Dark eldar 7th edition

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.

**Necron legion**

So I picked up my 7th edition dark eldar codex and this is my first dark eldar army and what I am planning and what I have got is 2 squads of 10 kabalite warriors and 1 squad of wychs and as hq I have the archon so I plan on getting iccubi in a squad with him so what should I get to to add on to building my army and what should I kit my warriors with and how should I kit my archon aswell ? Thanks in advance

**oz of the north**

The most important thing you need to know about Dark Eldar is put them in transports, they die like no other if on the ground.

But for Kalabite, either go unit of 5 in venom with blaster, or unit of 10 in raider.

Wyches, just ignore them they are just way too terrible to even try and use them.

Archon, dependent on who it joins, if join true born then more shooting, if incubi then maybe more combat.

I would recommend to flesh out your army get lots of transports, or try haemonculus covens and look through that.

**Hawkeye888**

From what I know, transports transports transports!

**Necron legion**

So here's what I think get 2 units of the 10 warriors and but them in in 2 raiders 10 in each get a venom put in that 4 incubi and the archon. After that include a razorwing jet fighter and maybe add one or two ravager's to the army for support and anti vehicle capacity. I Apart from that I'm not sure where to go next so you have any suggestions on what to take for the archon and thanks for the reply

**Jimsolo**

Here's a tactical series I write with Dark Eldar predominantly in mind. Be warned, this is not (at the point, but fingers crossed) considered mainstream tactics.

Other popular strategies include:

Grotbomb: Use large groups of Grotesques, coupled with HQs with Webway Portals, to mess opponents up in assault. Grots can be fielded in big groups or in groups of 3-4 inside a Raider.

Venomspam: Five man warrior bands (with a blaster) or Trueborn bands (with four blasters) in Venoms; as many as you can field.

Reavers (w/caltrops), Ravagers, and Scourges (either Heat Lance OR Haywire Blasters) are lovely garnishes for either of these two basic strategies. Haemonculus Covens (our suppelement) should only ever be fielded in formations, of which the Covenite Fleshcorps is the only truly sub-optimal choice.

The most important thing is indeed, buy a transport for every unit that can take one.

**Necron legion**

Alright so I get it be holes for everything if you can. Just for my last question and thank you guys for what you have told me

my last question is how should I go about giving my archon war gear which do you think is the best?

**vipoid**

Necron legion wrote:
Alright so I get it be holes for everything if you can. Just for my last question and thank you guys for what you have told me my last question is how should I go about giving my archon war gear which do you think is the best?

Honestly, I'd suggest giving him a Blaster and calling it a day. Put him with one of your shooty units and hope his transport survives.

If you want a melee character... get a succubus. The Archon's melee weapon options consist of 2 bananas, a length of chocolate and a pineapple.

**Jimsolo**

Necron legion wrote:
Alright so I get it be holes for everything if you can. Just for my last question and thank you guys for what you have told me my last question is how should I go about giving my archon war gear which do you think is the best?

Tough question. I see a couple of builds as viable.

Build 1: Blaster.
Build 2: Huskblade and Shadowfield. (Clone Field is acceptable if you don't have the points for the Shadowfield.)

Both of these can be augmented with Haywire Grenades (less useful on Build 2, but still an okay way to spend 5 extra points) or a Webway Portal (more useful if you take him in a squad, obviously).

If you are taking him in a Freakshow, the Armor of Misery or Archangel of Pain are good choices. Otherwise, take the Helm of Spite if you have the points and want a relic, or the Parasite's Kiss if you're just looking to blow 5 points.

If there is no room to put him in anyone else's transport, his own Venom is just fine.

ALL that being said, if you aren't taking him with a Webway Portal, I would seriously consider not bothering. We can take a court as our mandatory HQ, (and even if you don't, the Succubus has access to melee AP 2, which the Archon does not) freeing up points to be used elsewhere. As long as you took any character, you can still get a warlord trait.

**vipoid**

Out of interest, Jimsolo, why Huskblade over Agoniser?

**BetrayTheWorld**

vipoid wrote:
Out of interest, Jimsolo, why Huskblade over Agoniser?

Yeah, Agoniser is typically the better choice in the new codex. Against pretty much everything except T3 characters.

If they did as they did last edition, and FAQ the huskblade to be AP2, then it would certainly be worth a look. I'm still trying to figure out if GW has actually decided to stop releasing FAQs for 40k or what. We haven't had a FAQ or errata for a single publication in 7 months. With the HUGE simplification of warhammer fantasy battles, I'm wondering if GW downsized whatever department handled rules issues, and basically just decided to stop offering rules support. New mantra: 1 publication and that's it. If they make mistakes, "deal with it, see you next edition." I'm thinking this probably happened.

The new rules for fantasy are spartan. 4 pages of rules when the previous rulebook was something like 500 pages. Their investment in the new warhammer fantasy battles looks like maybe 1 day of brainstorming and editing. If people still buy fantasy models from GW in a similar volume to what they sold before, I think this is going to be a problem for us as gamers. If GW gets some sort of validation that they can continue to sell models without actually putting any work into rules or rules support, our next edition of 40k might be 3 pages of rules.(Albeit free digital rules)

Honestly, I really wish GW would just sub-contract out a different company to make the rules for 40k. They say they're a modelling company first and foremost, and generally have said how much they don't like being involved with rules calls and such. It would be better if they just let another company write all the rules for them. A company that actually WANTS to write game rules, and offer support to the gaming/tournament community. That'd be such an amazing thing, but it'd probably HAVE to be a british company, as GW has also generally made clear about how they feel about foreigners, Americans in particular. Also, it will never happen because GW uses over the top rules to promote new models, and that wouldn't be possible if another company made all the rules.

**vipoid**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Out of interest, Jimsolo, why Huskblade over Agoniser?

Yeah, Agoniser is typically the better choice in the new codex. Against pretty much everything except T3 characters.

Really though, it's like the difference between arming your character with a piece of celery or a French-loaf.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

If they did as they did last edition, and FAQ the huskblade to be AP2, then it would certainly be worth a look. I'm still trying to figure out if GW has actually decided to stop releasing FAQs for 40k or what. We haven't had a FAQ or errata for a single publication in 7 months. With the HUGE simplification of warhammer fantasy battles, I'm wondering if GW downsized whatever department handled rules issues, and basically just decided to stop offering rules support. New mantra: 1 publication and that's it. If they make mistakes, "deal with it, see you next edition." I'm thinking this probably happened.

Agreed on AP2 for Huskblade. Also, would it really break the game if Archons and Succubi were S4 and the former didn't pay an absurd tax on their only defensive upgrades?

With regard to FAQs, I expect you're right. I imagine GW have thought something along the lines of "well, they buy our models even without faqs, so why bother making them?"

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The new rules for fantasy are spartan. 4 pages of rules when the previous rulebook was something like 500 pages. Their investment in the new warhammer fantasy battles looks like maybe 1 day of brainstorming and editing. If people still buy fantasy models from GW in a similar volume to what they sold before, I think this is going to be a problem for us as gamers. If GW gets some sort of validation that they can continue to sell models without actually putting any work into rules or rules support, our next edition of 40k might be 3 pages of rules.(Albeit free digital rules)

Thing is, I could live with ~4 pages of rules if they were at least well-written (it might even make a nice change from our current rulebook - which is a bloated mess of rules and exceptions). Pity then that AoS is so utterly abysmal.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Honestly, I really wish GW would just sub-contract out a different company to make the rules for 40k. They say they're a modelling company first and foremost, and generally have said how much they don't like being involved with rules calls and such. It would be better if they just let another company write all the rules for them. A company that actually WANTS to write game rules, and offer support to the gaming/tournament community. That'd be such an amazing thing, but it'd probably HAVE to be a british company, as GW has also generally made clear about how they feel about foreigners, Americans in particular. Also, it will never happen because GW uses over the top rules to promote new models, and that wouldn't be possible if another company made all the rules.

That would indeed be nice. The trouble is, it's a Catch 22 affair - in order for GW to consider hiring a 3rd party company for this purpose, they'd have to actually care about their rules being good in the first place (and recognise that they suck at writing them). But, this will never happen - not least because GW is pathologically terrified of feedback and market research (so, they'd never find out that people dislike their rules).