really excited about running hellions. The way he put it, the codex update specifically made everything he owned unplayable and he just did not want any more disappointment. From what I've been reading in this thread, he may not of been far off.
Agreed - I did not even bother buying that codex (or any since) - the sheer amount of nerfs to a large portion of the army - especially when compared to what happened later to the 7.5 codexes was sickening.
Jancoran wrote: Perhaps. But he had to go. If they made him an "upgrade character", it would have been far better. They didn't go that route. So yeah. Glad to see him gone. I play Dark Eldar and Eldar got more use out of him than we did. It was just... It was bad.
Why on earth did he ''have to go''? He was litterally the only thing that made Beast Packs worthwhile, have you tried using a Beast Pack recently? I have. I spent ages converted up a Baron and a full beast pack which is just...underwhelming. No Hit'n'run means when their startling amount of attacks bounce off armour, they can't leave combat. No stealth means i have to put the Khymerae at the front to get any save at all, yet the Khymerae do most of the damage. No grenades means when i charge into an ork horde behind a wall, i strike last and hence lose half my models, losing combat.
The Baron, The Lady and The Duke didn't need to go, the reason they went was because GW was to lazy to make models for them and didn't want 3rd parties to make money off doing so. If you think there was some tactical sense behind their removal your giving GW FAR to much credit.
It was that change that finally made my friend who played DE just thrown in the towel and sell off his army. He took the time to carefully convert a baron up, painted it well. Took the time to plan out a hellion army... including ordering a ton of boxes of them. Then the update dropped, he saw how pitiful it was and noticed Baron was gone. Put lightly, he was angry. Cancelled his order, packed his stuff up. It was all on ebay two days later. The guy ran an army heavy on raiders, ravagers,venoms and wyches, and was really excited about running hellions. The way he put it, the codex update specifically made everything he owned unplayable and he just did not want any more disappointment. From what I've been reading in this thread, he may not of been far off.
Agreed - I did not even bother buying that codex (or any since) - the sheer amount of nerfs to a large portion of the army - especially when compared to what happened later to the 7.5 codexes was sickening.
For me, it wasn't just the nerfs - it was the lack of even a shred of effort. It was one of those books where you could tell that no one on the design team cared one iota about the army. There was no attempt whatsoever to inject any fluff, flavour or life into it. It was like they'd just put the 5th edition one into some sort of soluless codex-updating machine. One which malfunctioned half-way through the process and deleted every unique rule, as well as eating several pages.
Jancoran wrote: Perhaps. But he had to go. If they made him an "upgrade character", it would have been far better. They didn't go that route. So yeah. Glad to see him gone. I play Dark Eldar and Eldar got more use out of him than we did. It was just... It was bad.
Why on earth did he ''have to go''? He was litterally the only thing that made Beast Packs worthwhile, have you tried using a Beast Pack recently? I have. I spent ages converted up a Baron and a full beast pack which is just...underwhelming. No Hit'n'run means when their startling amount of attacks bounce off armour, they can't leave combat. No stealth means i have to put the Khymerae at the front to get any save at all, yet the Khymerae do most of the damage. No grenades means when i charge into an ork horde behind a wall, i strike last and hence lose half my models, losing combat.
The Baron, The Lady and The Duke didn't need to go, the reason they went was because GW was to lazy to make models for them and didn't want 3rd parties to make money off doing so. If you think there was some tactical sense behind their removal your giving GW FAR to much credit.
It was that change that finally made my friend who played DE just thrown in the towel and sell off his army. He took the time to carefully convert a baron up, painted it well. Took the time to plan out a hellion army... including ordering a ton of boxes of them. Then the update dropped, he saw how pitiful it was and noticed Baron was gone. Put lightly, he was angry. Cancelled his order, packed his stuff up. It was all on ebay two days later. The guy ran an army heavy on raiders, ravagers,venoms and wyches, and was really excited about running hellions. The way he put it, the codex update specifically made everything he owned unplayable and he just did not want any more disappointment. From what I've been reading in this thread, he may not of been far off.
We had a similar experience in our group. Since 3rd, our most competitive player/best player has always used DE as his main army. He didn't take it to major tournaments all the time (though still quite often) but it was his biggest most played force by a large margin. His army list was similar (baron with beast pack, transport spam, he even ran Vecht now and again just because he loved the idea of him), with wyches being the main anti-tank in the last dex.
As soon as the new dex dropped he was forced to shelve the wyches and baron unit, which were his favorites. He tried it out a few times, but it really can't compete with the GMC's (poison should be -1 to wound, not -2), transport spem, and re-rollable saves that are seen so commonly. They aren't as fast as they used to be either, relatively speaking. Armies like SM and necrons, who have usually been a lot slower, can match their speed in many ways with stronger units.
He hasn't sold anything (none of us really drop anything, since we can use it for other specialist games or Dark Heresy), but he hasn't played it in a while. He switched to Iyaden and Imperial fists since then.
Really sad. I never could beat his old Dark eldar army (something like 50 draws and over 100 loses), but he's dropped in quality as a general despite playing a stronger force. Still, the new DE he was just getting crushed with, so he had to change.
I am surprised the Baron's "demise" was enough to cost him his interest in an entire codex, but people like what they like.
Wyches were decent previously but not world beaters so it does surprise me that this affected his decision much. BEFORE that newer softbound codex, Wych cult was of course the winning way to go, but once it got modernized again (by the the softcover Codex) I felt there were a lot more options and people who kept playing a Wyche cult force were doing it because they had the models already. The Hardbound book severed that cord completely (competitively speaking) and made Wyches into a totally different type of a unit which, frankly, I would highly recommend taking only if you have a Succubus to lead them, which informs your list a lot.
All I can say is, hopefully he can find some passion for it again. I play so many armies so often that I never really get burnt out on one. I just keep cycling because I have more fun that way and it makes me a better General. Dark Eldar as a force have taught me a great deal though as strategy goes so I appreciate them a lot from that perspective.
Jancoran wrote: I am surprised the Baron's "demise" was enough to cost him his interest in an entire codex, but people like what they like.
Wyches were decent previously but not world beaters so it does surprise me that this affected his decision much. BEFORE that newer softbound codex, Wych cult was of course the winning way to go, but once it got modernized again (by the the softcover Codex) I felt there were a lot more options and people who kept playing a Wyche cult force were doing it because they had the models already. The Hardbound book severed that cord completely (competitively speaking) and made Wyches into a totally different type of a unit which, frankly, I would highly recommend taking only if you have a Succubus to lead them, which informs your list a lot.
All I can say is, hopefully he can find some passion for it again. I play so many armies so often that I never really get burnt out on one. I just keep cycling because I have more fun that way and it makes me a better General. Dark Eldar as a force have taught me a great deal though as strategy goes so I appreciate them a lot from that perspective.
I loved Wych Cults since the start but they were weak in the 5th Ed codex and the new 7th just smashed them into the ground with insulting things like WS4 for their elite versions,
They chopped out almost evey single SC - cos they couldn't be bothered to make models.
They couldn't be bothered to make the flyer Vector Damcers - because?
They got rid of Flicker fields for the most part and then made lots of cover saves - so they could ignore them with the 7.5 codexes.
As others said there was zero interst in making a codex - seemingly only pushing on to focus effort on the Eldar and other 7.5 codexes.
I have a similar collection that alos includes pretty much all the armies - it just depressing to compare them to eachother at the moment......even more than previously.
Yeah, in their old codex the beast pack with baron was easily the best thing in the codex. It was a solid deathstar that could compete with other deathstars at the time and still get the job done. It gave the DE a central force to plan their strategy around, since a lot of the codex was still pretty bad.
The biggest weakness of the beast pack was it couldn't handle tanks, and skimmers were very popular. Wyches were relatively fast with the transport and had haywire. They were one of the better anti-tank units in the dex, since dark lances haven't been good in a long while. It made them weak against flyers, but a lot of armies were weak against flyers at that point in time, so you just had to take a fortification and run with it. It was still a fast dynamic assault force, which was a bit of a rare breed.
Nowadays I would say the amount of re-rollable saves, speed increases, and GMCs running around have done more to neuter the DE than their codex (although it certainly didn't help). They have an extremely hard time standing up to the top tier dexes, and eldar just look more attractive as an army in every way. I can't blame him for dropping the army.
Nowadays I would say the amount of re-rollable saves, speed increases, and GMCs running around have done more to neuter the DE than their codex (although it certainly didn't help).
The thing is though, our codex is the reason those things hit us so badly. It was abysmal even when it was first released, and only got worse with every further release.
The problem is, we just have so few options or useful rules - meaning anything that neuters one of our weapons (say, MCs gaining immune to poison or the vehicle damage chart rendering Dark Lances worthless) cripples us.
Take Marines. If something hurts their missiles, they can switch to lascannons or grav or plasma or multi-meltas. If something hurts our Dark Lances, we can switch to... nothing. Likewise, if poison becomes less effective, we have no alternative. Even many of our special weapons can only offer more poison. It would be like if you replaced marine special weapons with hurricane bolters, storm bolters and heavy bolters. Are bolters not effective? Well tough, because all you're allowed is more bolters.
Perhaps the worst part is that Soulfright weapons might have solved quite a few issues... if they hadn't been rendered worthless against virtually every codex.
Nowadays I would say the amount of re-rollable saves, speed increases, and GMCs running around have done more to neuter the DE than their codex (although it certainly didn't help).
The thing is though, our codex is the reason those things hit us so badly. It was abysmal even when it was first released, and only got worse with every further release.
The problem is, we just have so few options or useful rules - meaning anything that neuters one of our weapons (say, MCs gaining immune to poison or the vehicle damage chart rendering Dark Lances worthless) cripples us.
Take Marines. If something hurts their missiles, they can switch to lascannons or grav or plasma or multi-meltas. If something hurts our Dark Lances, we can switch to... nothing. Likewise, if poison becomes less effective, we have no alternative. Even many of our special weapons can only offer more poison. It would be like if you replaced marine special weapons with hurricane bolters, storm bolters and heavy bolters. Are bolters not effective? Well tough, because all you're allowed is more bolters.
Perhaps the worst part is that Soulfright weapons might have solved quite a few issues... if they hadn't been rendered worthless against virtually every codex.
You're probably right. Dark eldar are one of the few armies I don't own (got my fix of dark elves with the druchii) and our local guy doesn't pull them out anymore, so I'm not an expert on how they operate currently.
It's very sad to see them go from the tactician's army of choice to a really weak army that is basically the BA of the Eldar world.
I think there's several different levels to why DE are bad.
1. The units themselves.
I consider the following units are just plain bad: Drazhar, Lilith, Wyches, Wracks, Hellions, Talos, Cronos, Voidraven.
I consider the following units are below par: Archon, Succubus, Haemonculus, Urien, Incubi, Scourges, Ravager.
That's well over half the book, everything else is somewhere in the middle but there isn't a single unit I would consider good except maybe Venoms.
2. Army wide deficiencies.
Kinda stems from the units but there's very little in the way of anti-armour or Ignores Cover, few of the assault units have Assault grenades, etc.
3. Being outdated. Seems silly when the book isn't much older than a year but DE missed the boat somewhat (along with BA, GK, Orks, etc.) when it came to the power codexes and formation 40k.
4. The meta. Depends where you are of course, but playing at the UKGT recently every other table had either WKs or IKs which renders our aforementioned best unit (Venoms) pretty useless. Tau also appear to be back with a vengeance at all of that Ignores Cover is bad news.
Oh I imagine the guys having it dropped on them will care a fair amount. And since it can attack two different targets in the round it comes on that second unit will care a lot too. You really are underestimating it, but that's a pattern, so whatevs.
Also: Pointing out something sucks "unless" its used in XYZ fashion...when it CAN be used in XYZ fashion... makes no sense.
Fact is it can be. Fact is it is. Fact is it works. So what really is your point? They are good and there are few things that can stand up to them.
The few things that can aren't ever their targets.
Jancoran wrote: Oh I imagine the guys having it dropped on them will care a fair amount.
Perhaps. *If* you can find a good target. But I still haven't heard why the Voidraven is good. Okay, once per game it can drop a S9 AP2 large blast. So what? If I play Necrons, I can get a Doomsday Arc for 10pts more than the Voidraven. That can drop a S10 AP1 Large Blast at 72" range every turn.
What exactly makes this once-per-game S9 AP2 large blast so amazing?
Jancoran wrote: And since it can attack two different targets in the round it comes on that second unit will care a lot too.
Yes, because 2 Dark Lances with +1S are such terrifying weapons.
Jancoran wrote: You really are underestimating it, but that's a pattern, so whatevs.
No, you're vastly overestimating it. Just like you overestimated that idiotic IG blob you boasted about in two other threads.
Also: Pointing out something sucks "unless" its used in XYZ fashion...when it CAN be used in XYZ fashion... makes no sense.
Why not? The unit still exists outside of those formations. And, in the case of the CTC, I'm willing to bet a lot of lists might not have a spare 600+pts. Many players might not even be able to afford the requisite 5 Talos. Hell, some players might not even own the Coven book. Hence, I'd say it does matter. A lot.
That a crap unit having some very restrictive and expensive formations to make it a slightly less crap, in a different book no less, does not somehow make the unit magically better. Those formations might be good, but the unit still exists outside of them and is still just as crap.
Jancoran wrote: They are good and there are few things that can stand up to them.
I've yet to hear even a shred of evidence as to why the Talos is good, which I admit is typical of your "arguments".
And, what do you mean 'few things that can stand up to them'? Are we discounting virtually every other MC in the game? Along with a good deal of SCs, HQs and Walkers? Not to mention stuff like Grav.
In many cases, you might not even need to kill them. Certainly not quickly. Their only ranged weapon is a pea-shooter and they couldn't outrun a glacier.
Frankly though, I'm not even interested as to your reasons why Talos and Voidraven are the most powerful thing since your ridiculous 600pt IG squad. I've already heard more than enough baseless claims from you, so welcome to my ignore list.
Jancoran wrote: Oh I imagine the guys having it dropped on them will care a fair amount. And since it can attack two different targets in the round it comes on that second unit will care a lot too. You really are underestimating it, but that's a pattern, so whatevs.
Also: Pointing out something sucks "unless" its used in XYZ fashion...when it CAN be used in XYZ fashion... makes no sense.
Fact is it can be. Fact is it is. Fact is it works. So what really is your point? They are good and there are few things that can stand up to them.
The few things that can aren't ever their targets.
It does matter though.
In the same way, Tactical Marines still suck. Just because they can unlock free Razorbacks doesn't mean they're any good themselves. It's pretty hard to get such formations in at a low point level anyway.
To be fair, S9 AP2 Barrage (virtue of being a Bomb weapon) is pretty good.
The problem is the platform it's on and the fact it's one time so if you miss...you miss.
I might proxy one. My Blitzabombas do work for me when I bring one and they are only S7 (granted an additional bomb and cheaper which may factor into it a bit more).
Talos work in Corpsethief only. Maybe Dark Artisan if you're running a slower list.
Jancoran wrote: Oh I imagine the guys having it dropped on them will care a fair amount. And since it can attack two different targets in the round it comes on that second unit will care a lot too. You really are underestimating it, but that's a pattern, so whatevs.
Also: Pointing out something sucks "unless" its used in XYZ fashion...when it CAN be used in XYZ fashion... makes no sense.
Fact is it can be. Fact is it is. Fact is it works. So what really is your point? They are good and there are few things that can stand up to them.
The few things that can aren't ever their targets.
I agree with Vipoid, you're not being fair at all. Pointing out the Talos is bad unless taken in CTC or the Dark Artisan formation is *incredibly* important. Some communities are against formations in general (to many free special rules), many players don't own the entirely separate book necessary to run these formations and these formations have strict model requirements (in the case of the CTC the requirement is extreme, 5 Talosi is a lot). So his point makes a lot of sense, and while i agree few things can stand up to a full CTC i can name a few things. Grav weapons, Wraithknights and Knights (will probably die in return, but they will take out far more then their points), D-Scythes, those new Mechanicum guns that do D3 wounds, anything that moves over 12'' can stay out of their range almost indefinitely.
And the Void Raven? I've used it, it is simply not worth it's points. It costs far to many points for what can essentially be taken down by Bolters. That amazing bomb doesn't ignore cover and isn't AP 1, so it isn't great against infantry and isn't an auto delete on a vehicle, and to actually pass over an enemy model may put you in a bad position, I've had my Void Raven explode to a single rapid firing plasma in a combat squad when i over extended to drop the bomb. The sad thing is, that isn't even statistically very unlikely.
And as for your earlier comment about the loss of the Baron not being a good reason to quit, you underestimate him. He was one of those characters that opened up entirely different play styles, namely Hellions as troops. Someone who bought several units of 5 Hellions (they were actually very good objective grabbers, very cheap and surprisingly shooty) to act as there troops now doesn't have a troops choice. Someone like me who used him to allow the Beast Pack to be viable have wasted hours converting the models up. It's just a bad precedent, and you shouldn't belittle the loss GW dealt to some people.
No, you're vastly overestimating it. Just like you overestimated that idiotic IG blob you boasted about in two other threads.
Beat me with it. or be silent. Your choice. As for that comment, heres mineL stop dragging irrelvant arguments from old threads the MODERATORS felt it good to lock into others. Just some advice.
And as for your earlier comment about the loss of the Baron not being a good reason to quit, you underestimate him. He was one of those characters that opened up entirely different play styles, namely Hellions as troops. Someone who bought several units of 5 Hellions (they were actually very good objective grabbers, very cheap and surprisingly shooty) to act as there troops now doesn't have a troops choice. Someone like me who used him to allow the Beast Pack to be viable have wasted hours converting the models up. It's just a bad precedent, and you shouldn't belittle the loss GW dealt to some people.
Agreed.
Incidentally, it was really disappointing that the 7th edition book basically halved our troop options by making removing the rules that allowed Wracks and Hellions to be taken as troops. They could at least have made Wracks troops in the Coven supplement.
Even worse though was that these units were left with the capabilities of troops (e.g. 1-per-5 special weapons on Wracks), even though they were stuck in Elite/FA slots.
Why Talos (and obviously we would take them in Corpsethief Claw because why wouldnt you) are good by Jancoran:
Tough 7. Literally can't be hurt by STR 3 weapons nor troops in close combat. There are a pretty goodly number of them. In addition, most things, EVEN STR 5 things, need 6's to wound. All this is fairly awesome but what it means is this: Killing them is no picnic, and when you finally get a wound through, they get 3+ saves. But If they fail it, Feel No Pain. At which point does that sound anything but incredibly sturdy? Answer: it ALWAYS sounds incredible sturdy. You are correct.
So what can they do besides survive (which they do admirably)? Well they can carry 5 Twin Linked Haywire Blasters in the unit. Why is that "so good"? Well that's easy. Ask a Scourge. Its the most reliable Hull Point generating gun in the game. No biggee. Just the MOST reliable anti-tank gun in the game. Twin linked. You're free to tell me what sucks about that, but I will be ignoring it because anything you have to say will be incorrect. There is no better Hull point generator, as a gun, that is twin linked save for D weapons, Especially at 24 inch range!!!
What else? Well it happens to be a Monstrous Creature, causes Fear and just for kicks, it's STR 7 and can carry weapons that can Instant Death (D3 wounds to Gargantuans) all day, plus they can take armourbane weapons just because: Land Raiders. In short, there is literally no target you can't send them after. Stomp is a thing and very dangerous to Talos, but then: thats true of every unit so that's no reflection on them.
What other reasons might we have? Well wouldn't you know it we do Hammer of Wrath hits at STR 7 (awesome) in addition to the 5 we do on the charge! I know right? That's as many or more than most units, period. Effectively 6 attacks on the charge.
Now here's the best part: they can scout up or outflank! Absolutely terrific. Your opponent might want to deploy away from those Talos but the Scout gives them the ability to move upfield (if going first) to take away some of that enemy deployment shenanigan so by spreading them out as far apart as possible,you can take away a lot of room for them to hide. Going second? Outflank. Even better.
To Review: They crush everything in melee. They smash armor in the shooting phase. They have deployment shenanigans, are extremely tough and of course let's not forget that they give you FREE VICTORY POINTS every time they smash something in melee!!! I used five in the batrep below just from that. Once they start doing their thing, you can win games just with them so the points expenditure, which some will cite as a problem is nothing compared to the Free VP's it gets you. You can literally buy Victory Points before the game. You tell me how THAT sucks?
And since everyone likes a little batrep, I'll provide one to show the Talos having fun. Just happen to have one that another guy did. He does a ton of Batreps. This is one of a hundred probably.
Your preaching the to choice dude, we KNOW the Corpse Thief Squadron is powerful. In this thread, at every opportunity, everyone has stated the Haemonculus coven introduces a level of competitiveness. This is not in dispute.
The problem stems from the fact the rest of the army from Codex: Dark Eldar are sub par. Codex: Dark Eldar is not Haemonculus covens, they have vastly different styles of play. Not only in play style, but also in aesthetics and thematic flavor. So us complaining about Dark Eldar being sub par, and being told Haemonculus coven is quite good, while nice for some people is not helpful for the majority.
As for your review, once again, Corpse thief Squadron will do very well in a casual environment due to its area denial tactics and VP shenanigans, it fails in a competitive environment. A Knight Titian strikes at the same time as the Talosi, he will likely kill 2 Talos, then the Talosi will Smash him, then he will explode with a Strength D explosion and either kill or severely damage the remaining Talosi. Grav Weapons on the usual platforms can out range and out run the CTC hence they will be picked off. A Wraith Knight with Sword and Shield strikes first, kills 2/3 Talosi, and while he will probably die in return, he only costs 295pts.
So in essence, not a bad formation, but worthless on a competitive level due to how much of the army it takes up allowing for Rock<Paper><Scissors games.>
Jancoran wrote: Why Talos (and obviously we would take them in Corpsethief Claw because why wouldnt you)
The fact that that's the only way you'd take them is an issue in and of itself. If they're only good in large numbers of free special rules and abilities, that's a pretty good indicator that they have a problem otherwise.
You're not arguing the strenghts of the Talos, you're arguing the strengths of the Corpsethief Claw. There's a difference, these are not the same thing.
Tough 7. Literally can't be hurt by STR 3 weapons nor troops in close combat. There are a pretty goodly number of them. In addition, most things, EVEN STR 5 things, need 6's to wound All this is fairly awesome but what it means is this: Killing them is no picnic, and when you finally get a wound through, they get 3+ saves. But If they fail it, Feel No Pain. At which point does that sound anything but incredibly sturdy? Answer: it ALWAYS sounds incredible sturdy. You are correct.
So what can they do besides survive (which they do admirably)? Well they can carry 5 Twin Linked Haywire Blasters in the unit. Why is that "so good"? Well that's easy. Ask a Scourge. Its the most reliable Hull Point generating gun in the game. No biggee. Just the MOST reliable anti-tank gun in the game. Twin linked. You're free to tell me what sucks about that, but I will be ignoring it because anything you have to say will be incorrect. There is no better Hull point generator, as a gun, that is twin linked save for D weapons, Especially at 24 inch range!!!
What else? Well it happens to be a Monstrous Creature, causes Fear and just for kicks, it's STR 7 and can carry weapons that can Instant Death (D3 wounds to Gargantuans) all day, plus they can take armourbane weapons just because: Land Raiders. In short, there is literally no target you can't send them after. Stomp is a thing and very dangerous to Talos, but then: thats true of every unit so that's no reflection on them.
What other reasons might we have? Well wouldn't you know it we do Hammer of Wrath hits at STR 7 (awesome) in addition to the 5 we do on the charge! I know right? That's as many or more than most units, period. Effectively 6 attacks on the charge.
Now here's the best part: they can scout up or outflank! Absolutely terrific. Your opponent might want to deploy away from those Talos but the Scout gives them the ability to move upfield (if going first) to take away some of that enemy deployment shenanigan so by spreading them out as far apart as possible,you can take away a lot of room for them to hide. Going second? Outflank. Even better.
To Review: They crush everything in melee. They smash armor in the shooting phase. They have deployment shenanigans, are extremely tough and of course let's not forget that they give you FREE VICTORY POINTS every time they smash something in melee!!! I cored five i nthe batrep below just from that. Once they start doing their thing, you can win games just with them so the points expenditure, wich some will cite as a problem is nothing vompared to the Free VP's it gets you. You can literally buy Victory Points before the game. You tell me how THAT sucks?
And since everyone likes a little batrep, I'll provide one to show the Talos having fun. Just happen to have one that another guy did. He does a ton of Batreps. This is one of a hundred probably.
Again, pretty much all of this is about how great the Corpsethief claw is, not the Talos itself. Likewise, half of these points are equally applicable to just about any MC, most MC's have incredibly resiliency or outright immunity to S5 and lower attacks, particularly S3. Even when ostensibly vulnerable to them, such attacks are never great sources of wound generation against them, typically requiring dozens of such attacks to average a single wound. It's heavy weapons and upgrade CC weapons that are typically how these units are destroyed, and the Talos' resiliency against such weapons is pretty average for a CC oriented MC.
Likewise, comparing a Batrep comparing a Corepsthief claw to IG, typically considered one of the least competitive armies in 7E, an assertion backed up by large numbers of event results like ITC and such, isn't saying much about the fundamental value of the Talos.
My personal view on the Talos is that, in a vacuum, it's not bad compared directly to other MC's of similar capability, but outside of a Corpsethief claw, trying to work it into a traditional CAD Dark Eldar army, they don't really fit with the rest of the army, they don't really function well in conjunction with anything else and are an easy element for an opponent to isolate and destroy in detail, and they take up FoC slots needed for other critical roles.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Your preaching the to choice dude, we KNOW the Corpse Thief Squadron is powerful. In this thread, at every opportunity, everyone has stated the Haemonculus coven introduces a level of competitiveness. This is not in dispute.
So in essence, not a bad formation, but worthless on a competitive level due to how much of the army it takes up allowing for Rock<Paper><Scissors games.>
Wait... It matters how "much of the army" a Deathstar takes up? Since..when? Thats the definition of a Deathstar: kinda expensive and hard to kill but deadly t its job. You think the other (depending on games size) 1200-1350 points isn't enough to build around a death star? How do any other codex's get their 400-600 point deathstars out there if thats even a legit concern? This particular Deathstar is slightly more expensive than some, I'll definitely grant you that, but it pops out VP's like a candy machine.
So I absolutely can and do compete with the Corpsethief Claw! Abso-freaking-lutely.
But let me re-focus here: If you don't like Talos, no sweat. Continue not liking them. I was giving my reasons FOR liking them. So that Vipoid can't say i didn't give any reasons. I guess in the end, the scoreboard will tell you whether Talos are good or not. Pay attetion to that, and not me, if you prefer.
Again, pretty much all of this is about how great the Corpsethief claw is,
Actually...most of it wasn't about the Corpsethief claw. In point of fact, since you want to be fair minded (I assume).
The Corpsethief Claw exists, so you can ignore it if you want to. But then that's just you wanting to. Those who cannot find a use for three of them for all the same reasons (minus scouting and VP candy machine), Well... My reasons are stated for liking what they do.
Of course it matters how much of the army a Deathstar takes up. How could you possibly argue otherwise?
If you sink 600pts into a deathstar that is slow, can only target one unit (that must be a vehicle if you have Haywire) with range and takes 2/3 turns to make combat, then what happens in a game when you meet one of those obvious counters i mentioned? You lose.
A Beast star would've put you down 350pts max, it was cheap and fast and durable, a good deathstar, A Seerstar was fast, versatile and durable, a good deathstar. Same with the Screamerstar. The Centstar was also quite cheap and extremely destructive, with good movement with GoI.
See the key factors here? Speed and Price. A Slow Deathstar is nothing but cumbersome, especially when the much vaunted durability you rely upon is negated by the metas top contenders.
**EDIT** As to why other armies can fit expensive deathstars are thus, they are either ranged or fast. CTC is neither. 600pts into something that won't be effective until turn 2/3 and can be countered be a 365pt Knight, a unit of Wraithguard or Gravcenturions which will *always* get the first strike due to the massive difference in speed puts the CTC on a massive back foot.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Of course it matters how much of the army a Deathstar takes up. How could you possibly argue otherwise?
If you sink 600pts into a deathstar that is slow, can only target one unit (that must be a vehicle if you have Haywire) with range and takes 2/3 turns to make combat, then what happens in a game when you meet one of those obvious counters i mentioned? You lose.
A Beast star would've put you down 350pts max, it was cheap and fast and durable, a good deathstar, A Seerstar was fast, versatile and durable, a good deathstar. Same with the Screamerstar. The Centstar was also quite cheap and extremely destructive, with good movement with GoI.
See the key factors here? Speed and Price. A Slow Deathstar is nothing but cumbersome, especially when the much vaunted durability you rely upon is negated by the metas top contenders.
**EDIT** As to why other armies can fit expensive deathstars are thus, they are either ranged or fast. CTC is neither. 600pts into something that won't be effective until turn 2/3 and can be countered be a 365pt Knight, a unit of Wraithguard or Gravcenturions which will *always* get the first strike due to the massive difference in speed puts the CTC on a massive back foot.
Well if you care that much about what it costs, so much so that you would be willing to give up what it OFFERS in order not to pay that cost.... Okay?
In the meantime I'll pop out VP's like a candy machine, and when one of those "incredibly obvious" counters shows up (usually a deathstar of its own that usually costs 400-600 points) I'll make sure to account for it so its not getting the chance to stop me until it doesn't matter anymore (called Generalship in some quarters, strategy in others, but who really cares what we call it?). I mean you're not actually wrong that there are counters. But if all I did was play things that don't have counters. Well, there would be no army. So... Maybe that's not the best way to evaluate things.
Maybe the best way to evaluate them is to look at what they do for me and see if I can wrap enough of an army together around it to make it work and do all the things an army needs to be able to do? Maybe a plan or something? And if you can (and I can) then one can stop worrying about its cost and simply profit a lot more often than not.
Or I can listen when you tell me that there's a counter somewhere in my future universe of opponents and I should give up all the good it will do me to avoid such a fate, and have no army at all on the field. I have yet to see a unit that doesn't have another unit it doesn't like to see. in 6E, the most "powerful unit" was arguably the proliferation of Wave Serpents. Didn't like Eyes of Night. Wraith Knights don't like Stormsurges. Stormsurges don't like anything that resembles close combat oriented units, 3+ armored Close combat oriented units dont like seeing a wall of Gravguns and Gravguns dont like seeing Necron Swarms while Necron swarms dont like seeing WraithGuard and Wraithguard don't like Banshees, but banshees dont like seeing Retributors... And retributors dont like seeing a whole crap ton of things who in turn do not like seeing Exorcist tanks... and the circle continues. At some point you gotta stop using "There's a counter somewhere in the universe" as a reason not to profit.
Oh goody, do tell of your skills that will "account" for the opponents counters. I have heard of this thing called generalship and planning, perhaps I am doing it wrong. You see, I planned to beat that Eldar opponent, but his jetbikes melted my venom, his wave serpent jinked my haywire blasters and his knight shrugged off my dark lances. I planned to multicharge with the CTC but the opponent was faster then the Talosi, so he fed me a transport and some warp spiders before killing off the final talos. Shame I can't plan as well as you.
Sarcasm aside, I don't understand where these VPs like candy are coming from. The opponent knows what the CTC does, it's not a subtle formation. If you run, they move 9"/10" a turn, 6" if they shoot. You simply cannot march across the entire board and hope to come out on top, unless you argue your plan includes LOS blocking terrain to all 5 Talosi, that is just a fantasy. As for not taking them because you *might* encounter a counter, you aren't acknowledging the meta. 60% of the armies you will see at a tournament are likely to be a Post Necrons codex, or will conclude allies of such. Probably 80% of the top 10 will be as well. If the major flaw of a list is Grav, knights of all descriptions, mechanicum and fliers, and 80% of the lists you face will contain them, then it is not a silly assumption to assume you will face them.
To cover your point as to "build you army to cover your weaknesses". This was our initial point! You try build an army that can "account" for a double a wraith cannon wraith knight in conjunction with scatter bikes. Try build an army list that can account for a Stormserge, or its missile toting suits that pop our gunships far faster then we do theirs.
When an army is so far in the back foot it requires th opponent to make mistakes for an equal shot at winning, we know the book needs an update.
I play in a casual meta which means most armies can do alright but are you going to look at me with a straight face and tell me if were going to go balls to the wall competative that Dark eldar can stand on their own against Eldar, Necrons, Spacemarines, or any of the other 7.5 codex releases.
Stop pretending that any codex can beat another if we really push things to the limit. I admit that player skill and dice come into it but Dark eldar are in sad shape. Half their codex is meh, another third needs a supplement to be good via formations. Looking at reports from who is winning the major tournaments it's not dark eldar.
I play in a casual meta which means most armies can do alright but are you going to look at me with a straight face and tell me if were going to go balls to the wall competative that Dark eldar can stand on their own against Eldar, Necrons, Spacemarines, or any of the other 7.5 codex releases.
Stop pretending that any codex can beat another if we really push things to the limit. I admit that player skill and dice come into it but Dark eldar are in sad shape. Half their codex is meh, another third needs a supplement to be good via formations. Looking at reports from who is winning the major tournaments it's not dark eldar.
I agree. Dark Eldar are not a great competitive army. They can do alright in more casual environments, but at competitive tournements they're only useful as allies.
I'd say a third of their codex is just bad, a third is okay or has some use, and another third needs supplements to make them good enough to play. The only standout units form a competitive standpoint are Venoms, and those aren't nearly as impressive with the amount of superheavies running around these days.
When an army is so far in the back foot it requires th opponent to make mistakes for an equal shot at winning, we know the book needs an update.
This really isn't a tactics thread so I'll leave it alone. I hope your games improve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: there bikes are pretty good, and point for point warriors arn't bad. They suffer from two main problems. No mega formations and no super heavies.
The Bikes are silly good. Those deserve a gold star.
Something else I'd like to add - DE are really lacking in synergy and support abilities.
We have no psykers, nor even any real defence against them. But, whereas Tau have markerlights, Buffmanders and such, we have... nothing.
The closest thing we seem to get is modifiers to the PfP table. Unfortunately, the PfP table just isn't good - and certainly not useful enough to be the focus of what little support we have. For a start, it takes us 3 turns just to get to 5+ FNP. This on T3 models. Put simply, it's not remotely enough, and not what we need. 5+ FNP might, at best, take the edge off some basic weapons. What we need though is more bite.
However, any shooting units - i.e. most of our army - are out of luck because there isn't a single shooting buff in the PfP table. The only offensive buffs are Furious Charge and Rage. It might as well be +1 to hedge-trimming for all the use it is. And, incidentally, if a game can literally end before my units get their last buff then I expect something more impressive than Rage. But, even on our melee units PfP is pretty awful because most of them need Furious Charge just to be even remotely worth a damn, but you only get it on turn 4.
And why is it that Power from Pain has no relevance whatsoever to the pain I actually cause?
- Okay, it's turn 2, my units are all castled up and haven't killed so much as a single grot. What's my reward? 6+ FNP.
- Okay, it's turn 2 and my devastating first volley has crippled half the enemy army. What's my reward? 6+ FNP.
Here's a question for you guys: Let's say that DE had all their PfP bonuses from turn 1. So, 5+ FNP, FC, Fearless and Rage. Would they be overpowered?
vipoid wrote: Something else I'd like to add - DE are really lacking in synergy and support abilities.
We have no psykers, nor even any real defence against them. But, whereas Tau have markerlights, Buffmanders and such, we have... nothing.
The closest thing we seem to get is modifiers to the PfP table. Unfortunately, the PfP table just isn't good - and certainly not useful enough to be the focus of what little support we have. For a start, it takes us 3 turns just to get to 5+ FNP. This on T3 models. Put simply, it's not remotely enough, and not what we need. 5+ FNP might, at best, take the edge off some basic weapons. What we need though is more bite.
However, any shooting units - i.e. most of our army - are out of luck because there isn't a single shooting buff in the PfP table. The only offensive buffs are Furious Charge and Rage. It might as well be +1 to hedge-trimming for all the use it is. And, incidentally, if a game can literally end before my units get their last buff then I expect something more impressive than Rage. But, even on our melee units PfP is pretty awful because most of them need Furious Charge just to be even remotely worth a damn, but you only get it on turn 4.
And why is it that Power from Pain has no relevance whatsoever to the pain I actually cause?
- Okay, it's turn 2, my units are all castled up and haven't killed so much as a single grot. What's my reward? 6+ FNP.
- Okay, it's turn 2 and my devastating first volley has crippled half the enemy army. What's my reward? 6+ FNP.
Here's a question for you guys: Let's say that DE had all their PfP bonuses from turn 1. So, 5+ FNP, FC, Fearless and Rage. Would they be overpowered?
I don't think it would be over powered, maybe even make them usable.
Though it feels like GW designed this codex to be a dedicated taxi service for their craftworld brethren. But that require some future planning that I doubt GW actually has ability to do.
When an army is so far in the back foot it requires th opponent to make mistakes for an equal shot at winning, we know the book needs an update.
This really isn't a tactics thread so I'll leave it alone. I hope your games improve.
You have either failed to understand, or have deliberately misinterpreted my entire post. Of course i know that the CTC can get VP's from non-vehicle kills, that was obvious inferred by when i said ''It's not a subtle formation''. My point stands that the CTC cannot walk across the board and expect to wrack up these VP's unless the opponent is literally setting up all his units to be multi-charged at the same time. As for ''I might not have to, remember?'' i assume you are inferring to Scout and Outflank? Scout is a 6'' move, it doesn't solve the problems the CTC has, only slightly alleviates them. And if you intend to put 600pts of your army into reserve when Dark Eldar have no access to reserve manipulation apart from the Aegis which doesn't gel with the army at all, then that is exceptionally bad planning. You could be spending 4 turns 600pts down, and only have 1/2 turns of assault in which to wrack up these VP's.
Maybe i should avoid satire and sarcasm, it seems to go right over some peoples heads.
Frozocrone wrote: Corsair depresses me. I don't feel like splashing out £50 for what should be DE.
The trouble is, it feels like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place on that front. On the one hand, yeah, it's a silly price to have to pay to get functional rules. On the other, I don't see GW fixing DE any time soon. Even if you trust them to make the next codex good (and I certainly don't), I can't imagine we'll get a codex before 8th edition.
Incidentally, I certainly hope no frustrated DE players get hold of these Corsair rules through torrents or such. That would be just awful.
Haven't read the whole Talos andVoidraven debates (since inadvertently starting them) but I'll at least give my reasons as to why.
Voidravens are very overcosted for something so flimsy. One use only weapons are very hit and miss and not worth spending your points on. For similar points in similar roles you can get a Crimson Hunter Exarch or a Vendetta both of which are way better.
Talos are bad because they only move 6" limiting their ability to get into melee and for a MC to be an effective shooting platform it really needs two guns (not counting crappy liquifiers). In these days of D weapons and stomps it's hard to keep one alive let alone kill something. I think Corpsethief Claws are just too expensive especially once you kit them out. You can make way more destructive deathstars for 650 points. Maybe with Invis, but the more you get Eldar involved then the less you end up playing DE at all!
Since I sold my DE even before going on a 10 year hiatus, after coming back i've been drooling over the models. Not the rules though, and after reading lots of threads like this, it makes it really tough to want to invest in em. So, I plan to try and fit them and a corsairs list together as much as I can to over lap as Kabal/ corsairs and hope a dex update makes me want to expand the DE portion. Coven is interesing and was an idea I liked way back when, but I never did anything with, but they may be the one thing DE would bring to the new corsairs list worth adding on their own. I really wish Hellions were decent, always loved them.
DE have been out for a while. That no major tournament has seen them placed in the top 10, without being a minor component pointswise of an eldar army, is very indicative that they are not competitive.
DE are not some hidden gem that no one has figured out how to use properly, they just lack the tools to be competitive.
You have either failed to understand, or have deliberately misinterpreted my entire post. Of course i know that the CTC can get VP's from non-vehicle kills, that was obvious inferred by when i said ''It's not a subtle formation''. My point stands that the CTC cannot walk across the board and expect to wrack up these VP's unless the opponent is literally setting up all his units to be multi-charged at the same time. As for ''I might not have to, remember?'' i assume you are inferring to Scout and Outflank? Scout is a 6'' move, it doesn't solve the problems the CTC has, only slightly alleviates them. And if you intend to put 600pts of your army into reserve when Dark Eldar have no access to reserve manipulation apart from the Aegis which doesn't gel with the army at all, then that is exceptionally bad planning. You could be spending 4 turns 600pts down, and only have 1/2 turns of assault in which to wrack up these VP's.
Maybe i should avoid satire and sarcasm, it seems to go right over some peoples heads.
Nope. I got everything you were saying. Ignored the sarcasm on purpose because well... these threads go poorly if I don't.
You are downplaying both the Comms Relay, even though its an obvious answer to your concern (for when it even will be one), and you're downplaying how much it "alleviates" that concern. So if your response is just to downplay the obvious things to do, I suppose that's one way to go.
Anywho, I really hope you can back away from the ledge on Dark Eldar. Or not.
As a long time Dark Eldar player ( I have 5000 points of old-school DE) Here is what I think is wrong, or missing in their codex:
Across the board they are too expensive. They need point drops on units, vehicles, characters, weapons, upgrades, etc.
They need more interesting wargear. At the moment they are boring. Remember when you used to be able to give your leader a punisher?
More internal Synergy is needed. The commander of an army should have weapons and wargear that compliment the unit he joins. At the moment.....it doesn't quite work out that well.
I'm fine with the Glass cannon ideal, just add some more offensive output to underline the cannon part.
Speed, they need more of it. Let raiders either move farther, units disembark at flat-out, or both.
Vect. For the love of God, bring this guy back. Preferably both as an on-foot model and on his pimpmobile.
cuda1179 wrote: As a long time Dark Eldar player ( I have 5000 points of old-school DE) Here is what I think is wrong, or missing in their codex:
Across the board they are too expensive. They need point drops on units, vehicles, characters, weapons, upgrades, etc.
They need more interesting wargear. At the moment they are boring. Remember when you used to be able to give your leader a punisher?
More internal Synergy is needed. The commander of an army should have weapons and wargear that compliment the unit he joins. At the moment.....it doesn't quite work out that well.
I'm fine with the Glass cannon ideal, just add some more offensive output to underline the cannon part.
Speed, they need more of it. Let raiders either move farther, units disembark at flat-out, or both.
Vect. For the love of God, bring this guy back. Preferably both as an on-foot model and on his pimpmobile.
Worst of all, their weird gimmick in the new book was the emphasis of Fear or Soulfright which were found on things like phantasm grenade launchers, even though most units worth scaring nowadays are either Fearless, Ld10, or have ATSKNF. Sadly one of the few armies its actually okay against are Orks, but even then its a lacklustre attempt to show the horrors of the Dark Eldar unleashed and no real way of demonstrating their tactics as raiders.
cuda1179 wrote: As a long time Dark Eldar player ( I have 5000 points of old-school DE) Here is what I think is wrong, or missing in their codex:
Remember when you used to be able to give your leader a punisher?
Vect. For the love of God, bring this guy back. Preferably both as an on-foot model and on his pimpmobile.
I do agree on these two points. I dont get why they dont let us have a build a bear factory with our leader. And the stupid Crucible... My gawd how did they mess that up? THAT annoys me. I'm not much of a complainer or a whiner, but that one thing really really upset me.
And Vect, yeah... I mean... what was the point of removing one of the most discernibly important figures in the Dark Eldar lore? Make him a Lord of War or something but fer feths sake, leave him available.
That doesn't really stop the codex from winning but it is definitely annoying enough to agree with, Hehehe.
cuda1179 wrote: As a long time Dark Eldar player ( I have 5000 points of old-school DE) Here is what I think is wrong, or missing in their codex:
Across the board they are too expensive. They need point drops on units, vehicles, characters, weapons, upgrades, etc.
They need more interesting wargear. At the moment they are boring. Remember when you used to be able to give your leader a punisher?
More internal Synergy is needed. The commander of an army should have weapons and wargear that compliment the unit he joins. At the moment.....it doesn't quite work out that well.
I'm fine with the Glass cannon ideal, just add some more offensive output to underline the cannon part.
Speed, they need more of it. Let raiders either move farther, units disembark at flat-out, or both.
Vect. For the love of God, bring this guy back. Preferably both as an on-foot model and on his pimpmobile.
Worst of all, their weird gimmick in the new book was the emphasis of Fear or Soulfright which were found on things like phantasm grenade launchers, even though most units worth scaring nowadays are either Fearless, Ld10, or have ATSKNF. Sadly one of the few armies its actually okay against are Orks, but even then its a lacklustre attempt to show the horrors of the Dark Eldar unleashed and no real way of demonstrating their tactics as raiders.
make it LD based and nor morale based and whammo. Scary as hell.
Personally I just want my archon w/ blast pistol, venom blade, and clone field back. She was so difficult to kill back in the waaay back when of 5th edition xD but now I simply can't use the build, and in GW stores I couldn't use her model either since no Venom blades for good people.
I also miss the distinction between haemonculus and the ancients, and wish they actually had discounts or new items for the ancients to incentive getting them.
autumnlotus wrote: Personally I just want my archon w/ blast pistol, venom blade, and clone field back. She was so difficult to kill back in the waaay back when of 5th edition xD but now I simply can't use the build, and in GW stores I couldn't use her model either since no Venom blades for good people.
The removal of Venom Blades was depressing to say the least. As was making Clone Field a bland, overpriced 4++.
I also dislike that Venom Blades are now 10pts. They really didn't need to double in price.
autumnlotus wrote: I also miss the distinction between haemonculus and the ancients, and wish they actually had discounts or new items for the ancients to incentive getting them.
I think they could have done a lot with the distinction. Maybe some extra rules for the ancient? Again, really annoying that they reduced them to just a single type - especially after already trimming the HQ and Wargear sections to the bone.
For ancients they could have made a bigger model, with spider legs or spikey face or other deformities, and made it Bulky in size and a 35$ miniature with options like the chaos termie lord. There could have been a lot of useful miniatures for haemonculus cult that would have made me Chuck ALL my money at GW. Right now the only good ones are the Talos/Chronos, which doesn't have a lot of varience once you have 5 that are basically identical. Rules-wise none of the units have uniqueness to them, they are all just slow moving CC fighters w/ the haemonculi just being force multipliers with lil chance of doing anything themselves
I think I'd rather see an Ancient Haemoculus that was just a regular Haemonculus with more support abilities. Could even have a selection and let the Haemonculus pick one, or buy multiple ones:
- Master of Pain affects units in an aura around the Haemonculus.
- Haemonculus and his unit have IWND. If any models already have IWND, they instead receive +1 to the roll.
- Haemonculus and his unit get +1 on FNP rolls.
- Haemonculus and his unit have +1S.
etc.
ryuken87 wrote: Hell they could have given us the option to take jetbikes on our Archons like the old days, made a £20+ model and made loads of money.
But that would have required GW to make models for those options. And, as we well know, they're not a model company...
Much likes Orks w/ Mob Rule and Tyranids w/ Instinctive Behavour it's pointless and does nothing to help streamline the game, which is what GW seem to be doing. Heck, it only adds more time to the game because it's oh, I rolled this, now what does it do, right ok *roll dice* and frankly it's boring. With the DE, you have to remember what you rolled, on top of the PfP so it's eh.
I kinda want to see Combat Drugs used as Psychic Powers, so you can inject a different kind of drug to adapt to situations on the battlefield. But that's just a preliminary idea, I'd have to think about how to implement it, as DE lack Psykers.
Much likes Orks w/ Mob Rule and Tyranids w/ Instinctive Behavour it's pointless and does nothing to help streamline the game, which is what GW seem to be doing. Heck, it only adds more time to the game because it's oh, I rolled this, now what does it do, right ok *roll dice* and frankly it's boring. With the DE, you have to remember what you rolled, on top of the PfP so it's eh.
I kinda want to see Combat Drugs used as Psychic Powers, so you can inject a different kind of drug to adapt to situations on the battlefield. But that's just a preliminary idea, I'd have to think about how to implement it, as DE lack Psykers.
As a Daemons player, I laugh at this. You think you have it bad?
Frozocrone wrote: Ooh yeah totally forgot about Daemons. I don't have them in my meta so i tend to forget it a lot.
That needs to go too.
Agreed. Sometimes it's rather cool (free Daemons and blowing up enemy Psykers on 3d6) but most of the time it does nothing or ends up hurting me. Um, what?
I would even take a modified table, something where it's only a d6, with 1 being bad and 6 being free Daemons. That, or keep the existing table, but make 2-3 bad, 4-8 neutral, and everything else good to awesome.
Eh. I've never had it take up that much time. Sure, it gets in the way, but I think it's a cool fluffy part of the army. If I wanted time efficiency, I wouldn't play 40k
Jancoran wrote: Oh I imagine the guys having it dropped on them will care a fair amount. And since it can attack two different targets in the round it comes on that second unit will care a lot too. You really are underestimating it, but that's a pattern, so whatevs.
Also: Pointing out something sucks "unless" its used in XYZ fashion...when it CAN be used in XYZ fashion... makes no sense.
Fact is it can be. Fact is it is. Fact is it works. So what really is your point? They are good and there are few things that can stand up to them.
The few things that can aren't ever their targets.
Voidraven Bomber is outperformed point for point by the Razorwing. An extra 70 points for those better guns and a one use bomb is too much.
If it didn't have to pay for its missiles it'd be a bit more competitive, but still fundamentally not good enough.
I'm trying out a force soon incorporating 3 Razorwings - I'm hoping 6 Fleshbane Large Blasts followed by 6 Dark Lances can be decent [though it's only friendly play so useless as a comparison].
If it didn't have to pay for its missiles it'd be a bit more competitive, but still fundamentally not good enough.
"fundamentally" eh? Bombs are extremely accurate so i can't agree. That is a super deadly weapon that can get behind your cover and steal your life. It answers a need the Razorwing can't. It isn't the Second Coming of Christ or anything, but I have won more than one game because that thing just doesn't miss and steals cover away quite often with its position.
Just an opinion though. The missiles are spendy but its hard to argue that when this unit can come in and devastate two different units in one turn, you're somehow "wasting" points. The way i looked at it is, I'm paying for a massive hit with the bomb and the lances... and I am sort of "buying another one use unit" that fires three missiles also. Thats how it kind of behaves.
the void raven is trash compared to almost ever other flyer. At 160 points it comes with a one use bomb and more power lances. The bomb is good but it's one use, if i could drop one every term it be worth something but as is it's meh. It's also made of paper, bolter fire can strip off hull points. If your opponent has any interceptor skyfire unit's it's probably dead before it gets to do anything. it either needs to be much cheaper or it needs to be av 11 and come stock with missiles.
The doom Scythe isnt a choice for Dark eldar. comparing them is therefore unfruitful within the context of the codex.
The Doom Scythe is a completely different kind of killer. It is less accurate since it doesn't fire a bomb (adn as you know, bombs are a lot more accurate). Life spans are about the same. The VoidRaven does do a lot more damage overall when it enters and its Dark Lances make it fearsome enough for any unit, land or air, to fear. So it is just a different killer and its in a different army.
Jancoran wrote: The doom Scythe isnt a choice for Dark eldar. comparing them is therefore unfruitful.
The Doom Scythe is a completely different kind of killer. It is less accurate since it doesn't fire a bomb (adn as you know, bombs are a lot more accurate). Life spans are about the same. The VoidRaven does do a lot more damage overall when it enters and its Dark Lances make it fearsome enough for any unit, land or air, to fear. So it is just a different killer and its in a different army.
It's a bad unit and it's fair to compare it to other units because you'll have to fight those units at some point. Compare this thing to a storm talon or even the DE other flyer it's not good. 160 points for one bomb and two lances on a very fragile platform. you give it missiles and it's over 200, way to much for how fragile it is. you run into an opponent with Aegis defense line, hydra or a stalker, etc, this thing is likely to kill nothing cause it will go down like a brick to auto cannon fire.
Compare away but understand that we arent talking about a CHOICE. If you are playing Dark Eldar, you either pay the tax to bring in the "better" aerial combatant oooor... You take the one you have for less than that tax. So comparing them does you no good.
If your list lacks enough AP 2 that you can actually separately afford to dedicate to a singular target, then the Bomber is quite a good choice.
And an "Aegis line" or {fill in the blank perfect couinter} is going to happen with any flyer. Unless you BOTH jink you BOTH run the risk of being stunned anyways and/or dying. So there is no practical difference in that scenario save for the one point of armor which probably isnt going to stop all four shots from shaking or stunning you. So Yes, the Doom Scythe CAN compare favorably to the bomber when in both scenarios they both stand against the same {fill in the blank perfect counter for flyers}. Will it? Only a certain percentage of the time.
If survivability is your only qualifier for whether its better, then hey: you win. It isnt my only qualifier.
Jancoran wrote: The doom Scythe isnt a choice for Dark eldar. comparing them is therefore unfruitful within the context of the codex.
The Doom Scythe is a completely different kind of killer. It is less accurate since it doesn't fire a bomb (adn as you know, bombs are a lot more accurate). Life spans are about the same. The VoidRaven does do a lot more damage overall when it enters and its Dark Lances make it fearsome enough for any unit, land or air, to fear. So it is just a different killer and its in a different army.
Sure it is. Take them under the formation where you get 2-4 of them.
For me survivability is important because flyers must come in from reserves and therefore are vulnerable to being intercepted. If a flyer doesn't have a good change of surviving the first turn then it's of questionable use. The necron flyer is a bit sturdier and has living metal which makes it harder to shut down. Either way the bomb kills one unit at most, and then you have a 160 point unit with two strength nine lances.
I'm not impressed, Dark Eldar can get lances else where for far cheaper.
HoundsofDemos wrote: For me survivability is important because flyers must come in from reserves and therefore are vulnerable to being intercepted. If a flyer doesn't have a good change of surviving the first turn then it's of questionable use. The necron flyer is a bit sturdier and has living metal which makes it harder to shut down. Either way the bomb kills one unit at most, and then you have a 160 point unit with two strength nine lances.
I'm not impressed, Dark Eldar can get lances else where for far cheaper.
Thank you. Especially in formation, Doom Scythes are much deadlier.
Saying you can't compare units is moronic. That's the entire point of having point costs.
You could maybe make an argument about Formations, army-buffs and/or support abilities that tip the balance one way or another.
On that front, there are no formations that can even include a Razorwing, let alone buff one, DE have no army-wide special rules that affect Razorwings, and no support abilities that affect them either. So, that's those 3 ruled out.
Personally? I've found they're so fragile and don't have enough punch. I kill lots of units but I've lost so many vehicles and people that I get dinged on kill points.
awbbie wrote: Personally? I've found they're so fragile and don't have enough punch. I kill lots of units but I've lost so many vehicles and people that I get dinged on kill points.
Kill Points for my DE are basically an auto-lose unless I can table my opponent. I always have more kill points than them, and mine are a lot more fragile.
Incidentally, why is this game still using fething Kill Points?
HoundsofDemos wrote: For me survivability is important because flyers must come in from reserves and therefore are vulnerable to being intercepted. If a flyer doesn't have a good change of surviving the first turn then it's of questionable use.
A "bit" sturdier doesnt make you less likely to jink in the case of 11 v 10. And if you dont you'll likely end up shaken anyways. So It isnt untrue that its a "bit" more survivable. thats just not really that impactful when ultimately they both face the same problem with interceptors. Intercepting isnt truly an argument in and of itself unless you are simply never willing to jink. then yeah, like I say, you win. But you cannot do much about the fact that they have interceptor. So... I mean... its not truly a point of comparison and even if it was it doesnt matter because Dark eldar arent taking Doom Scythes anyways. So Why are we talking about how RELATIVELY good it is? Which of the two wants to see the other in the sky more? Lol. I REALLY dont think the Doom Scythe wants to square off with the Dark Eldar lances.
Well, 4 shots at TL is about 3.5 hits. with more possibly being generated (I want to say the average is 14/3).
The 2 str 9 shots will cause 1.33 hits.
The necron flyer will cause a little over 28/9 HP damage before jinking if firing at the DE flyer. The DE flyer will cause ~1.1 HP damage to the Necron flyer before jinking.
Someone may want to double check my math. I used a program for the TL Tesla shots at str 7 and am going off memory for both so I could be wrong. If I'm right, the Necron flyer clearly wins.
After that it depends on what we are shooting. On anything T5 or lower, the necron flyer is pretty good turn after turn, since it causes about 4 Str 7 hits a turn with transport abilities. It can easily put 3.3/4 wounds on most T5 or lower enemies. (For a comparsion, 10 marines with bolters put out less wounds at full range, and slightly more at rapid fire range without special weapons)
On anything T8+, the other tank is arguably better (although still only going to cause 1 wound/HP a turn). The better the save the better the DE flyer gets.
It's probably meta dependent, but it does seem that the necron flyer is better and the DE flyer is only good for the bomb.
It kind of sucks too, because the fluff of the Void Raven is pretty cool. I had for a little while considered having one in my DE allied detachment, but seeing this I'm not sure now.
Well I don't sell Voidraven bombers so use 'em or don't. Stating they suck is hyperbole though. They really don't. I like not missing. I like not missing at STR 9 AP 2 a lot. If you think it's a waste, by all means don't use it then.
Its not really hyperbole, unless you are referring to an older post. It's just how they perform on average against a few different targets.
2 shots isn't very good. The max you can do is 2 wounds after all, while the necron flyer seems to average above that. The Ap 2 is nice against a lot of targets, but the targets its good against probably don't worry about 2 shots very much. We saw how many meltas it took to take down a wraith knight, and it was frightening. These are in a similar, though better, position.
It's not strictly worse overall though. Against certain targets it is better. How common those targets are in your area, and how critical their destruction is, will probably dictate if you bring one at all. DE are lacking options, while Necrons are not, so that's certainly a point in their favor.
The bomb is probably not that great if your opponent spreads out. It could stop SM from teleporting all the time however, which is quite useful.
Jancoran wrote: Let me know how those decimals work out for you.
In the end its not there to take down planes. But it will. and when it aims, you'll jink. so.
AKA I'm going to ignore the math you gave because decimals.
There are no decimals in the actualized math. Because no die has decimals. So look at it another way, which is equally true: The Lances which are STR 9 AP 2 hit more often than they don't. In fact Each lance does, separate from each other!
If someone aimed TWO weapons at me and both could kill me... and they both hit more often than they dont... Should i jink? Well given that, i think we can agree that they probably should.
And then, looking at it from the victims angle, the truth is, the Lances will each penetrate the hull more often than they don't when they hit. Knowing that, does that increase or decrease your willingness to Jink?
The Decimals only give you the probabilities, not the actual number of results. So over infinite games your not wrong. In the moment, you're not playing infinite games. So you have to make a decision for this game and knowing what you know... Those decimals will be of little comfort.
So take what I said literally. Decimals dont actually happen in games of 40K. there is absolute certain hits and absolute certain misses. Nothing inbetween exists in the game.
the reason i am willing to take risks when i play is the knowledge that things that don't typically happen, do. Things that are likely to happen dont. And a combination of those can make a daring risk pay off. You never even put yourself in a position to benefit from such things if you dont take risks.
The good a Voidraven Bomber can do is significant. in reality. I seek to gain that benefit. when it works, My opponent is very unhappy. And with that capability, I can now go in confidence as i plan my strategies knowing that of all the things i Can't do, killing 2+ armor isn't one of them. Eliminating the things I can't really do is important.
So i vew the game through a little different lens. Probabiliy is important. I am absolutely positively not saying otherwise. But even if there is a certain probability I wont ever get to fire my sleek Bomber, not even having one ensures I cant. Do you understand what I am trying to convey?
They're both inflicting less than one HP stripped per turn, and that's just without the Death Ray or the bomb.
Im unaware of flyers with AV 14. Also: its a lance. So its only AV 12 against a Lance. Did you forget that along with the STR of the weapon? Or was that a "typo" as well? And the Bomber is clearly not designed for anti- ground armor operations unless it is forced by a lack of options.
Frozocrone wrote: Ooh yeah totally forgot about Daemons. I don't have them in my meta so i tend to forget it a lot.
That needs to go too.
Agreed. Sometimes it's rather cool (free Daemons and blowing up enemy Psykers on 3d6) but most of the time it does nothing or ends up hurting me. Um, what?
I would even take a modified table, something where it's only a d6, with 1 being bad and 6 being free Daemons. That, or keep the existing table, but make 2-3 bad, 4-8 neutral, and everything else good to awesome.
1-6.
1 does nothing.
2 Slaanesh, 3 Nurgle, 4 Tzeentch, 5 Khorne
6 you choose.
I should NOT have the possibility of wiping out 600pts of my army in my own shooting phase with absolutely NOTHING I can do to stop it (short of taking Fateweaver), like what happened at a tournament last weekend.
Jancoran wrote: Let me know how those decimals work out for you.
In the end its not there to take down planes. But it will. and when it aims, you'll jink. so.
AKA I'm going to ignore the math you gave because decimals.
There are no decimals in the actualized math. Because no die has decimals.
Well, yes. What 1.3 hits means is that you are likely to score 1 hit, but most likely won't score 2, though the odds of scoring 2 aren't non existent. I think we can all agree that is what our gut feeling is when we see 2 shots at BS 4 as well.
We could do a more detailed analysis of the numbers (run chance of 0, 1, and 2 hits separately along with deviations) but that seems complicated for what is a game.
So look at it another way, which is equally true: The Lances which are STR 9 AP 2 hit more often than they don't. In fact Each lance does, separate from each other!
We could say the same about every lascannon outside of IG though. Lascannons are still considered overpriced because 1 bad roll effects them so much, since they tend to get fewer shots.
Or take it this way;
If I roll a 1 with the necron flyer, I can re-roll it and/or get 3 other shots.
If I roll a 1 with the DE flyer, half my firepower is gone if I've already dropped the bomb.
The max amount of hits I can score with the necron flyer is absurdly high (Tesla).
The max amount of hits I can score with the DE flyer is 2.
If someone aimed TWO weapons at me and both could kill me... and they both hit more often than they dont... Should i jink? Well given that, i think we can agree that they probably should.
No, it won't kill me unless he rolls very lucky on his damage table, and I can kill him pretty reliably if I don't jink.
Then again, with TL and Tesla, I might jink anyway. I wonder if the necron flyer does more damage while jinking than the DE flyer does normally if pitted against each other? Probably pretty close since you'll get more 6's.
That's another thing to take into consideration I suppose. The DE flyer is crippled if it jinks, and can't do anything much in the following round. The Necron flyer can still do some work if it jinks.
And then, looking at it from the victims angle, the truth is, the Lances will each penetrate the hull more often than they don't when they hit. Knowing that, does that increase or decrease your willingness to Jink?
I already took that into account. Statistically, you shouldn't jink since the DE flyer has no chance to kill you by hp, and needs the damage table to work, which isn't likely. In this match up, I probably would jink just to be safe, but the necron flyer wouldn't suffer so much from Jink and could still fight back pretty well. Not great (I actually think it ends up being about the same as the DE flyer at that point though I'm not sure) but still not bad.
The Decimals only give you the probabilities, not the actual number of results. So over infinite games your not wrong. In the moment, you're not playing infinite games. So you have to make a decision for this game and knowing what you know... Those decimals will be of little comfort.
But the same argument works both ways. You could roll a 1 to hit, and half your fire power is gone. If the necron player rolls a 1, he just re-rolls. His dice could also explode with a lot of 6's showing up, causing him to way over perform.
All the averages tells us is that, if all possible outcomes of the dice were lined up, the sycthe will win most dog fights against the DE flyer simply through volume of fire. It's not like this is unique. Most of the better units in the game are great because of volume of fire after all.
So take what I said literally. Decimals dont actually happen in games of 40K. there is absolute certain hits and absolute certain misses. Nothing inbetween exists in the game.
the reason i am willing to take risks when i play is the knowledge that things that don't typically happen, do. Things that are likely to happen dont. And a combination of those can make a daring risk pay off. You never even put yourself in a position to benefit from such things if you dont take risks.
We all have to take risks. The best generals try to mitigate risk as much as possible, in any of the dice based games. Having an idea of what those risks are helps make those decisions.
It's why divination has been such a good discipline. You are always going to get the best power (the re-roll to hit), and re-rolling to hit is really good.
Then again, I play the most cowardly eCaine you've ever seen, so what do I know?
The good a Voidraven Bomber can do is significant. in reality. I seek to gain that benefit. when it works, My opponent is very unhappy. And with that capability, I can now go in confidence as i plan my strategies knowing that of all the things i Can't do, killing 2+ armor isn't one of them. Eliminating the things I can't really do is important.
We can figure out the max damage it can do, which is 2 wounds a turn plus the bomb once per game. So, 12 hits at Str 9 Ap 2 plus the bomb, and that is assuming crazy hot dice. Over the course of the entire game, assuming it doesn't die.
If that is good or not is entirely dependent on the meta. I would say I certainly don't think it's great against many of the better lists. With the bomb it's hard to catch more than 4-5 guys in the blast, you have to hope those are quality targets to make the points back since the lances aren't great against most MC's/GMCs, and heavy tanks aren't common right now.
So i vew the game through a little different lens. Probabiliy is important. I am absolutely positively not saying otherwise. But even if there is a certain probability I wont ever get to fire my sleek Bomber, not even having one ensures I cant. Do you understand what I am trying to convey?
Not really?
If I don't take the bomber, I might be able to take other options that perform better. This is why we do a statistical analysis.
I don't see why we are comparing it to the necron flyer, unless someone is trying to say it's not great. The DE codex itself isn't great, so I don't see why that matters. You certainly don't see sycthes spammed in competitive necron lists anymore, and if its better than the bomber I suppose that says something, but not anything useful. Though it is strangely on the original topic
The bomber should probably be compared to other units within the DE codex that perform similar roles at a similar point cost if we are going to talk about how useful it is within the DE lineup.
No one said it would. I said it could. And I'm not wrong. and all the stats in the world wont override your judgement when your own life is in danger. So... Do you jink or not? If you wish to play statistical games, don't jink and we will both happily take our chances. Good luck champ. =)
Yes...and right now Im shooting you. So... Are you going to say "well he should have only gotten..." after I blow you out of the sky, knowing I hit more oftne than i dont and i will kill you or shake/stu you more often than i won't?
You'll jink.
There is no choice for me to make. Im already firing at this point.
So i vew the game through a little different lens. Probabiliy is important. I am absolutely positively not saying otherwise. But even if there is a certain probability I wont ever get to fire my sleek Bomber, not even having one ensures I cant. Do you understand what I am trying to convey?
Not really?
If I don't take the bomber, I might be able to take other options that perform better. This is why we do a statistical analysis.
The statistical analysis supports my statement. You either have 100% chance of not hitting the clumped {fill in the blanks} after a charge by not taking the Bomber or you will have a certain percentile that is higher than 0% if you take the bomber. No other weapon provides this advantage so you must decide if you WANT that advantage, given nothing else in the list will do the same thing and certainly not with the same accuracy.
Once you've made THAt choice, the other statistics matter. So the question isnt one of performance. Its one of opportunity cost as well. And you DO pay an opportunity cost by not having such a weapon, by virtue of the fact that there is no OTHER such weapon to take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You really don't get how statistics work is all I'm getting from your more recent posts.
I took statistics. Not only that, I am in an industry that does a lot of math. So you're barking up the wrong tree. The application of statistics is a lot more important than the statistic itself.
We have a saying in our industry: Figures don't lie... but liars can figure.
People who want something to be true can create figures to support it theoretically. What they cannot do is actualize those numbers because, put simply, there aren't infinite games within the game you're playing RIGHT NOW and so all you can due is gauge the likelihood and as you know, the deviation from the average can actually be quite high. Just in this game alone the dEviation comes in part from the fact that there are TRULY no decimals. So even though the averages would totally tell us whether a Crisi suit with X weapon vs. Y weapon against an exactly determined target would be more or less efficient, we'd have to know ALL that. And even then our numbers would further deviate just on the strength of how frequently we can force that actual situation to happen. The more times we can, the more true our statements with numbers, but the enemy has a lot ot say about that!.
Averages inform us when their are two comparable options, infinite numbers of times. If there isn't, then we cannot truly compare them. So stats are useful. You'll never hear me say otherwise, not ever. Least of all me. I'm a numbers guy. But you really need to be careful in how you apply them. After all: Figures don't lie... but liars can figure.
A Raptor and a VoideRaven Bomber are so far apart that while we could easily determine the kills/point ratio given the data of an exactly defined target, we know the numbers mean nothing. Similarly, we know that the numbrs for something that exists vs. Something that doesnt are equally meaningless. yet we postulate all the time how much "better" we'd be if X existed. Would we?
And the worst thing about numbers is opportunity cost. Consider opportunity cost as real thing.
Yes...and right now Im shooting you. So... Are you going to say "well he should have only gotten..." after I blow you out of the sky, knowing I hit more oftne than i dont and i will kill you or shake/stu you more often than i won't?
You'll jink.
There is no choice for me to make. Im already firing at this point.
Short of going through the long process of coming up with a PMF for every roll you make in the game, calculating the 'expected' result as decimals is pretty helpful to most players during the course of the game.
The 'Hit you more often than I don't', and then 'wound you more often that I don't' style of thinking leads to situations where you would 'expect' 10 bolter shots to kill 10 guardsmen. Which we all know won't happen.
If you have a basic understanding of the math, you'll look at that '1.3' number and your 2 shots and think 'ok, that means I have a chance to do nothing, a large chance to do 1 HP, and a small chance to do 2'.
If I think you're only going to do 1 HP on average then i won't jink, and if you roll hot and still kill me than I'll know I made the best decision from the information available at the time. (otoh in this situation, 1 HP most likely = 1 shaken/stunned so I'd jink anyway).
Good math skills are a great boon to decision making in the game. Not just knowing how to calculate expected results (which everyone should be able to do) but how to interpret and apply those results in game.
Yes...and right now Im shooting you. So... Are you going to say "well he should have only gotten..." after I blow you out of the sky, knowing I hit more oftne than i dont and i will kill you or shake/stu you more often than i won't?
You'll jink.
There is no choice for me to make. Im already firing at this point.
Short of going through the long process of coming up with a PMF for every roll you make in the game, calculating the 'expected' result as decimals is pretty helpful to most players during the course of the game.
The 'Hit you more often than I don't', and then 'wound you more often that I don't' style of thinking leads to situations where you would 'expect' 10 bolter shots to kill 10 guardsmen. Which we all know won't happen..
Useful. Agreed.
And the style of thinking isn't a style. its the reality of the situation. You and I cannot change that it is true that I hit more than I don't, nor that it might not happen this time! So "thinking that way" isn't even necessary. It matters to the target more than the guy shooting because the shooter has already made his decision, already needs to make the shot, and it will be what it will be.
Before the game started, you conceptualized 3x6 Scatterbike units and what you'd do about it. You conceptualized a Wraith Knight and what you'd do about it. Wraithguard? conceptualized an answer.
Now you want your answer to be inexpensive as possible... but let's say that the answers led you to run out of Elites (in our example the "best" answer, whatever it may have beem) and your best answer to the new problem X happens to be an elite? Well you cant very well ignore the other needs. So now you need another answer: Perhaps a Heavy Support unit. So even though the Bomber may look unusual in the list, competing priorities intrude such that no amount of comparison will reduce the opportunity cost of NOT taking the second best answer.
So the second best answer can sometimes be the best answer so as not to give up your best answer elsewhere. And so on. Opportunity costs. You will eventually see units in a list that seem sub optimal and yet are vital. the weakest units can end up bing the ones you count on for victory (as in the case of one army I used in my last tournaments). Sometimes they win for you without firing a shot or being good in any way. not having them would have cost me the game. Should I then abandon such units? No. Of course not because the opportuniy cost of NOT taking those lower cost units might hace cost me a unit I really needed elsewhere.
No one said it would. I said it could. And I'm not wrong. and all the stats in the world wont override your judgement when your own life is in danger. So... Do you jink or not? If you wish to play statistical games, don't jink and we will both happily take our chances. Good luck champ. =)
Hm, with only 2 shots I'd probably take my chances unless the transport was carrying something. It's not very expensive so losing it isn't a big deal, and if you don't kill me I'll most likely kill you and stop the bomb from hurting my crons.
Odds are pretty good I'd survive and kill you. Not sure what your point was here I'm afraid.
Also it's liars.
I'm afraid you missed the point with opportunity costs, but we can just agree not to discuss it since it's a rather complicated idea to explain.
No one said it would. I said it could. And I'm not wrong. and all the stats in the world wont override your judgement when your own life is in danger. So... Do you jink or not? If you wish to play statistical games, don't jink and we will both happily take our chances. Good luck champ. =)
Hm, with only 2 shots I'd probably take my chances
.
No one said it would. I said it could. And I'm not wrong. and all the stats in the world wont override your judgement when your own life is in danger. So... Do you jink or not? If you wish to play statistical games, don't jink and we will both happily take our chances. Good luck champ. =)
Hm, with only 2 shots I'd probably take my chances
.
Fair enuf. And I'd let you take your chances.
It costs me nothing.
Sure it does.
It cost you 2 shots you could have applied elsewhere
It cost you 2 shots you could have applied elsewhere
Yeah and I guess that's the other problem. Due to their inherent fragility the Dark Eldar have to prioritize their shooting. And with my luck at shooting Dark Lances whatever it is usually takes a few turns. Also you have to hope that the things you shoot to survive are the things you have to shoot to win. I've had a couple of times where they were two different things.
What seems unfair is how you are constantly moving goalposts when people are giving very fair reasons that choice is poor in terms of in the codex and other armies. You ignore probability , you ignore others experiences, and you mock those that don't agree with you. This is doomsday theorist level of logic.
So um... moving the gola post is what ...I...was doing?
I pay 35 points more than the fighter... and get:
1. Both lances +1 STR 2. Fire at two targets in one round
3. Fire a STR 9 ap2 instead of STR 6 ap 5 on one of the missiles!
4. Get effectively one more missile than the fighter.
For... 35 points. Yeah man. What a RIP OFF that is! Lol
It isn't my logic thats lacking. Its that you do not give any credit to the units ACTUAL use. its ACTUALLY going to cost 200 points every time you take it. And you're paying 35 points for all that upgrading.
Who moved the goal post here? The guy who didnt explain how the bomber REALLY works. thats who. the person swho doesnt give a fair accounting of what 35 points actually GETS you. that is who moved the discussion. You tried to discuss the Bomber as it isnt used to a Fighter as it is used, but I am the one who somehow jimmied the goal post.
Moving the Goalposts isn't what you have been doing Janc. It's what you always do. Change the requirements for proof the second contrary evidence is provided.
You only get to "fire at two targets" if there is an enemy unit within thirty-six inches of your table edge. If not, your bombing run is useless. Other than that, you're paying 35 points for some marginally more effective Lance weapons, along with +1 Strength and Shred on your 40 point missile upgrades. One S9 AP2 Lance Large Blast will not reliably kill most vehicles. Against infantry, you want your missiles, but bombs take away from that. For all this extra cost, you have zero extra suvivability. You're paying Stormraven prices for something that is a lot less durable and efficient than a Stormraven.
The final nail in the Voidraven's coffin is that it eats a Heavy Support slot. I'd much rather take a Ravager for 140 points to give me a little more anti-tank capability.
Not much to talk about sadly, all of them are item jockies and don't add anything to the armies themselves beyond maybe Uriel with his oddball abilities. Succubi are AP2 suicide melee, archons are a taxi service with 2++, and haemonculus are decent at not immediately dying. Lilieth is not very good anymore even in challenges worth her points.
Well, I've certainly got some rants about our HQs that I can bring over from other threads.
It was suggested at one point, that an Archon could be made closer to 40pts. But, many argued that, unless his statline was drastically reduced, this would be really OP. Here's my response:
Spoiler:
Anyway, even with WS7 I7, I think it would still only be worth 40pts. Mainly because those stats are the least useful. There's rarely any difference between WS7 and WS6. Likewise, there's negligible difference between I7 and I6. Moreover, WS7 will usually only make a difference against stuff like chapter masters, except that it won't make a difference because those are orders of magnitude better than Archons. Also, compare WS and I to S and T (both of which the Archon lacks): exceeding your opponent by 2pts of strength makes a huge amount of difference (doubling the odds of wounding), whilst exceeding his WS by 2pts does nothing more than exceeding it by 1pt. Initiative is even worse - you can beat his initiative by 1pt or by 5pts - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Furthermore, WS7, BS7 and I7 mean bugger all if the model can't use them. And, so far we have a model with a BS7 splinter pistol (be afraid!) and a S3 CCW (be very afraid!). Even if you start upgrading him, you're not exactly getting amazing value. Let's say he's 40pts and you take a blaster, well you're paying 55pts for a single BS7 blaster shot. For the same points, you can get 5 kabalites with a BS4 blaster and 4 BS4 splinter rifles. Is the Archon really a better deal? Even if you think the BS7 blaster is worth sacrificing 4 splinter rifles for, you're still taking a big hit in survivability. The Archon only has 3 wounds (compared to their 5), and can lose all 3 to a single S6 shot.
Sorry, but 40pts actually seems entirely reasonable for his current statline. He starts with no weapons and basically no save. His best stats are the least relevant, whilst he lacks the most important ones (strength and toughness). He starts with no melee weapons and a pathetic pistol. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he does absolutely nothing to support his squad or the army in general. You're paying 40pts for a beatstick with no offence or defence to speak of. Yes, you can upgrade him, but as above even with simple blaster he's far from being any kind of good deal. And, as soon as you try to tool him up for melee, he'll quickly double or even triple in cost (at least with our current wargear prices).
Regarding Farseers and Haemonculi:
Spoiler:
I was equally annoyed about the Fleshbane/Armourbane on Witchblades - especially after our 2+ Poison Venom Blades doubled in cost, and then got removed from 99% of our units anyway (at least scourges can still buy them ).
Anyway, what I find irritating is that Haemonculus seem to be intended as support units with some melee ability (hence having 3 attacks base, rather than the 1-2 attacks seen on most psykers). But, any bonus they get from having more attacks is lost when they need 4s to wound.
As an example, a Haemonculus with 4+ poison from Flesh Gauntlet (or Sindriq's Sump) vs marines. On the charge he has 5 attacks that hit on 3s and wound on 4s. So 2/3 x 1/2 x 5 = 5/3 wounds before saves.
Now, a Farseer with Wychblade has 3 attacks on the charge, which wound on 2s. So 2/3 x 5/6 x 3 = 5/3.
So, on the charge, the two are literally identical. In addition, the Farseer can theoretically penetrate AV14, whilst the Haemonculus can't even scratch AV10. Now, the Farseer does cost 20pts more, but that includes 75pts of psychic levels. And, whilst the Haemonculus' support bonus is meagre and only applies to his own squad, the Farseer can buff multiple friendly units and/or debuff enemy units - all at great range.
So, what exactly is it we're paying for? Even if you tailor a bit more (e.g. by taking an Agoniser against Marines), then the Haemonculus' combat ability still isn't anything to write home about (and no matter which weapon you take, the Farseer is still better against vehicles). So, we're basically sacrificing unrivalled psychic abilities for negligible gain.
Regarding Succubi:
Spoiler:
By the standards of our book? They're... alright. I mean, they die if anyone so much as coughs in their general direction, and they're basically a Klaivex for 3 times the cost, but they also get the only AP2 melee weapon in our entire HQ section.
However, if the Succubus was an HQ choice in any other book, the players would simply rip out her page and throw it into the nearest bin. If anyone mentioned her in polite conversation, you'd get an embarrassed silence and a general air that some things are best ignored.
Regarding our HQs' wargear options:
Spoiler:
The problem is, other races get weapons like power fists, the Burning Blade, evicerators and whatever that SW relic is called, which are basically great against virtually everything. Some of the might strike last, but when you're talking about 4-wound, T5, 2+/3+ characters it doesn't really matter.
In contrast, our weapons don't excel against anything. Agonisers are mediocre against more things, and abysmal against anything with a 2+ save. Huskblades are abysmal against anything with a 2+ save, against anything with 1 wound, and against anything with high toughness. Our power swords are good against absolutely nothing, and the Djin Blade only works when its user pokes it up his own nose. And, of course, none of these can even scratch AV10.
Moreover, the only anti-vehicle melee defence our characters can take is haywire grenades. Contrast this with the melta-bombs SM characters can take (not that they need them). Meltas are designed to cripple or destroy a vehicle with a single hit, whilst haywire needs multiple hits to even have a hope of destroying it. Or, to put it another way, they're completely worthless on ICs as any sort of defence against vehicles.
I mentioned this earlier, but I think it needs reiterating. There seems to be this idea with DE that, because they're fragile, they should also be really feeble in combat - terrible strength, terrible or nonexistant AP, sparse grenades on an army that relies on high initiative, no or useless special rules, and worthless poison values (4+ poison... yeah, that's really worth getting into melee for ). So, rather than being glass cannons, our melee units just end up being glass pea-shooters.
I'm also sick of hearing "but you get to strike first". So what? That only matters if we can actually cause damage. So my wyches get to strike first against your dreadnought, wow, I bet the pilot is really crapping his pants now. Or perhaps my Archon gets to strike first against your Chapter Master - boy must he be frightened of that 1/3 of a wound he might suffer.
It's like getting to shoot first in a duel, except that you're armed with a water pistol. And your opponent is in a tank.
I think the best example of how terrible the DEHQ selection is, is the fact that people prefer to take a command unit to fill the HQ requirement instead of choosing an actual HQ.
oz of the north wrote: I think the best example of how terrible the DEHQ selection is, is the fact that people prefer to take a command unit to fill the HQ requirement instead of choosing an actual HQ.
I have done more damage with a Llhamian with their venom blade then I ever have with an archon or succubus. Despite how weak the regular HQs are people still hint them for Slay the Warlord or for objective cards. If someone sees a court member they tend to be forgotten...until sargeants start falling to the venom girls. Switch out her for Medusae against marines, and you are comparitively fine.
On a related note: WHY doesn't the Llhamian confer a bonus to poison to her archon like the previous edition? I really liked that ability, giving my archon an agonizer and crucible with a squad of llhamians in a raider was always fun
oz of the north wrote: I think the best example of how terrible the DEHQ selection is, is the fact that people prefer to take a command unit to fill the HQ requirement instead of choosing an actual HQ.
I have done more damage with a Llhamian with their venom blade then I ever have with an archon or succubus. Despite how weak the regular HQs are people still hint them for Slay the Warlord or for objective cards. If someone sees a court member they tend to be forgotten...until sargeants start falling to the venom girls. Switch out her for Medusae against marines, and you are comparitively fine.
I've seen someone use a Lhamaean as their mandatory HQ, and then make a Reaver Champion their warlord. It meant their warlord was T4 with a 3+ jink save, JSJ and (if in danger) could zip 48" away.
On a related note: WHY doesn't the Llhamian confer a bonus to poison to her archon like the previous edition? I really liked that ability, giving my archon an agonizer and crucible with a squad of llhamians in a raider was always fun
Bear in mind that, in 5th, that ability didn't actually work with the Agoniser - since it wasn't actually a poison weapon. It just always wounded on 4+.
In the new book, they made it a Poison Weapon... and then removed the Lhamaean's ability to buff poison weapons.
The HQ section is a mess, most are assault based units in an edition were assault is weak. I really wish that dark eldar got some kind of bonus save vs overwatch, cause that's what kills a lot of unit's potential
On a different point entirely, I was actually thinking recently - what exactly makes us a fast army?
I used to think it was our thing, but on reflection I'm genuinely struggling to even see our speed.
Are we fast because our vehicles have 'Fast'? Blood Angel vehicles also have that, but are allowed armour to go with them. Same goes for Eldar vehicles, and even Orks ones.
Are we fast because we have bikes, beasts and Jump Infantry? If so, how exactly do those make us any faster than the myriad of other armies with those things? Of those 3, only our bikes are actually any faster than any other race's bike (and Eldar's bikes are equally fast). So, are we fast because we have one biker unit that is slightly faster than the bike units of most other races?
Are we fast because all our units can move 12"? Nope. Most of our stuff - including HQs, both our troops, both our MCs and our entire Elites slot is stuck moving 6". In fact several of our units don't even have Fleet.
So, what exactly is it that supposedly makes us fast? I get that we have some fast units, but so does virtually every other army in the game.
I view that as power creep or in this case speed creep. I remember in 5th edition how quick dark eldar moved compared to most armies and how hard they could hit. These days almost everyone can do that so that niche they filled is flooded by several armies.
Yes, it is. I don't need your analysis to tell me that BA, DE, CSM, and IG are all bad armies. However, the justifications are pretty amusing. Still waiting for your BA thread. Or maybe they are too crappy for even you.
From my perspective, Dark Eldar HQ units (except Courts) are meant to be in melee. They have the statlines to be CC beasts with the right wargear. Problem is, their wargear selection is very limited. Agonizers are all you get for an Archon that wants to be effective, and the Succubus's Archite Glaive lacks hitting power. Hamonculi could be decent in melee, but again have limited wargear, being unable to take Venom Blades or EC Whips. The other problem is that the HQ units are squishy; they need to join a unit to be survivable. Incubi can work as a melee bodyguard unit, but are very expensive ans suffer form the problems of getting into melee.
In short, the main reason you take the HQ units is because you have to. They can be decent in CC with the right wargear, but it isn't a competitive choice.
Yes, it is. I don't need your analysis to tell me that BA, DE, CSM, and IG are all bad armies. However, the justifications are pretty amusing. Still waiting for your BA thread. Or maybe they are too crappy for even you.
Yeah. Perhaps they can attach a button to the updates that will alleviate you of any need to be an actual general. You know. since its the Codex and all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheNewBlood wrote: From my perspective, Dark Eldar HQ units (except Courts) are meant to be in melee. They have the statlines to be CC beasts with the right wargear. Problem is, their wargear selection is very limited. Agonizers are all you get for an Archon that wants to be effective, and the Succubus's Archite Glaive lacks hitting power. Hamonculi could be decent in melee, but again have limited wargear, being unable to take Venom Blades or EC Whips. The other problem is that the HQ units are squishy; they need to join a unit to be survivable. Incubi can work as a melee bodyguard unit, but are very expensive ans suffer form the problems of getting into melee.
In short, the main reason you take the HQ units is because you have to. They can be decent in CC with the right wargear, but it isn't a competitive choice.
Well I mean not every army is going to have every option. Super characters arent a Dark Eldar thing. They are kina like Autarchs: they can be good but they just ARE elves. big brutish humans like Lysander come and laugh at their HQ's.
So I have learned to use the Dark eldar characters more as force multipliers kind of like I do with Tau Empire. That's what they are good at, basically.
Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
Interestingly enough jancoran, the eldar codex has buttons that tell me which models to pick up off the board.
Still waiting for how the ba are just fine. I'm sure im just missing something, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
They got an acronym for that in the Fire Emblem community in the form of PEMS: personal experience means nothing. Nobody cares how well your Meg from Radiant Dawn leveled up in that one play through; averages dictate she is crap and nobody drafts her for a reason.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
Too bad you didn't put that same money on Lictorshame. Oh but you never would have.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
Too bad you didn't put that same money on Lictorshame. Oh but you never would have.
Oh well.
Actually, I might have. That was a pretty good use of formations and OP units. I'm still waiting to see how you're Night Lord lists does in the LVO
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Interestingly enough jancoran, the eldar codex has buttons that tell me which models to pick up off the board.
Still waiting for how the ba are just fine. I'm sure im just missing something, right?
.
I just love how Martel and others have these imaginary conversations with themselves wherein the imaginary person says something to them and then Maretel here acts as if I said it. Lol.
Seriously dude: if you wanna talk to me, talk to me. If you are going to keep having an imaginary conversation with someone else, don't bother us with it. I never brought up Blood angels, like ever. So uh... Lay off whatever it is you're taking.
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
Too bad you didn't put that same money on Lictorshame. Oh but you never would have.
Oh well.
Actually, I might have. That was a pretty good use of formations and OP units. I'm still waiting to see how you're Night Lord lists does in the LVO
You can enjoy a bad codex, nobody is saying it is impossible to play and have fun with it. But that's a bit different then what you do in downplaying every problem every weak codex has. People have a right to be upset when they pay 50+$ for a book that is essentially "F You" in page format. A book that 9/10 times loses to its cousin book with no impact by player skill
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
Too bad you didn't put that same money on Lictorshame. Oh but you never would have.
Oh well.
And then we have people like you that misconstrue how the list performed.
LICTORS ARE NOT GOOD. He used them as expensive Locator Beacons for Mawlocs, which did the Heavy lifting along with the Flyrants.
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
If he's in a duel with Lysander or a Succubus, you screwed up.
autumnlotus wrote: You can enjoy a bad codex, nobody is saying it is impossible to play and have fun with it. But that's a bit different then what you do in downplaying every problem every weak codex has. People have a right to be upset when they pay 50+$ for a book that is essentially "F You" in page format. A book that 9/10 times loses to its cousin book with no impact by player skill
Is that what happens? They lose 90% of the time with no regard for Generals skill? Wow. I have a LOT of ground to make up. I'm not even close to 90%!
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
If he brings onager then there is a chance he could, insta-gib both, unless Lysander is EW, never used him.
Also a buffmander could shoot either off the board pretty easily.
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
If he's in a duel with Lysander or a Succubus, you screwed up.
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
If he's in a duel with Lysander or a Succubus, you screwed up.
Wait... did Jancoran just say DE warlord traits were good?
I'm beginning to doubt he's even read the book. That or he just needs a bridge...
Also, WWPs are only useful if you actually have something worthwhile to do with them. DE don't. Unless you go back to us being a taxi service for Eldar.
Once again, personal experiences mean nothing. Yes you could face off against a foot slogging eldar taking only guardians with no upgrades versus the best deldar player around, but at that point you might as well be beating an infant at chess. The point? Just because your local group seems to be full of casuals who think FW is the devil, doesn't mean it's the standard. Deldar are widely considered pisspoor, especially this latest codex. You don't agree, and that's great that you like to play them. But ur wins don't actually prove anything, it merely shows that you try to win arguments with emotion and name calling rather then actually use objective facts
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
If he's in a duel with Lysander or a Succubus, you screwed up.
Also a buffmander could shoot either off the board pretty easily.
Yup. and to do it, all he has to do is NOT overwatch the token unit that charges first.
Or did you forget that could happen?
That is also assuming that there is a token unit to assault with and there is not another unit with supporting fire.
You can only overwatch once (if at all). Lots of if's. But dooming the charger THEORETICALLY wont save you at the time it actually goes down. Point being: Theres an answer, so the CODEX doesn't ultimately dictate this. You, the General, will have to make a decision. Multi-charge? No brainer. You're getting shot anyways and it forces more overwatch. There's your answer since they are all within 6", the Tau empire will likely get only one. But sure. Luck happens. Not saying it cant.
autumnlotus wrote: What do deldar HQs to force multply? Besides Webway portal, which is a well known fact and have been pushed into eldar lists as taxi services for a while?
And there is a distinct difference between all of our HQs and the Eldar ones: eldar HQs are mostly really good. Farseers can get broken strong really quick so lets jump to aurtach. what can they do in this edition? They have a fairly long list of item choices, can grab from a relic list with mostly great choices, and have warlors traits that can impact the game fairly well. Compare that to the archon or succubus. Which one could win in a fight by themselves? In a unit each? Which one multiplies forces better? To me it seems Eldar's are quite better, for similar or less cost.
what do you mean "besides"? Webway Portals! Also bonus's to the Chart are another. Warlord Traits are pretty darn good, especially for Coven, and that's aside from whatever melee prowess they DO bring. I know it could be better but not everyone gets every toy and its not like our leaders are terribly expensive (another bonus) which means we have more room for other things. That's just life. You make up for it in other areas. I would say that Tyranids have a weaker Troops section but a very strong HQ section. I would say that Tau empire has a very good Elites section but perhaps not as hot an HQ section (you thought Dark Eldar had it bad? You wont find a Webday portal in the HQ section of the Tau Empire!).
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
The Tau have a warlord trait that makes it that the warlord and his unit do not scatter, also you have buffmander, which may be the best force multiplier in the game.
I use the Buffmander. My point is he wont be winning any duels with Lysander or even probably a Succubus. So we don't all get all the candies.
If he's in a duel with Lysander or a Succubus, you screwed up.
Also a buffmander could shoot either off the board pretty easily.
Yup. and to do it, all he has to do is NOT overwatch the token unit that charges first.
Or did you forget that could happen?
That is also assuming that there is a token unit to assault with and there is not another unit with supporting fire.
You can only overwatch once (if at all). Lots of if's. But dooming the charger THEORETICALLY wont save you at the time it actually goes down. Point being: Theres an answer, so the CODEX doesn't ultimately dictate this. You, the General, will have to make a decision. Multi-charge? No brainer. You're getting shot anyways and it forces more overwatch. There's your answer since they are all within 6", the Tau empire will likely get only one. But sure. Luck happens. Not saying it cant.
You don't need to have enemy multi charge to get supporting fire, that is just a tau ability. A unit that will be in no way tied in with combat can still overwatch, if they have the supporting fire ability.
I just figured you'd have the same opinion with them as you do CSM and DE, since they are constantly brought up in the conversation for worst lists in the game.
Wait. So my losses, which were personal experiences, meant nothing? So not only will I lose 90%, according to you, in my contests against Eldar, but those losses will be meaningless because...they were...personal experiences?
I'm confused now. Wait. Do I count the losses you said I'm going to suffer... or don't I? If not, then the 90% of the games you lost don't count. So then... You're winning either 100% of the time... or if you're saying that personal experiences at winning also don't matter, that means you're literally playing the game for no reason. Why? No wins will matter and no losses will matter by virtue of the fact they were personal experiences.
You see why I find this argument absurd, of course.
This has nothing to do with Jancoran and his unwillingness to subscribe to negativity (though you would be right that I don't allow those kinds of losing thoughts to cloud my efforts) but more to do with your feelings about Eldar. This is an Eldar issue. This isn't a Dark Eldar issue. This is just like the 5E Blood Angels all over again. The Blood Angels were the problem. Not the other codex's!
Put the blame where it belongs: Not on Jancoran. Not Dark Eldar. Eldar. And even though that be true, a capable General does not lose 90% of their games to them. Sorry. That doesn't happen. So this is also about Generalship. It doesn't have to be fair. But you do. A fair minded person who took Eldar completely out of the picture would not have a struggle winning with Dark Eldar and because that's true, perhaps your dislike of the Eldar power curve would be a better place for you to put your ire. That and improving your ability against the Eldar so that 90% can shrink for you.
I'm not your enemy. The codex wasn't built to screw you. It has always been a finesse codex. It has always required a real thinking mans approach from its earliest days. It isn't point and click. It never was, ever. So I think you're putting way way too much of this on the Dark Eldar and not enough where it belongs.
Sorry that your success isn't great. I Hope better things for you moving forward.
You don't need to have enemy multi charge to get supporting fire, that is just a tau ability. A unit that will be in no way tied in with combat can still overwatch, if they have the supporting fire ability.
Pretty sure I know that.
Step 1: token unit multicharges. Absorbs several units overwatch.
Step 2: send in the second wave, with a whole ton less overwatch
Step 3: end it.
BTW: Tau Empire is my first army and truest love. Though we have focused on Dark elder here, and other armies elsewhere, I've been playing Tau empire since 3E. I am absolutely aware of their awesomeness... and their limitations.
I just figured you'd have the same opinion with them as you do CSM and DE, since they are constantly brought up in the conversation for worst lists in the game.
You just figured? Oh. ok. Well that would be on you, guy.
"This is just like the 5E Blood Angels all over again. The Blood Angels were the problem"
5th ed BA weren't even the best meq list in 5th. Or the second best.
" a capable General does not lose 90% of their games to them. Sorry. "
They do when the Eldar player knows what they are doing. Yes, their killing advantage is that huge. You keep forgetting that the opposing list has a general as well, who can practice "generalship".
"You just figured? Oh. ok. Well that would be on you, guy."
Not really. Just from your posts, I suspect you are going to apply the same "git gud" logic to BA. With as bad as DE and CSM are, it would be very inconsistent not to.
They do when the Eldar player knows what they are doing.
yet...no. They really don't. Losing 90% of your games? Yeah. Not the codex man. Sorry.
I wish I could visit you with an Eldar list and demonstrate how this works over and over for you. Given my records against 6th ed and 7.0 ed lists, I'm gonna say it is indeed the codex.
You aren't impressing me with you analysis of the capabilities of codices here.
hehehe. Blood angels came before Grey Knights, or do you not recall? And Grey Knights came out right before 6E and 6E nerfed them back to ground. So they lived about three months in the sun and made a splash at Ard Boyz (Id know, I regularly play the guy who was at the finals there). Blood Angels? A bit longer my friend.
You aren't impressing me with you analysis of the capabilities of codices here.
hehehe. Blood angels came before Grey Knights, or do you not recall? And Grey Knights came out right before 6E and 6E nerfed them back to ground. So they lived about three months in the sun and made a splash at Ard Boyz (Id know, I regularly play the guy who was at the finals there). Blood Angels? A bit longer my friend.
I wish I could visit you with an Eldar list and demonstrate how this works over and over for you.
Me too.
Grey Knights came out right after BA, which immediately ruined any time in the sun BA had. So yeah, I do remember. The real winner were the SW, who pounded face for month after month after month with the absurd Grey Hunters.
You are literally blaming everyone again for saying the codex was bad because it doesn't win very often, and you pulled the same exact thing in the CSM thread.
If you were honestly that good, you'd have actually won LVO and such, and you used the excuse that "I have nothing to prove".
You kinda do, seeing as you're one of the only people to actually defend these codices.
Yeah, I'm not sure where you're going with this Jancoran. Blood Angels were good in 5th ed. but moreso due to the fact that they were largely SM+1. SM we're also not that crazy in 5th besides SS/TH termies and Vulkan being everywhere so BA were only really good in terms of Mephiston being a beast at that time and having slight advantages like cheap ML Devastators. It was a slight, if noticeable, power creep but nothing compared to the edition breaking nonsense that was GK in 5th ed.
I also have to agree with Martel's assessment of 5th Grey Hunters. Those are nasty even under this meta, as they got cheaper special weapons, were much harder to tarpit, and Drop Pods made them strike where needed.
And Grey Hunters in 5th basically autowon against other assault lists, since they got to shoot you and then fought at full capability when you assaulted them. They were one of the most unfair units to ever exist in any edition.
Martel732 wrote: And Grey Hunters in 5th basically autowon against other assault lists, since they got to shoot you and then fought at full capability when you assaulted them. They were one of the most unfair units to ever exist in any edition.
Martel732 wrote: And Grey Hunters in 5th basically autowon against other assault lists, since they got to shoot you and then fought at full capability when you assaulted them. They were one of the most unfair units to ever exist in any edition.
the Dark eldar warlord table is very average to below average. Lets go through it
1. FEAR, which is useless against half the armies in the game BAD
2. Rerolls for seize the initiative, reserves, and NF. This one is good
3. Rage. This is ok but most of are HQs arn't great in close combat compared to what other codexs can bring.
4. Hatred. Also ok,
5. plus 1 to ws. Bad, our characters already have such a high WS that is functionally useless.
6. Fearless bubble. Also good
So we have 2 good traits, 2 ok ones, and two bad traits. Your rolling on the rule book tables.
I'd say 2 is the best because getting first turn is huge for this army. However you can get something similiar from the strategic traits table from the Rule Book and you get the bonus of not risking rolling a useless trait. If you don't want to be in assault then 3 and 4 are useless. Over all bad table.
The DEHQs are pretty lackluster, the only thing it really has going for it is that you can cheap out and get a Lhamean in a venom for a total of 75pts as your HQ.
WWP is of course amazing, and pretty much why you see DE in major tournaments somewhere in the top 25%, as an ally to eldar.
The Haem is the only DE character that has any synergy in of itself, it increases PfP to other models in its unit(sometimes within 12" in certain formations)
The other DEHQ can have synergy with an unit but it comes at the cost of wargear/relic selections. WWP is obvious, less obvious are two DE characters where one has armor of misery, and the other archangel of pain. Against non fearless/non atsknf units you can force a LD test with a -4, difference in result and LD are wounds with no saves. As it hits every unit within 9", and is not a weapon, it can hit FMC, multiple units and do an impressive killing against many armies. Despite what people say TAU and Eldar, and Daemons are out there plenty in tournaments at top tables and below. Many of them have non fearless models that can be dropped by that. Adding in Haem coven can give additional lowering of LD. Of course this gets expensive real quick as you need a 60-75pt model +cost of wargear for each component, so its not really that viable.
DE are not that fast, they have fast vehicles, in the lore they are very fast. Many armies can outspeed DE. Enhanced aether sails are pretty much the only way DE can become the fastest army, and it comes at the cost of the raider going flat out instead of shooting.
It would be nice if the HQ had some kind of synergy with the army outside of wargear.
Like if an archon always had the 2 result of the warlord trait- but as an ability and not a warlord trait which would go well with the RSR detachment rules and synergize with the DE method of battle listed in apoc for example where they send in waves of reserves in tandem teams for different purposes called "the flaying".
Or succubus would let you pick combat drugs, or an additional roll on the combat drug table and you get to re-roll duplicate results.
Like how autarchs manipulate reserves, or farseers have powers that augment friendly troops, or enemy troops for friendly troops to affect.
I think Jancoran is having a different conversation to everyone else... Other people are saying 'DE are bad' ie (worse than other armies), while he is saying 'DE can win games'.
Yes, you can build a Dark Eldar army that theoretically can kill any model in the game, and you can put this army on the table, so you can theoretically win games. And given the whims of the dice and the skills of your opponent, you'll probably win some. And if you get to be a really good general while your opponent doesn't, then you'll probably win more.
Most people are concerned about what happens when skill levels are the same and armies are maxed out to win. Its unfair in these discussions to assume that you as a general are making use of all kinds of cool tactics, but your opponent for some reason never takes advantage of the same and just plays in to your hand.
People are concerned about, what would happen if I take and optimised TAC Dark Eldar vs another optimised TAC army from a different against this specific opponent? All else being equal, which army am I most likely to win with? And barring some very specific and niche hard counters, Dark Eldar are generally going to come out worse in that comparison.
Its kind of like... playing sports with your left hand rather than your right. Sure you can do it, and if you practice really hard you can be at the same level that right-handed people are without practice, but you're putting in much more effort for not much gain. If the result is important to you at all then playing left-handed is a bad choice.
DE are 'bad', not because it is impossible to win with them, but because there are extremely few situations where DE would perform better than any other army. Especially given that DE have a nearly 1-for-1 analogue available in Craftworld Eldar, it is exceedingly obvious that DE do very very few things better than CWE and in many cases do things worse for the same points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You are literally blaming everyone again for saying the codex was bad because it doesn't win very often, and you pulled the same exact thing in the CSM thread.
eh? "blaming" them? I'm not "blaming" anyone...actually... for anything. Odd thing to say.
Grimskul wrote: Yeah, I'm not sure where you're going with this Jancoran. Blood Angels were good in 5th ed. but moreso due to the fact that they were largely SM+1. SM we're also not that crazy in 5th besides SS/TH termies and Vulkan being everywhere so BA were only really good in terms of Mephiston being a beast at that time and having slight advantages like cheap ML Devastators. It was a slight, if noticeable, power creep but nothing compared to the edition breaking nonsense that was GK in 5th ed.
I never defended Space Marines. And while GK was good, it was obvious that they were meant for 6E. They were ahead of their time, but 6E drpped soon afterwards like i said.
Blood Angels? There were one thousand threads on the subject. Matt Ward is hated for it and went on to make things worse. If you never got the chance to experience the fun of Mephiston and his doughty gang, well...consider yourself fortunate. Because a lot of players were made to look awfully good by that codex. Lol.
I remember one game in which Mephiston literally killed seven units. Himself. i mean the dude was bonkers. Blood Angels were First to get Storm Ravens for QUITE a while. At the time: ruthless. And BA couldn't be killed, with a 4+ Feel No Pain that any Necron would envy and AP didn't exist on weapons so... Unlike the Necrons at the time, who only got their saves way after the fact, the Blood Angels got it as they went. Corbulo? That dude singlehandedly walloped a Tau Empire force, round after bloody round that didn't manage to nix him in time. (admittedly that was a very strange mission) with his crazy 3+ save and 2+ Fnp!!! 2+ I mean Wow. Talk about a tank. At the time: unrivaled survivability. Tau Empire are no dynamo in close combat anyways, but wow did that guy earn his points back just by existing.
So if you missed out on all that fun and thought Grey Knights were worse? Great. But Grey Knights didnt dominate for as long as BA did (not even close) and it was just so weird how many colors Blood Angel players 'suddenly" came in after that codex dropped! There were Salamander colored ones and Imperial Fist (Im sorry...yellow) Blood angels and... yeah. That was a goooood time to be a Blood Angel!
Not so much anymore. Now they are just another Chapter among many. But damn. I grew so "fond" of Mephiston that he still to this day is the figure I would absolutely throw a game just to kill.Lol. I've done it. My friend just likes to egg me on once in a while and brings his Blood Angels. He knows... Hated that guy and his stat line, his ridiculously good combination of powers... He chopped up Terminators just cause he could!
6E really hurt the Blood angels and brought them screaming back to earth but man what a great time they had for a while there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: the Dark eldar warlord table is very average to below average. Lets go through it
1. FEAR, which is useless against half the armies in the game BAD
2. Rerolls for seize the initiative, reserves, and NF. This one is good
3. Rage. This is ok but most of are HQs arn't great in close combat compared to what other codexs can bring.
4. Hatred. Also ok,
5. plus 1 to ws. Bad, our characters already have such a high WS that is functionally useless.
6. Fearless bubble. Also good
So we have 2 good traits, 2 ok ones, and two bad traits. Your rolling on the rule book tables.
Fear is the freebie. It's not like theres a downside. Lol. Warord Traits arent supposed ot be game breaking anyways.
I agree about WS. its the only one that i dont really dig. But most charts have a bad option so i am ambivalent.
Well, GK dropped a year after BA. GK to 6th edition was a little over a year.
GK did dominate for longer than BA, but BA were still really solid in 5th. DA were the only bad marines, though from the SM dex you mainly saw salamanders instead of the other chapters.
SW and GK were probably the best, with BA being arguably as good as the wolves (the FNP could be sniped out with precision shots in that edition sadly and were kinda expensive). SW probably saw the biggest cosplay I've ever seen...every chaos force was using the SW dex.
" Blood Angels were First to get Storm Ravens for QUITE a while"
You really keep digging. The Storm Raven was unfieldable crap in 5th. A 200 pts skimmer? Really?
"I remember one game in which Mephiston literally killed seven units. Himself. i mean the dude was bonkers. "
Yeah, that guy with no invuln save that can't join a unit is a real threat. It took 6 plasma hits or maybe 8 with FNP to kill him. That was a trivial effort for the GH.
" Talk about a tank. At the time: unrivaled survivability."
Nope. At the time, power weapons cut him to little bloody ribbons. The hidden power fist and power claw was all-powerful against such tricks.
". That was a goooood time to be a Blood Angel! "
Still paled to 3rd. The 5th ed list was not nearly as effective as you are making them out to be. Must have been your lack of generalship.
I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.
autumnlotus wrote: Freebies are still compared to equal scale of Warlord traits. There's a reason that comparing it to d3 outflank instantly proves that statement wrong.
You're going to take like the best Warlord trait off a chart and then compare it to the worst on another? hmm... Maybe not the way i would do it?
and lets not forget: Dark Eldar dont HAVe to use the Dark eldar chart. So it hardly matters. Its just more options for them. Not less. I dont honestly think a Warlord chart is a big deal in my thinking on any codex. I just don't think it's enough for me to care. it's random and other than Tau (whose chart you can jimmy with) its just nice to have. I'd say that about all armies. there's good ones all over the place though but its not why I choose or dont choose a codex.
SW and GK were probably the best, with BA being arguably as good as the wolves (the FNP could be sniped out with precision shots in that edition sadly and were kinda expensive). SW probably saw the biggest cosplay I've ever seen...every chaos force was using the SW dex.
Space Wolves were good. They won some big events too. The Thunderwolf Cavalry to this day are one of the best units because they just kind of have everything you want in a unit: tough, hard hitting, fast as hell and even in their base form worth the cost (and they got cheaper in the new book!).
I really enjoy Space Wolves and although i really am not a Marine player (just by virtue of the fact that so many own them that it seemed pointless to add more Marine players to the mix), I've killed about a billion of them and there isnt a force for Marines I find more aesthetically pleasing than the Space Wolves. Which has zero to do with how good they are. And they are. I made the mistake once of using a friends army as a ringer. It was THE most basic version of a Thundercav list you could probably build. I thought "cool, people will like the look and it's not like Im a Marine player so that should be okay".
Nope. Lol. This shows the army though which was beautiful. Gavin, my buddy, did this batrep as a favor to the owner who had asked me to do it as his price for borrowing it. Very nice look to it.
War Kitten wrote: I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.
I'd argue on the usefulness of rage, especially when none of the HQ's are particularly great in combat in the first place. At least Hatred gives more use R1...
War Kitten wrote: I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.
I'd argue on the usefulness of rage, especially when none of the HQ's are particularly great in combat in the first place. At least Hatred gives more use R1...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.
But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.
Is this happening ? It'll be like Stelek in the Nova Open all over again.
Actually, don't. I did that, wowzies that was a mistake. I'll sum it up, he lost so he accused his opponent of cheating when that turned out not to be the case at all. Then there was all the 'dice rolls, terrain, etc. Salty as feth.
War Kitten wrote: I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.
I'd argue on the usefulness of rage, especially when none of the HQ's are particularly great in combat in the first place. At least Hatred gives more use R1...
autumnlotus wrote: Freebies are still compared to equal scale of Warlord traits. There's a reason that comparing it to d3 outflank instantly proves that statement wrong.
You're going to take like the best Warlord trait off a chart and then compare it to the worst on another? hmm... Maybe not the way i would do it?
and lets not forget: Dark Eldar dont HAVe to use the Dark eldar chart. So it hardly matters. Its just more options for them. Not less. I dont honestly think a Warlord chart is a big deal in my thinking on any codex. I just don't think it's enough for me to care. it's random and other than Tau (whose chart you can jimmy with) its just nice to have. I'd say that about all armies. there's good ones all over the place though but its not why I choose or dont choose a codex.
True enough. Warlord traits are mostly not worth considering since they are completely random.
The only exception is special characters who always come with a certain trait, like Huron. Warlord traits aren't really worth discussing and are pretty poorly implemented (should have been options with possibly different point costs).
SW and GK were probably the best, with BA being arguably as good as the wolves (the FNP could be sniped out with precision shots in that edition sadly and were kinda expensive). SW probably saw the biggest cosplay I've ever seen...every chaos force was using the SW dex.
Space Wolves were good. They won some big events too. The Thunderwolf Cavalry to this day are one of the best units because they just kind of have everything you want in a unit: tough, hard hitting, fast as hell and even in their base form worth the cost (and they got cheaper in the new book!).
Yeah, in 5th space wolves were good (they were my tournament army in that edition). The thunderwolf cavarly, amazing infantry, solid scouts, and long fangs gave them a solid base to build a tournament list around. They were arguably about as good as BA, maybe better (I certainly never lost to BA in 5th with them) and around for a large part of the edition. I loved the banners and mark of the wulfen, and I'm really sad to see how the new codex turned out. It's basically all thunderwolves and long fangs all the time now, since scouts and the basic infantry aren't as good as they used to be.
My main point was that BA didn't really have a time in the sun in 5th. They were strong, but no better than the wolves and came out later. A year after the BA came out, GK ruled the scene for a year. It's wasn't as bad as it was now (unless you were a Daemon player) but for a lot of armies GK were horrendous to face (nids especially didn't enjoy them, since lol force weapons everywhere).
BA were competitive in 5th, but not really a dominating OP force. They were in 3rd, where they were the best along with Eldar. Then again, eldar are usually one of the better armies in every edition of 40k.
All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.
But that's just silly - there are the 7.5 edition power codexes with super formations of doom, enhanced units across the board (especially and ironically Eldar) and the like - and everyone else.
Dark Eldar got an absolutely fluff destroying terrible codex and then to add insult to injury the Eldar got a super OP one....................whilst also being able to knick the odd Dark Eldar vehicle and use it more effectively with better units than the Dark Eldar can...........
The entire concept of assault meq lists is invalid in 7th. BA have no death stars, therefore they aren't a proper assault army. And they don't shoot well either.
Martel732 wrote: The entire concept of assault meq lists is invalid in 7th. BA have no death stars, therefore they aren't a proper assault army. And they don't shoot well either.
Honestly, this is one of the things I dislike about 7th - it's too much about death stars and massive units, which outperform and outcompete all the infantry that are supposed to be the backbone of armies.
Frozocrone wrote: Their main forms of damaging units, Poison and Lance, aren't nearly as effective as they were before.
Ignore Cover becomes more and more prevalent and they don't have good armour saves, like Necrons/SM, or the bodies to not care, like Orks and Tyranids.
With nids it's more the really good speed, good firepower, and the needing 6's to hit while being an MC on top of it.
Still, with the new trio of dexes out, I think that Tyranids have lost a little bit of relative power. Scat bikes can blow Flyrants out of the sky with guide cast on them, and knights are hard for flyrants to knock off the table.
Frozocrone wrote: Their main forms of damaging units, Poison and Lance, aren't nearly as effective as they were before.
Ignore Cover becomes more and more prevalent and they don't have good armour saves, like Necrons/SM, or the bodies to not care, like Orks and Tyranids.
Codex: Flyrant have the numbers to not care? lol
Last time I played my Tyranids it was against old Tau with the old Firebase support cadre, extra Riptide and Buffmander, with Fire Warriors and Pathfinders fod troops, few Crisis.
I brought two Flyrant, two Trygons and the Endless Swarm formation. I ended up having enough bodies to weather the storm and was able to win through attrition.
Do I think its the best build? No way. I firmly believe 3-5 Flyrants (depending on mission type) is the best way to play competitive Nids. The Tau Codex might not have changed which is why I valididate this win (it was December 2014) but their Hunter Cadre is something I've not gone up against, and I'm not sure how army-wise TL, Monster Hunter and Ignore Cover would do against Endless Swarm. Probably, very, very bad. I would have to get a few games in, but I'm unwilling because the meta (particulary mine) has shifted with my mates collecting Gladius and Triple Harvest Decurion, so I essentially have to shoehorn myself into lots of Flyrants which is boring.
Their crappy warlord table is just one of a thousand little flaws that kill the army in a truly competitive setting. saying that's it's free or just a bonus is flawed when the other side also gets bonuses but much better ones. While generalship and dice do matter, playing with one hand behind your back due to it being a bad book is a problem.
Yup. Stelek is.... incredibly rude (like a lo of people on Dakka, really) and incredibly negative (also...) and unlike those i dislike here, the difference is, he is IMMEDIATELY hostile and confrontational on any subject.
The reality is, he has only one mode: Spam the best uits in the codex. I used to call him "Triples" because that was the only advice you could get out of him but worse, the only thought he would even accept without blowing a gasket entirely.
I told him Three Exorcists wasn't the way I would play a Sisters of Battle army. Explosion.
I told him how to do nul Deployment. Explosion. He thought I was insane. I would have been fine with the latter part as his opinion literally doesn't matter. but its the attacks that I couldn't stomach.
My main point was that BA didn't really have a time in the sun in 5th. They were strong, but no better than the wolves and came out later.
You clearly didn't play the people I did nor pay much attention to the internet then. Because the nerd rage was off the HOOK as regarded the Blood angels and it singlehandedly ushered in 6E in my opinion. They mighta done it anywys but only 6th Edition could save us from that codex. It honestly couldnt matter less in this thread which is why I dont know why we're wasting time on it. I actually didnt bring them up, what's his name did and we are circling the drain talking about it here. Start a new thread if its important enough but I dont think it is.
1) Two of the bonuses (Rage and Fear) are ones you get through PfP. So, if you roll either of those you have the situation where a Warlord trait is basically making your only special rule redundant. On top of Rage being, you know, crap.
2) There are reasons why you'd want to roll a DE trait - perhaps because of fluff, or because your detachment/formation only grants you a reroll if you roll on the DE table. The former in particular is why I hate this book - because it goes back to making me choose between having a list that's fluffy/interesting or having a list that's good.
3) Two of our SCs are stuck with traits from this damn table. And, naturally, they got the worse ones possible. Lelith gets +1WS, whilst Urien is stuck with Fear. He's not even allowed to have a trait from the Coven book for some stupid reason.
My main point was that BA didn't really have a time in the sun in 5th. They were strong, but no better than the wolves and came out later.
You clearly didn't play the people I did nor pay much attention to the internet then.
Well, obviously I did not play the same people you did. Mephiston was good but not game breaking (he couldn't, for example, beat a unit of TWC) and the priests quickly added up in points. The strongest parts of the BA codex were the super fast tanks among a few other things.
As far as the internet is concerned, most people complained about the following in 5th;
Transports and how immune they were to life.
Only marines from SM are salamanders, for obvious reasons.
How SW were basically marines +1 in everyway that mattered and were way too strong (one of the few units with splitfire and wound allocation BS made their units really strong)
GK being broken for the last 14 months of the edition before the next edition slowed them down. Daemons especially hated them, as did nids.
So much codex hopping for the chaos space marines dex (to SW mainly, not BA, which should tell you something).
Wound allocation BS and the units that could take advantage of them (I don't believe BA had any of these).
BA were certainly competitive, but not the best army in 5th. They weren't even the best marine army.
Because the nerd rage was off the HOOK as regarded the Blood angels and it singlehandedly ushered in 6E in my opinion.
6th edition came out over 2 years after the BA codex dropped. BA had a full year before the GK dex dropped and overshadowed everyone. SW were also out for a while and were, at worse, just as good as BA if not better (you certainly saw more complaining about SW and more chaos players hopping to that dex over BA).
I don't know how you can think 6th edition was designed to reign in blood angels at all.
They mighta done it anywys but only 6th Edition could save us from that codex. It honestly couldnt matter less in this thread which is why I dont know why we're wasting time on it. I actually didnt bring them up, what's his name did and we are circling the drain talking about it here. Start a new thread if its important enough but I dont think it is.
I was just pointing out that you were wrong in your timeline. GK had more time in the sun than BA did, assuming BA were overpowered at release (which while good, did not overshadow the SW). The difference in time between BA and GK is less than GK and 6th edition dropping.
That's all. I didn't want any revisionist history going on
@Vipoid,
Are there any armies that get an amazing warlord table? I tend to kinda ignore it, as it's a random bonus that doesn't seem to make a big splash outside of a few random traits that are amazing.
I realize it's just another weak thing, but I've never had the warlord table matter outside of a few special characters that have a good one pre-picked out.
I would say either the Necron or the Tau warlord tables are pretty amazing, or at least have amazing choices. Do not have either in front of me to check.
The marine one is pretty good as well, only the fear one is crappy since fear is possibly the worst universal rule, but atleast the marine forces the opponent to roll on 3d6
oz of the north wrote: I would say either the Necron or the Tau warlord tables are pretty amazing, or at least have amazing choices. Do not have either in front of me to check.
I second that the Necron Warlord traits are awesome. Not a single bad one in the bunch, if you ask. Not sure about Tau's, though.
By the Chaos gods! And I thought Dman137 was the king of poor sportsmanship...
While painful to read, that battle report was at least interesting. Dark Eldar really haven't changed a lot in terms of overall playstyle:
Step 1: Alpha Strike
Step 2: Murder what's left
Step 3: Remember the objectives, make a mad dash to claim as many as possible
Problem is, the game had changed a lot since (I assume) 5th edition. Dark Eldar no longer have super-powerful alpha strikes, there are plenty of things that are durable enough to render their shooting impotent, and many armies are just as fast and mobile. Dark Eldar have lost their niche in the game.
Akiasura wrote:Interesting.
Follow up question then;
How important is a strong warlord table to the strength of the army?
Not particularly. The BRB has plenty of alternate tables that are often better. the problem with the Dark Eldar warlord traits are that they're only useful if you want your HQ to get in CC. other than that, you're better of with on of the BRB tables, preferably Strategic.
Well I consider certain Warlord traits worth risking a roll on their respective charts. Like the reroll to champion of chaos for csm, retooling warp storm for chaos daemons, or the inquisition trait that lets a psyker inquisitor produce an additional warp charge every turn
Exactly. I would NEVER complain about rolling on the Necron table, for example. Hell, Nemesor shows how useful each of the tables are based off what you pick each turn.
Akiasura wrote: How important is a strong warlord table to the strength of the army?
To most armies? Probably not very.
However, when you have HQs like the DE ones - starved of any force-multiplier abilities - then it's yet another nail in the coffin.
It's also annoying for Urien. He's probably the most durable HQ in our book, but if you want to ustilise that durability by making him your Warlord then you're stuck with a useless trait.
I think part of the problem is that Fear is just ignored by too much.
If ATSKNF didn't auto-immune themselves to Fear, I could see it's viability. As it is, only Orks actually care about it, the rest of the factions either are immune, or are shooty armies to begin with.
My main point was that BA didn't really have a time in the sun in 5th. They were strong, but no better than the wolves and came out later.
You clearly didn't play the people I did nor pay much attention to the internet then.
Well, obviously I did not play the same people you did. Mephiston was good but not game breaking (he couldn't, for example, beat a unit of TWC) and the priests quickly added up in points. The strongest parts of the BA codex were the super fast tanks among a few other things.
As far as the internet is concerned, most people complained about the following in 5th;
Transports and how immune they were to life.
Only marines from SM are salamanders, for obvious reasons.
How SW were basically marines +1 in everyway that mattered and were way too strong (one of the few units with splitfire and wound allocation BS made their units really strong)
GK being broken for the last 14 months of the edition before the next edition slowed them down. Daemons especially hated them, as did nids.
So much codex hopping for the chaos space marines dex (to SW mainly, not BA, which should tell you something).
Wound allocation BS and the units that could take advantage of them (I don't believe BA had any of these).
BA were certainly competitive, but not the best army in 5th. They weren't even the best marine army.
Because the nerd rage was off the HOOK as regarded the Blood angels and it singlehandedly ushered in 6E in my opinion.
6th edition came out over 2 years after the BA codex dropped. BA had a full year before the GK dex dropped and overshadowed everyone. SW were also out for a while and were, at worse, just as good as BA if not better (you certainly saw more complaining about SW and more chaos players hopping to that dex over BA).
I don't know how you can think 6th edition was designed to reign in blood angels at all.
They mighta done it anywys but only 6th Edition could save us from that codex. It honestly couldnt matter less in this thread which is why I dont know why we're wasting time on it. I actually didnt bring them up, what's his name did and we are circling the drain talking about it here. Start a new thread if its important enough but I dont think it is.
I was just pointing out that you were wrong in your timeline. GK had more time in the sun than BA did, assuming BA were overpowered at release (which while good, did not overshadow the SW). The difference in time between BA and GK is less than GK and 6th edition dropping.
That's all. I didn't want any revisionist history going on
@Vipoid,
Are there any armies that get an amazing warlord table? I tend to kinda ignore it, as it's a random bonus that doesn't seem to make a big splash outside of a few random traits that are amazing.
I realize it's just another weak thing, but I've never had the warlord table matter outside of a few special characters that have a good one pre-picked out.
Yeah we just dont agree. NEVEr did Space wolves get the hate mail this did and GK got some hatemail but they weren't around as long in 5E so its just not really the same at all. Blood anfgels were amazeballs abnd theres a reason Matt Ward was hated as soon as it hit.
Again, fairly unimportant since this isnt about Blood Angels.
It's actually important in illustrating how different perceptions can be. It's the exact same problem people are having with your analyses of CSM and DE. I haven't agreed with one of your analyses yet, and the BA thing just continues the trend. In fact, your misanalysis of BA in 5th makes me far less likely to believe anything else you write about lists I'm less familiar with.
Frozocrone wrote: I think part of the problem is that Fear is just ignored by too much.
If ATSKNF didn't auto-immune themselves to Fear, I could see it's viability. As it is, only Orks actually care about it, the rest of the factions either are immune, or are shooty armies to begin with.
Fear is actually more useful than the WS increase though! It actually comes up in games. The WS increase rarely does. I suppose it depends on which character you're taking. But thats just it: Warlord Traits just aren't a reason to even play or not play a codex so other than being "cool"...
the Strategic Warlord Traits are the most useful for my style of play, so I rarely bother with other Warlord tables when playing Dark Eldar. Coven is another story but Dark Eldar? I think Strategic table works best for me.
Frozocrone wrote: I think part of the problem is that Fear is just ignored by too much.
If ATSKNF didn't auto-immune themselves to Fear, I could see it's viability. As it is, only Orks actually care about it, the rest of the factions either are immune, or are shooty armies to begin with.
Fear is actually more useful than the WS increase though! It actually comes up in games. The WS increase rarely does. I suppose it depends on which character you're taking. But thats just it: Warlord Traits just aren't a reason to even play or not play a codex so other than being "cool"...
the Strategic Warlord Traits are the most useful for my style of play, so I rarely bother with other Warlord tables when playing Dark Eldar. Coven is another story but Dark Eldar? I think Strategic table works best for me.
That last paragraph is such a stupid statement.
It doesn't "fit your play style more". It's a matter of good traits vs crap ones.
Frozocrone wrote: I think part of the problem is that Fear is just ignored by too much.
If ATSKNF didn't auto-immune themselves to Fear, I could see it's viability. As it is, only Orks actually care about it, the rest of the factions either are immune, or are shooty armies to begin with.
Fear is actually more useful than the WS increase though! It actually comes up in games. The WS increase rarely does. I suppose it depends on which character you're taking. But thats just it: Warlord Traits just aren't a reason to even play or not play a codex so other than being "cool"...
the Strategic Warlord Traits are the most useful for my style of play, so I rarely bother with other Warlord tables when playing Dark Eldar. Coven is another story but Dark Eldar? I think Strategic table works best for me.
I'd argue against that. Succubus becomes WS9, so she's hit on fives against a predominately WS4 meta, which is a huge deal considering her fragility.
Haemonculus becomes WS6, so is hit on fours from SM Captains/Chapter Masters - also hits on threes against Librarians and Chaplains which is nice.
Archon doesn't do combat well anymore. WS8 isn't notable, except against a Hive Tyrant maybe, who now hits you on fours? But CC Tyrants are rarely a thing these days.
It doesn't "fit your play style more". It's a matter of good traits vs crap ones.
I'm pretty sure... it actually does...fit my style best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: The trouble is that the things WS7+actually make a difference against are things that murder the Archon anyway.
I didn't say "never". I think it went without saying that +1 WS was going to have an impact against something. And it also goes to my point: the warlord table isnt as terrible as some made it sound. It's just...there... like all of them pretty much.
Here's something fun to chew on though: The Warlord doesn't have to be an HQ. So in theory this could benefit someone besides the HQ. I don't know how often you will want to do that but its a fun thought.
This is very true, and is usually missed on a lot of players since it usually only comes up in Unbound and killteam. Any character can be the Warlord. Confused a friend before by using that hellbrute formation that makes a squad of 5 of them with one being the character in it. Not amazing, but certainly funny
Jancoran wrote: And it also goes to my point: the warlord table isnt as terrible as some made it sound. It's just...there... like all of them pretty much.
True, it's just there. And some Warlords will find pretty much everything good in some way. Others won't. If your Warlord is bad in close combat it probably won't be very happy about getting a CC boost, for example - that's something that benefits a CC monster more.
Not that I dislike the rulebok traits very much - they could all possibly be useful. The fact that some Codex armies just have better Codex warlord traits than others is a bit of a bummer though. The DE ones aren't top of the bunch, even my SoB have better ones considering the army. Sure, Fear isn't that good - but getting Stubborn, Warlord LD for units withing 12'', an extra point on your Inv save or even rerolls to Deny the Witch? That's something.
