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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And Grey Hunters in 5th basically autowon against other assault lists, since they got to shoot you and then fought at full capability when you assaulted them. They were one of the most unfair units to ever exist in any edition.

Hence why I said harder to tarpit.

True that.

the Dark eldar warlord table is very average to below average. Lets go through it

1. FEAR, which is useless against half the armies in the game BAD
2. Rerolls for seize the initiative, reserves, and NF. This one is good
3. Rage. This is ok but most of are HQs arn't great in close combat compared to what other codexs can bring.
4. Hatred. Also ok,
5. plus 1 to ws. Bad, our characters already have such a high WS that is functionally useless.
6. Fearless bubble. Also good

So we have 2 good traits, 2 ok ones, and two bad traits. Your rolling on the rule book tables.

3 is bad because 4 outclasses it in every way

I'd say 2 is the best because getting first turn is huge for this army. However you can get something similiar from the strategic traits table from the Rule Book and you get the bonus of not risking rolling a useless trait. If you don't want to be in assault then 3 and 4 are useless. Over all bad table.

The DE HQs are pretty lackluster, the only thing it really has going for it is that you can cheap out and get a Lhamean in a venom for a total of 75pts as your HQ.

WWP is of course amazing, and pretty much why you see DE in major tournaments somewhere in the top 25%, as an ally to eldar.

The Haem is the only DE character that has any synergy in of itself, it increases PfP to other models in its unit(sometimes within 12" in certain formations)

The other DE HQ can have synergy with an unit but it comes at the cost of wargear/relic selections. WWP is obvious, less obvious are two DE characters where one has armor of misery, and the other archangel of pain. Against non fearless/non atsknf units you can force a LD test with a -4, difference in result and LD are wounds with no saves. As it hits every unit within 9", and is not a weapon, it can hit FMC, multiple units and do an impressive killing against many armies. Despite what people say TAU and Eldar, and Daemons are out there plenty in tournaments at top tables and below. Many of them have non fearless models that can be dropped by that. Adding in Haem coven can give additional lowering of LD. Of course this gets expensive real quick as you need a 60-75pt model +cost of wargear for each component, so its not really that viable.

DE are not that fast, they have fast vehicles, in the lore they are very fast. Many armies can outspeed DE. Enhanced aether sails are pretty much the only way DE can become the fastest army, and it comes at the cost of the raider going flat out instead of shooting.

It would be nice if the HQ had some kind of synergy with the army outside of wargear.

Like if an archon always had the 2 result of the warlord trait- but as an ability and not a warlord trait which would go well with the RSR detachment rules and synergize with the DE method of battle listed in apoc for example where they send in waves of reserves in tandem teams for different purposes called "the flaying".

Or succubus would let you pick combat drugs, or an additional roll on the combat drug table and you get to re-roll duplicate results.

Like how autarchs manipulate reserves, or farseers have powers that augment friendly troops, or enemy troops for friendly troops to affect.

DE characters are just 1-deminsional.

I think Jancoran is having a different conversation to everyone else... Other people are saying 'DE are bad' ie (worse than other armies), while he is saying 'DE can win games'.
Yes, you can build a Dark Eldar army that theoretically can kill any model in the game, and you can put this army on the table, so you can theoretically win games. And given the whims of the dice and the skills of your opponent, you'll probably win some. And if you get to be a really good general while your opponent doesn't, then you'll probably win more.

Most people are concerned about what happens when skill levels are the same and armies are maxed out to win. Its unfair in these discussions to assume that you as a general are making use of all kinds of cool tactics, but your opponent for some reason never takes advantage of the same and just plays in to your hand.
People are concerned about, what would happen if I take and optimised TAC Dark Eldar vs another optimised TAC army from a different against this specific opponent? All else being equal, which army am I most likely to win with? And barring some very specific and niche hard counters, Dark Eldar are generally going to come out worse in that comparison.

Its kind of like... playing sports with your left hand rather than your right. Sure you can do it, and if you practice really hard you can be at the same level that right-handed people are without practice, but you're putting in much more effort for not much gain. If the result is important to you at all then playing left-handed is a bad choice.

DE are 'bad', not because it is impossible to win with them, but because there are extremely few situations where DE would perform better than any other army. Especially given that DE have a nearly 1-for-1 analogue available in Craftworld Eldar, it is exceedingly obvious that DE do very very few things better than CWE and in many cases do things worse for the same points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You are literally blaming everyone again for saying the codex was bad because it doesn't win very often, and you pulled the same exact thing in the CSM thread.

eh? "blaming" them? I'm not "blaming" anyone...actually... for anything. Odd thing to say.

DE also seem to be good at starting arguments, kinda like CSM.

 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure where you're going with this Jancoran. Blood Angels were good in 5th ed. but moreso due to the fact that they were largely SM+1. SM we're also not that crazy in 5th besides SS/TH termies and Vulkan being everywhere so BA were only really good in terms of Mephiston being a beast at that time and having slight advantages like cheap ML Devastators. It was a slight, if noticeable, power creep but nothing compared to the edition breaking nonsense that was GK in 5th ed.

I never defended Space Marines. And while GK was good, it was obvious that they were meant for 6E. They were ahead of their time, but 6E drpped soon afterwards like i said.

Blood Angels? There were one thousand threads on the subject. Matt Ward is hated for it and went on to make things worse. If you never got the chance to experience the fun of Mephiston and his doughty gang, well...consider yourself fortunate. Because a lot of players were made to look awfully good by that codex. Lol.

I remember one game in which Mephiston literally killed seven units. Himself. i mean the dude was bonkers. Blood Angels were First to get Storm Ravens for QUITE a while. At the time: ruthless. And BA couldn't be killed, with a 4+ Feel No Pain that any Necron would envy and AP didn't exist on weapons so... Unlike the Necrons at the time, who only got their saves way after the fact, the Blood Angels got it as they went. Corbulo? That dude singlehandedly walloped a Tau Empire force, round after bloody round that didn't manage to nix him in time. (admittedly that was a very strange mission) with his crazy 3+ save and 2+ Fnp!!! 2+ I mean Wow. Talk about a tank. At the time: unrivaled survivability. Tau Empire are no dynamo in close combat anyways, but wow did that guy earn his points back just by existing.

So if you missed out on all that fun and thought Grey Knights were worse? Great. But Grey Knights didnt dominate for as long as BA did (not even close) and it was just so weird how many colors Blood Angel players 'suddenly" came in after that codex dropped! There were Salamander colored ones and Imperial Fist (Im sorry...yellow) Blood angels and... yeah. That was a goooood time to be a Blood Angel!

Not so much anymore. Now they are just another Chapter among many. But damn. I grew so "fond" of Mephiston that he still to this day is the figure I would absolutely throw a game just to kill. Lol. I've done it. My friend just likes to egg me on once in a while and brings his Blood Angels. He knows... Hated that guy and his stat line, his ridiculously good combination of powers... He chopped up Terminators just cause he could!

6E really hurt the Blood angels and brought them screaming back to earth but man what a great time they had for a while there.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
the Dark eldar warlord table is very average to below average. Lets go through it

1. FEAR, which is useless against half the armies in the game BAD
2. Rerolls for seize the initiative, reserves, and NF. This one is good
3. Rage. This is ok but most of are HQs arn't great in close combat compared to what other codexs can bring.
4. Hatred. Also ok,
5. plus 1 to ws. Bad, our characters already have such a high WS that is functionally useless.
6. Fearless bubble. Also good

So we have 2 good traits, 2 ok ones, and two bad traits. Your rolling on the rule book tables.

Fear is the freebie. It's not like theres a downside. Lol. Warord Traits arent supposed ot be game breaking anyways.

I agree about WS. its the only one that i dont really dig. But most charts have a bad option so i am ambivalent.

The coven one can be super nice.

Well, GK dropped a year after BA. GK to 6th edition was a little over a year.

GK did dominate for longer than BA, but BA were still really solid in 5th. DA were the only bad marines, though from the SM dex you mainly saw salamanders instead of the other chapters.

SW and GK were probably the best, with BA being arguably as good as the wolves (the FNP could be sniped out with precision shots in that edition sadly and were kinda expensive). SW probably saw the biggest cosplay I've ever seen...every chaos force was using the SW dex.

" Blood Angels were First to get Storm Ravens for QUITE a while"

You really keep digging. The Storm Raven was unfieldable crap in 5th. A 200 pts skimmer? Really?

"I remember one game in which Mephiston literally killed seven units. Himself. i mean the dude was bonkers. "

Yeah, that guy with no invuln save that can't join a unit is a real threat. It took 6 plasma hits or maybe 8 with FNP to kill him. That was a trivial effort for the GH.

" Talk about a tank. At the time: unrivaled survivability."

Nope. At the time, power weapons cut him to little bloody ribbons. The hidden power fist and power claw was all-powerful against such tricks.

". That was a goooood time to be a Blood Angel! "

Still paled to 3rd. The 5th ed list was not nearly as effective as you are making them out to be. Must have been your lack of generalship.

I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.

Freebies are still compared to equal scale of Warlord traits. There's a reason that comparing it to d3 outflank instantly proves that statement wrong.

autumnlotus wrote:
Freebies are still compared to equal scale of Warlord traits. There's a reason that comparing it to d3 outflank instantly proves that statement wrong.

You're going to take like the best Warlord trait off a chart and then compare it to the worst on another? hmm... Maybe not the way i would do it?

and lets not forget: Dark Eldar dont HAVe to use the Dark eldar chart. So it hardly matters. Its just more options for them. Not less. I dont honestly think a Warlord chart is a big deal in my thinking on any codex. I just don't think it's enough for me to care. it's random and other than Tau (whose chart you can jimmy with) its just nice to have. I'd say that about all armies. there's good ones all over the place though but its not why I choose or dont choose a codex.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

SW and GK were probably the best, with BA being arguably as good as the wolves (the FNP could be sniped out with precision shots in that edition sadly and were kinda expensive). SW probably saw the biggest cosplay I've ever seen...every chaos force was using the SW dex.

Space Wolves were good. They won some big events too. The Thunderwolf Cavalry to this day are one of the best units because they just kind of have everything you want in a unit: tough, hard hitting, fast as hell and even in their base form worth the cost (and they got cheaper in the new book!).

I really enjoy Space Wolves and although i really am not a Marine player (just by virtue of the fact that so many own them that it seemed pointless to add more Marine players to the mix), I've killed about a billion of them and there isnt a force for Marines I find more aesthetically pleasing than the Space Wolves. Which has zero to do with how good they are. And they are. I made the mistake once of using a friends army as a ringer. It was THE most basic version of a Thundercav list you could probably build. I thought "cool, people will like the look and it's not like Im a Marine player so that should be okay".

Nope. Lol. This shows the army though which was beautiful. Gavin, my buddy, did this batrep as a favor to the owner who had asked me to do it as his price for borrowing it. Very nice look to it.

batrep part 1

batrep part 2

 War Kitten wrote:
I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.

I'd argue on the usefulness of rage, especially when none of the HQ's are particularly great in combat in the first place. At least Hatred gives more use R1...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.

I'd argue on the usefulness of rage, especially when none of the HQ's are particularly great in combat in the first place. At least Hatred gives more use R1...

Rage is good.

Both are a R1 bonus. You either get 5 attacks on the charge or 4 with rerolls to hit. That's 3.3 with Rage and 3.6 with Hatred.

Not that you care, as decimals don't exist on dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus Hatred works when you get charged. So there's that.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh look, telling Martel to L2P. Once again showing your ignorance to the game outside your locals where people make stupid mistakes and apparently Genestealer Cult is scary.

But, his anecdotes! Jancoran is obviously the best general everywhere. I've got $50,000 on him winning the LVO AND the BAO with his masterful Night Lords list.

Is this happening ? It'll be like Stelek in the Nova Open all over again.

What happened with Stelek in the Nova Open?

Google Stelek.

Actually, don't. I did that, wowzies that was a mistake. I'll sum it up, he lost so he accused his opponent of cheating when that turned out not to be the case at all. Then there was all the 'dice rolls, terrain, etc. Salty as feth.

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I agree that the DE warlord trait table is kind of meh. +1 WS on a Succubus or Archon is rather pointless. Rage, Hatred, and the re-rolls one are sweet.

I'd argue on the usefulness of rage, especially when none of the HQ's are particularly great in combat in the first place. At least Hatred gives more use R1...

Rage is good.

Rage is mediocre. I should know.

There is also this, if you really must read more

 Jancoran wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
Freebies are still compared to equal scale of Warlord traits. There's a reason that comparing it to d3 outflank instantly proves that statement wrong.

You're going to take like the best Warlord trait off a chart and then compare it to the worst on another? hmm... Maybe not the way i would do it?

and lets not forget: Dark Eldar dont HAVe to use the Dark eldar chart. So it hardly matters. Its just more options for them. Not less. I dont honestly think a Warlord chart is a big deal in my thinking on any codex. I just don't think it's enough for me to care. it's random and other than Tau (whose chart you can jimmy with) its just nice to have. I'd say that about all armies. there's good ones all over the place though but its not why I choose or dont choose a codex.

True enough. Warlord traits are mostly not worth considering since they are completely random.
The only exception is special characters who always come with a certain trait, like Huron. Warlord traits aren't really worth discussing and are pretty poorly implemented (should have been options with possibly different point costs).

 Jancoran wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

SW and GK were probably the best, with BA being arguably as good as the wolves (the FNP could be sniped out with precision shots in that edition sadly and were kinda expensive). SW probably saw the biggest cosplay I've ever seen...every chaos force was using the SW dex.

Space Wolves were good. They won some big events too. The Thunderwolf Cavalry to this day are one of the best units because they just kind of have everything you want in a unit: tough, hard hitting, fast as hell and even in their base form worth the cost (and they got cheaper in the new book!).

Yeah, in 5th space wolves were good (they were my tournament army in that edition). The thunderwolf cavarly, amazing infantry, solid scouts, and long fangs gave them a solid base to build a tournament list around. They were arguably about as good as BA, maybe better (I certainly never lost to BA in 5th with them) and around for a large part of the edition. I loved the banners and mark of the wulfen, and I'm really sad to see how the new codex turned out. It's basically all thunderwolves and long fangs all the time now, since scouts and the basic infantry aren't as good as they used to be.

My main point was that BA didn't really have a time in the sun in 5th. They were strong, but no better than the wolves and came out later. A year after the BA came out, GK ruled the scene for a year. It's wasn't as bad as it was now (unless you were a Daemon player) but for a lot of armies GK were horrendous to face (nids especially didn't enjoy them, since lol force weapons everywhere).

BA were competitive in 5th, but not really a dominating OP force. They were in 3rd, where they were the best along with Eldar. Then again, eldar are usually one of the better armies in every edition of 40k.

All I'm suggesting is that you have to kind of appreciate every codex for what it is and maybe not bemoan what it isn't quite so much.

But that's just silly - there are the 7.5 edition power codexes with super formations of doom, enhanced units across the board (especially and ironically Eldar) and the like - and everyone else.

Dark Eldar got an absolutely fluff destroying terrible codex and then to add insult to injury the Eldar got a super OP one....................whilst also being able to knick the odd Dark Eldar vehicle and use it more effectively with better units than the Dark Eldar can...........

Pathetic.

The entire concept of assault meq lists is invalid in 7th. BA have no death stars, therefore they aren't a proper assault army. And they don't shoot well either.

Martel732 wrote:
The entire concept of assault meq lists is invalid in 7th. BA have no death stars, therefore they aren't a proper assault army. And they don't shoot well either.

Honestly, this is one of the things I dislike about 7th - it's too much about death stars and massive units, which outperform and outcompete all the infantry that are supposed to be the backbone of armies.

That's what happens when you write units like twc and spells like invis.

Martel732 wrote:
That's what happens when you write units like twc and spells like invis.

And when you start allowing underpriced Apocalypse units into regular games.

Forge the narrative (Games Workshop, 2014)

 Frozocrone wrote:
Their main forms of damaging units, Poison and Lance, aren't nearly as effective as they were before.

Ignore Cover becomes more and more prevalent and they don't have good armour saves, like Necrons/SM, or the bodies to not care, like Orks and Tyranids.

Codex: Flyrant have the numbers to not care? lol