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.

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

That is going to be as amusing as it is inevitable. I personally plan on throwing a fit over Centurions not getting enough of a point cut.

The Newman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

That is going to be as amusing as it is inevitable. I personally plan on throwing a fit over Centurions not getting enough of a point cut.

Here Here. There is no excuse not to fix the most overcosted units in the game.

Wraithknights
Centurians
Crisis suits
Termintors
ect

I've seen leaks for a -3 point cost to terminators. Okay so...If I included 13 Terms previously - now I can feild 14....Holy crap GW....1 1/2years for that crap?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Can we stop discussing the best point value of Disintegrator Cannons, please? The book is printed, so anyone's opinion is rather moot at this point.

That is BS - they changed SW codex errors in like a week.

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

You say whining echo chamber, I say place for good discussion of possible rules and point changes. Isn't that the opposite of an echo chamber? Maybe you're the one in an echo chamber eh?

So you're saying the fact they added the Point Value for a missing piece of wargear in Codex Space Wolves is a reason we should have page, upon page, upon page on the relative effectiveness and proper point value for the Disintegrator Cannon?

There is absolutely no fething debate that the core marine vehicle chassis for predator/rhino/razorback is more durable than a Ravager.

You guys are beyond the pale claiming that durability is "debatable."

FLY is a defensive vulnerability for these vehicles more than anything. If people are trying to execute a charge on your Ravagers, just laugh, because they have to cut through your entire army first to do it. It is great for their offense, though, but that's what these are about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

You say whining echo chamber, I say place for good discussion of possible rules and point changes. Isn't that the opposite of an echo chamber? Maybe you're the one in an echo chamber eh?

You guys start these conversations with the assumption that dissie cannons are overpowered, with a narrow viewpoint comparing only to specific marine vehicles, or specific marine statlines.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

That is going to be as amusing as it is inevitable. I personally plan on throwing a fit over Centurions not getting enough of a point cut.

Here Here. There is no excuse not to fix the most overcosted units in the game.

Wraithknights
Centurians
Crisis suits
Termintors
ect

I've seen leaks for a -3 point cost to terminators. Okay so...If I included 13 Terms previously - now I can feild 14....Holy crap GW....1 1/2years for that crap?

Now now, we have to take all the spoilers and all the wild speculation that goes along with them. Twin Lascannons going to 40 pts = Guard prices for Marine gear 100% confirmed. 23 + 8 + ...1 point for a Guard Storm Bolter? 2 points? 2 to be safe = 33. So now I can almost take an extra Termie for every three I was taking before.

Rejoice!!!

 Marmatag wrote:
There is absolutely no fething debate that the core marine vehicle chassis for predator/rhino/razorback is more durable than a Ravager.

You guys are beyond the pale claiming that durability is "debatable."

FLY is a defensive vulnerability for these vehicles more than anything. If people are trying to execute a charge on your Ravagers, just laugh, because they have to cut through your entire army first to do it. It is great for their offense, though, but that's what these are about.

Maybe I'm being dense here but can you unpack this? Particuarly the "FLY Is a vulnerability" comment? I'm missing something here, obviously.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is absolutely no fething debate that the core marine vehicle chassis for predator/rhino/razorback is more durable than a Ravager.

You guys are beyond the pale claiming that durability is "debatable."

FLY is a defensive vulnerability for these vehicles more than anything. If people are trying to execute a charge on your Ravagers, just laugh, because they have to cut through your entire army first to do it. It is great for their offense, though, but that's what these are about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

You say whining echo chamber, I say place for good discussion of possible rules and point changes. Isn't that the opposite of an echo chamber? Maybe you're the one in an echo chamber eh?

You guys start these conversations with the assumption that dissie cannons are overpowered, with a narrow viewpoint comparing only to specific marine vehicles, or specific marine statlines.

I think the durability of the Ravager and other DE vehicles is entirely dependant on what's firing at it. Autocannons and other similar weapons tend to be very effective against them due to weight of fire and multi damage that ranges through 2, D3 and a flat 3 whilst anything more than AP-1 tends to get wasted. It's the high strength/damage/low volume of fire weapons that suffer most as the 5++ roughly negates a 3rd of the wounds but when you are rolling for one or two saves at a time can be very swingy.

And as a DE player I do think Dissie's could do with going up in cost a little.

Rocmistro wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is absolutely no fething debate that the core marine vehicle chassis for predator/rhino/razorback is more durable than a Ravager.

You guys are beyond the pale claiming that durability is "debatable."

FLY is a defensive vulnerability for these vehicles more than anything. If people are trying to execute a charge on your Ravagers, just laugh, because they have to cut through your entire army first to do it. It is great for their offense, though, but that's what these are about.

Maybe I'm being dense here but can you unpack this? Particuarly the "FLY Is a vulnerability" comment? I'm missing something here, obviously.

There are a ton of shooting weapons that get benefits when shooting at FLY targets to help deal with AIRBORNE, which these are not. People bring anti-fly weapons because it hits: Primarchs, Eldar Flyers, Tau, Ravagers, etc.

At this point I wish Guilliman would be shot into the sun considering his buff is used as a retort to any tangible evidence that marines outside of UM are trash.

Marine auras in general are ridiculous considering they promote castling of an army that’s meant to be a flexible strike force.

 Marmatag wrote:
[

Maybe I'm being dense here but can you unpack this? Particuarly the "FLY Is a vulnerability" comment? I'm missing something here, obviously.

There are a ton of shooting weapons that get benefits when shooting at FLY targets to help deal with AIRBORNE, which these are not. People bring anti-fly weapons because it hits: Primarchs, Eldar Flyers, Tau, Ravagers, etc.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is absolutely no fething debate that the core marine vehicle chassis for predator/rhino/razorback is more durable than a Ravager.

You guys are beyond the pale claiming that durability is "debatable."

FLY is a defensive vulnerability for these vehicles more than anything. If people are trying to execute a charge on your Ravagers, just laugh, because they have to cut through your entire army first to do it. It is great for their offense, though, but that's what these are about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

You say whining echo chamber, I say place for good discussion of possible rules and point changes. Isn't that the opposite of an echo chamber? Maybe you're the one in an echo chamber eh?

You guys start these conversations with the assumption that dissie cannons are overpowered, with a narrow viewpoint comparing only to specific marine vehicles, or specific marine statlines.

There is no world where dessie aren't overpowered man. Plus ravager is about equal to a razorback in protection. 5++ save is the reason. Ap -3 and -4 is very common and most things are wounding them both on 3's. Not to mention lightning fast reflexes in a pinch.

Twin las razor going down in points in encouraging though. He can sit in cover and dump lascannons downrange for a reasonable cost now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem is that this is just a whining echo chamber. I can't wait for the post CA meltdowns.

That is going to be as amusing as it is inevitable. I personally plan on throwing a fit over Centurions not getting enough of a point cut.

Here Here. There is no excuse not to fix the most overcosted units in the game.

Wraithknights
Centurians
Crisis suits
Termintors
ect

I've seen leaks for a -3 point cost to terminators. Okay so...If I included 13 Terms previously - now I can feild 14....Holy crap GW....1 1/2years for that crap?

Now now, we have to take all the spoilers and all the wild speculation that goes along with them. Twin Lascannons going to 40 pts = Guard prices for Marine gear 100% confirmed. 23 + 8 + ...1 point for a Guard Storm Bolter? 2 points? 2 to be safe = 33. So now I can almost take an extra Termie for every three I was taking before.

Rejoice!!!

The leaks I saw were for -3 point cost for terms. If that also comes with a reduced cost storm bolter that would be -4. That would put them at 34. About 4 points short of the upper end of where they should be IMO.

Ravagers are more durable against lascannons, the same vs krak missiles. You need specialized weapons to take advantage of the ravagers "weakness".

Bremon wrote:
At this point I wish Guilliman would be shot into the sun considering his buff is used as a retort to any tangible evidence that marines outside of UM are trash.

Marine auras in general are ridiculous considering they promote castling of an army that’s meant to be a flexible strike force.

No one has ever used him as a retort to evidence that SM outside of UM are trash. That's a strawman. Everyone knows space marines are bunk right now.

What people DO argue about Guilleman is that so long as he exists in the state he's in right now, it's very difficult to create a situation in which NON-Ultramarine SM are competitive without immediately making Ultramarines OP.

He can basically double the effectiveness of any unit he's in range of, give extra free CP, and is about 300pts of combat stats. He naturally compounds any buff space marines get into a double buff for Ultras. So long as he exists how he is, SM are always going to have issues.

 alextroy wrote:
So you're saying the fact they added the Point Value for a missing piece of wargear in Codex Space Wolves is a reason we should have page, upon page, upon page on the relative effectiveness and proper point value for the Disintegrator Cannon?

I thought he was referring to the Saga issue, but then that was resolved before the book was released...

ERJAK wrote:

Bremon wrote:
At this point I wish Guilliman would be shot into the sun considering his buff is used as a retort to any tangible evidence that marines outside of UM are trash.

Marine auras in general are ridiculous considering they promote castling of an army that’s meant to be a flexible strike force.

No one has ever used him as a retort to evidence that SM outside of UM are trash. That's a strawman. Everyone knows space marines are bunk right now.

What people DO argue about Guilleman is that so long as he exists in the state he's in right now, it's very difficult to create a situation in which NON-Ultramarine SM are competitive without immediately making Ultramarines OP.

He can basically double the effectiveness of any unit he's in range of, give extra free CP, and is about 300pts of combat stats. He naturally compounds any buff space marines get into a double buff for Ultras. So long as he exists how he is, SM are always going to have issues.

Which is basically the entire argument for restricting named characters to narrative play (and honestly, who gives a feth about narrative play) and balancing all the books around the generic characters.

Sadly that argument also requires by implication that GW be able to create balanced rules around the generic characters, and if they could do that then problem units like Booby G wouldn't exist in the first place.

I miss the days of having to ask your opponents permission to use OP douchebag named characters.

Martel732 wrote:
You need specialized weapons to take advantage of the ravagers "weakness".

Not really. I usually have lots of S5 (heavy bolters) and S6 (assault cannons) with my SW, and just a few lascannons. Lots of S5 in melee as well. There isn't a single "all knights list" here, though, but in my experience mid strenght weapons are more important that pure anti tank in this edition. Which is also one of the reasons dissies are so good.

People talk about grav cannons ignoring the fact that they're bad not because of their price but because SM have cheaper and more effective options for the same role. I'd agree about 15-20 points Grav cannons if SM don't have access to heavy bolters, autocannons and ass cannons.

The archon+ravagers vs guilliman+razorbacks should also consider other factors: that the archon is a pure tax doing nothing but giving the re-rolls and that Gulliman aura usually affect lots of units not just the three tanks, while the archon usually gives the re-roll to those ravagers. If they have to move, and it's quite likely, his aura won't work, not for all the vehicles at least. Don't forget that we only have footslogging HQs. Drukhari are not a gunline, we don't play with screeners. Guilliman is also very good in combat threatening those units that come close enough to attack the gunline, he lives twice and in his points there are also +3CPs which other armies, including drukhari, can have only by adding unwanted tax units, usually a second battallion. He needs to be 10 W.

Pure drukhari vs pure SM is all in favor of the space elves, but many armies have their nemesis. Drukhari can't be nerfed only because they're too good against SM.

And if we consider soups I'm not sure that aeldari are superior than the imperium, I think the imperium soup is the most overpowered army currently. Something extremely dumb as the "Loyal 32" thing must be fixed as a priority, more than making dissies more expensive.

 Marmatag wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is absolutely no fething debate that the core marine vehicle chassis for predator/rhino/razorback is more durable than a Ravager.

You guys are beyond the pale claiming that durability is "debatable."

FLY is a defensive vulnerability for these vehicles more than anything. If people are trying to execute a charge on your Ravagers, just laugh, because they have to cut through your entire army first to do it. It is great for their offense, though, but that's what these are about.

Maybe I'm being dense here but can you unpack this? Particuarly the "FLY Is a vulnerability" comment? I'm missing something here, obviously.

There are a ton of shooting weapons that get benefits when shooting at FLY targets to help deal with AIRBORNE, which these are not. People bring anti-fly weapons because it hits: Primarchs, Eldar Flyers, Tau, Ravagers, etc.

Would have been nice if you'd have provided even a few examples from this supposed tons of weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You need specialized weapons to take advantage of the ravagers "weakness".

Not really. I usually have lots of S5 (heavy bolters) and S6 (assault cannons) with my SW, and just a few lascannons. Lots of S5 in melee as well. There isn't a single "all knights list" here, though, but in my experience mid strenght weapons are more important that pure anti tank in this edition. Which is also one of the reasons dissies are so good.

People talk about grav cannons ignoring the fact that they're bad not because of their price but because SM have cheaper and more effective options for the same role. I'd agree about 15-20 points Grav cannons if SM don't have access to heavy bolters, autocannons and ass cannons.

The archon+ravagers vs guilliman+razorbacks should also consider other factors: that the archon is a pure tax doing nothing but giving the re-rolls and that Gulliman aura usually affect lots of units not just the three tanks, while the archon usually gives the re-roll to those ravagers. If they have to move, and it's quite likely, his aura won't work, not for all the vehicles at least. Don't forget that we only have footslogging HQs. Drukhari are not a gunline, we don't play with screeners. Guilliman is also very good in combat threatening those units that come close enough to attack the gunline, he lives twice and in his points there are also +3CPs which other armies, including drukhari, can have only by adding unwanted tax units, usually a second battallion. He needs to be 10 W.

Pure drukhari vs pure SM is all in favor of the space elves, but many armies have their nemesis. Drukhari can't be nerfed only because they're too good against SM.

And if we consider soups I'm not sure that aeldari are superior than the imperium, I think the imperium soup is the most overpowered army currently. Something extremely dumb as the "Loyal 32" thing must be fixed as a priority, more than making dissies more expensive.

I'm sorry but that sounds like your saying dissy cannons being undercosted is balanced because guard broke the CP system?
So how exactlly are dissy cannons fair against necrons, nid or Tau then as non of them have loyal 32 to balance out dissy cannons?
Their being multiple problem entries across multiple codex's doesn't excuse any of them getting a pass on points changes in CA.

Can we not just say D-Cannon instead of dissie/dissy? “Stop trying to make dissy happen.” </Clueless>

Ice_can wrote:

I'm sorry but that sounds like your saying dissy cannons being undercosted is balanced because guard broke the CP system?
So how exactlly are dissy cannons fair against necrons, nid or Tau then as non of them have loyal 32 to balance out dissy cannons?
Their being multiple problem entries across multiple codex's doesn't excuse any of them getting a pass on points changes in CA.

My point about dis cannons is that I couldn't care less about them being underpriced or overpowered. I think they're very good and one of the main reason why drukhari are a competitive army. Nerfing them, along with the other 3-4 more effective units means killing the army and putting them at bottom levels. That's my fear.

I don't see the dis cannon as a single thing to be fixed, I look to the army overall. They're now upper mid tiers or lower top tiers, and since dark eldar have been crap for years they deserve a strong codex.

I've also said that I'm in favor of pricing correctly some of the drukhari undercosted stuff, including diss cannons. But only if the overcosted stuff gets a price drop in exchange. Otherwise it's just an unnecessary nerf to an army that has just one fault: drukhari are not GW posterboys. AM has tons of undercosted weapons but all the hate is towards dis cannons. Why? Because SM players can't ally ravagers but they can bring all the overpowered things from the AM book.

You mention other factions but tau and especially tyranids aren't really that inferior to drukhari, and necrons suffer from a having a terrible book. Even without a single diss cannon necrons would be inferior. Against tyranids T3 hordes for example poisoned shots are crap, even bolters are better. In fact against gretchins, which are a huge part of the new orks lists, poison still wounds on 4s, like a S2 weapon. The diss cannon is amazing because it balances the lack of anti infantries we have giving us a weapon that can be effective also again other type of units. As I said I'd agree about making diss cannons more expensive, but I wouldn't agree about putting the army on less competitive levels overall because they don't deserve that.

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

I'm sorry but that sounds like your saying dissy cannons being undercosted is balanced because guard broke the CP system?
So how exactlly are dissy cannons fair against necrons, nid or Tau then as non of them have loyal 32 to balance out dissy cannons?
Their being multiple problem entries across multiple codex's doesn't excuse any of them getting a pass on points changes in CA.

My point about dis cannons is that I couldn't care less about them being underpriced or overpowered. I think they're very good and one of the main reason why drukhari are a competitive army. Nerfing them, along with the other 3-4 more effective units means killing the army and putting them at bottom levels. That's my fear.

I don't see the dis cannon as a single thing to be fixed, I look to the army overall. They're now upper mid tiers or lower top tiers, and since dark eldar have been crap for years they deserve a strong codex.

I've also said that I'm in favor of pricing correctly some of the drukhari undercosted stuff, including diss cannons. But only if the overcosted stuff gets a price drop in exchange. Otherwise it's just an unnecessary nerf to an army that has just one fault: drukhari are not GW posterboys. AM has tons of undercosted weapons but all the hate is towards dis cannons. Why? Because SM players can't ally ravagers but they can bring all the overpowered things from the AM book.

You mention other factions but tau and especially tyranids aren't really that inferior to drukhari, and necrons suffer from a having a terrible book. Even without a single diss cannon necrons would be inferior. Against tyranids T3 hordes for example poisoned shots are crap, even bolters are better. In fact against gretchins, which are a huge part of the new orks lists, poison still wounds on 4s, like a S2 weapon. The diss cannon is amazing because it balances the lack of anti infantries we have giving us a weapon that can be effective also again other type of units. As I said I'd agree about making diss cannons more expensive, but I wouldn't agree about putting the army on less competitive levels overall because they don't deserve that.

Nobody is saying that Dissies should get nerfed and all the other garbage options stay the same. Units and weapons that are garbage and never see play should be buffed, certainly, I don't think anyone would disagree with you there (what does/does not qualify as garbage is a whole other can of worms though). The current argument is regarding Dissie cannons, and only Dissie cannons, and whether they should get a point increase or not.

And Dissies are not an anti-horde weapon, they're an anti Heavy to Medium Infantry killer. They SHOULDN'T be cost efficient to shoot at garbage horde infantry. If you're shooting Dissies at Gaunts or, god forbid, Gretchin, you SHOULD have problems.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Can we not just say D-Cannon instead of dissie/dissy? “Stop trying to make dissy happen.” </Clueless>

I think that a lot, and not just about the D-Cannon. I couldn't tell you how many times I read "ass can" while wondering what the heck people were talking about before it clicked.

I'm guilty of doing it myself, but only for Guilliman and only because I'm not sure of the actual spelling.

 Blackie wrote:


My point about dis cannons is that I couldn't care less about them being underpriced or overpowered. I think they're very good and one of the main reason why drukhari are a competitive army. Nerfing them, along with the other 3-4 more effective units means killing the army and putting them at bottom levels. That's my fear.

Well, then there's nothing to be afraid of. The army is NOT being propped up by a single undercosted weapon. To suggest that's the case is disingenuous at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.

The situation you paint for Drukhari is nowhere near reality, so when the inevitable balance hit comes to the disintegrator, you'll be able to cope very well.

The problem with calling Disintegrator Cannons "D-Cannons" is that D-Cannons are already a thing - a Craftworld Eldar weapon to be precise.

MalfunctBot wrote:


Nobody is saying that Dissies should get nerfed and all the other garbage options stay the same. Units and weapons that are garbage and never see play should be buffed, certainly, I don't think anyone would disagree with you there (what does/does not qualify as garbage is a whole other can of worms though). The current argument is regarding Dissie cannons, and only Dissie cannons, and whether they should get a point increase or not.

And Dissies are not an anti-horde weapon, they're an anti Heavy to Medium Infantry killer. They SHOULDN'T be cost efficient to shoot at garbage horde infantry. If you're shooting Dissies at Gaunts or, god forbid, Gretchin, you SHOULD have problems.

I agree, but what many people seem to ignore is that 25 points dis cannons where completely avoided in the index, no one used to take them at that price. 15 is certainly underpriced but at 25 we have a proof that they will completely disappear from the game. A 155 points ravager would be overcosted. I also agree about dissis that shouldn't be cost efficient against everything, but again, as long as other options are garbage or impossible to take in decent numbers, I'll take that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


My point about dis cannons is that I couldn't care less about them being underpriced or overpowered. I think they're very good and one of the main reason why drukhari are a competitive army. Nerfing them, along with the other 3-4 more effective units means killing the army and putting them at bottom levels. That's my fear.

Well, then there's nothing to be afraid of. The army is NOT being propped up by a single undercosted weapon. To suggest that's the case is disingenuous at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.

The situation you paint for Drukhari is nowhere near reality, so when the inevitable balance hit comes to the disintegrator, you'll be able to cope very well.

I mean real drukhari armies, not tournament lists that place high only because they rely on some eldar friends and play 2-3 turns games.

You are literally saying that as long as everything else sucks (hyperbole) you're cool with keeping the cost efficient hyper carry special weapon?

This SOUNDS LIKE GRAV WEAPONS!

Ignoring all the other changes from Index to Codex is also disingenuous. Dropping one whole Ravager from your list is not going to break it. We've seen it done with AC Razorbacks, Flyers of all kinds, IG Armor company, Leafblower lists, Monstermash, etc.

 Blackie wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:


Nobody is saying that Dissies should get nerfed and all the other garbage options stay the same. Units and weapons that are garbage and never see play should be buffed, certainly, I don't think anyone would disagree with you there (what does/does not qualify as garbage is a whole other can of worms though). The current argument is regarding Dissie cannons, and only Dissie cannons, and whether they should get a point increase or not.

And Dissies are not an anti-horde weapon, they're an anti Heavy to Medium Infantry killer. They SHOULDN'T be cost efficient to shoot at garbage horde infantry. If you're shooting Dissies at Gaunts or, god forbid, Gretchin, you SHOULD have problems.

I agree, but what many people seem to ignore is that 25 points dis cannons where completely avoided in the index, no one used to take them at that price. 15 is certainly underpriced but at 25 we have a proof that they will completely disappear from the game. A 155 points ravager would be overcosted. I also agree about dissis that shouldn't be cost efficient against everything, but again, as long as other options are garbage or impossible to take in decent numbers, I'll take that.

Well what about 20pts then? Or, hell, why even stick to multiples of 5? 19, 18, see how it works out, and if it doesn't? Change it again later.

And if the other options are garbage, why not advocate for points drops? What about Wyches? They seem like the kind of unit that SHOULD be good at blending hordes. Advocate for point drops, say they need to be cheaper so they can actually do their job and fulfill an otherwise lacking niche in your army.

Pretty much what Malfunct said, this isn't an all or nothing thing. Also you aren't really bargaining with us. We're making guesstimations on what will happen, so its totally reasonable to say Dis-cannons will probably go up.

The problem - and I realise this is not how Dakka is meant to work - is that as a DE player most of the army is fine. Its not super top tier - but the way a meta works ensures most things can't be.

Wyches suffer because their role just isn't great - but if they were much cheaper it would start to get silly. Drugs and 15 max unit size might keep them in check - but I can get 4 S4 attacks, hitting on 3s (2s from turn 3), plus special weapons limiting falling back and a 4++/6+++ in close combat for 8 points. I get plasma grenades which at S4/AP-1 are comically superior to standard S3 grenades. How much lower can they go? I realise there are those going round saying Orks suck now they are 7 points (looks at tourney results and disagrees) but I'm not seeing it. The issue is why would I take this, when I can have such powerful shooting?

In the same vein I've argued it elsewhere - but Hellions are probably the most glasscannon unit in the game. Yes they die if something looks at them - but their damage output is very high. Consequently if they were to be knocked down another point or 2, then again, it all starts to get silly. Mandrakes are good - just not as good as other options. Ditto for Scourges. Even Incubi are not "bad" at what they do - its just there are narrowly focused in a list with easier ways of dealing with MEQ and its not as if this is a thing you build lists around anyway. How cheap should they be? Even at 12 points you are not changing the issues that come from non-DS capable (although stratagems) assault units that can't really handle vehicles/monsters.

The Archons Court and Beasts are a bit meh - but I don't really care for finecast and the whole concept has grown more stupid with every edition anyway (sorry old timers). I know it was from when GW imagined the Dark Eldar as this sort of Mos Eisley Cantina faction (see also Tau allies) but really the idea an Archon would pal around with a pack of Ur-Ghouls is really hard to justify. The beasts are likewise just a hold over rather than really making sense on the table. Both ideas need re-imaginging - new models, new datasheets.

I'd like it if all the units which are not kabal/cult/coven got some sort of buff - a "Blades for Hire" obsession or something. Failing that just make scourges and incubi Kabal, make beasts cult and mandakes coven. I suspect though that the ship has sailed.