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.

 Burnage wrote:
"Thing on a fast thing" gets brought up so often because the entire point of Dark Eldar is being fast as hell, yet their HQs have no mobility outside of jumping into transports. Like, if I'm playing Flayed Skull, everything in my army will be moving a minimum of 17"... except for the HQs, which are stuck on foot and moving at less than half that speed.

It feels awkward and previous Codexes had bikes and skyboards as wargear options. It would be a buff, but it's not an outrageous one and would get the army playing in a smoother way.

While true, you can make the same statement for an army where you put everything in transports except for one squad of kabalite warriors, who has to walk.

The solution is the same: buy that squad a transport and they'll move fast too? What's so odious about having to buy a 65-point archon a venom when you happily buy one for a 35-point kabalite squad?

The second a jetbike/wings option exists for an HQ, that becomes the default way to run that HQ. When was the last time you saw a footslogging farseer, daemon prince/hive tyrant without wings, or someone willingly taking a marine captain on foot instead of with a jump pack?

I find "we have no options" a legitimate complaint, but "add mobility options" is not REALLY adding options...it's just a buff to the unit. No mobility option (at least, none that retain the CHARACTER keyword protection) have ever really been "optional", they're just mandatory.

I'd be fine with receiving it, overjoyed in fact if we ever did get new models for DE regardless of what they were. But looking at my eldar armies, the one where my regal, commanding wizard HQ has been forever relegated to a mandatory flying motorcycle is the one where I'm least excited about the fluff and character of my HQs. So just like I don't consider the Haemonculus weapon list to be "a lot of options" because one is just mathematically superior to all the others in every situation, I wouldn't really consider a release of a jetbike Succubus/Archon/Haemonculus kit to be "a new option" as much as it would be "blatantly requiring me to buy six kits and replace my lovingly converted HQ models.

Which probably means it'll be the first thing GW does if kinky effeminate torture sex pirate elves ever focus group well with the 14-17 demographic.

the_scotsman wrote:

Headlss wrote:
Yeah. Dark elfs are good, no question. And there are several ways to play. You don't have to take dissy ravagers. I don't have any flyer, no ravangers and no dissy cannons, I don't run vec or writ of the living muse. I still have a fun list that wins.

But a lot of the fine detail we miss out on. With only a troop choice, a heavy and an HQ in a kabal there just aren't many ways to play them.

And we're starved for HQs. We have 3 each locked to a specific faction which means a specific build. You can put a marine captain, in Termy armor, on a bike, or give him a jump pack. Storm shields, melta, T hammer, claws, power sword... Same with libarian, etc. Options and sub options.

I happen to like 3 of the 5 ways to build a detachment so I am quite happy. Just let me put my Succubus on a jet bike and I'm golden.

The "thing on a fast thing!" gets brought up really often and I just...I don't know. For so long it's just been the default, always 100% better option that I don't think it brings any additional diversity at all, especially now that so many characters auras are so important.

Would being able to slap jetbikes or "movement enhancing wings" on all my HQs make my army better? Yes. Will it make it more diverse? I mean you tell me man, but I know the second I got a mobility option on any of my DE HQs, I'd go from having 3x footslogging HQs to 3x of their mobility enhanced equivalents, really fast. Much like the only reason any character is ever not taken with a mobility option is if they don't have one, or people are afraid of index options going away so they choose not to use them.

I'd much rather just have a different HQ for each of the three unit types. Some kind of battlefield transmogrifier would be cool for covens, allowing you to do things like change around the stats of coven units, like increasing strength and damage but reducing weapon skill, or increasing speed but reducing toughness. A dedicated character hunter representing a younger, fame-hungry and selfish succubus would be great for cults. Maybe a spymaster with sniper weapons and deep strike for Kabals.

"give me a mobility option" has always just seemed like a kind of selfish complaint, in that you're just asking that they be flatly buffed. I can't think of a time when mobility didn't automatically make the unit better if it was available. Also in the case of the succubus you'd be adding like 4" to her movement, since she currently can just take movement drugs and go 10" anyway. If we're talking about the first real model release drukhari get since fifth edition, I'd have a whole lot of stuff higher up on my list than jetbike HQs.

It would also buff her toughness give her a flat S4 weapon an extra wound and incresse her speed from ~11 ish to flat 26. I use red grife. I want to prevent people from falling back from my t1 charge so she is taking a shard net.

I want jet bike cause its easy. It doesn't require any new thing.

I can see where you are coming from, we don't really need buffs. But its annoying to be artificially constrained.

Headlss wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Headlss wrote:
Yeah. Dark elfs are good, no question. And there are several ways to play. You don't have to take dissy ravagers. I don't have any flyer, no ravangers and no dissy cannons, I don't run vec or writ of the living muse. I still have a fun list that wins.

But a lot of the fine detail we miss out on. With only a troop choice, a heavy and an HQ in a kabal there just aren't many ways to play them.

And we're starved for HQs. We have 3 each locked to a specific faction which means a specific build. You can put a marine captain, in Termy armor, on a bike, or give him a jump pack. Storm shields, melta, T hammer, claws, power sword... Same with libarian, etc. Options and sub options.

I happen to like 3 of the 5 ways to build a detachment so I am quite happy. Just let me put my Succubus on a jet bike and I'm golden.

The "thing on a fast thing!" gets brought up really often and I just...I don't know. For so long it's just been the default, always 100% better option that I don't think it brings any additional diversity at all, especially now that so many characters auras are so important.

Would being able to slap jetbikes or "movement enhancing wings" on all my HQs make my army better? Yes. Will it make it more diverse? I mean you tell me man, but I know the second I got a mobility option on any of my DE HQs, I'd go from having 3x footslogging HQs to 3x of their mobility enhanced equivalents, really fast. Much like the only reason any character is ever not taken with a mobility option is if they don't have one, or people are afraid of index options going away so they choose not to use them.

I'd much rather just have a different HQ for each of the three unit types. Some kind of battlefield transmogrifier would be cool for covens, allowing you to do things like change around the stats of coven units, like increasing strength and damage but reducing weapon skill, or increasing speed but reducing toughness. A dedicated character hunter representing a younger, fame-hungry and selfish succubus would be great for cults. Maybe a spymaster with sniper weapons and deep strike for Kabals.

"give me a mobility option" has always just seemed like a kind of selfish complaint, in that you're just asking that they be flatly buffed. I can't think of a time when mobility didn't automatically make the unit better if it was available. Also in the case of the succubus you'd be adding like 4" to her movement, since she currently can just take movement drugs and go 10" anyway. If we're talking about the first real model release drukhari get since fifth edition, I'd have a whole lot of stuff higher up on my list than jetbike HQs.

It would also buff her toughness give her a flat S4 weapon an extra wound and incresse her speed from ~11 ish to flat 26. I use red grife. I want to prevent people from falling back from my t1 charge so she is taking a shard net.

I want jet bike cause its easy. It doesn't require any new thing.

I can see where you are coming from, we don't really need buffs. But its annoying to be artificially constrained.

As opposed to those super easy to deal with constraints that aren't artificial, like all of your units just not being any good?

And its not "thing on a fast thing" its "make my fast thing go faster". I want the leader of my cult of speed to lead my cult of speed.

The archon and heamy are fine on foot. Would I put them on bikes if I could maybe. If it was a flat upgrade probably. But let my Archon take up spot 6 or 11 in a boat, and buff that boat and everyone on it I would put him there. Give him a dissy cannon and let him re roll all misses as long as noether he nor the unit moved. Give us a melee warrior build that he buffs maybe I run him that way.

I really think a succubus on bike or board would be amazing. An archon with wings to keep up with the venoms would make me happy as it would allow them to actually participate. Haemies I think I would usually take on foot even with a mobility upgrade available. For other armies the mobility upgrade is nice, for an army that jets around the board, we currently work unsupported or slow down... which sucks.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
"Thing on a fast thing" gets brought up so often because the entire point of Dark Eldar is being fast as hell, yet their HQs have no mobility outside of jumping into transports. Like, if I'm playing Flayed Skull, everything in my army will be moving a minimum of 17"... except for the HQs, which are stuck on foot and moving at less than half that speed.

It feels awkward and previous Codexes had bikes and skyboards as wargear options. It would be a buff, but it's not an outrageous one and would get the army playing in a smoother way.

While true, you can make the same statement for an army where you put everything in transports except for one squad of kabalite warriors, who has to walk.

The solution is the same: buy that squad a transport and they'll move fast too? What's so odious about having to buy a 65-point archon a venom when you happily buy one for a 35-point kabalite squad?

Sticking HQs in transports has a lot of downsides. You can't use auras, you don't get warlord traits that need your warlord on the field, you don't get to hide from shooting thanks to the character keyword, you can't stick a squad in with them in a Venom (or a full-sized squad in a Raider), if the transport is killed there's a chance they instantly die. Harlequins have a similar problem but they also have a Masque trait which is entirely designed to mitigate some of these issues, and their relatively larger transport capacity also allows a HQ and squad to share a ride comfortably.

I mean, it works to stick them in a transport, but it does feel awkward as hell.

Drager wrote:
An archon with wings to keep up with the venoms would make me happy as it would allow them to actually participate.

A winged Archon would make me very happy because I just love winged models.




Also, as was mentioned earlier, the Shadowfield alone makes me despise the Archon. Could we not move to something more like Mandrakes (a 5++ with a -1 to hit)?

The fact that a single failed save (which I'm not allowed to reroll, ever) makes my warlord lose his save for the rest of the game just makes me disinclined to ever use my Warlord in combat.

I wouldn't mind losing the save for the game if you could have a decent backup with armour or something.

 Burnage wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
"Thing on a fast thing" gets brought up so often because the entire point of Dark Eldar is being fast as hell, yet their HQs have no mobility outside of jumping into transports. Like, if I'm playing Flayed Skull, everything in my army will be moving a minimum of 17"... except for the HQs, which are stuck on foot and moving at less than half that speed.

It feels awkward and previous Codexes had bikes and skyboards as wargear options. It would be a buff, but it's not an outrageous one and would get the army playing in a smoother way.

While true, you can make the same statement for an army where you put everything in transports except for one squad of kabalite warriors, who has to walk.

The solution is the same: buy that squad a transport and they'll move fast too? What's so odious about having to buy a 65-point archon a venom when you happily buy one for a 35-point kabalite squad?

Sticking HQs in transports has a lot of downsides. You can't use auras, you don't get warlord traits that need your warlord on the field, you don't get to hide from shooting thanks to the character keyword, you can't stick a squad in with them in a Venom (or a full-sized squad in a Raider), if the transport is killed there's a chance they instantly die. Harlequins have a similar problem but they also have a Masque trait which is entirely designed to mitigate some of these issues, and their relatively larger transport capacity also allows a HQ and squad to share a ride comfortably.

I mean, it works to stick them in a transport, but it does feel awkward as hell.

Bc it is awkward and not fun... DE should have Bike/Wing/SKyboard HQ's its completely ridiculous that we dont and CWE does, the fact that Red Grief Succubus was to walk or ride SOLO in a Venom (a 1/6 chance its removed from the game is stupid solo) is not a good feeling at all, you have to take a Raider to get body guards, Raider in Red grief for my succubus... so fun.. NOT,! Just give us a a upgrade kit that can make 1 of all 3.

The jetbike farseer is quite the slap in the face isn't it?

pm713 wrote:
I wouldn't mind losing the save for the game if you could have a decent backup with armour or something.

I have good news for you if it annoys you to the degree that you're willing to sacrifice something else to get it.

Put the armor of misery on him.

3+sv archon, right there. Take those against low quality shots! Rely on your invuln only for high AP shots!

Again though if the complaint actually ends with a phantom ".......and I would like to get that for free in my already quite strong faction" my sympathy for you is 0.

Martel732 wrote:
The jetbike farseer is quite the slap in the face isn't it?

Not really so much as a slap in the face as a very clear demonstration of one of the things wrong with Dark Eldar currently. Even after our Codex, a Farseer and Warlock Skyrunner are practically mandatory competitively. Why? Because they synergise better with the army than any of the native HQs.

 vipoid wrote:

Drager wrote:
An archon with wings to keep up with the venoms would make me happy as it would allow them to actually participate.

A winged Archon would make me very happy because I just love winged models.

Spoiler:

Also, as was mentioned earlier, the Shadowfield alone makes me despise the Archon. Could we not move to something more like Mandrakes (a 5++ with a -1 to hit)?

The fact that a single failed save (which I'm not allowed to reroll, ever) makes my warlord lose his save for the rest of the game just makes me disinclined to ever use my Warlord in combat.

I disagree with you on the shadow field. I love it. I'm glad its not re rollable, I don't want a 90 point death star. I do take the armor of misery on my beat stick so I have armor. My second Archon is fure support so he has charcter protection until near the end. If you want to improve it I could see getting a roll to bring it back up, but it would have to be a 6 and thats not really what you want.


I've had my Archon go toe to toe with a Castilian for 2 rounds becuase of the shadow field, on the thrid round he couldn't hit me at all, he was on his last tear and I had -1 to hit from Armor of Misery. He doesn't need to be stronger. But if you want a reliable HQ we don't have one.

The Succubus needs a mobility option for sure.

I'd be okay if the Archon never got an option, as long as when they are embarked on a vehicle their auras work.

The Haemonculus doesn't need a mobility option. They want to stick with Wracks, or Grotesques that don't have major movement anyways.

I love my DE, but I feel that the mercenary choices from the codex were done poorly. Make mercenary units more powerful due to them missing out on obsessions.

Incubi need more attacks, more damage, or something that makes them better in melee. Needs plastic and an HQ

Mandrakes are pretty good, need plastic and an HQ.

Scourge are amazing but need to be something other than a suicide unit.

The one unit I want to see reworked is Beast Packs. I've always wanted to run them, but finecast is a poor option for me. They should be a mercenary unit, not wych cult, but if included in Wych Cult then the Beast master benefits from the obsession. Always gets drugs.

Headlss wrote:

I disagree with you on the shadow field. I love it.

That makes one of us.

Headlss wrote:
I'm glad its not re rollable, I don't want a 90 point death star.

Yep, a T3 model with crap damage output who can reroll his save once per turn with a command point would totally be a death star.


Also, you realise that I didn't ask for it to be rerollable, right? But sure, a T3 character with a 5++ and -1 to hit would be completely unkillable. Who needs Imperial Knights with rerollable 3++ saves when you have this.

Headlss wrote:
If you want to improve it I could see getting a roll to bring it back up, but it would have to be a 6

Why? You could literally have it come back on automatically at the end of the turn and it wouldn't hurt the game in the slightest.

Headlss wrote:
But if you want a reliable HQ we don't have one.

Yeah, I noticed.

the_scotsman wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I wouldn't mind losing the save for the game if you could have a decent backup with armour or something.

I have good news for you if it annoys you to the degree that you're willing to sacrifice something else to get it.

Put the armor of misery on him.

3+sv archon, right there. Take those against low quality shots! Rely on your invuln only for high AP shots!

Again though if the complaint actually ends with a phantom ".......and I would like to get that for free in my already quite strong faction" my sympathy for you is 0.

It seems ridiculous to need a relic for armour. I want to be able to have the good while it lasts invul and good armour I can buy.

Oh you mean like in the old days you could buy options for how character? YEAH just more rules that were removed.....

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Oh you mean like in the old days you could buy options for how character? YEAH just more rules that were removed.....

Remember when we had the option of a Clone Field on an Archon, in place of the absurdly-overpriced Shadowfield?

Remember we used to have a Clone field as an option, I LOVED that wargear, i would rather have that back than a 4++ (you roll a D3 and you nullified that many hits). Even if it was 5pts and -1 to hit, that would still be a nice option, but i miss the old rules.

Our Archons used to be good in combat... B.c you didnt take Shadowfields, 4+ and 6+++, D3 hits miss, Combat drugs, Real Huskblade (power sword with Instant death, aka a force weapon) and Soul Trap, he went hunting characters to Bitch slap them.

You couldnt take Clone and Shadow together. But you didnt need to, if hunting units without power weapons, 4+ was good enough especially bc we always hit 1st at Int 7, and if the Sargent was the last guy left, with 2 attacks (bc i charged) they will auto miss D3 of those 2 attacks. Vs Captains, and other HQ's they had 4 attacks (CCW/Psitol and 3 attacks) but again we swing 1st and again D3 attacks miss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DE had options at one point..... i miss those options, now we are a blanket army with limited options and forced into 3 armies to even further limitations, yes we have lots of Tough guys and good shooting, but that gets boring really fast.

 vipoid wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Oh you mean like in the old days you could buy options for how character? YEAH just more rules that were removed.....

Remember when we had the option of a Clone Field on an Archon, in place of the absurdly-overpriced Shadowfield?

YES I used that all the time because the Shadowfield would ALWAYS fail on the first Str6+ hit anyway.
Clonefield Archons were beasts.

With GSC getting Blips.. where is our WWPs? Oh right, we get things taken away.. cant have nice things.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
With GSC getting Blips.. where is our WWPs? Oh right, we get things taken away.. cant have nice things.

That one isn't remotely worthy of complaining about, it became a stratagem but effectively does the exact same thing.

 Imateria wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
With GSC getting Blips.. where is our WWPs? Oh right, we get things taken away.. cant have nice things.

That one isn't remotely worthy of complaining about, it became a stratagem but effectively does the exact same thing.

Umm no? They used to the templates and force area denial, they were impossible terrain, you could run up and throw 3 WWP's blocking tanks/units, then coming out off the sides to create walls, much like the Blips are doing now. It gave you the option to split forces ups, etc..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/DarkMaw/WychWWP.jpg

The way I see it, you have four options when it comes to getting HQs across the field.

1. Footslog them.
2. Fit them in with a squad in a transport.
3. Buy a party boat all to themselves.
4. WWP them in.

For the first, they're either going to be sitting on a backfield objective all game or have to desperately jog towards the enemy while the entire army leaves them in the dust. This prevents them from synergizing with the army.

For the second, they're displacing an occupant in a Raider. Weapon options unlock at ten models, and the HQ can't buff while embarked. You can alternatively take them with an understrength unit in a Venom. Which can only be taken in an Auxiliary Support Detachment, if memory serves. So it costs a command point, and a precious Detachment slot. This prevents them from synergizing with the army and actually penalizes you for trying.

For the third, realistically you're putting 2-3 HQs in a Venom. Functionally, this costs somewhere in the range of 22-38 points per HQ. For this upgrade, you lose your character protection, still don't have access to your auras, and have a chance to instantly die when your basket overflowing with eggs inevitably gets nuked. You could fill some of the empty slots with ablative wounds, to help mitigate it though! Unfortunately, the only candidates to do that are an understrength unit (see above), or the Court of the Archon. Which are single model, non-character, units. So you have a very flimsy transport with six very flimsy kill points you are practically giving to the enemy. This prevents them from synergizing with the army and penalizes you for trying.

Finally, you could Webway Portal them in. But why? You can't provide buffs, it still costs you a Command Point, it prevents you from Deepstriking vehicles, and that Stratagem is much better spent on a blob of Wyches. So it prevents them from synergizing with the army and penalizes you for trying.

Is it honestly any wonder why DE players are clamoring for mobility options?

Regarding WWPs, the thing that really bugs me is that characters can't ride with units anymore.

Previously, I could give a WWP to a character, attach him to a squad and then teleport them in together.

Now, though, teleporting in a squad costs 1CP, but teleporting in a squad and a character costs THREE CPs. Why? Why does adding a single character triple the cost of the WWP?

Replying to a lot of posts, but too lazy to use quotes. Also, read lots of Dark Eldar rules- always wanted to, so I've owned every dex and built "wish lists" but never got around to it.

The loss of characters is a drag. I had hoped they'd continue to support gangs of Commorragh and add models and options to the army that way, much as they are using Kill Team and Blackstone to add characters to other lists. The good news is that I think we will still see characters via those two other, more popular vehicles, which are receiving support.

But a lot of the suggestions for fixes seem to go against what I have always perceived to be the fluff.

First off, hellions are wyches. Period. Succubus on skyboard? Absolutely appropriate, and MUST be added as an option. An archon on a skyboard? With custom written fluff in a narrative campaign, maybe. A haemonculus on a skyboard? No. Just no. even if it was technically possible in a previous dex, no.

Now I want to say the same about jetbikes, but I do feel there really is both rules value and fluff validity for an archon on a bike- it would fix the transport/ squad size/ aura issue, and a bike seems more befitting the gravitas of an Archon than a skyboard.

Next, someone seemed to suggest beasts would be cool without a beast master; I'm not sure that's ever been legal and it doesn't seem fluffy. Now creating a named beast master character HQ would be cool. But a generic archon that can control beast packs? No. MAYBE a succubus, because beast packs use to be associated with the wyches before the mercenary classification was expanded.

Incubi should have stayed a kabal option rather than being mercs.

So now onto the unique army structure/ multipatrol issue. Yes, this mechanically is problematic since they changed the CP values for battalions and brigades. It was also fluff genius, because the Dark Eldar have always been 3 armies in their fluff, and I have never thought of them in any other way.

I hated the increase to battalions and brigades and I've hated the detachment limit since its inception. My sisters/ ecclesiarchy always fought as two armies too- a holy choir of only models with AoF and a penitent legion which, aside from Repentia and mistresses, contained zero units with AoF [although Jacobus did join particularly epic battles]. This design also favoured many small detachments rather than a few big ones.

I am glad I don't play in tournaments, because I've never been forced to use the detachment limit rule. But after than cp increase to the uber detachments, many small stopped being viable.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Burnage wrote:
"Thing on a fast thing" gets brought up so often because the entire point of Dark Eldar is being fast as hell, yet their HQs have no mobility outside of jumping into transports. Like, if I'm playing Flayed Skull, everything in my army will be moving a minimum of 17"... except for the HQs, which are stuck on foot and moving at less than half that speed.

It feels awkward and previous Codexes had bikes and skyboards as wargear options. It would be a buff, but it's not an outrageous one and would get the army playing in a smoother way.

While true, you can make the same statement for an army where you put everything in transports except for one squad of kabalite warriors, who has to walk.

The solution is the same: buy that squad a transport and they'll move fast too? What's so odious about having to buy a 65-point archon a venom when you happily buy one for a 35-point kabalite squad?

The second a jetbike/wings option exists for an HQ, that becomes the default way to run that HQ. When was the last time you saw a footslogging farseer, daemon prince/hive tyrant without wings, or someone willingly taking a marine captain on foot instead of with a jump pack?

I find "we have no options" a legitimate complaint, but "add mobility options" is not REALLY adding options...it's just a buff to the unit. No mobility option (at least, none that retain the CHARACTER keyword protection) have ever really been "optional", they're just mandatory.

I'd be fine with receiving it, overjoyed in fact if we ever did get new models for DE regardless of what they were. But looking at my eldar armies, the one where my regal, commanding wizard HQ has been forever relegated to a mandatory flying motorcycle is the one where I'm least excited about the fluff and character of my HQs. So just like I don't consider the Haemonculus weapon list to be "a lot of options" because one is just mathematically superior to all the others in every situation, I wouldn't really consider a release of a jetbike Succubus/Archon/Haemonculus kit to be "a new option" as much as it would be "blatantly requiring me to buy six kits and replace my lovingly converted HQ models.

Which probably means it'll be the first thing GW does if kinky effeminate torture sex pirate elves ever focus group well with the 14-17 demographic.

I can't really agree with this. While to some having a mobility option becomes the only way you see it. That isn't always the case. I can only speak for myself, I like to keep my HQs with like. So I take a jump pack/bike to keep up with like units. I still have plenty of HQs on foot for sitting back, riding with transports along side squads or moving up the line with foot sloggers. Not every HQ will default come on bikes or skyboards.

Though I am sure some will only run characters like that but that won't be every player out there. It was like so before when options were all over. It is a bit sad that they are stripping all options away and I don't like that direction and marines are even following, I mean just look at how many LT's there are and Captains, all with 0 options and no mobility options. I feel like as much as modeling is improving our fun in game options are vanishing and I feel sad for the day when they've stripped them all away.

I think we should be prushing for DE to have character set up options for mobility and actual war gear choice we need to save our options not cheer they are all gone.

PenitentJake wrote:
But a lot of the suggestions for fixes seem to go against what I have always perceived to be the fluff.

First off, hellions are wyches. Period. Succubus on skyboard? Absolutely appropriate, and MUST be added as an option. An archon on a skyboard? With custom written fluff in a narrative campaign, maybe. A haemonculus on a skyboard? No. Just no. even if it was technically possible in a previous dex, no.

One minor point on the Archon on a Skyboard. Baron Sathonyx is/was an Archon renowned for being a former Hellion. Granted, that's an edge case of a character that, to the best of my understanding, hasn't been mentioned for the greater part of nine years, but it supported by fluff in at least one case. Agreed on Haemonculus, it would be nice to have a relic that would give him some mobility but "speedy" isn't really an appropriate term for the Covens.

PenitentJake wrote:

Now I want to say the same about jetbikes, but I do feel there really is both rules value and fluff validity for an archon on a bike- it would fix the transport/ squad size/ aura issue, and a bike seems more befitting the gravitas of an Archon than a skyboard.

Agreed. One point to add, though. Vraesque Malidrach is the Archon at the head of the Kabal of the Flayed Skull, and notable for his past as a Arena Champion on his bike. I don't think it's unfluffy at all to have Archon's on jetbikes.

PenitentJake wrote:
Next, someone seemed to suggest beasts would be cool without a beast master; I'm not sure that's ever been legal and it doesn't seem fluffy. Now creating a named beast master character HQ would be cool. But a generic archon that can control beast packs? No. MAYBE a succubus, because beast packs use to be associated with the wyches before the mercenary classification was expanded.

You could take Beasts without a Beastmaster in both 7th edition (I think. I was really really bad at 7th edition) and the 8th Edition Index. I was quite fond of the fluff I wrote for my Archon, emerging from the Webway among his most prized Khymera war dogs. As for the fluff, the Court of the Archon is notable for having the Ur-Ghul as part of it, a weird beast that navigates by smell. Not too unlikely that an Archon who prefers his pets to have eyes might elect to take something else. Also, as I've read it Beastmasters are to the Cults as Incubi are to the Kabals. You'll rarely see a Beastmaster outside a Cult, or Incubi outside a Kabal, but both are distinctly separate from their parent organizations.

PenitentJake wrote:

Incubi should have stayed a kabal option rather than being mercs.

Strong disagree. Incubi are sort of fallen Aspect Warriors. They hold themselves to a code of honor, and belong to an organization completely independent from any Kabal. While it would help them some in game, it'd make me feel about the same as Leilith having the Combat Drugs rule in the Index.

PenitentJake wrote:

So now onto the unique army structure/ multipatrol issue. Yes, this mechanically is problematic since they changed the CP values for battalions and brigades. It was also fluff genius, because the Dark Eldar have always been 3 armies in their fluff, and I have never thought of them in any other way.

I hated the increase to battalions and brigades and I've hated the detachment limit since its inception. My sisters/ ecclesiarchy always fought as two armies too- a holy choir of only models with AoF and a penitent legion which, aside from Repentia and mistresses, contained zero units with AoF [although Jacobus did join particularly epic battles]. This design also favoured many small detachments rather than a few big ones.

I am glad I don't play in tournaments, because I've never been forced to use the detachment limit rule. But after than cp increase to the uber detachments, many small stopped being viable.

I like the idea of the Raiding Party. It just got stuck being two weeks ahead of the CP boost, with HQs you never want more of, and Detachment Limits that severely limit its use.

Regarding HQ, jetbikes, hellions, and fluff. As someone mentioned we used to have a HQ that was a former Hellion champion. Add on top of that that one of the archons of the largest kabals - Vraesque Malidrach - used to be a reaver. This tends to imply that both Archons and Subbuses have a history using all kinds of vehicles.

Haemies I am however in total agreement. They would just look silly flying on a hellion board or a reaver jetbike. I would - at best - only accept if they were riding hellish creation of theirs.

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

Replying to a lot of posts, but too lazy to use quotes. Also, read lots of Dark Eldar rules- always wanted to, so I've owned every dex and built "wish lists" but never got around to it.

The loss of characters is a drag. I had hoped they'd continue to support gangs of Commorragh and add models and options to the army that way, much as they are using Kill Team and Blackstone to add characters to other lists. The good news is that I think we will still see characters via those two other, more popular vehicles, which are receiving support.

But a lot of the suggestions for fixes seem to go against what I have always perceived to be the fluff.

First off, hellions are wyches. Period. Succubus on skyboard? Absolutely appropriate, and MUST be added as an option. An archon on a skyboard? With custom written fluff in a narrative campaign, maybe. A haemonculus on a skyboard? No. Just no. even if it was technically possible in a previous dex, no.

Now I want to say the same about jetbikes, but I do feel there really is both rules value and fluff validity for an archon on a bike- it would fix the transport/ squad size/ aura issue, and a bike seems more befitting the gravitas of an Archon than a skyboard.

Next, someone seemed to suggest beasts would be cool without a beast master; I'm not sure that's ever been legal and it doesn't seem fluffy. Now creating a named beast master character HQ would be cool. But a generic archon that can control beast packs? No. MAYBE a succubus, because beast packs use to be associated with the wyches before the mercenary classification was expanded.

Incubi should have stayed a kabal option rather than being mercs.

So now onto the unique army structure/ multipatrol issue. Yes, this mechanically is problematic since they changed the CP values for battalions and brigades. It was also fluff genius, because the Dark Eldar have always been 3 armies in their fluff, and I have never thought of them in any other way.

I hated the increase to battalions and brigades and I've hated the detachment limit since its inception. My sisters/ ecclesiarchy always fought as two armies too- a holy choir of only models with AoF and a penitent legion which, aside from Repentia and mistresses, contained zero units with AoF [although Jacobus did join particularly epic battles]. This design also favoured many small detachments rather than a few big ones.

I am glad I don't play in tournaments, because I've never been forced to use the detachment limit rule. But after than cp increase to the uber detachments, many small stopped being viable.

The Skyboard and Jetbike options aren't just wishlisting, they are what we used to have, but was taken away. Also beasts existed before beastmasters did (you used to run them with a Drahite on a Skyboard). Incubi have always been mercs, it's a core part of their fluff. Other than that I broadly agree.