Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The new Venoms and Raiders are tougher with stealth when they jink.
This was impressive to see in a game yesterday.
Between all these wouldbe nerds this is a big plus for a fleet DE army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And Purifiers can Deep Strike without drop pods, so I'm not really seeing the huge advantage there. Is it the reduced scatter?

hahahahaha no.

And it's not impossible to play with a single book. The supplement books are alternate ways to play an army (just like FW army lists are optional ways to play armies, some of which rely on you having the core codex on hand for certain units and options). They bring variety for those who really want to specialize with a specific force instead of something more general. Many of them really force you into specific army builds too.

how do you play nids without skyblight, how do you do anti tank with DE without either taking eldar as ally or taking the 6 fast farmation and spaming scourges ?

As for allies, any feeling you have of needing allies is in your head more than anywhere else. The ally system is there to sell you an army, but not by making it a manditory gap filler (remember, GW is designing a narrative, not a tournament, based game. It's core concept is more based on playing a campaign with friends to tell some kind of story, than to play a tournament for a prize), but as a way to make it easier to branch off into other armies.

I have never seen people buy two separate armies of the same faction to play tournament and non tournament games. People play the same lists. The system when you had to buy unit X to have an optimal list was not perfect, specialy if GW decided to make one choice good per slot. But at least you didn't have to buy multiple books. Right now there is a ton of armies that either lack the ability to play 7th ed or have units which only work if ally stuff is taken. Purifires do not work at all, unless one takes SW drop pods for them. The only way for a AM army to get cheap and resilient MSU units is to take marine as ally. The only source of divination and grav centurions for SW is taking sm as ally. Etc.

Really want to start Guard but don't have the money to play them right now? There's a system to make it possible to play them as allies without shooting yourself in the foot or needing to wait 3+ months to have scraped together a full army.

But you would have a bad IG list unless you somehow played SM before and have all the units wanted as ally, but even then you would still need to buy around 900pts of guard and cost wise it wouldn't be saving much, as the units needed for the 900pts cost a lot of money, even when bought as recasts.

Makumba wrote:

Sure, nothing jumps off the page and slaps you so hard that you can see your long dead ancestors from the Stone Age with how poorly balanced it is compared to the rest of the army and how much you need to spam the crap out of it,

Am sorry which codex does that, because it aint the nids with their 3+tyrant per list , SW spaming pods with ally centurions, GK spaming NDKs, terminators and SW ally pods full of centurions or purifires. Am almost sure ork players spam the lobbas to.

I don't have a problem with weaker codex, if they updated all books at the same time or at least started with the most powerful one. Nerfing other armies while eldar play the same codex they did in 6th is stupid. But what realy makes me angry is the fact that they make it realy hard to impossible to play an army with one book. The multi cad thing was stupid enough in 6th , but avoidable. Not multi cad is in even in 1k point games and the books look as if they were design to force people to buy multiple books. Your army is slow and has no MSU units to do storm missions, let me show you the wonderful world of marines. If DE army has problems with anti tank, load up on those eldar ally . Three serpents some fire dragons, some DA and a WK or a prism will fix you up.

Nids need to spam Flyrants to be anywhere near competitive, the army is practically built on them - it's a weak codex in 7th (partly why I'm changing to DE).

I'm fine with nerfing, it's not the armies that are being streamlined that are the problem, it is the Eldar Codex being stronger than the rest.
I (and I think a lot of other people) would be very happy if CE were the first codex to be streamlined into 7th if GW decide to update all of the 6th edition Codexes into 7th formatting.

I'm also the first to say that the Allies Matrix should have never have been made, IMO when you pick up an army you learn that army and you play to it's strengths whilst trying to stop your opponent exploiting it's weaknesses, you shouldn't be able to bring in another army that excels at what should be able to defeat you, therefore giving you no weaknesses whatsoever.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

As opposed to the 12+ Lascannons needed by Imperial armies? What's your point?

Why would marines be using lascannons on land raiders? They have meltaguns for that very purpose, and can even drop pod those meltaguns next to the land raider on turn 1.

Making idiotic comparisons only weakens your point.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Dark and Bright Lances are the equivalent to S10 to anything AV14. What more do you need???? Lance weapons are perfectly suited for popping Land Raiders. Why do people think that because their army can't easily destroy a 250 point tank in a single turn, they suddenly have no anti-armour ability.

Because most things in the game aren't land raiders, yet many are just as hard to destroy with Dark Lances.

9 Dark Lance shots to destroy a 240pt land raider isn't too bad. 9 Dark Lance shots to destroy a Chimera is bloody awful. That's your entire HS allowance of Ravagers (minimum 375pts worth in the new book) being needed to down a single 65pt transport. Are you really telling me you don't see any problems with that?

The mandrakes are now very interesting.

Does their stealth, shrouded, infiltrate get applied to a vehicle they are in? If so a couple of units in venoms infiltrating into a ruin could be exceptional.

 turgon868 wrote:
Does their stealth, shrouded, infiltrate get applied to a vehicle they are in?

I don't see why they would.

By the way, has anybody bought the bomber? Would be interesting to hear which year is written in the sprues. Is it made for this release, or has it been ready "on the shelf" since the last release wave when there was rumours that it was made, but was too big for the boxes.

 vipoid wrote:

 turgon868 wrote:
Does their stealth, shrouded, infiltrate get applied to a vehicle they are in?

I don't see why they would.

Ah I don't have the rulebook handy - aren't there some special rules that work like that? I think scout does?

I'm still taking it all in, but :-

- I like the changes they made to the Court of the Archon. No 1+ nonsense any more for each of the models, build a unit that you like and go from there.
- The wych weapon changes are disappointing. I really liked the old Hydra Gauntlet and Shardnet + Impaler rules.
- The Clawed fiend losing it's special rule where it gained attacks as it is hurt is a shame. It was very fluffy and made it a scary thing to fight against.
- Did Ur Ghuls get better?

 turgon868 wrote:

Ah I don't have the rulebook handy - aren't there some special rules that work like that? I think scout does?

I think it's only the deployment-related rules that transfer - presumably because it would be a bit weird if a squad could only scout ahead by tearfully bidding farewell to their transport.

 turgon868 wrote:


Ah I don't have the rulebook handy - aren't there some special rules that work like that? I think scout does?

It's a unique exception noted in the scout special rule, and even there it only works for dedicated transports. Putting Space Marine Scouts in a Land Raider does not give it scout.

Kronboss89 wrote:


So I guess what I want to say is some things suck, some things seem like they could be cool. I have always loved the dark eldar. Things change. We gotta take the positive from the negative. I see it as a challenge to create new and exciting lists. Sure it sucks that the beaststar is no more and the baron, vect, duke, and krajaksdkfasdfbas (the mandrake guy), are all gone. We generally took a huge beating from the nerf bat but i think lots of codexes have. To some extent. i think we are seeing a dewardization of codices in the current edition and who knows.. if its not a good thing, it will at least encourage new ways to play the game that we all love. Lets face it, if we didn't love this game we wouldn't be sitting at a computer reading about it or griping about it on a website dedicated to it.

Well, anyways... I'm sure I'm missing some stuff but I'm tired and these are some things I have thought about surfing all the DE threads of late. Hope it was worth the read. Let me know your thoughts on the new codex.

Considering the string of moans over Orks, Grey Knights, and Dark Eldar, you might be right that they're trying to de-escalate the codices to a more normal power level. And decreasing the number of named characters should be a good thing so the game is less about building a death-star to exploit one character's rules. I would be more convinced if there was decent internal balance or attention to detail in the codexes. Hopefully the de-escalation will bring more weaker units into balanced play, but I'm not really counting on it.

They're de-escalating the codexes only to make 8th that much more interesting so they can re-escalate stuff again for another 2-3 year round of codexes people buy

The last thing GW wants is the community to start thinking "wow, all codexes are updated for this edition. I think it's time to stop collecting here." They came dangerously close to that by the end of 5th edition.

 TheSilo wrote:

Considering the string of moans over Orks, Grey Knights, and Dark Eldar, you might be right that they're trying to de-escalate the codices to a more normal power level. And decreasing the number of named characters should be a good thing so the game is less about building a death-star to exploit one character's rules.

Yes, I'm sure it's entirely about balance and nothing to do with the removed characters being the ones who didn't have models.

Obviously The Decapitator had been dominating too many tournaments - there was just no way to include him without making him overpowered.

 TheSilo wrote:
I would be more convinced if there was decent internal balance or attention to detail in the codexes. Hopefully the de-escalation will bring more weaker units into balanced play, but I'm not really counting on it.

The problem is that the nerfs seem to have no relevance to a unit's power level. Like removing Haywire Grenades from wyches and nerfing their melee weapons. So, they still suck in combat and now they don't even have a niche use as anti-vehicle units. To top it all off, warriors then get a point drop while wyches remain at 10pts.

This sort of de-escalation doesn't result in balance, it just results in blander codices with the same problem of some units being outright better than others.

e.g.

Is there ever a point to take hellions now? When reavers are just better in every way? For only a three point increase.

Reaver:
-3 S3 attacks on the charge
-1 S4 rending auto hit on the charge
-2 splinter shots before charging
-12" movement
-Jink for 3+ cover save
-48" redeploy
-skilled rider
-hit and run
-T4
-5+ armour
-combat drugs
-access to AT weapons
-access to cluster caltrops

Hellions:
-2 S4 attacks on the charge (hellglaive no longer gives +1 attack and is two handed)
-1 S3 auto hit on the charge if they don't use their jump pack in the movement phase
-2 splinter shots before charging
-fleet
-12" movement
-deep strike
-hit and run
-T3
-5+ armour
-combat drugs
-access to phantasm grenade launchers and stunclaws
-3 points cheaper

Seems like two almost identical units, just one is miles and above better in every way.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The new Venoms and Raiders are tougher with stealth when they jink.
This was impressive to see in a game yesterday.
Between all these wouldbe nerds this is a big plus for a fleet DE army.

I don't know. I can't bring myself to drop an extra 15 points onto a 55 point model for it. Of course, the only opponent I've played in 7th edition is a Craftworld player and you don't get cover saves against the d6+1 S7 hits from that ridiculously overpowered field that are on all the Wave-Seprents... that may color my perceptions a bit.

I haven't played my dark eldar since the the 3rd edition codex (last game was at the beginning of 5th edition) and I'm mostly pretty excited. The only thing that really gets under my skin is that Incubi can't have grenades. Heck just on the Klaive would make a difference. Sigh. I've decided to solve the problem by having a Succubus escort them. That way, if they have to charge into/through terrain, she can kill a few guys and lessen the impact.

I guess I have one other issue. But it's about CE and all their S6 weaponry. I mean every gun I face, every game is S6 or higher. I don't get Feel No Pain against shooting with any of my regular guys. Renders PfP pretty useless for most of the game. Oh well.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The new Venoms and Raiders are tougher with stealth when they jink.

Though doing so coasts the Venoms most of their firepower.

I am hoping there is a grand plan at work over at GW. We have to live with the Tau and Eldar codexes for now until they get nerfed down to the level of the last few codex releases.

As other people have said though, this does not solve the internal balance issues of each codex. This has always been a problem unfortunately, it's nothing new.

I am not so concerned about the loss of special characters. For me, hq's were all about taking a stock model and adding your own fluff and back story to them. The loss of rules is a problem but I honestly don't think you should have to take a specific hq to make wracks or hellions or whatever competitive. They should be capable units in and of themselves.

 turgon868 wrote:
I am hoping there is a grand plan at work over at GW.

Due to an unfortunate error, said plan was accidentally leaked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7o7UZrFgk

 turgon868 wrote:
I am not so concerned about the loss of special characters. For me, hq's were all about taking a stock model and adding your own fluff and back story to them.

I agree. But, they could make our lives easier by not making 90% of the stock options crap.

 turgon868 wrote:
The loss of rules is a problem but I honestly don't think you should have to take a specific hq to make wracks or hellions or whatever competitive. They should be capable units in and of themselves.

I agree - pity neither of them are competitive alone, and now lack any backup from HQs.

Makumba wrote:

And it's not impossible to play with a single book. The supplement books are alternate ways to play an army (just like FW army lists are optional ways to play armies, some of which rely on you having the core codex on hand for certain units and options). They bring variety for those who really want to specialize with a specific force instead of something more general. Many of them really force you into specific army builds too.

how do you play nids without skyblight, how do you do anti tank with DE without either taking eldar as ally or taking the 6 fast farmation and spaming scourges ?

The same way I play Sisters with no allies: I build an army of the stuff I like to try and solve the problems I think I may face in a typical game in my meta and bring it with me for a pick up game. I know this seems like a strange concept to you but not everyone plays the way the internet says is best.

Makumba wrote:

As for allies, any feeling you have of needing allies is in your head more than anywhere else. The ally system is there to sell you an army, but not by making it a manditory gap filler (remember, GW is designing a narrative, not a tournament, based game. It's core concept is more based on playing a campaign with friends to tell some kind of story, than to play a tournament for a prize), but as a way to make it easier to branch off into other armies.

I have never seen people buy two separate armies of the same faction to play tournament and non tournament games. People play the same lists. The system when you had to buy unit X to have an optimal list was not perfect, specialy if GW decided to make one choice good per slot. But at least you didn't have to buy multiple books. Right now there is a ton of armies that either lack the ability to play 7th ed or have units which only work if ally stuff is taken. Purifires do not work at all, unless one takes SW drop pods for them. The only way for a AM army to get cheap and resilient MSU units is to take marine as ally. The only source of divination and grav centurions for SW is taking sm as ally. Etc.

Just because some people build lists to play tournaments doesn't mean all people do. And even some of us who do, have done so without relying on a lot of what the internet jumps up and down and says is "best" (seriously, I played Sisters for a long while until the meta I played in after moving got so bad that playing them as they are now became a lot less fun). Look at your top table players in most big tournaments (like Nova), sure there are a fair number of Tau and Eldar armies running around, but there are people getting there with non-conventional army lists. You can sit here and tell me the only way to win with certain lists is allies, but I heavily disagree.

Makumba wrote:

Really want to start Guard but don't have the money to play them right now? There's a system to make it possible to play them as allies without shooting yourself in the foot or needing to wait 3+ months to have scraped together a full army.

But you would have a bad IG list unless you somehow played SM before and have all the units wanted as ally, but even then you would still need to buy around 900pts of guard and cost wise it wouldn't be saving much, as the units needed for the 900pts cost a lot of money, even when bought as recasts.

Replace Guard with Dark Eldar, or Grey Knights, or even Nids. The point still stands on what the intent was from the start.

It's all just going through the stages of grief. Some are in the anger stage, some are in the denial stage, some are in the acceptance stage, etc.
I still like the game and the models, so I've just sort of accepted that my focus will be almost solely on Fast Attack choices. Scourges and Reavers are quite good, and fortunately I love those models so they will be expanding in my lists at the expense of Wyches/Bloodbrides, HQs, Hellions (RIP Baron), warriors (RIP Duke), and Ravagers.
No sense getting upset about it, what's done is done, just have to adapt and move on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Exergy wrote:
Ultimately the DE codex use to have a weakness for massed medium armor.

Now the DE codex has a more acute weakness for massed light and medium armor.


In a world full of land raiders, DE are still king.

Considering you need 9+ Dark lances to take down a land raider in a single turn, I'm not exactly sure that's to their benefit.

I believe that way of thinking to be the problem with the current Ed - Many players believe their unit-counters have to be able to do their job flawlessly and without failure. People assume that Anti Tank must be able to destroy Land Raiders in a turn, Anti Infantry to be able to shred a full unit of Orks completely in the same amount of time, and so on. That is what people wanted prior, and what they got was the Codex power creep - Every damned codex just got better and better and tried to tobble the last one. Now, GW is trying to down the Codexes a bit to make an enemy army an actual thread to your succes, as it should be, and soon Eldar and Tau will get their nerfs, ending the Power Creep. Hopefully.

That, of course, make some people pretty miffed that their favourite armies are getting less powerful and unable to table certain other armies within a few turns, but the thing is, that isn't the point anymore. Everything is getting nerfed, yes, but you know what isn't getting nerfed? The durability of most of the models in the game. Sure, they aren't getting buffed directly, but their direct counter (Guns and stuff) are being less powerful, so that consitutes as a buff for most units. This means that tabling and blatantly overpowered units won't exist anymore, and the game will be more enjoyable for it IMO. Some models are still somewhat weak on the defensive side, most of them vehicles, but that will at least be helped when the AT gets toned down a bit.

So yes, you need 9+ Dark Lances to kill a Land Raider in a turn. That might sound ridicoulus to you, but that's the important part - Land Raiders (and other BFTs in the game like the Leman Russ, Battlewagon and Monolith) are not meant to be killed in a turn. Same with big blobs of infantry - their defence is numbers instead of durability, and the rules must reflect that. In rules and Codexes prior to those we have now, many armies just had an "I win now" choice to remve threats with impunity, but is that the point? Isn't the point the fight itself, and that careful application of firepower and tactics will down the beast, and not your instant-win gun of doom?

The Dark Eldar Codex can't deal with everything, the way all armies should be. Do you make an all-comers list and see what you meet, or do you make specific armies that can deal with a certain threat better, like a Dark Lance spam list, an Tau Air Defence list or maybe five Deathstrike Missiles via Unbound?

The way I see it, this game is being fixed by simply taking our toys and letting us learn from that loss, and I truly think it might turn the game around.

Oh, also, rant/off.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The new Venoms and Raiders are tougher with stealth when they jink.
This was impressive to see in a game yesterday.
Between all these wouldbe nerds this is a big plus for a fleet DE army.

I dont think Venoms can get stealth, they are not able to get nightshields. If you mean from nightfighting, well they already had that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Exergy wrote:
Ultimately the DE codex use to have a weakness for massed medium armor.
Now the DE codex has a more acute weakness for massed light and medium armor.
In a world full of land raiders, DE are still king.

Considering you need 9+ Dark lances to take down a land raider in a single turn, I'm not exactly sure that's to their benefit.

So yes, you need 9+ Dark Lances to kill a Land Raider in a turn. That might sound ridicoulus to you, but that's the important part - Land Raiders (and other BFTs in the game like the Leman Russ, Battlewagon and Monolith) are not meant to be killed in a turn. Same with big blobs of infantry - their defence is numbers instead of durability, and the rules must reflect that. In rules and Codexes prior to those we have now, many armies just had an "I win now" choice to remve threats with impunity, but is that the point? Isn't the point the fight itself, and that careful application of firepower and tactics will down the beast, and not your instant-win gun of doom?

The Dark Eldar Codex can't deal with everything, the way all armies should be. Do you make an all-comers list and see what you meet, or do you make specific armies that can deal with a certain threat better, like a Dark Lance spam list, an Tau Air Defence list or maybe five Deathstrike Missiles via Unbound?
f.

The problem is not how long it takes DE to kill a land raider, they dispatch them just fine. The problem is Rhinos. Razorbacks, Ork Buggies, Chimera, Wave Serpents, other DE raider, dreadnaughts etc.

O you brought more than 2 vehicles? O well my list cant deal with that, guess ill just keep playing until I face someone with less than 3 vehicles, that is where DE have a chance.

The same way I play Sisters with no allies: I build an army of the stuff I like to try and solve the problems I think I may face in a typical game in my meta and bring it with me for a pick up game. I know this seems like a strange concept to you but not everyone plays the way the internet says is best.

No one plays the game like that here. Someone would have to be mad to spend 600+$ on an army which is not good.

I believe that way of thinking to be the problem with the current Ed - Many players believe their unit-counters have to be able to do their job flawlessly and without failure.

And yet fire draongs or grav stars do what they suppose to do well. Drop pod melta units too. 3+tyrants works as anti tank or anti horde for nids.

Same with big blobs of infantry - their defence is numbers instead of durability, and the rules must reflect that.

Tell that to stuff like purifires in a SW drop pod.

The way I see it, this game is being fixed by simply taking our toys and letting us learn from that loss, and I truly think it might turn the game around.

Which means after all codex are redone, one is going to be able to build a tac list and it is probably going to be eldar or sm. And we will have the same situation only the armies playing against the top will have fewer option and be weaker.

Look at your top table players in most big tournaments (like Nova), sure there are a fair number of Tau and Eldar armies running around, but there are people getting there with non-conventional army lists. You can sit here and tell me the only way to win with certain lists is allies, but I heavily disagree.

That is more or less how people build armies here. Check what does good in tournaments and how much money you can spend, buy an army that non of your friends play.

I just celebrated the new dark eldar codex by ordering a new (third) force for Infinity

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The same way I play Sisters with no allies: I build an army of the stuff I like to try and solve the problems I think I may face in a typical game in my meta and bring it with me for a pick up game. I know this seems like a strange concept to you but not everyone plays the way the internet says is best.

I too build my armies with no allies.

No codex should have to use allies, nor should any player feel that they're being punished for not bringing allies.

Makumba wrote:

The same way I play Sisters with no allies: I build an army of the stuff I like to try and solve the problems I think I may face in a typical game in my meta and bring it with me for a pick up game. I know this seems like a strange concept to you but not everyone plays the way the internet says is best.

No one plays the game like that here. Someone would have to be mad to spend 600+$ on an army which is not good.

I wish Sisters could be built for $600! And local metas are different from place to place. I mean locally we have like 3 Tyranid players but only 1 Eldar player. Why? People are more concerned with playing armies they like and not the "most powerful" armies.

Makumba wrote:

I believe that way of thinking to be the problem with the current Ed - Many players believe their unit-counters have to be able to do their job flawlessly and without failure.

And yet fire draongs or grav stars do what they suppose to do well. Drop pod melta units too. 3+tyrants works as anti tank or anti horde for nids.

Same with big blobs of infantry - their defence is numbers instead of durability, and the rules must reflect that.

Tell that to stuff like purifires in a SW drop pod.

No one ever really said what the Purifiers are gaining by having all the points sunk into allies to get them a drop pod.

Makumba wrote:

Look at your top table players in most big tournaments (like Nova), sure there are a fair number of Tau and Eldar armies running around, but there are people getting there with non-conventional army lists. You can sit here and tell me the only way to win with certain lists is allies, but I heavily disagree.

That is more or less how people build armies here. Check what does good in tournaments and how much money you can spend, buy an army that non of your friends play.

Which is the complete opposite of how it's played here. We run Rogue Traders, sure, but campaigns are where it's really at.

GW is doing business all wrong. No one likes nerf bats or debuffs. Other things should be brought up in power. Then, to de-escalate the game, all points values should go up across the board. So then you're actually playing a tactical game of piece trading and movement versus "lolspam 6 raiders 6 scourges" vs "lolspam 6 serpents 3 wraightknight".

By doing what GW is doing, they will only bleed more and more players as their army is made complete garbage and forced to buy something completely different to keep playing it (Nids, Orks, Dark Eldar, GREY KNIGHTS).

And to that, I say, try Malifaux, Infinity or Warmachine. Updates come out for all factions at once and the stuff is play tested and DOESN'T invalidate your armies or play styles. Nor do they delete your units you spent time building, painting, and playing with.

I still can't believe folks are defending this nonsense. It's got to be related to the Stockholm Syndrome based upon the sunk cost fallacy.

No AA is a big weakness. JUst had whole game where I was winning turned into a draw by one helldrake and a bloody overwatch shooting. Lelith taking overwatch plasma pistol to the face.

As usual I prefer to put my thoughts in my videos rather than repeat myself.. I think the new 'dex is strong, but damn.. no more Wyches for me, they'll be collecting dust. I was really hoping that CC would become something strong in 40k again. I guess not