Archons WW@?! Dark Eldar 8th Edition Tactics!

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.

**Dionysodorus**

That was flippant. More seriously, if you want Wyches to be useful there's only so many ways you can go with them. If you don't want them to be like Genestealers then what do you want? Like, right now they're very fragile, they're pretty slow at getting into combat, and they don't do much damage once they get there. You need to fix two of these in order for anyone to want to take them. Genestealers, Berzerkers, and Death Company are a bit more durable, much faster (with support), and do much more damage, and not coincidentally they're the only dedicated CC units that see much play. I feel like it'd be weird to make Wyches super-durable, and they also shouldn't be particularly slow, so I'm not really sure what's left other than to make them a lot like Genestealers.

Talking about how we should be thinking about codex vs codex balance rather than unit vs unit sounds nice, but this is a lot less meaningful than some people think. It is actually pretty rare (I can't actually think of an example) for one codex to have a unit which is noticeably outclassed by a unit in another codex but which still sees lots of play because it has another unit which is particularly good at a totally different job. What actually happens is that you just spam the thing your codex does well and don't take the things that are overpriced relative to units in other codices. Or you play Imperial or Chaos Soup and just bring super powerful stuff in every slot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chippen wrote:
You totally missed the point, but hey if you like to cherrypick from people's posts to make a snarky reply, you do you.

I mean, certainly my post was flippant, but I'm not seeing how I missed the point. Could you explain? I took you to be saying that, yeah, Wyches aren't as good as Genestealers but then Tyranids aren't as good at shooting so that makes up for it. My first post was pointing out that actually Tyranids are just about as good at shooting if they want to be. A Hive Tyrant is certainly a scarier gunboat than a Ravager.

I don't think making sure that CC units in different armies are all actually good requires making them all the same, but there are things that you have to somehow accomplish in order to be a good CC unit. So, sure, keep Wyches at 9 points whereas Genestealers are 12, and make Wyches therefore proportionally worse, or give them slightly different focuses such that the Wyches are way better against GEQs but not as good against Predators, but if they're a significantly worse overall choice per point then don't expect anyone to use them. Having really efficient gunboats and inefficient CC units just means that DE armies are going to consist of lots of gunboats and no CC units.

**Chippen**

It's weird how we kind of agree but for the wrong reasons? Haha.

Yeah the end result of what we've got is "spam the thing you're good at" and what I'm basically saying is that it's unrealistic and frankly silly for every single codex to have equally powerful units for assaulting infantry, shooting infantry, shooting tanks, punching tanks, transport, deep strike, mechanized, horde, elite, alpha strike... see what I'm getting at? If every army does every single thing equally well and exactly the same, we may as well just have one faction in the game. There is and should be a rock paper scissors element to the game, that's why list building as a thing.

I agree Wyches need changing. I see it as killing infantry and getting there quickly through some transport synergy personally, but comparing blindly their offensive output to Genestealers, a totally different unit, is a silly comparison, as is any unit comparison in a vacuum.

**vipoid**

Chippen wrote:
It's a bit (a lot) of a stretch to think Wyches should be directly comparable to Genestealers. If we start comparing directly unit to unit without taking into context both internal balance of the Codex and external balance between them, the only possible end to that road is generic grey blob units on the board that all do exactly the same thing.

I think the problem is that there's only so many ways that a unit can be good at melee and yet still be different from other units that are also good at melee.

It's even trickier when those units basically need to fulfil the same mechanical role. Wyches are supposed to be fast, agile and deadly in combat. Genestealers are supposed to be fast, agile and deadly in combat.

I think by trying to differentiate these units too much, you just end up with at least one of them being basically nonfunctional.

Another problem is that Wyches are also competing with Harlequins, which are more expensive but are otherwise exactly what wyches should be.

Finally, you've got the problem that nothing in the DE codex makes any significant difference to Wyches. It's not like in Warmachine when different warcasters can drastically change how a faction plays and which units are good. In DE, you've only really got a few negligible buffs.

If anything, you'd actually expect Wyches to be better than Genestealers on their own - since DE have far fewer and far worse force multipliers, compared to Tyranids.

Chippen wrote:

Like sure, we don't have a dickpunch melee unit quite like the Genestealers, but the 'Nids also don't have a 155 pt gunboat that can move 14", has a 5++, and can shoot ghetto lascannons at full Ballistic Skill.

Sure, But us having that gunboat doesn't make wyches good - it just makes the aforementioned gunboat good. Hell, even our actual transports don't make wyches good - because they've been designed to prevent wyches taking advantage of them (Open Topped no longer helps melee units in any way).

Basically, the context of different codices is irrelevant - because there's simply nothing in the DE codex that makes up for wyches being bad. At best there are other, better units that we can take instead of wyches.

**Dionysodorus**

Chippen wrote:
It's weird how we kind of agree but for the wrong reasons? Haha.

Yeah the end result of what we've got is "spam the thing you're good at" and what I'm basically saying is that it's unrealistic and frankly silly for every single codex to have equally powerful units for assaulting infantry, shooting infantry, shooting tanks, punching tanks, transport, deep strike, mechanized, horde, elite, alpha strike... see what I'm getting at? If every army does every single thing equally well and exactly the same, we may as well just have one faction in the game. There is and should be a rock paper scissors element to the game, that's why list building as a thing.

I agree Wyches need changing. I see it as killing infantry and getting there quickly through some transport synergy personally, but comparing blindly their offensive output to Genestealers, a totally different unit, is a silly comparison, as is any unit comparison in a vacuum.

I just don't see how you accomplish this without making them look a lot like diet Genestealers. You want them to be good at killing infantry? Well then they're going to need lots of attacks. Genestealers in a big unit make back about 51% of their points against Guardsmen. Presumably you want Wyches to do better than this since Genestealers are S4 AP-1 with rending such that they're also fantastic against bigger targets (they make back about 96% of their points vs Marines and are quite good anti-tank). With WS3+ S3 on a 9 point model, you need 6 attacks to out-do Genestealers against GEQs (this would then be much worse against MEQs and tanks). Meanwhile they already look a lot like Genestealers defensively -- bolters are just about as good vs either. Is that a blind comparison to you? I feel like this is a pretty good way to figure out what they'd need in order for anyone to even consider taking them.

Granted, a lot of the 8th edition codices make it worthwhile to take a single unit of something that would otherwise not be great by providing some strong stratagems -- Craftworld Guardians are still not particularly good on their own but you sometimes see one big unit thanks to some stratagem support. If there's a stratagem to disembark after a transport moves, that'll make it a lot easier to take a single CC unit, though if you don't get first turn it's not going to be pretty. Likewise a "fight again" stratagem can be nice. But I really do have a hard time seeing what you could possibly do with Wyches to make them a solid unit that you'd happily take 2 or 3 of that doesn't look a lot like an S3 AP0 Genestealer.

**the_scotsman**

Sorry, if you want a unit to be a troop slot unit and (presumably) the ONLY troop slot unit you're allowed to take for a particular sort of detachment, they have to be decent at something for their points.

You can't say "Hey, you're bad but at least you can take a separate detachment, ally it in, and have a ravager!" because that's functionally identical as saying that the whole codex can be crap because you can take a separate detachment and have Dark Reapers.

I agree you have to compare within the codex - but you also have to recognize that despite being physically on the same PAGES, GW has decreed that the assault elements of DE are functionally a different faction than the (good) shooting elements of DE. So you can't really have DE as an analogue to Tau where they're good at shooting and bad at CC so their CC units are weak.

Particularly because..that's not their fluff at all. Wyches are not some auxiliary unit that the DE take to have some kind of chance in cc, like the kroot are for Tau. They're supposed to be highly skilled fighters taking down powerful opponents with simple weaponry to make a show out of it.

Genestealers and Wyches are only analogous because while the fluff is really different (by fluff, Wyches should be some kind of anti-elite specialist, or an adaptive fighter or something, while Genestealers are super fast blender glass cannons) the function is about the same. Because wyches suuuuuuuuuuck at killing elite units, and pretty much only have a snowballs chance if theyre up against a cheap helpless chaff horde. What they really want to be killing - a super weak no-defenses body with a crazy expensive but low attacks weapon - doesn't really exist commonly. Repentia? GSC aberrants? I don't know. But the bizarre combination of zero damage and invuln-based defenses that disappear into a cloud of nothing the second you leave combat clearly doesn't work.

But we can't make these some kind of stratagem reliant one trick pony if we also want to require players to take either entire detachments of them or none at all. That's not how to fix them. They need to do something compelling with their basic stats and abilities.

**flamingkillamajig**

You know to an extent while trueborn are nice i'm not sure they're super needed. Hear me out. Transports cost a lot of points. I already showed you guys that for the most part a void raven with dark scythes does more than 4 blasterborn in a venom but with a much better profile (more wounds, better toughness, harder to get in combat with, has better range, has a one use bomb as well, doesn't care if an enemy does engage it in melee as it'll fly away and can still shoot). The only issues with a void raven is it'll be visible regardless of how you place it as it's just so freaking huge (so LoS) and the other issue is having to constantly turn from time to time as per the rules or it'll crash and burn. Also if i remember you can be wiped off the board if you lose everything but flyers.

I still vouch for dark lance scourge in 10 man units at long range. It tends to be good unless somebody DS's near em turn one in which case they're boned. Otherwise most factions didn't have the firepower to kill the full squad with shooting at about 3 feet away in cover.

----------

Or you know what they could do with wyches is give them a 4+ or 5+ inv. save at all times instead of just in combat and maybe make it rise to 4+ or so in close combat.

**Blackie**

I'd be ok with 2A base for wyches and the possibility of getting 2 special melee weapons every 5 guys. A unit that is supposed to be close combat specialist can't have just 1A in its profile.

**Red Corsair**

Blackie wrote:
I'd be ok with 2A base for wyches and the possibility of getting 2 special melee weapons every 5 guys. A unit that is supposed to be close combat specialist can't have just 1A in its profile.

The wych weapons either need to be given the 3rd edition treatment, where the fancy looking items are their for modeling and the whole unit is counted as having a built in benefit for their gladiatorial skill with any of their gear OR and more realistically they need to make the special weapons more important. Right now they suck, they cost WAY too much and it's hard to imagine how they fix them without retaining their high end price. I would like shard nets to actually do something, I think auto passing no escape against one unit would be fun. No idea how to fix the other two, they are effectively the same lame weapon (they look awesome) and I can't imagine they will function much different then they do now. If they give them a high rend I can see taking them, but if they remain a wet paper bag attack then your almost always going to be better off taking more wyches.

I think wyches need to be able to advance and charge, as well as fall back and charge as a stratagem at least. Beyond that they need a high amount of attacks. Giving them 2 base attacks, 3 with the hekatari blade as well as making the blade ap -1 would make wyches much more appealing, they still die to a stiff fart, but if they get there they will mulch infantry and be annoying to elites.

Cult tactics and stratagems will probably be key to making these work. I am hoping DE get a generic stratagem that lets them move their transport before disembarking, or lets them disembark from a vehicle that assaulted and count as charging the same enemy. I think that would be fluffy.

**Tyel**

the_scotsman wrote:
Sorry, if you want a unit to be a troop slot unit and (presumably) the ONLY troop slot unit you're allowed to take for a particular sort of detachment, they have to be decent at something for their points.

You can't say "Hey, you're bad but at least you can take a separate detachment, ally it in, and have a ravager!" because that's functionally identical as saying that the whole codex can be crap because you can take a separate detachment and have Dark Reapers.

I agree you have to compare within the codex - but you also have to recognize that despite being physically on the same PAGES, GW has decreed that the assault elements of DE are functionally a different faction than the (good) shooting elements of DE. So you can't really have DE as an analogue to Tau where they're good at shooting and bad at CC so their CC units are weak.

The thing is I think this whole mentality is outdated.
It might have made sense nearly two decades ago when the FOC was the FOC and that was all you got.
Therefore armies tended to be similar because you had more limited options. Your fast attack units might be good which justified your heavy support not being so good.

But even then it was suspect, and today if you have a codex of good units and bad units, the bad units simply don't get used.

Wyches either need to be very cheap chaff units (not exactly fluffy but it gives them a function) or lethal. And making them lethal just requires too much (+1 attack, -1 AP, movement abilities etc etc).

I can see them getting a points reduction and still being useless.

**vipoid**

Tyel wrote:

Wyches either need to be very cheap chaff units (not exactly fluffy but it gives them a function) or lethal.

Even if you make them cheap, I'm still not convinced that they'd have a function.

Chaff is useful in armies like IG, because they have a ton of slow artillery and tanks with powerful, long-range weapons.

However, DE is a fast army that doesn't have slow, long-range artillery that needs protecting. If you have wyches on foot, then they won't be able to keep up with whatever it is you want them to protect. And if the idea is for them to rush into combat, then they'll likely need transports. But since transports are so expensive, any discount you get from taking wyches in place of Wracks or such is going to be negligible.

Tyel wrote:
And making them lethal just requires too much (+1 attack, -1 AP, movement abilities etc etc).

Well, mostly it just requires giving them what they should have had ages ago.

**flamingkillamajig**

vipoid wrote:
Tyel wrote:

Wyches either need to be very cheap chaff units (not exactly fluffy but it gives them a function) or lethal.

Even if you make them cheap, I'm still not convinced that they'd have a function.

Chaff is useful in armies like IG, because they have a ton of slow artillery and tanks with powerful, long-range weapons.

However, DE is a fast army that doesn't have slow, long-range artillery that needs protecting. If you have wyches on foot, then they won't be able to keep up with whatever it is you want them to protect. And if the idea is for them to rush into combat, then they'll likely need transports. But since transports are so expensive, any discount you get from taking wyches in place of Wracks or such is going to be negligible.

Tyel wrote:
And making them lethal just requires too much (+1 attack, -1 AP, movement abilities etc etc).

Well, mostly it just requires giving them what they should have had ages ago.

I imagine wyches could work with their current special rule where they prevent enemies leaving combat. Problem is it's a roll off, they need to get there and fast and they need to be more durable. Currently vs guard wyches would be good in theory but you need something to take the overwatch and a way to successfully charge maybe first turn. By themselves they can't do it. If it could prevent enemy tank fire it'd be nice though.

As it currently stands most of our melee is pretty abysmal. Nothing really hits that hard and most things with toughness 5 or so can shrug off the attacks esp. if it's a vehicle as our poison would do jack then much as it always has vs vehicles and most targets.

Speaking of poison i think we need more poisoned attacks that avoid more armor and maybe wound on 2's or 3's. I'm just amazed dark eldar poisoned weapons have like absolutely no armor piercing potential or at least more possibility for mortal wounds.

**Dionysodorus**

I'm not sure that their roll-off trick would be a big deal even if it were automatic given how rarely they're going to be able to charge an infantry unit that really doesn't want to be in combat with them. A Guard Infantry Squad is pretty happy to stay and beat them down in CC rather than falling back and losing their offense for the turn. Ultimately, locking something in CC is not actually that valuable in 8th except insofar as it protects your own unit -- the unit you're locking loses its shooting phase and ability to charge something else either way. But Wyches are so bad at CC that nothing is going to bother falling back from them, and instead they're just going to get piled on by other nearby units.

I have a hard time imagining that GW actually gives them what they'd need at 9 points. It's more than +1 A and -1 AP.

I don't know that having stronger poison (i.e. that wounds on 2s or 3s) is a big deal. Like, that's functionally equivalent to just having more attacks with existing poison weapons. The big problem DE have is that they're even worse off than most other factions vs T3. What they really need is something that isn't poison or high AP so that it can be priced appropriately for killing GEQs.

**Niiai**

Wytches could get 4++ like in 5th edition combat. And some rule for disembarking and charge after movement on transports. And some kill potensial in cc.

**Red Corsair**

They have a 4++ in combat now...

Wyches need more attacks, better drugs and some savage melee weapon options. Stratagems can fix the other issues.

**Amishprn86**

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/25/from-the-dark-city-they-come/

**drakerocket**

Probably good news for witches and bikes if they wanna sell those boxes.

**Amishprn86**

Reavers are my Favorite DE model, i hope they are good again.

**Tyel**

Hmmm. 3 armies. Kind of worried.

I like the idea of running a pure coven or cult - but I struggle to see how that would ever work on the table.

**vipoid**

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. 3 armies. Kind of worried.

That's probably because it's a bloody awful idea.

We're already lacking in units and now we've been split even further, which is antithetical to the way our army is supposed to work.

**Tyel**

vipoid wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. 3 armies. Kind of worried.

That's probably because it's a bloody awful idea.

We're already lacking in units and now we've been split even further, which is antithetical to the way our army is supposed to work.

Yeah. Its hard to see why you need "armies" which have just 5-6 entries in their roster.
And then Incubi and Mandrakes will probably be separate (guess Mandrades might have been embraced by the Covens but that would seem too neat).

If there were going to be 3-5 new units to round out these armies I might be more optimistic, but its hard to see how it will work with what is currently available.

**vipoid**

Tyel wrote:

Yeah. Its hard to see why you need "armies" which have just 5-6 entries in their roster.
And then Incubi and Mandrakes will probably be separate (guess Mandrades might have been embraced by the Covens but that would seem too neat).

If there were going to be 3-5 new units to round out these armies I might be more optimistic, but its hard to see how it will work with what is currently available.

Indeed.

I think what annoys me most is that there's absolutely no need for it. DE don't have so many units/options that they need to be split (especially when you compare them to Space Marines or Eldar). Nor were they so strong that they needed to be toned down (in fact, they were one of the absolute worst armies in 7th).

There's also this weird thing wherein the 3 subfactions are separate . . . except in instances where separation would actually be beneficial. For example, all of them use the same PFP chart. So you've got a sluggish, tough(ish), melee-focused faction; a fast(ish), fragile, melee-focused faction; and a fast(ish), fragile, shooting-focused faction - all using the same rules (and that's before we even get to Incubi or Mandrakes).
1) Inured to Suffering is pretty rubbish at the best of times, but it's especially weak for Kabal and Cult units, as they're so easy to kill that the extra 6+++ is all but meaningless.
2) Eager to Flay is useful for Coven and Cult, but virtually useless for Kabal - as they rarely want to be in melee to begin with.
3) Flensing Fury has the same problem as the above. Though it's also worth noting that it's not particularly helpful even for most of our melee units - because wounding is where they have problems.
4) Emboldened by Bloodshed is rarely of use to anyone, as we have good Ld to begin with and most of our units are best suited to MSU. Maybe if you're using a horde army with Warriors, but then can you afford to have no morale protection until turn 4? Anyway, I imagine this will be least useful for Coven, as they have maybe 1 unit that can be large enough to even be affected by morale.
5) Mantle of Agony. Whoever designed this chart must have really hated Kabal, because this is the third trait that necessitates you being really close to your target. Not that it matters, as most of the time the game will basically be over by this point.

I mean, if we're stuck with this ridiculous separation of subfactions, could they not have given each of them their own PfP chart? That way you're not stuck playing a shooty army that for some reason is getting melee benefits each turn. Next you'll be telling me that the only HQ available to that subfaction gives a useless Ld buff. Oh. Right.

**BlaxicanX**

If they try to go down the route of encouraging sub-factions in our codex we're probably fethed.

GW needs to embrace that our codex has a relatively small number of units (especially HQs) and thus inter-unit sysnergy is extremely important. Unit buffs need to be indescriminatory.

Another thing is that we dont have psychic powers to micro-manage our units with. That further necessitates a broadness in how well our units should stack with each other.

**Niiai**

Can we at least see the codex before doom and gloom settles in. One solution is that each sub faction comes with one of different faction rules, and within each detachments you choose what ecah cabal, wytch and coven rules you use. That would be an awsome divide of the roles. We know some armies break sertain faction designs when it makes sence. (See tyranid special characters are not tied to hive fleets at all.) Melee rules on wytches, shooting rules on warriors and some odd things with the fleshshapers. It would be compatable with power from pain witch is reasonable they keep around. Imagine of one of the fleshshapers counted as one level hieger on the power from pain track for instance, that would be cool. Wytches either charge after running, or some bonus in CC.

More importantly then seperate factions or not is if the rules are good and the boats are cheap. Anything beyond that is just a bonus. (Return of some old 5th edition characters please.)

**Amishprn86**

You dont know how the rules are for "3 armies"

Just b.c you CAN do 3 armies doesnt mean it still doesnt have rules/stratagems/traits for playing all of them together.

We also dont know if its only in detachments, if you can gain a kabal buff for a kabal detachment, and same thing for Wych/Coven, the way detachments are, its not going to be a problem at all.

Until we see the rules, no reason to complain.

**BlaxicanX**

We've had 14 codices drop since the advebt of 8th edition, so that's about 11 reasons minimum to complain, actually.

**Burnage**

vipoid wrote:
I mean, if we're stuck with this ridiculous separation of subfactions, could they not have given each of them their own PfP chart?

I'm worried about the army getting split too, but GW doubling down on this might well be their way of solving the "how do we give these three distinct subfactions rules which benefit all of them?" question. Kabals, Cults and Covens might well wind up getting their own PfP charts - or even their own army-wide rules entirely.

**Tyel**

The reason to be concerned is that there is a fair amount in DE that needs a total re-work and unfortunately this has rarely happened with the codexes.
I agree Archons for instance do not make sense. Will they scrap the leadership buff for something useful? Will they be vaguely useful in assault or carry on being an expensive blaster?

If you get X special rules for pure kabal/cult/coven detachments its limiting in a way all other factions are not.

But interested all the same.

**vipoid**

Niiai wrote:
Can we at least see the codex before doom and gloom settles in.

GW's history with DE means I'm taking the opposite approach - I intend to assume that the codex will be godawful until I see some sort of certificate proving otherwise.

**Eldarsif**

The PfP could be easily solved: Use the Daughter's of Khaine rules.

I have been playing DoK and the progression of the chart and abilities are far more useful than PfP. At turn 3 all your DoK units get reroll 1s to Hit. Turn 4 you get reroll 1s to Wound.

I personally think that the DoK Battletome is a slight hint at what we might see in terms of Drukhari, or I at least hope so as DoK are currently playing like a true glasscannon much what Drukhari should be.

**vipoid**

Eldarsif wrote:
The PfP could be easily solved: Use the Daughter's of Khaine rules.

I have been playing DoK and the progression of the chart and abilities are far more useful than PfP. At turn 3 all your DoK units get reroll 1s to Hit. Turn 4 you get reroll 1s to Wound.

That would indeed be much better.

But then, I've always found that Dark Elves seem to consistently have far better rules than their 40k equivalents. It also seems like far more effort goes into them.