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.

Warriors don't have combat drugs, they only have one base attack in CC, and their 5+ is substantially worse than 4++ in CC. And since their gun is rapid-fire they can't even shoot and assault, only throw the grenade.

Against Nids you can't always rely on just throwing out a lot of poison and calling it a win. They can get into your ranks pretty quickly so it's quite helpful to have one or more units that can hang in CC with them, and for us that means either Wyches, Grots, or Talos. Maybe Sslyths but not really for their points.

+1A
+1S
+1WS
+1T

...all boost them in assault

+1Ld boosts them as tarpit units, less good but still somewhat useful

+1I is the only pretty useless one.

 Thor665 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
For my money, the ability to gain Objective Secured (which Hellions cannot do) is the deciding factor in the great game of 'Who Sucks More?', ending in slight favor of the wyches, who also have better equipment, as well as the possibility of bringing in a slot less Venom, which is always nice.

Ah-ah - you can't count the Venom and Objec.Sec as a benefit of the Wyches without justifying why you wouldn't take Warriors over Wyches.
I would actually say it is quite obvious that Hellions are better equipped - their base weapon is better for both assault and shooting - they only lose out on the grenades. So it's grenades vs. better assault and better shooting.

Lol, I DO take Warriors over wyches. Pretty much every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mercury14 wrote:

Against Nids you can't always rely on just throwing out a lot of poison and calling it a win.

Sure you can. Lots of poison (and the DE greater mobility) is pretty much the best way to beat nids.

mercury14 wrote:
Warriors don't have combat drugs, they only have one base attack in CC, and their 5+ is substantially worse than 4++ in CC. And since their gun is rapid-fire they can't even shoot and assault, only throw the grenade.

Well, they also could just rapid fire and then receive the assault allowing them o also Overwatch - and their 5+ is substantially better than the Wych 6+ vs. Overwatch if you feel a need to assault.
Also, you ding them for only having 1 base attack...well, so do Wyches - their only win is in having an additional CCW. So while that does give them +1 attack across the board better than Warriors, that's not actually that massively intimidating I feel.
I will agree Wyches do have the invuln save and the pistol and drugs, all of which do combine to make them marginally more effective than Warriors in dealing with assault - they are vastly inferior in shooting though. So, balance wise, I would say it's quite fair to suggest that Warriors would overall do more damage across the bredth of the game, and would also serve as a speed-bump in a reasonably similar way to Wyches barring power weapons on their opponents.

mercury14 wrote:
Against Nids you can't always rely on just throwing out a lot of poison and calling it a win.

I somewhat disagree with this. Even in your own description you seem to be aware this is the way to handle Nids, you just also think a tarpit unit has value - to which I'll agree. But, yeah, massed shooting is an excellent way to deal with nids.

mercury14 wrote:
it's quite helpful to have one or more units that can hang in CC with them, and for us that means either Wyches, Grots, or Talos. Maybe Sslyths but not really for their points.

I agree that an assault/counter assault/tarpit tool is useful. Where I disagree is that Wyches are remotely the correct choice. With their Liquifier, higher toughness, and greater damage output in assault, Grots are markedly superior to Wyches in dealing with Hordes. Sslyth also, on a point to point basis, are superior. I will agree Incubi are a bit lackluster, We also do have Reavers, Lhameans, Mandrakes, Wracks, Hellions, and Beasts as assault options, though I will agree some are better than others - I would say most are superior to the Wyches.

mercury14 wrote:
+1A
+1S
+1WS
+1T

...all boost them in assault

+1Ld boosts them as tarpit units, less good but still somewhat useful

+1I is the only pretty useless one.

+1 WS and +1A are also pretty lackluster - I will agree they boost, but in a very minor way as it's really just more hits at S3 Ap- which isn't exactly anything to write home about.
+1T is a "boost" but the fearsome wall of T4 isn't actually going to slow down too many units. I will agree it helps us use our FNP more though, which is indeed a great option to have, but requires the gaming of dealing with a lot of Str 6-7 specifically. Which is not out of the realms considering the builds out there, but most of the sources of that type of shooting I think will tend to chew through Wych squads anyway if they happen to be targeted upon us. I do accept it as a boost though.

It's to bad GW doesn't understand their own phases and worded it perfectly so that Wyches do not get their save vs. Overwatch otherwise they'd be amazing.

Hollismason wrote:
It's to bad GW doesn't understand their own phases and worded it perfectly so that Wyches do not get their save vs. Overwatch otherwise they'd be amazing.

Huh. I kinda thought that was intentional.

When they talk about Wyches they talk about their invulnerable save being used against Overwatch. Someone else brought it up , not sure where that was said though.

Thor, you realize that hellglaives lost their +1A feature in this codex, right? They now have just one attack.

mercury14 wrote:
Thor, you realize that hellglaives lost their +1A feature in this codex, right? They now have just one attack.

I most assuredly realize that - and don't get me wrong, I am not attempting to argue that Hellions qualify as "good" i think they are terrible.
I just also think Wyches are also terrible - and in the contest of 'who sucks least' tend to think Hellions are probably the winners.

Sorry to sidetrack the wych discussion, but I'm finalizing my army selections, and I'd like to hear some consensus from other players regarding the Court of the Archon -- especially from some of the older players.

We brought this up earlier in the thread, but as I read it, one can take a Court of the Archon without actually requiring an Archon. The Retainers rule seems only to indicate that the selection doesn't cost an additional HQ slot if you do include the Archon.

More importantly, this lets one satisfy the mandatory HQ slot by taking a Court -- without paying the Archon tax. Thor665 (and others), would you mind weighing in on this?

I think you'll run into lots of players who will contest your interpretation of the rules.

I also think it isn't worth it. The DE hq's aren't terrible, and the Warlord traits are pretty good too. They are a unit with some fun options, and you might be able to squeeze some gimmick juice out of them, but I think there are other, better options for the points.

Depends what you want to build, really - the Lhamean+Venom/Raider option is a really pretty potent build to get in some extra mech for shockingly cheap.

As to the legality of it...eh, I see the argument for both directions. I would say check with the TO for any given event before going there. I can think of a few bigger events that have already ruled it as a-ok, so there appear to be people going by the RAW as opposed to the RAI of the way it is written in the codex,

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also think it isn't worth it. The DE hq's aren't terrible, and the Warlord traits are pretty good too.

On that point, I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree. Unless I'm wounding on 2's with an instant death weapon, I don't like bouncing off a 2+ armor save.

That said, I'm functionally using an Autarch as my Archon already. Moreover, that Autarch gives me the Shard of Anaris, a Banshee Mask, and reserves manipulation. I simply don't need a second beatstick, much less one that comes without any force multipliers. Avoiding the HQ tax is a big deal to me.

I think I'll proceed as I am for now. I already need a pretty permissive environment because of my army's Forgeworld elements, so I'm probably not losing much more by avoiding the Dark Eldar HQ.

Thanks for the input.

The Lhaemen in a Raider with a Haemonoculus is a really good unit and pretty rad.

What does the Haemonculus add to that arrangement, exactly? I don't follow.

K. Thought you were looking for feedback; my bad. I hope it works out for you! If you're set on using a court sans HQ, I'd go with 1-5 Lhamaeans in a Venom.

Why do you feel like an HQ has to equal a beat stick, if I may ask? Not trying to change your mind, just curious. The DE have quite a few ways to use them. Webway portals open up a wide range of shenanigans with the HQ serving as essentially an escort. Archons and Haemonculi both have access to ranged options that certainly don't suck. And there's always the possibility of using the HQ not as a melee champion, but a melee weed whacker, targeting mobs of troop units that are beneath the notice of the beatstick big boys. It also occurs to me that you could pick up a Covens formation and use a character from one of those as your warlord. (Dark Artisan and Scarlet Epicureans leap out.)

Make sure you let us know how it turns out! If it works, I'd be more than willing to give it a shot myself.

Corollax wrote:
What does the Haemonculus add to that arrangement, exactly? I don't follow.

I should have clarified a Coven Haemonoculus goes really well with Lhaemen because he gives them fearless and since they have PFP , FNP turn 2 , eventually giving the squad Zealot on turn 4. They are basically "better" Wracks.

The fact that their 10 a model for 3 attacks on a charge and 2+ poisoned is pretty boss.

The Court of Archon is just better with a Coven Haemonoculus

Lol, Haemonculi are like bacon. They make everything better.

Ah, so you meant an entire squad of Lhameans -- not just one.

You're spending 70 points (minimum) to buff a 90 point squad. They're better, sure, but are they twice as good? Even as good as a redundant squad? I'm skeptical.

It's not that I'm looking for a beatstick, per se -- it's just that none of the force multipliers available in the DE codex are actually worth their point cost. For 100 points, I can get a Farseer. That's what an efficient force multiplier looks like.

EDIT: The WWP is interesting, but is probably more useful when paired with Eldar units like Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. If I truly had to use my HQ option, I'd probably field that. Not sure if I'd bother to pay for the shadowfield and agonizer.

If you think of it as a "better" Wrack squad with better liquifiers your not gonna go wrong.

Also, what's up with people always taking the minimum Grots, seriously 4 is the perfect amount.

I've been impressed so far with what I've seen people do with the D. Eldar even if people are hung up on Triple Dark Lance Ravagers, which I still cannot understand.

Corollax- I'd definitely go with the WG or Fire Dragons! Both are excellent examples of those shenanigans I was mentioning. (And that way you aren't having to make some squishy one wound model your warlord.) I think DSing Wraithguard or Fire Dragons (either/or) would add some desperately needed anti-armor to a DE list.

Hollis- I always start with 3 and add the fourth if I have the extra points. And I dont understand why you would take any Ravager other than triple Dark Lance. The Ravager is one of the few non CC anti-armor tools in the DE arsenal, and while it may not be as awesome as it was in the last 'dex, it's still nothing to shake a stick at.

 Jimsolo wrote:
And I dont understand why you would take any Ravager other than triple Dark Lance. The Ravager is one of the few non CC anti-armor tools in the DE arsenal, and while it may not be as awesome as it was in the last 'dex, it's still nothing to shake a stick at.

Ever run a pair of Ravagers with disintegration cannons? 18 S5 AP2 shots is nothing to shake a stick at.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Corollax- I'd definitely go with the WG or Fire Dragons! Both are excellent examples of those shenanigans I was mentioning. (And that way you aren't having to make some squishy one wound model your warlord.) I think DSing Wraithguard or Fire Dragons (either/or) would add some desperately needed anti-armor to a DE list.

My Warlord is my Autarch, with a 9-man Sslyth retinue. It's technically a primary Eldar army, just with only ~500 points of Eldar. I wouldn't call that squad fragile by any measure.

That said, Haywire Blaster Scourges are a perfectly effective source of anti-tank in our own codex. Certainly better than what Ravagers are these days...(No flickerfields, no aerial assault, and more expensive in the bargain? No thanks!)

mercury14 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
And I dont understand why you would take any Ravager other than triple Dark Lance. The Ravager is one of the few non CC anti-armor tools in the DE arsenal, and while it may not be as awesome as it was in the last 'dex, it's still nothing to shake a stick at.

Ever run a pair of Ravagers with disintegration cannons? 18 S5 AP2 shots is nothing to shake a stick at.

At the cost of six Dark Lances? No I have not. I just can't justify that.

Corollax wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Corollax- I'd definitely go with the WG or Fire Dragons! Both are excellent examples of those shenanigans I was mentioning. (And that way you aren't having to make some squishy one wound model your warlord.) I think DSing Wraithguard or Fire Dragons (either/or) would add some desperately needed anti-armor to a DE list.

My Warlord is my Autarch, with a 9-man Sslyth retinue. It's technically a primary Eldar army, just with only ~500 points of Eldar. I wouldn't call that squad fragile by any measure.

That said, Haywire Blaster Scourges are a perfectly effective source of anti-tank in our own codex. Certainly better than what Ravagers are these days...(No flickerfields, no aerial assault, and more expensive in the bargain? No thanks!)

Good idea with the Autarch. Do you find the CWE warlord traits to be worth it? (Not arguing, legitimately curious.)

Sorry, just not seeing it. Haywire Blasters have assy range, and Scourges are too fragile for my tastes. Even more fragile than the Ravagers, which won't be auto wiped by AP 4 shooting, which isn't that hard to come by.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Good idea with the Autarch. Do you find the CWE warlord traits to be worth it? (Not arguing, legitimately curious.

The Dark Eldar Warlord Traits are indisputably better. In practice, I think I'd probably use the Tactical (Maelstrom) or Strategic (EW) warlord traits. I don't care much either way, since it's all too random to build a strategy around. The reserves manipulation and first-turn fearless rules matter more to me. Eldar wargear tends to be quite a bit cheaper, as well.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Sorry, just not seeing it. Haywire Blasters have assy range, and Scourges are too fragile for my tastes. Even more fragile than the Ravagers, which won't be auto wiped by AP 4 shooting, which isn't that hard to come by.

Haywire Blasters have longer range than any other special weapon in our codex. They're shorter than a Dark Lance, certainly, but show me a squad that buys Dark Lances at 24 ppm! (Nevermind that haywire is more effective on all but the lowest of AV values).

This is colored partly by the fact that my Eldar contingent will be bringing three hornets. With six pulse lasers, the only thing Ravagers could possibly contribute would be the lance rule. Haywire is a far more cost-effective option for AV13 and AV14 models.

Yeah I just don't see it when 3 Ravagers equals basically kitted out Void Raven Bomber and a Razor wing.

Both of which work better as seriously every game I've seen with them this happens.

Ravager starts on board
Gets shot at
Jinks
Snap Shots
Gets blown up

At least with a Void Raven and Razorwing you'll get to you know actually shoot things with them and they have Missiles.

I'll take

8 Missiles
1 Bomb
2 Dark Lances
2 Void Lances
6 Splinter cannon shots

Over the 3 Ravagers any day of the week.

The only way the Dark Eldar can get Anti-Air is with other Air units. These can have a multifunctional role in the army so you're not sitting there pissing in the wind at 2+ Jink Flying Daemon Princes of Doom or Flyrants.

If you want anti-tank take a Reaver jetbike squad with Heat Lances or Scourges w/ Heat Lances etc..etc..

I just think they're overcosted.

I mean hell

Ravager
3 Dark Lances
Night Shield
Total 140

x 3

= 420 points

Void Raven w/ Void Lances, 4 Shatterfield missiles , Night Shields 215
Razorwing w/ 2 Dark Lances, Splinter Cannon, Night Shields 165

380

You make some good points, Hollis, but we're apparently having dramatically different results with the Ravager.

I also think the out-of-pocket costs are a factor, as well as the greater movement flexibility of the Ravagers.

I just view them as being way over priced for what you're actually getting which is basically a slightly improved Raider Chassis w/ 3 Dark Lances. If it even had 1 more point of armour I'd be like hell yes or if you could take them in squadrons.

Anything that's going to shoot at them isn't going to worry about that AV11 , sure it makes it immune to ST4 / 5 to a degree but overall just unimpressed.


The formation I think that is under appreciated the most is the Scarlet Epicureans.

2 Squads of Wracks ( Who can actually have Transports AFAIK, treat the turn 1 higher, get Precision Strikes with in 12")
Cronos
Haemonoculus

They're ability stacks with Father and Master of pain, along with the Animus. Now precision strikes isn't that great, what is great though is the fact they start off turn 1 with turn 3 abilities. That means when they charge turn 2, they're turn 4 and when they charge turn 3 , they're Zealot.

For a beta strike list this is pretty impressive. Charging in on turn 3 with Zealot and Poisoned 4+, which is not terrible for a 10 point model. Beta Striking with these in a Raider w/ Ossefactors and Distintegrators get's you 3 2+ Wound AP2 shots, and 6 AP 2 ST5 shots. Not to shabby.

The kicker is the Cronos is actually great to have, because you can stick it behind a Corpsethief Claw on the first turn and No One is going to shoot at this thing when 5 Talos are in front of it. All the while it's giving the Talos 4+ FNP.

So yeah

Scarlet Epicuraens + Corpsethief is a great formation choice. Especially if you are going for a army that has Animus Vitae combo in it as that's 3 turns higher with these guys.

Who underestimates them? They're awesome! The only formation from the covens supplement I'm not terribly impressed with is the Fleshcorps. The only real reason to take one is to get a full Carnival. (Which I'd really like to do someday...)

Fleshcorps is a good formation, it's basically another Urian when you think about it. Of course it only affects those wracks, but that's still really good because...

Look at this

Haemonoculus w/ Fleshgauntlet , WWP, Syndriqs < Free Floating Haemonoculus that can be put in other squads to give them Fearless or just buddy up with the Grotesquerie.

10 x Wracks w/ 2 Ossefactors
Raider w/ Zilch

10 Wracks w/ 2 Ossesfactors
Raider w/ Zilch

10 Wracks w/ 2 Osseffactor
Raider w/ Zilch

That's 15 AP2 shots. 9 ST 5 , 6 2+ Fleshbane, AP2

All of those have Fearless. Get rid of 30 models with Fearless, that will be in a raider, eventually gaining Zealot on turn 4 or sooner, and they have FNP.

Add a Grotesquerie

Haemonoculus

2 Squads of Grotesques

Like the book specifically has units and formations that go together perfectly. It's kind of neat.

They get mighty expensive might quick, though.