7th edition DE HQ, what do you take?

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.

**ShadarLogoth**

Again, the point I'm trying to get across is that melee is objectively worse than shooting - especially for a fragile race like ours. There's just no getting around this. So, if we're going to include dedicated assault units at all, then they need to do their job considerably better than any comparable shooting.

I think you are confusing the words "objective" and "subjective." Almost all competitive armies have a strong CC contingent to them. If it truly was "objectively" worse then this wouldn't exist at all in the competitive scene.

You personally don't like CC, and many share your opinion. However, there is absolutely nothing "objective" about that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Out of interest, what do people think of the Armour of Misery?

I think the real intriguing thing is combining it with other mechanics like Archangel of Pain (requiring 2 HQs of course) or Torment/Phantasm Grenade Launchers. Against non-fearless/ATSKNF armies this would be positively deadly.

**RancidHate**

I take 2 WWPs with attached Haemonculi for PfP buffs.

**wuestenfux**

RancidHate wrote:
I take 2 WWPs with attached Haemonculi for PfP buffs.

Makes sense. Cheap and effective.
But this would mean taking DE units which could benefit from pfp.

**morgoth**

Melee is strictly better than shooting, for good reason.

Getting in Melee has a cost much higher than getting in shooting.

That means that if you can outsmart your opponent and limit the cost of getting in melee, you will always win and melee will always be the best option.

**wuestenfux**

morgoth wrote:
Melee is strictly better than shooting, for good reason.

Getting in Melee has a cost much higher than getting in shooting.

That means that if you can outsmart your opponent and limit the cost of getting in melee, you will always win and melee will always be the best option.

Indeed. Melee is the better option than shooting.
But this requires a decent cc unit able to destroy or at least stall an enemy unit and a delivery mechanism.
Target saturation may be enough to achieve the latter.

**RancidHate**

I should add that the Animus Vitae is an absolute necessity. Sure it is a Range 8" 1 use weapon that can miss for 20 pts but, it ups the PfP counter for your entire army for the entire match!

**vipoid**

ShadarLogoth wrote:
I think you are confusing the words "objective" and "subjective." Almost all competitive armies have a strong CC contingent to them. If it truly was "objectively" worse then this wouldn't exist at all in the competitive scene.

No, it is objective. Sorry to burst your bubble, but melee is demonstrably worse than shooting.

Most CC elements are not a result of melee being strong, but because of a rules exploit - like getting a 2++ rerollable save.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
You personally don't like CC, and many share your opinion. However, there is absolutely nothing "objective" about that.

I don't like combat because it is markedly worse than shooting.

**CthuluIsSpy**

vipoid wrote:
ShadarLogoth wrote:
I think you are confusing the words "objective" and "subjective." Almost all competitive armies have a strong CC contingent to them. If it truly was "objectively" worse then this wouldn't exist at all in the competitive scene.

No, it is objective. Sorry to burst your bubble, but melee is demonstrably worse than shooting.

Most CC elements are not a result of melee being strong, but because of a rules exploit - like getting a 2++ rerollable save.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
You personally don't like CC, and many share your opinion. However, there is absolutely nothing "objective" about that.

I don't like combat because it is markedly worse than shooting.

Can a single unit wipe out a whole blob with shooting? You can in CC due to sweep.
CC is strong. It's getting there that's the problem.

**SarisKhan**

I love it when people present their opinions as facts. Mind the difference.

**ShadarLogoth**

RancidHate wrote:
I should add that the Animus Vitae is an absolute necessity. Sure it is a Range 8" 1 use weapon that can miss for 20 pts but, it ups the PfP counter for your entire army for the entire match!

One thing I think people have been over looking with the Vitae is One Shot weapons have Missle Lock now, right? So you have a really good chance (97%) just to hit with it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SarisKhan wrote:
I love it when people present their opinions as facts. Mind the difference.

^^ This.

No, it is objective. Sorry to burst your bubble, but melee is demonstrably worse than shooting.

Most CC elements are not a result of melee being strong, but because of a rules exploit - like getting a 2++ rerollable save.

Don't just say it's "demonstrably worse." Demonstrate it. And, you aren't "bursting" anyones "bubbles" here. We all play the same game you do. All have real game experience to go off of. Many of us play, or at least keep track of, highly competitive tournament lists as well.

I don't like combat because it is markedly worse than shooting.

Yes, you have established that's your opinion. I'm just not sure how you think your online expressed opinion is going to trump peoples actual day to day experience. Many people, including myself, continue to use strong CC elements in most of their lists with good results.

**wuestenfux**

SarisKhan wrote:
I love it when people present their opinions as facts. Mind the difference.

Okay. With a dedicated cc unit you may be able to remove one enemy unit in one or two rounds of cc.
Shooting may be less reliable. Have a look at Necron Warriors.

**ShadarLogoth**

Wuestenfux, I think he was agreeing with you, and you actually presented arguments for your position earlier.

Anyway, lets try not to derail this discussion into a CC versus shooting argument. The fact of the matter is ALL of the DE HQs are geared toward CC, and if you are playing DE you are very likely to bring at least on CC unit (the Warlord and his retinue).

So, that being said, what's the best stuff to put on that HQ and what's the best unit to to surrounded them with to accomplish that goal?

**vipoid**

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Don't just say it's "demonstrably worse." Demonstrate it.

Ok:

vipoid wrote:

- Shooting is sequential, assaults are simultaneous. With good positioning, I can usually get several potential targets for a lot of my shooting units. So, I can start firing on priority targets, and see if the initial shots kill them. If so, great, if not I can choose to dedicate more firepower towards them or to other units instead.

With assault, the most I can know is whether a given assault unit has reached combat - I have to commit all my assault units before knowing the results of each assault. It would be like if I had to shoot all my guns, but only got to see their to-hit rolls, and then could only roll to-wound (or armour penetration) after everything had fired.

This is especially important for transports. If I take down a transport via shooting, I can then proceed to shoot the occupants with anything that can see them. However, if I take down a transport in assault, everything else will have already charged - so I can do nothing to them and they can shoot me in their turn.

- Pre-measuring helps shooting, but does little for assault. With pre-measuring, I can make sure that my guns are all in range - possibly of multiple targets (as above). With assaults, the most I can do is know the odds of a charge succeeding.

- Assaults tend to be much more easily influenced by your opponent's positioning. With shooting, you only need to see the model you wish to shoot. It might get a cover save, but you can at least shoot it. With assault, their needs to be a physical path for your models to reach the enemy - meaning it's a lot easier for terrain and/or enemy models to block off access to the squad you wish to charge.

- Shooting is active before assault. Arguably a more minor (and rather obvious) point, but still worth mentioning. Sometimes the opponent has a unit that you need dead ASAP - and assault units just can't get to it fast enough.

- Casualties are removed from the front - so every casualty an assault unit takes pushes it back and increases the chance of it failing its assault.

- Overwatch - varies a lot in its impact, but it simply a free bonus to shooting units and, with casualties being removed from the front, a lost model or two can still push a unit out of range.

- Closed-top transports favour shooting. Even if they don't have fire points, you can still disembark and fire normally. But, even if the transport was stationary, you still can't assault after disembarking from one.

- Reserves favour shooting. When you come in from reserves, shooting units can fire all their weapons to full effect; whilst assault units can do nothing but wander around and try to look innocuous.

- Perhaps a more minor point, but there's a pretty big discrepancy in the cost of melee weapons, compared to ranged weapons. With my IG, a plasmagun costs the same as 3 guardsmen, whilst a power fist costs as much as 5 guardsmen. Of the two, which do you think will be the most useful?

Similarly, if I'm looking to spend just a few extra points, I can take a flamer or grenade launcher for the cost of 1 guardsman - yet even the cheapest melee weapon costs 3 guardsmen. Even with their Relics, the crappy sword literally costs 5 times as much as the pistol.

I know some armies might have cheaper options for melee weapons (e.g. the Venom Blade for DE), but that doesn't make the prices of other melee weapons any less silly - nor is it any consolation for races stuck with only expensive items to choose from.

But, as I said, this last one is a more minor point.

EDIT:

ShadarLogoth wrote:
The fact of the matter is ALL of the DE HQs are geared toward CC, and if you are playing DE you are very likely to bring at least on CC unit (the Warlord and his retinue).

Not sure about that. The Haemonculus is more of a support unit (a Librarian might be better in combat than shooting, but you still wouldn't classify him as a melee unit

), and the Court of the Archon can be made entirely shooty.

**ShadarLogoth**

You know that's not a "demonstration," correct? All you have done is presented a one sided argument in Shooting's favor. Many, many of the things you mentioned existed in 4th edition, for instance, an edition that is widely considered preferential to assault.

Anyway, that being said, yes, there are advantages to shooting things. There are advantages to assaulting things, as well. You get to do damage on your opponents turn, you always ignore cover saves, you can completely ignore being shot at, etc, etc, etc. Good generals use both aspects of the game to their advantage.

**vipoid**

ShadarLogoth wrote:

You know that's not a "demonstration," correct? All you have done is presented a one sided argument in Shooting's favor.

I have explained why the core rules favour shooting, I'm not sure what else you expect me to do.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Many, many of the things you mentioned existed in 4th edition, for instance, an edition that is widely considered preferential to assault.

Sorry, but that's just not correct.

- There was no overwatch in 4th.
- Casualties were not removed from the front in 4th.
- Charges were not random in 4th.
- Rapid Fire weapons could only fire at maximum range by remaining stationary.
- You could consolidate into a new combat (whereas, now, winning combat on the first turn is actually a disadvantage.

)
- Also, most of the top-end shooting weapons simply didn't exist, and there were very few weapons (other than flamers) that could ignore cover.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Anyway, that being said, yes, there are advantages to shooting things. Their are advantages to assaulting things, as well. You get to do damage on your opponents turn, you always ignore cover saves, you can completely ignore being shot at, etc, etc, etc. Good generals use both aspects of the game to their advantage.

Well, good generals use what works. I think it's fair to say some armies have better melee units than others.

**morgoth**

vipoid wrote:
A ton of stuff

Assault units have far more damage output than shooting units per point.

Assault can sweep entire and even multiple units just for winning one round of combat.

Assault hits the rear armor of vehicles.

Assault can often immunize you to shooting attacks.

Assault gives you free movement.

From a purely theoretical standpoint that does not consider realistic situations, assault is a lot better than shooting.

What makes it balanced, and often worse than shooting is that it's a lot harder to get there.

Assault is infinitely more tactical than shooting because it's based mostly on movement, which is the most tactical part of any strategy game.

What that means is: if you are capable of creating situations where getting into assault is slightly easier than the tipping point, you will wreck anything by a large margin.

If you are stuck at the tipping point, you will spill a ton of blood and there will be almost nothing left on the table at the end.

If, like most players, you are below the tipping point, picking assault over shooting is going to get you wrecked by a large margin, because your choices gave the shooting player a slightly better damage output curve with a largely better integral (i.e. # shots expended in your face).

**ShadarLogoth**

I have explained why the core rules favour shooting, I'm not sure what else you expect me to do.

No, you cherry picked the things they favor shooting without even discussing the things that favor assault.

Sorry, but that's just not correct.

I said many, not all. Cover also wasn't as prolific in 4th. And you couldn't get 12" assaults out of every single unit in existence, either.

My point, however, is that just presenting one side of an argument doesn't demonstrate anything.

Anyway, this has already turned this into a thread derailment, which I was trying to avoid in the first place. Please start another thread if you really want to discuss this.

**RancidHate**

Well yes shooting has gottwn better in this edition. Assault units have to be stronger to compensate. They must be faster, stronger and, more durable. Oh but, they can't be to killy. Incubi are the prime example. They totally mulch the units they charge... then get Battle Cannoned or Vindicated the next turn.

Terminators in a Land Raider is the easiest example of all 3 but let's see what DE have, shall we?

Beastpack: Extremely Fast, turn 2 charges are likely. You could either go Apes or Dogs for T5 or 5++ durability or Birds for volume of Rending attacks.

Grotesques: Now that they all ID on 6s and re-roll against T3 in addition to being T5 3W, they are a rock but, they're not fast. Still, now that they can all get Liquifiers means they can do something when they not-assault after DSing in their fae.

Trueborn: What?! For 1 point more than a Wych, you get 2 attacks base, a slightly better armor save and the same PfP anyone else gets. With better shooting on the way in, it's better at softening up targets than Pistols. Of course Blasterborn is still the best way to use them.

**vipoid**

morgoth wrote:

Assault units have far more damage output than shooting units per point. This might have been true once, but nowadays not so much. I'm pretty sure warriors have a greater damage output then wyches. Also, combat units are recieving nerfs at the same time as ranged ones are being buffed. e.g. Eldar Howling Banshees got their weapons nerfed to AP3, at the same time as Dire Avengers got pseudo-rending on their guns.

Assault can sweep entire and even multiple units just for winning one round of combat. They can, but this doesn't mean they will. Many units these days cannot be swept at all and, even if they can be, it's not always an advantage.

Assault hits the rear armor of vehicles. But still has to get to the vehicle.

Assault can often immunize you to shooting attacks. And can just as easily leave you stranded because, as above, you swept the unit.

Assault gives you free movement. Unless you fail your charge. Though, it is weird when a unit that stops to fight moves further than one which runs.

my responses in red.

morgoth wrote:

What makes it balanced, and often worse than shooting is that it's a lot harder to get there.

Bear in mind that, when I say assault is bad, I'm including the 'getting there' part. In the same way that I'd be dubious of a really powerful shooting weapon if it had a range of 2".

morgoth wrote:

Assault is infinitely more tactical than shooting because it's based mostly on movement, which is the most tactical part of any strategy game.

Not sure about that. Both assault and shooting tend to have movement elements, albeit with different purposes in mind.

RancidHate wrote:
Well yes shooting has gottwn better in this edition. Assault units have to be stronger to compensate. They must be faster, stronger and, more durable.

Somewhat, yes. Though, in many cases, simply being cheaper would be a good start. Same with melee weapons.

RancidHate wrote:
Oh but, they can't be to killy. Incubi are the prime example. They totally mulch the units they charge... then get Battle Cannoned or Vindicated the next turn.

Terminators in a Land Raider is the easiest example of all 3

Terminators are actually a bad example, and generally agreed to be overcosted. Aside from GK terminators, they haven't seen the same decrease in points as most other marine units (meaning you can get more durability by just buying more marines). And, outside of their transport, they're very slow. So, if the land raider dies early on, they're stuck foot-slogging across the field.

RancidHate wrote:

Trueborn: What?! For 1 point more than a Wych, you get 2 attacks base, a slightly better armor save and the same PfP anyone else gets. With better shooting on the way in, it's better at softening up targets than Pistols. Of course Blasterborn is still the best way to use them.

Yeah, I'm not sure why you'd want to use them in assault. S3 melee attacks have never been particularly impressive, and recent editions have not sweetened them. That said, the comparison with wyches is definitely an eye-opener.

**SarisKhan**

wuestenfux wrote:
SarisKhan wrote:
I love it when people present their opinions as facts. Mind the difference.

Okay. With a dedicated cc unit you may be able to remove one enemy unit in one or two rounds of cc.
Shooting may be less reliable. Have a look at Necron Warriors.

Actually I didn't direct this at you. Sorry.

**vipoid**

Back on topic, if (for reasons that are completely beyond me

) you insist in kitting out your HQ for melee combat, what unit would you put it with?

**Exergy**

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Wuestenfux, I think he was agreeing with you, and you actually presented arguments for your position earlier.

Anyway, lets try not to derail this discussion into a CC versus shooting argument. The fact of the matter is ALL of the DE HQs are geared toward CC, and if you are playing DE you are very likely to bring at least on CC unit (the Warlord and his retinue).

So, that being said, what's the best stuff to put on that HQ and what's the best unit to to surrounded them with to accomplish that goal?

Thanks for trying to get this thread back on topic.

While I agree that 2/3 of the single model HQ choices look to be geared towards melee and 2/3 of the special characters are geared towards melee I am not at all sure that they actually do a good job in melee. The Haemoculus buffs a unit slightly, and Urien buffs a bubble slightly. The problem I am having is getting a unit I feel will benefit from the buff the haemi provides. Lots of MSU isnt going to be able to take advantage of the buff in PFP.

**HawaiiMatt**

Shadow Field, armor of misery, Agonizer and soul trap.
150, 155 with haywire.
Combat starts with a fear test at Ld-2.
Joined to a small unit of incubi.

Incubi provide the AP2 threat, the Archon starts at S3, gains furious charge mid game, and gains strength as he kills. Once he's picked up 2 points of strength (typically first combat) he's now re-rolling to wound thanks to the Agonizer being poison 4+.

It's not a wade in the middle type of unit (10 grotesques with succubus do that), but it's good fun.

**The Shadow**

I'm quite liking the idea of a Succubus with Archite Glaive and, if you think it'll be useful, the Armour of Misery. It's a fairly cheap HQ that dishes out 5 WS8 S4 AP2 attacks, or 6 at S3 AP3 if it's better. That's not bad at all.

I think though, point for point, Urien Rakarth is the best HQ because he's such a good force multiplier. However, with most DE builds that I see being useful being fast, I don't think he quite fits in. You can't exactly walk up the board with your whole army benefiting from the bubble. Well, you could, with Grotesques/Wracks and a Cronos but I don't think that's the way to go.

**vipoid**

The Shadow wrote:
I think though, point for point, Urien Rakarth is the best HQ because he's such a good force multiplier.

He's also one of the most durable - with T5, 4++, FNP and IWND.

Seems pretty nice with regard to not giving up Slay the Warlord.

Also, with regard to equipping HQs, I quite like the look of the Parasite's Kiss. It's nothing amazing, but seems pretty nice for just 5pts.

**Exergy**

vipoid wrote:
The Shadow wrote:
I think though, point for point, Urien Rakarth is the best HQ because he's such a good force multiplier.

He's also one of the most durable - with T5, 4++, FNP and IWND.

Seems pretty nice with regard to not giving up Slay the Warlord.

also note his FNP is of the old 4+ variety. He is probably better with coven PFP, getting fearless on turn1 and EW on 5

**The Shadow**

vipoid wrote:
.Also, with regard to equipping HQs, I quite like the look of the Parasite's Kiss. It's nothing amazing, but seems pretty nice for just 5pts.

I agree, the only problem is that there's some other, very nice, Artefacts that you probably want to be taking instead.

**Cambonimachine**

I was looking into doing 2 succubi each with glaive and wwp, one with animus and other with armor of misery. stick em each in venoms with 3 incubi and a klaivex and you got a couple of pretty gnarly assault units for a nice beta strike. Only problem is succubi can die hella easy so i'd be likely to give up warlord every game. Urien is outstanding for combating that but you sacrifice a wwp for it, so its a mixed blessing

**Exergy**

Cambonimachine wrote:
I was looking into doing 2 succubi each with glaive and wwp, one with animus and other with armor of misery. stick em each in venoms with 3 incubi and a klaivex and you got a couple of pretty gnarly assault units for a nice beta strike. Only problem is succubi can die hella easy so i'd be likely to give up warlord every game. Urien is outstanding for combating that but you sacrifice a wwp for it, so its a mixed blessing

why DS them if you want to put them in venoms? Just hide the venoms behind some LOS blocking terrain and zoom them forward when you want to get close to the enemy. Further, do you really need no scatter DS? Seems to me you could DS a venom pretty easily close enough to the enemy for an assault in a few turns.

**Cambonimachine**

well the idea was to DS the venoms behind LOS terrain if available so they could be marginally safer for a turn, then pop out next turn for the assault. Also the DSing was so that i could keep them safe and off the table for a couple turns so PfP could buff them a little bit... Was also looking into Haemys instead of succubi for the extra PfP bonus. Since they are so small every death is gonna hurt so I was thinking the buffs might mitigate unecessary deaths and/or worries bout them getting blowed up before they get there?