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.

I'm fairly new to 40k, so far just playing necrons but they're a bit rubbish (slow moving, no long range, no anti-vehicle, very expensive to get a strong unit together and get them to the front line).

I'm now looking for a decent non-space marine army to play and everyone seems to think Drukhari is a powerful army, and I do like the looks of them (especially the vehicles)

But just looking at the codex they look a bit... weak. most of the troops are 3 strength, 3 toughness, 1 wound with 5/6+ saves.

So is their advantage that they are cheap and have long range good AP weapons? Does that make up for their flimsyness?

Also, I've seen a few suggested lists and they seem to be heavy on vehicles and light on troops, so is that how these usually played? And in that case presumably they are an attacking force rather than sitting back and shooting from long range?

When you work in all the Eldar trickery available, you are gonna to found Dark Eldar would be one of the toughest army of 40k. I am not joking. It is not unseen that a fully decked out IK Castellan, which are called "too OP" everywhere, aimed all its weapon at a unit of Prophet of flesh Talos Pain Engine, just to fail in killing even single one model.

Apart from Pain Engine, Grotesques are also great in prophet of flesh coven.

Apart from that, the Ravager with three Disintergrator Cannon is just so strong. And spamming flyers and Venoms are also very very powerful

So do most people tend to go heavy on vehicles, with a few troops as backup? Or are troop focused lists still successful? (@ 1000points)

SCM wrote:
So do most people tend to go heavy on vehicles, with a few troops as backup? Or are troop focused lists still successful? (@ 1000points)

At 1000 points infantry heavy can work. However the main advantage of Dark Eldar is their transports. 10 Kabbalites in a Raider is always going to be more effective than 20 footslogging Kabbalites. Ravagers will easily delete their points worth and then some due to the OP nature of Dissie Cannons.

As I understand it, you can go heavy on troops but keep the units small and mechanised, lots of squads of 5 in Venoms...

I recommend listening to Splintermind if you want some tips on Dark Eldar, it is a podcast dedicated to them. I wish there was an Ork one actually, we could call it Da Ork City,SplinterOrk or somethng like that!

SCM wrote:
I'm fairly new to 40k, so far just playing necrons but they're a bit rubbish (slow moving, no long range, no anti-vehicle, very expensive to get a strong unit together and get them to the front line).

I'm now looking for a decent non-space marine army to play and everyone seems to think Drukhari is a powerful army, and I do like the looks of them (especially the vehicles)

But just looking at the codex they look a bit... weak. most of the troops are 3 strength, 3 toughness, 1 wound with 5/6+ saves.

So is their advantage that they are cheap and have long range good AP weapons? Does that make up for their flimsyness?

Also, I've seen a few suggested lists and they seem to be heavy on vehicles and light on troops, so is that how these usually played? And in that case presumably they are an attacking force rather than sitting back and shooting from long range?

They are also very cheap. Kabal warriors are tougher than marine tacticals for example. Toughness in 8th ed is basically wounds per point rather than T and save. Unless you have good inv saves you just die.

The biggest advantage of DE is speed. If you look at the Move stat on anything int he codex you will notice it is very high. This allows you to outmanoeuvre an opponent, which is critical to winning with the codex. Talos, Grotesques and Ravagers are all good, but my favourites for competitive play are Venoms at the moment. If you want to play casually with them, then don't take a Cronos or Hellions and you're fine everything in the codex except them is good or better (or so cheap it doesn't matter).

I like to take Flayed Skull Venoms with Kabalites carrying shredders or a unit of Trueborn with 2 Shredders and 2 Splinter Cannons. These put out a huge amount of firepower at 12" (20+1d6 shots per unit of Kabalites in Venom) which ignore cover and reroll 1s to hit. They also move incredibly quickly (19" a turn), which makes them very good at grabbing objectives. Additionally, venoms are tiny so they can easily hide behind LoS blocking terrain. You can fit 5 behind an average sized ruin for example. Further they are a pain to shoot at as they are tough enough to resist small arms (T5), but not worth shooting with heavy weapons as they have low wounds (W6) whilst being naturally resistant to plasma, the obvious mid range weapon (-1 to hit and a 5++ save).

Thanks, these are looking better and better. I'll definitely take a look at Splintermind as well.

Just a quick question on the Venom weapons... It seems you can take a splinter cannon and twin splinter rifle, or 2 splinter cannons. Given that the splinter cannon has a longer range, is Rapid 3 vs rapid 2, and all the other stats are identical why would anyone ever take the twin splinter rifle...? or am I missing something? wait... does the twin splinter rifle get to shoot twice...? so it's effectively 2 x Rapid 2?

SCM wrote:
Thanks, these are looking better and better. I'll definitely take a look at Splintermind as well.

Just a quick question on the Venom weapons... It seems you can take a splinter cannon and twin splinter rifle, or 2 splinter cannons. Given that the splinter cannon has a longer range, is Rapid 3 vs rapid 2, and all the other stats are identical why would anyone ever take the twin splinter rifle...? or am I missing something? wait... does the twin splinter rifle get to shoot twice...? so it's effectively 2 x Rapid 2?

no it's just free vs 10 points. The extra 1/2 shots from the SC generally isn't worth 10pts to most people, especially since the range differential matters less since you have to be within 12" to get your passengers rapid firing anyway.

I've found the extra range and shot to be critical, as I typically use the venom on something in the 18" range and the passengers at a different target, this is not a good idea for one venom, but when using 5 it's often the best tactic. You can reliably put damaging morale checks on 5-7 IS this way, which is a very effective tactic.

Just looking in battlescribe and the obsessions seem to be a bit of a pain as each one seems to not allow the use of certain units. How do you get around this - by using several detachments?

SCM wrote:
Just looking in battlescribe and the obsessions seem to be a bit of a pain as each one seems to not allow the use of certain units. How do you get around this - by using several detachments?

Dark Eldar have a special rule that gives bonus CP for multiple Patrol detachments. However most people seem to use the 3 detachment limit from the Organised Play rules, which makes that rule useless.

You always want to isolate your units into their own Obsession detachments for maximum effect. This is the same as any other army. Yeah, it's a pain since it's an HQ tax and Dark Eldar HQs are (by design) somewhat crappy for their points, but it doesn't hamper you overly much.

If you can somehow squeeze in two Battalions that would be Ideal, but at 1000 points I suspect it will be a Battalion and a Patrol at most.

Not completely useless, you can still earn the lower level CP reward for having 3 Patrol detachments. It is an unfortunate demonstration of the lack of joined-up thinking we get out of GW at times though.

Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.

Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

The most important thing to remember with Drukhari is that it's more like 3 armies in one book; Kabals, Wych Cults and Haemonculus Covens. Whilst you can mix and match the 3 types of units in a single detachment this is a bad idea, doing so will cost you the Obsession bonuses your units have taken.

Kabal is all about fast movement and firepower. Primarily a mechanised force but all of our transports have the Open-Topped rule that lets the units embarked shoot out of them. Generally a low toughness, save and wounds count makes the units quite fragile but our vehicles all have a 5++ invuln and the Venoms are -1 to hit. Basically harder to get the damage through but once it does they die very quickly.

Wych Cults are all about combat and the transports let you get there quickly. Very fragile against even minimal fire having only a 6+/6++ save but tougher in combat having a 4++ invuln in that phase, and have a nifty rule that can prevent enemy units from falling back from them, which can be buffed when taking Shardnets. Downsides is how the Combat Drugs ability works, often leaving you with squads that don't hit hard enough and the fact that Hellions and Reaver Jet Bikes are pretty bad. I do like taking a single patrol with a squad of 20 Wyches, deep striking them in and either drowning targets in attacks or tying them up.

Haemonculus Covens are the slower moving but super tough units. Wracks are good for objective holding but Talos and Grotesques can soak up an inordinate amount of firepower and then hit really hard in combat. Cronos are terrible though.

 skchsan wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.

Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

And Razorwing Flocks USED to be playable. Too good in fact.

 skchsan wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.

Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

I really wish that was the case. Add the 3 Court of the Archon units to that, and the Succubus, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi, Drazhar and the Cronos. The Archon is questionable as well.

It's also worth remembering that this army is desperately short of force multipliers, unlike almost every other army in the game. Also, unless your running 9 Talos this army generally struggles against Knights now that we get no benefit from Doom and Jinx.

 Imateria wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.

Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

I really wish that was the case. Add the 3 Court of the Archon units to that, and the Succubus, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi, Drazhar and the Cronos. The Archon is questionable as well.

It's also worth remembering that this army is desperately short of force multipliers, unlike almost every other army in the game. Also, unless your running 9 Talos this army generally struggles against Knights now that we get no benefit from Doom and Jinx.

youre being overly critical. The court of the archon are good, they barely cost points, the only real "downside" to them is that you cant fill detachments with them (harder to get a brigade). the succubus is good for her cost, she wont do miracles but at 50pts, i dont expect her to, shes great at tarpitting bigger infantry like obliterators for instance. hellions are good at killing hordes, the problem is that we pay the "poison weapon" tax already so that role is already filled, doesnt mean Hellions are a bad unit. Reavers are gaining more and more popularity since the ynnari rework. even ran as pure dukhari they can be amazing at locking down heavy fire for your other melee units to get there, just give them painbringer and pop the x2 drg bonus stratagem. Incubi i agree, theyre missing something, Drazar would be good at half the point cost and the cronos is also mediocre.

Still, i dont think drukhari has nearly as much unplayable chaff in the codex as most of the other codexes. People saying that archons/succubus are overpriced/bad need to take a look at the choices of HQ for other factions. Ill take admech as an example since this is my other army.


Since i started playing drukhari, the HQs never felt liek they were dead weight, they actually impact the game and dont HAVE to fill the same role of "sitting back and healing", sending an archon + succubus + haemonculus to fight and having them actually able to kill stuff and survive feels amazing.

@skchsan didnt say that the codex was perfect, none are. They said that it was "one of the most internally balanced" codex, and i totally agree with them. The amount of rules that dont mesh together, of unplayable relics/units/warlord traits is minimal, everything has a niche where it can shine.

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.

Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

I really wish that was the case. Add the 3 Court of the Archon units to that, and the Succubus, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi, Drazhar and the Cronos. The Archon is questionable as well.

It's also worth remembering that this army is desperately short of force multipliers, unlike almost every other army in the game. Also, unless your running 9 Talos this army generally struggles against Knights now that we get no benefit from Doom and Jinx.

Note "playable", not "uber-competitive". Though, I'd agree the degree of "playablity" of certain units took a big hit with the Ynnari nerf.

Having said, the whole selling point of DE in 8th ed is that they don't rely on force multipliers in the sense that other armies do. Majority of other armies are unplayable without force multipliers and are often built around it.

 skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

You're kidding, right?

Dark Eldar HQs are among the worst in the entire game (if not *the* worst), and I doubt any of them would even see play if the godawful codex and detachment systems didn't force people to take them

The entire Court of the Archon, Incubi, Hellions, Beasts/Beastmasters, Cronos are all abysmal.

Meanwhile, you've got units like Ravagers and Grotesques that are basically auto-takes.

The vast majority of wargear (that is, the wargear that wasn't culled entirely) is never even used because it's so weak and ineffectual. Hell, the Blast Pistol is literally just a worse version of a Fusion Pistol, yet it costs almost 50% more.

And as already mentioned, even the subfactions are horribly unbalanced. Poison Tongue is trash compared with Black Heart and Flayed Skull, and I don't think I've ever seen someone play a Coven list that wasn't Prophets of Flesh. Yeah, let's give one subfaction the best warlord trait, best artefact and by far the best bonus. Can't see that going wrong.

You're welcome to claim that Dark Eldar are reasonably well balanced against other factions, but the idea that they're even remotely balanced internally is provably wrong.

 vipoid wrote:


Dark Eldar HQs are among the worst in the entire game (if not *the* worst), and I doubt any of them would even see play if the godawful codex and detachment systems didn't force people to take them

Why do people keep saying this, in what way are they bad, let alone the worse in the game?

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Dark Eldar HQs are among the worst in the entire game (if not *the* worst), and I doubt any of them would even see play if the godawful codex and detachment systems didn't force people to take them

Why do people keep saying this, in what way are they bad, let alone the worse in the game?

Because they have luxury to spare due to not having to mope over 90% of your codex being redundant AND useless.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Dark Eldar HQs are among the worst in the entire game (if not *the* worst), and I doubt any of them would even see play if the godawful codex and detachment systems didn't force people to take them

Why do people keep saying this, in what way are they bad, let alone the worse in the game?

Archons:
- Vastly overcosted for what they bring (they're about on par with a Canoness, yet cost ~25pts more).
- Gimmicky, unreliable save and no longer has any option to swap it out for a better one.
- No mobility options beyond a transport.
- Can't ride in a Venom with anything except Court of the Archon or other HQs due to lack of space.
- If they ride in a Raider, then you can't take 2 5-man squads with them and 9-man units lose out on a special weapon and a heavy weapon.
- Poor melee ability.
- Passable ranged ability . . . but only if you use Index (i.e. non-Codex) options.
- Worthless aura.
- 0 synergy with his own subfaction.
- 0 ability to buff other subfactions.

Succubi:
- Dedicated melee HQ... yet has the fewest attacks of our HQs.
- In spite of being a melee HQ, her melee presence is laughably bad - not least because of how horrendously awful the Glaive is. Sorry but 4 attacks at S5 AP-3 with a miserably 1 damage is not scaring anyone. And to make matters worse, GW thought this weapon so unbelievably powerful that it needed a -1 to hit. That's how much they hate the idea of our HQs being even remotely good.
- Hope you're playing Red Grief so that you can actually access the only worthwhile melee weapon for your melee HQ. Also, just to reiterate this point, I think it says something about the quality of our melee weapons that a Power Fist is worthy of being an artefact.
- No mobility options beyond a transport.
- Can't ride in a Venom with anything except Court of the Archon or other HQs due to lack of space.
- If they ride in a Raider, then you can't take 2 5-man squads with them and 9-man units lose out on at least one special weapon.
- Piddling aura.
- As with the Archon, has no ability to buff units outside of her subfaction.
- However, she is also unable to buff some units within her subfaction - namely Beasts (incidentally, the only fast unit she could potentially keep up with).
- Because of aforementioned lack of mobility, isn't able to keep up with Hellions or Reavers.

Haemonculi:
- Probably the best of our HQs, if only because his aura isn't utter garbage and (because the units he buffs aren't either in transports or much faster than him) he's actually in a position to make use of it.
- However, he has 1 passable melee weapon and 0 worthwhile ranged weapons. And this is the guy who's supposed to be bringing all manner of diabolical weapons and arcane artefacts.
- Best of a bad bunch but still not worth his cost (though he does come closer than the Archon).

Oh, and do I even need to mention Drazhar, the glorified Klaivex? He's the only thing capable of buffing Incubi (Ynnari notwithstanding) . . . and his buff is worthless from turn 3 onwards. Yet another example of stellar design on the part of GW.


On top of all the issues above, there's yet another problem which is that the HQs are so rigid and limited that having more than 1 is pointless. This might not be so bad, except that mixing subfactions loses us our faction bonus and each subfaction has a choice of 1 non-special-character HQ. If I take a Battalion with Eldar, I could have a Farseer and an Autarch or a Farseer and a Warlock or a Spiritseer and an Autarch etc. Basically, I can tweak it to my needs to ensure that I don't end up with redundant HQ choices. Hell, even Harlequins can have a Shadowseer and Troupe Master. However, if I want a Kabal detachment, I can have 2 Archons . . . and that's it. That's my only choice outside of taking Drazhar. If I want a Cult detachment, I must take 2 Succubi. Oh, but one can be a special character Succubus. Whoopee. And when you consider that even a single Succubus or Archon contributes little enough for their cost, you'll perhaps see why I'm less than thrilled about being forced to take a second.

Alright, i'll bring up my opinion on each of your points. Keep in mind that my main army is admech so this is where my comparisons will come from.

Archons:
-The pricing seems fair, its got a better aura than a tech-priest Dominus and swaps the healing for a strong save and decent melee capabilities.
-The save might be gimmicky but its still a 1/6 chance of failing, and you are not force to use it when making saving throws, use it for weapons with big AP
-Agreed, but 8" isnt the worst. (I would still love to be able to use skyboard/wings/jetbikes)
-this is more a problem with the venom
-this is more a problem with the raiders
-His native melee capabilities might not be amazing, but its not the worse either AND you have the option of actually building a pretty strong melee Archon (hatred eternal + djinn blade)
-Agreed
-Giving ravagers a pocket archon for the reroll is a viable strategy, the aura is strong, especialyl since it works in all phases (including overwatch)
-kabals are the ranged factions, having an aura that helps their ranged capabilities sems somewhat synergistic
-Agreed

Succubi:
-Agreed
-I dont use her as a horde shredder/monster killer in most games, shes mostly there to lock as many infantry units as possible in combat, just like wyches.
-The impaler having 2 damage is actually the weapon that i find most interesting, it also works well with her role
-Hypex drug is a thing, but agreed, skyboard & co. would be a nice option on her
-this is more a problem with the venom
-this is more a problem with the raiders
-Agreed only if ignoring the cost of the model.
-Agreed
-Agreed, but thats repeating the same argument over and over (lack of mobility)

Haemonculi:
-agreed
-agreed

and yeah, drazar is a joke.


From your arguments, i get the impression that you expect your HQs to do the heavy lifting and directly impact the game by killing things themselves. I think this is the reason why you think they are terrible. all your HQs being cheaper than a Dominus while providing similar utility (rerolls for archon/succubi and heal/durability for haemonculus) shows me that they arent intended to kill things. Your archon is there to buff your ravagers/flyers. Your succubus is there to go against heavy infantry and lock them down to prevent them fro mshooting, and haemonculus are there to buff coven units. I agree that there is a lack of mobility in DE's HQ choices, but that wouldnt fix the claim that they are overcosted since you'd pay fr these upgrades on top of the base cost.

There might be some tension in the army but saying that HQs are the worst in the game really shocks me since all of them can do different roles and be quite cheap for their auras . Multiple Hqs not bringing more to the table and being a detachment tax isnt a problem of DE's hqs but of HQs in the game as a whole (most auras dont stack). I agree that hacing more choices would be nice, especially for what i think is the most important point you made : You cant take multiple detachments of the same subfaction because of the rule of 3 (and drazar sucking ass).

 vipoid wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Dark Eldar HQs are among the worst in the entire game (if not *the* worst), and I doubt any of them would even see play if the godawful codex and detachment systems didn't force people to take them

Why do people keep saying this, in what way are they bad, let alone the worse in the game?

Archons:
- Vastly overcosted for what they bring (they're about on par with a Canoness, yet cost ~25pts more).
- Gimmicky, unreliable save and no longer has any option to swap it out for a better one.
- No mobility options beyond a transport.
- Can't ride in a Venom with anything except Court of the Archon or other HQs due to lack of space.
- If they ride in a Raider, then you can't take 2 5-man squads with them and 9-man units lose out on a special weapon and a heavy weapon.
- Poor melee ability.
- Passable ranged ability . . . but only if you use Index (i.e. non-Codex) options.
- Worthless aura.
- 0 synergy with his own subfaction.
- 0 ability to buff other subfactions.

Succubi:
- Dedicated melee HQ... yet has the fewest attacks of our HQs.
- In spite of being a melee HQ, her melee presence is laughably bad - not least because of how horrendously awful the Glaive is. Sorry but 4 attacks at S5 AP-3 with a miserably 1 damage is not scaring anyone. And to make matters worse, GW thought this weapon so unbelievably powerful that it needed a -1 to hit. That's how much they hate the idea of our HQs being even remotely good.
- Hope you're playing Red Grief so that you can actually access the only worthwhile melee weapon for your melee HQ. Also, just to reiterate this point, I think it says something about the quality of our melee weapons that a Power Fist is worthy of being an artefact.
- No mobility options beyond a transport.
- Can't ride in a Venom with anything except Court of the Archon or other HQs due to lack of space.
- If they ride in a Raider, then you can't take 2 5-man squads with them and 9-man units lose out on at least one special weapon.
- Piddling aura.
- As with the Archon, has no ability to buff units outside of her subfaction.
- However, she is also unable to buff some units within her subfaction - namely Beasts (incidentally, the only fast unit she could potentially keep up with).
- Because of aforementioned lack of mobility, isn't able to keep up with Hellions or Reavers.

Haemonculi:
- Probably the best of our HQs, if only because his aura isn't utter garbage and (because the units he buffs aren't either in transports or much faster than him) he's actually in a position to make use of it.
- However, he has 1 passable melee weapon and 0 worthwhile ranged weapons. And this is the guy who's supposed to be bringing all manner of diabolical weapons and arcane artefacts.
- Best of a bad bunch but still not worth his cost (though he does come closer than the Archon).

Oh, and do I even need to mention Drazhar, the glorified Klaivex? He's the only thing capable of buffing Incubi (Ynnari notwithstanding) . . . and his buff is worthless from turn 3 onwards. Yet another example of stellar design on the part of GW.


On top of all the issues above, there's yet another problem which is that the HQs are so rigid and limited that having more than 1 is pointless. This might not be so bad, except that mixing subfactions loses us our faction bonus and each subfaction has a choice of 1 non-special-character HQ. If I take a Battalion with Eldar, I could have a Farseer and an Autarch or a Farseer and a Warlock or a Spiritseer and an Autarch etc. Basically, I can tweak it to my needs to ensure that I don't end up with redundant HQ choices. Hell, even Harlequins can have a Shadowseer and Troupe Master. However, if I want a Kabal detachment, I can have 2 Archons . . . and that's it. That's my only choice outside of taking Drazhar. If I want a Cult detachment, I must take 2 Succubi. Oh, but one can be a special character Succubus. Whoopee. And when you consider that even a single Succubus or Archon contributes little enough for their cost, you'll perhaps see why I'm less than thrilled about being forced to take a second.

HQ tax is FAR BETTER than troops tax. The point of DE is that each part of the army can be deadly when used right without HQ babysitting them the whole game.

 skchsan wrote:
HQ tax is FAR BETTER than troops tax. The point of DE is that each part of the army can be deadly when used right without HQ babysitting them the whole game.

exactly, DE works by presenting multiple different threats and forcing your opponent to make choices that wont change the outcome. I dont care if you kill one of my "insert any unit here" because i have "the rest of the list here" and each unit can win me the game.

 skchsan wrote:
HQ tax is FAR BETTER than troops tax.

Why do either need to be taxes?

 skchsan wrote:
The point of DE is that each part of the army can be deadly when used right without HQ babysitting them the whole game.

Man, you must love the taste of GW's boots.