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_scotsman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
I honestly don't know that I believe the 3 patrols rule is already dead. Yeah, you'll get more CP with a Battalion, but you'll also have to take a second underwhelming HQ with the same trait to do so. Outside of Succubi, I don't know that it's worth it.

Dunno how much deep striking hurts scourges. I'm not usually looking to get them super close anyway.

1 less HQ total for 1 more command point would seem to not be too much of a problem to justify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as a funny side note for use if any of you ever come across an opponent who insists upon using the new FAQ rulings to make models invulnerable to assault by standing them on things:

RAW, post-FAQ, all dark eldar non-flying vehicles are fully immune to being assaulted unless an enemy can get to their base (flying stands being over 1" tall), and they're freely allowed to be tilted down when you charge so that the nose can be used to measure to target model bases.

Fight powergaming with powergaming.

This was already specifically FAQ'd out last summer to not be a problem.

The rule in the codex says "measure to the hull or base (whichever is closer). The check to see whether a unit is within assault range is a check whether my opponent has one of their bases within 1" of either my hull or my base (whichever is closer). Since my Hull is always more than 1" off the ground, it is ineligible as something that any model can possibly assault (barring weird circumstances and other measure from hull vehicles).

Certainly if they make it to my base, I can be assaulted, but unless they make it to within 1" of my base, my vehicles are immune to assault, rules as stupidly written.

I really don't see your point here at all. A good player doesn't assume they are going to roll double sixes, they move within a distance they feel they can roll on average, or even closer to virtually guarantee the charge if it positively must go off. So even springing this on an under-prepared player and being "that guy" about it will really only work once, if ever, then never again. Seems a lot of effort for essentially no advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
So per the new FAQ all our flying CC units just got better, as we can charge way easier, by ignoring vertical movement. So deep strikes to charge a unit in a building (or dropping at the top to get to ground zero) are way more attractive. Also there's a thread in the YMDC section arguing with strong arguments that flying units ignore vertical movement even in the movement phase, picture from the starter set "Know No Fear" proving that.

Hellions got even better ?

The annoying thing is that you (per the FAQ) need space to place on of your models in CC with the charged unit. So if a squad of aggressors completely fills out a floor in a ruin, they are essentially immune to being charged by anything with a base. A Leman Russ can do it though.

I dunno it's pretty realistic if you think about it. If a squad of guys completely fill a platform then other guys of their same size might have a hard time safely ascending to the platform to get into close combat with them, but a huge honking tank crashing into that platform might have a chance to damage or dislodge them a bit, especially if they are being silly and standing right on the edge taking up as much room as possible. You don't have to picture close combat as the Russ growing arms and reaching for its chainsword.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
I honestly don't know that I believe the 3 patrols rule is already dead. Yeah, you'll get more CP with a Battalion, but you'll also have to take a second underwhelming HQ with the same trait to do so. Outside of Succubi, I don't know that it's worth it.

Dunno how much deep striking hurts scourges. I'm not usually looking to get them super close anyway.

1 less HQ total for 1 more command point would seem to not be too much of a problem to justify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as a funny side note for use if any of you ever come across an opponent who insists upon using the new FAQ rulings to make models invulnerable to assault by standing them on things:

RAW, post-FAQ, all dark eldar non-flying vehicles are fully immune to being assaulted unless an enemy can get to their base (flying stands being over 1" tall), and they're freely allowed to be tilted down when you charge so that the nose can be used to measure to target model bases.

Fight powergaming with powergaming.

This was already specifically FAQ'd out last summer to not be a problem.

The rule in the codex says "measure to the hull or base (whichever is closer). The check to see whether a unit is within assault range is a check whether my opponent has one of their bases within 1" of either my hull or my base (whichever is closer). Since my Hull is always more than 1" off the ground, it is ineligible as something that any model can possibly assault (barring weird circumstances and other measure from hull vehicles).

Certainly if they make it to my base, I can be assaulted, but unless they make it to within 1" of my base, my vehicles are immune to assault, rules as stupidly written.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. As I said this situation has already been FAQ'd months ago.

Has anybody tryed the tantalus? With the wytch 'shoot agaun if you kill anything' stratagem it sreems very good.

It benefits pretty well from the obsessions. Red grief being able to advance 32" and charge is huge. The dark creed stratagem allowing it to target characters is pretty good.
The downside is that while everything else gets cheaper it did not. At 400 points you can get two raiders and 2 ravagers instead.
Hopefully one day forgeworld will be brought into line with the rest of the updates.

How does he compare for shooting? He does have 12 shots with S8 even if they are only D2.

And how does it compare in durabilaty? Can a haemoncaly makr it T8, does that help?

2 ravagers and 2 raiders get 8 dark lance or dis cannons. So probably on par shooting, anywhere between 24 str 5 2d shots or 8 str 8 d6d shots.

Toughness 7 is a nice boost, but any dedicated anti tank still wounds both on 3s most likely. Then 40 wounds compared to 18.

Not sure if homunculus can make it t8.

Hopefully it gets a price drop.

The hemi can make it tough 8, but then no wych strategem.

 Niiai wrote:
Has anybody tryed the tantalus? With the wytch 'shoot agaun if you kill anything' stratagem it sreems very good.

Too much of a fire magnet to survive 1 turn of decent shooting...

I'd rather have 3 razorwings.

 Niiai wrote:
Has anybody tryed the tantalus? With the wytch 'shoot agaun if you kill anything' stratagem it sreems very good.

 whembly wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Has anybody tryed the tantalus? With the wytch 'shoot agaun if you kill anything' stratagem it sreems very good.

Too much of a fire magnet to survive 1 turn of decent shooting...

I'd rather have 3 razorwings.

Tantalus are extremely good now, dont forget its a Fly Vehicle and can DS for 1CP and can gain -1 to hit, so it can last for a long time.

I would either take it as Strife or Dark Creed Coven for sniper, or even Red Grief for turn 1 charges


Both gain
1) Gain -1 to hit if it is targeted
2) Can DS
3) Fire and Fade

Strife,
1) Gain +1A (S8 in melee with 7 attack now)
2) Can shoot twice

Dark Creed
1) Can Sniper 2 units (A6, S8, -3ap, 2D)
2) Gain +1 Toughness
3) Can give -1 LD in a huge area

Red Grief
1) Turn 1 Charges 99% guaranteed (36" movement, re-roll Charges)

So really it comes down to, More damage over all, or more survivability and even higher threat via sniper. Or if playing lots of Wyches and Reaver for Alpha turn 1 charge.

I'm pretty lukewarm on the tantalus myself. Feels like its giving up a major advantage of the structure of our army - like telling your opponent "Ok, here's my army full of T5 vehicles with 5++ saves that severely devalue your usually very efficient lascannons and lance weapons...and now heres my ONE, four hundred point, giant sail boat.

Pretty please don't shoot it, I have no psychic buffs to improve its defenses.

In general, it's got some tricks to be sure, its fun in Dark Creed as stated, fun in Red Grief, but I think its weight in more raiders/Ravagers is probably a hair more efficient and results in fewer eggs in one basket.

As to how Dark Eldar fares with the new FAQs...for the most part, I think we come off pretty well. Red Grief is now occupying a MUCH more restrictive niche of armies capable of pulling off a turn 1 charge, if we start seeing a reduction in the number of screens people take because of that it could improve our matchups. We now have viable horde/chaff clearing options in the form of wyches or even weirder stuff like Dark Creed haemonculus LD bombs, so the shift to a Guard/Tau meta may not be the worst thing for us. The battalion change does make our patrol shtick obsolete but for 2 extra command points it feels a WHOLE lot better to figure out how to use the extra tax HQ. Every DE list I've made since has featured at least 2 battalions, our troops are so efficient and we have such a huge impact with lots of CP.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty lukewarm on the tantalus myself. Feels like its giving up a major advantage of the structure of our army - like telling your opponent "Ok, here's my army full of T5 vehicles with 5++ saves that severely devalue your usually very efficient lascannons and lance weapons...and now heres my ONE, four hundred point, giant sail boat.

Pretty please don't shoot it, I have no psychic buffs to improve its defenses.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of this approach in general - especially with Dark Eldar.

I really don't like putting so many eggs into one basket.

You can deep strike that basket, and defend it with the -1 to hit stratagem.

 Niiai wrote:
You can deep strike that basket, and defend it with the -1 to hit stratagem.

Sure, but my frame of reference is Thousand Sons - Where I can give it an invuln save or improve an existing one, I can make it -1 to hit, I can give it tons of offense buffs...psychic powers offer a ton of non-CP intensive ways to boost up a single model. Same deal with Guard and Baneblades. I think if you're not going the super-skew route with heavy armor, and you just have one big piece, you have to have some psychic buffs as a power multiplier.

 Niiai wrote:
You can deep strike that basket, and defend it with the -1 to hit stratagem.

Sure. But that doesn't change anything I said.

So red grief has been the most popular cult so far from what I have seen since it compliments other units well serving as a distraction and tying things down. I am wondering if anyone has taken wych cult as their primary battalion and used cursed blade or strife.

 Red Corsair wrote:
So red grief has been the most popular cult so far from what I have seen since it compliments other units well serving as a distraction and tying things down. I am wondering if anyone has taken wych cult as their primary battalion and used cursed blade or strife.

Don't have Drukhari playing experience behind me but now that 2 battalions are more attractive I'd do a Kabal + Wyches double battalions, and Red Grief is very nice for the speed, their stratagem looks tricky to use but useful nonetheless, the have an excellent relic, and they have a nice warlord trait for surviving a little better. I'm just a little sad because I want to try a Druggubus from Strife with Stimm-Addict and the Phial-Bouquet to overdose her, it could be great fun.

 Red Corsair wrote:
So red grief has been the most popular cult so far from what I have seen since it compliments other units well serving as a distraction and tying things down. I am wondering if anyone has taken wych cult as their primary battalion and used cursed blade or strife.

I played test games for the 1000pt event I went to recently with pretty much the same list, trying it with Red Grief and Cursed Blade. It was 1 detachment, no unique characters so I didn't really consider Strife (imo strife is just slightly worse CB if you dont use Lelith, but she actually makes a strife battalion very tempting given how good both her and the other succubus can be).

Red Grief was just hands down scarier. Flyby Stratagem is absurdly good on a block of RG Reavers, enhanced aethersails has amazing utility, blood glaive and 3++ trait is awesome, and your wyches make up for the loss of durability and strength by having absolutely nuts threat range.

I think cursed blade is, strangely, shaping up to be the one I'd only go to for gimmicks like foot wych hordes and hellion swarms. I never thought I'd say that looking at the three traits but the Red Grief CP value is amazing (and I'm not even considering any list with less than 13cp to burn right now) and Lelith is such a firecracker post codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aaranis wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
So red grief has been the most popular cult so far from what I have seen since it compliments other units well serving as a distraction and tying things down. I am wondering if anyone has taken wych cult as their primary battalion and used cursed blade or strife.

Don't have Drukhari playing experience behind me but now that 2 battalions are more attractive I'd do a Kabal + Wyches double battalions, and Red Grief is very nice for the speed, their stratagem looks tricky to use but useful nonetheless, the have an excellent relic, and they have a nice warlord trait for surviving a little better. I'm just a little sad because I want to try a Druggubus from Strife with Stimm-Addict and the Phial-Bouquet to overdose her, it could be great fun.

Druggubus is pure goofball, but Strife is fine. Pair with a heavy CP-use coven or kabal (hello Black Heart) and you've got yourself a solid, reliable damage machine.

Red Grief are really only amazing when you're pumping your CP into them. Strife is efficient without using Aethersails, Flyby, etc every round. You've got the threat of Blendermode for 3cp if you get a really amazing charge into a million GEQ but otherwise Strife just does what wyches do, really well.

Just run the Triptch/Blood dancer build over the druggubus in your competitive games

I've posted this in the Army Lists section, but I thought I'd post it here as well:



Basically an aggressive PT army.

The HQs will each take about half the troops with them, and said troops will aim to disembark, shoot and charge early on (getting the benefit of both their PT Obsession and the Archon auras). The Soul Seeker Archon will be a little more cautious, staying at range with his Mandrake buddies or else charging weak targets. The Djin Blade Archon will be more aggressive (read: suicidal), and will go after heavier stuff with the aid of his Lhamaeans.

Any thoughts?

 Red Corsair wrote:
So red grief has been the most popular cult so far from what I have seen since it compliments other units well serving as a distraction and tying things down. I am wondering if anyone has taken wych cult as their primary battalion and used cursed blade or strife.

I love running Cursed Blade, S4 Wyches do all sorts of damage you wouldn't expect (killed a Hive Tyrant with a 10 Wych squad that had 2 Razorflails in there) and end up being a notable threat to a lot of things. I've found I really like running Red Grief on min bike squads to tie things up turn 1 before the Cursed Blade Wyches hit home. I've run Cult of Strife but haven't really got much out of them so far, +1A just doesn't feel like it offers as much of an overall boost as the +1S does.

What are peoples ideas for beast units?

I have some old beasts from 5th edition. I am full about painting hy helions, but I think the khymera seems OK. They remind me a bit of genestealers without the rending, and they are S4 and T4. 10 movement. (Genstealers have 8+d6 bnefore charges.) The stealers are usualy best when they can be 5++ 5+++. But it is 10 points vs 14 points.

I have no good way to judge the razorflock or the claw beast. What do people think?

If we could make something of a primer at some point (yes please) I made a guide to detachments.



If it makes it into a primer it should probably be in a spoiler. Also, if we get an index I do think it would be beneficial to have someone do mathhammer on our models. As well as someone doing general list. As we tend to be focused on specialised lists. And lastly some notes on what stratgems to keep an eye on.

Clawed fiends are awesome, fulfil a role wyches are bad at (grinding wounds off heavy targets) and any full wych list should take a good long look at 3 units of clawed fiends with a LD drug master.

If you're diverting from just cult, Grotesques or taloi do their job probably better, but for pure wyches they're auto includes.

The little beasts I just don't know why I'd want them over more basic troops. They aren't terrible mathematically but no obsession, no obsec, no CPs, and yes escape (no no escape)...kinda meh in my eyes.

I'd love to do a unit by unit primer as a group effort when I get a few more games in. I did a big "what do you do with a DE HQ" thread on tdc that would probably cone in handy iver here.

the_scotsman wrote:
Clawed fiends are awesome, fulfil a role wyches are bad at (grinding wounds off heavy targets) and any full wych list should take a good long look at 3 units of clawed fiends with a LD drug master.

If you're diverting from just cult, Grotesques or taloi do their job probably better, but for pure wyches they're auto includes.

The little beasts I just don't know why I'd want them over more basic troops. They aren't terrible mathematically but no obsession, no obsec, no CPs, and yes escape (no no escape)...kinda meh in my eyes.

I'd love to do a unit by unit primer as a group effort when I get a few more games in. I did a big "what do you do with a DE HQ" thread on tdc that would probably cone in handy iver here.

My biggest problem with the beasts is the change to the Beastmaster. He used to give a flat reroll failed hits, now it's only reroll 1's to hit. Given that Clawed Fiends hit on a 4+ thats a significate drop in their ability.

 Imateria wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Clawed fiends are awesome, fulfil a role wyches are bad at (grinding wounds off heavy targets) and any full wych list should take a good long look at 3 units of clawed fiends with a LD drug master.

If you're diverting from just cult, Grotesques or taloi do their job probably better, but for pure wyches they're auto includes.

The little beasts I just don't know why I'd want them over more basic troops. They aren't terrible mathematically but no obsession, no obsec, no CPs, and yes escape (no no escape)...kinda meh in my eyes.

I'd love to do a unit by unit primer as a group effort when I get a few more games in. I did a big "what do you do with a DE HQ" thread on tdc that would probably cone in handy iver here.

My biggest problem with the beasts is the change to the Beastmaster. He used to give a flat reroll failed hits, now it's only reroll 1's to hit. Given that Clawed Fiends hit on a 4+ thats a significate drop in their ability.

Yep, used to take 3 every game, the re-rolls is what made them playable, the new Aura is bad, they dont had the damage if they are missing 33% of the time comapre to what they used to hit.

Beastmasters being cheaper is nice tho and they can take a Relic if you wanted too (I wouldnt but eh, its an option)

I really like clawed fiends, and I really want to bring them. But I'm also bringing a coven and I am having a really hard time justifying bringing a unit of clawed fiends instead of another unit of grotesques. They just seem better for about the same amount of points.

Raulengrin wrote:
I really like clawed fiends, and I really want to bring them. But I'm also bringing a coven and I am having a really hard time justifying bringing a unit of clawed fiends instead of another unit of grotesques. They just seem better for about the same amount of points.

That's because they are.

Yeah, they are. Beasts in general are really only good in a pure wyches list, maybe wych/kabal.

Warriors are obviously very good, but I didn't really get quite how good. They are quite possibly the best line infantry in the game right now. Math follows.

The reigning champion is of course Guard Infantry. They're stupidly durable and are pretty good at killing things too, especially with Company Commanders running around for FRFSRF. Equal points in Guardsmen will wipe the floor with just about anything in a sustained firefight.

But Warriors actually do even better against anything with T4 or higher. If you assume that everyone is just standing and shooting simultaneously (so if you have 100 Guardsmen and 30 Space Marines there are 100 lasgun shots and 30 bolter shots, then casualties, then the next round, and so on) you can work out the relative value of a Warrior like so:

They hit 4/3 as often, and they wound 3/2 as often (vs T4). Meanwhile they're 6/5 durable due to PfP. If X Guardsmen are an equal match for some T4 thing, then sqrt( 3/4 * 2/3 * 5/6 ) Warriors will be. This implies a fair per-model cost of 6.2 points -- Warriors are only 6 points, so in real life you need fewer points of them than you'd need of Guardsmen to win this shooting match vs T4.

What about T3? If Guardsmen and Warriors are fighting each other, then with what I've laid out so far the Warriors look like the losers. They lose their wounding advantage and would need to cost 5.06 points per model to fight Infantry on an even footing.

But actually we've ignored some things that work to the disadvantage of Guardsmen. At 24", a squad is typically shooting at 90% efficiency -- the sergeants have pistols. This is 95% in rapid-fire range, and of course when we consider FRFSRF the pistol falls further behind. The other thing we've ignored is morale. If you can freely target whatever you want, you should be killing 7 men of every Infantry Squad, because on average 2.5 will then run away. Guardsmen are only 75% as durable as they appear to be on paper in a fight over multiple turns. Meanwhile Warriors have Ld 8 and smaller squad sizes. If you're taking only 5 man squads, you expect to lose only 6.7% of them to morale. When we account for the sergeant not shooting and for Guard being more vulnerable to morale, we get that the "fair" price for Warriors in a shooting match with Infantry is 5.95 points. That's pretty close to what they are, and that's about the worst-case scenario for Warriors (since it's vs T3). You can also go up to 7-man squads without losing too much here.

Now buffs. First things first: Company Commanders are not actually very cost-effective if you're bringing them at a rate of 1 per 2 Infantry Squads. They double a squad's firepower but you're paying 37.5% more per squad to do it (the fair price here would be 41% more, so they're worth it but not by much). A better plan is to bring fewer CCs than you'd need to fully order your Infantry and then just always order the fullest squads (or even a combined squad). In the limit of lots of Infantry and few CCs, points spent on a CC are about 33% more efficient than points spent on more Infantry assuming you can find full squads every turn. If you have, say, 2 CCs per 6 Infantry Squads, that's about 7% more efficient than just pure Infantry. So it's not actually that big of a deal, though of course you need HQs anyway and you get CP for them. If your opponent can actually knock off some of every squad, then the efficiency of CCs rapidly declines too.

Meanwhile Warriors are going to be re-rolling 1s to hit, which is only a 17% firepower buff, or 36% if they're also re-rolling wounds of 1. Archons can of course buff any number of Warriors, but you probably still have 2 Archons per 6 squads. And they're a lot more expensive. They're not very worth it purely for buffs. The cheapest possible Archon needs to be buffing about 140 naked Warriors to be worth it for his re-roll aura alone, or 70 if he's a BH Archon with the Writ. But unlike Company Commanders, Archons do more than buff your basic Troops with small arms. They also give re-rolls to things like Ravagers, and re-rolling 1s to hit and wound is worth about 22 points on a Ravager. You can also give the Archon himself a blaster. You'd be pretty happy to pay 50 points for an anti-tank shot that hits almost all of the time -- Marine Devastators are perfectly playable and they pay 38 points per lascannon dude and are less accurate, less durable, less good in CC, and they're targetable (they have longer range but you're running up the field with your infantry so that's not a big problem). Or compare to a Scourge with a blaster and tack on another 15 points for all the other advantages Archons have. So the real cost of an Archon is more like 30 or 40 points -- that's the tax you're paying beyond what you'd happily pay to bring blaster Archons just as their own unit without an aura. So at least the first Archon in your list is very easy to justify, though the second is going to be more of a tax. It's not too bad though, and so I don't think Company Commanders are a decisive advantage.

I didn't talk too much about traits. Black Heart offers very little for Warriors directly but does unlock the Writ relic. Poisoned Tongue also gives wound re-rolls. Both are better than most Guard doctrines. Obsidian Rose is very similar to the Vostroyan doctrine (which is great), and also buffs your Archons' blasters. I also didn't cover weapon options. In general they don't seem too appealing on foot Warriors because they make the squad too fragile. The same is true for Infantry -- you usually only see mortar teams, and only in ITC when the Reaper secondary gives them an incentive to avoid having a 10 model unit. This is generally a disadvantage for them in a fight, because it makes the squad more vulnerable to morale and it's harder for the squad to move forward and shoot.

So in short, Warriors are far better than Guardsmen against anything with T4 or better (except vehicles). They're competitive with Guardsmen vs T3. And that's true even when we account for the buffs available to each. Aeldari in general have a lot of reason to use Kabal detachments the same way the Imperium uses Guard detachments, as a cheap source of CP and excellent line infantry.

What's the view on Archon re-rolls applying to Open-topped passengers?
-text says "restrictions and modifiers" that affect the transport, affect the passengers.

I was considering blaster Raiders vs. Ravagers, but if this doesn't work that might kill that...

If the passengers are not on the board, they're not within range.