How to play Drukhari and are they worth it?

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.

**skchsan**

vipoid wrote:
skchsan wrote:
HQ tax is FAR BETTER than troops tax.
Why do either need to be taxes?

It really doesn't. But count on GW make everything nice and balanced, with appropriate cost to boot. Still way better than most armies have it.

vipoid wrote:
skchsan wrote:
The point of DE is that each part of the army can be deadly when used right without HQ babysitting them the whole game.
Man, you must love the taste of GW's boots.

At least you're not stuck with S4's, T4's, exorbitantly priced special weapons, more than half codex entries unusable, etc.

My claims are made under comparative stand point. No one said DE codex is perfect. In comparison to other codex, DE codex as a whole is great, if not the best, codex available for monodex armies.

**vipoid**

skchsan wrote:
At least you're not stuck with S4's, T4's, exorbitantly priced special weapons, more than half codex entries unusable, etc.

No, I'm stuck with half a codex that no longer even exists, because GW decided to erase every unit they couldn't be arsed making a model for.

skchsan wrote:
My claims are made under comparative stand point. No one said DE codex is perfect. In comparison to other codex, DE codex as a whole is great, if not the best, codex available for monodex armies.

But this is the thing - even in comparison to other codices the balance is absolutely awful.

Unless your idea of internal balance is 'every HQ is equally crap'?

**TheFleshIsWeak**

Regarding the matter of DE HQs, I'm not too bothered about them being overcosted.

What really bothers me is that they're not fun.

I'm playing an army that's a mix of space-Dark-Elves, space-pirates, all-women-space-gladiators and the nightmarish creations of mad scientists (in space

).

However, as soon as it gets to our HQ section, all the fun and excitement drains away. Forget lions led by donkeys, it's like an entire menagerie (including many fantastical beasts) being led by narcoleptic accountants.

Where are the Archons with Scourge wings and clawed feet, falling on enemies like the birds of prey they now resemble? Where are the prizes weapons, armour and wargear Archons supposedly take into battle with them? Have they all developed severe spinal injuries that prevent them from carrying anything more cumbersome than a sword and pistol? What happened to Clone Fields and Ghostplate Armour?Where are the arcane artefacts and weapons that Haemonculi supposedly wield? Where are weapons like the Shattershard? Where are the Orbs of Despair? Where are the Succubi riding Jetbikes or Hellion Skyboards? Hell, where are the Succubi who are actually capable of going head-to-head with anything more formidable than a Master of Ordnance.

I can accept DE HQs not being efficiently costed, but do they really have to be so unbelievably bland? They've got barely any options (basically none if you discount all the false choices), no wargear beyond the most basic of weapons, no wings, skyboards or jetbikes, and no fun or interesting abilities, Is it really too much to ask that DE HQs have even the faintest spark of creativity in their design?

**wuestenfux**

TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
Regarding the matter of DE HQs, I'm not too bothered about them being overcosted.

What really bothers me is that they're not fun.

I'm playing an army that's a mix of space-Dark-Elves, space-pirates, all-women-space-gladiators and the nightmarish creations of mad scientists (in space ).

However, as soon as it gets to our HQ section, all the fun and excitement drains away. Forget lions led by donkeys, it's like an entire menagerie (including many fantastical beasts) being led by narcoleptic accountants.

Where are the Archons with Scourge wings and clawed feet, falling on enemies like the birds of prey they now resemble? Where are the prizes weapons, armour and wargear Archons supposedly take into battle with them? Have they all developed severe spinal injuries that prevent them from carrying anything more cumbersome than a sword and pistol? What happened to Clone Fields and Ghostplate Armour?Where are the arcane artefacts and weapons that Haemonculi supposedly wield? Where are weapons like the Shattershard? Where are the Orbs of Despair? Where are the Succubi riding Jetbikes or Hellion Skyboards? Hell, where are the Succubi who are actually capable of going head-to-head with anything more formidable than a Master of Ordnance.

I can accept DE HQs not being efficiently costed, but do they really have to be so unbelievably bland? They've got barely any options (basically none if you discount all the false choices), no wargear beyond the most basic of weapons, no wings, skyboards or jetbikes, and no fun or interesting abilities, Is it really too much to ask that DE HQs have even the faintest spark of creativity in their design?

This is certainly an issue.
The HQ section is a bit one-dimensional.
I used to take an Archon on skyboard or jetbike.
The argument of GW seems to be that they don't produce these models.

**TheFleshIsWeak**

wuestenfux wrote:

This is certainly an issue.
The HQ section is a bit one-dimensional.
I used to take an Archon on skyboard or jetbike.
The argument of GW seems to be that they don't produce these models.

My response would be: 'Well who's fault is that?'

GW could easily make more DE models if they wanted to, but instead they chose to spent all their time and resources making 'slightly bigger marines', 'more evil marines' and 'Roman marines'.

**wuestenfux**

TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:

This is certainly an issue.
The HQ section is a bit one-dimensional.
I used to take an Archon on skyboard or jetbike.
The argument of GW seems to be that they don't produce these models.

My response would be: 'Well who's fault is that?'

GW could easily make more DE models if they wanted to, but instead they chose to spent all their time and resources making 'slightly bigger marines', 'more evil marines' and 'Roman marines'.

Indeed, the releases during the last year or so speak for themselves:
Marines are all over the place, while Aeldari got a weakly Ynnari codex.

**Imateria**

This is going to be a damn long post, there have been a lot of responses since yesterday.

Spoiler:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Imateria wrote:
skchsan wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.
Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

I really wish that was the case. Add the 3 Court of the Archon units to that, and the Succubus, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi, Drazhar and the Cronos. The Archon is questionable as well.

It's also worth remembering that this army is desperately short of force multipliers, unlike almost every other army in the game. Also, unless your running 9 Talos this army generally struggles against Knights now that we get no benefit from Doom and Jinx.

youre being overly critical. The court of the archon are good, they barely cost points, the only real "downside" to them is that you cant fill detachments with them (harder to get a brigade). the succubus is good for her cost, she wont do miracles but at 50pts, i dont expect her to, shes great at tarpitting bigger infantry like obliterators for instance. hellions are good at killing hordes, the problem is that we pay the "poison weapon" tax already so that role is already filled, doesnt mean Hellions are a bad unit. Reavers are gaining more and more popularity since the ynnari rework. even ran as pure dukhari they can be amazing at locking down heavy fire for your other melee units to get there, just give them painbringer and pop the x2 drg bonus stratagem. Incubi i agree, theyre missing something, Drazar would be good at half the point cost and the cronos is also mediocre.

Still, i dont think drukhari has nearly as much unplayable chaff in the codex as most of the other codexes. People saying that archons/succubus are overpriced/bad need to take a look at the choices of HQ for other factions. Ill take admech as an example since this is my other army.

We have the dominus at 90pts, it gives us a reroll 1's in the shooting phase and heals. Its more expensive than an archon and it has a weaker aura, worse combat capabilities, worse weapon options AND
worse survivability.

We have the Manipulus at 90pts, it gives +1 to move/advance/charge OR +3/+6" range to weapons and it heals. hes got a bit better combat capabilities but the rest stands true.

We have the enginseer at 30pts, it heals. i cant complain about a 30pts HQ, even if his impact is minimal.

And we have Cawl at 120, which as a named character, should do things he does.

Since i started playing drukhari, the HQs never felt liek they were dead weight, they actually impact the game and dont HAVE to fill the same role of "sitting back and healing", sending an archon + succubus + haemonculus to fight and having them actually able to kill stuff and survive feels amazing.

@skchsan didnt say that the codex was perfect, none are. They said that it was "one of the most internally balanced" codex, and i totally agree with them. The amount of rules that dont mesh together, of unplayable relics/units/warlord traits is minimal, everything has a niche where it can shine.

I don't think you're being critical enough, or maybe have yet to play the army long enough to get a proper handle on it's flaws. When the only good thing you can say about the Court is that they're cheap it means that they're bad but don't cost you much for it. I'm not bothered about them not taking up slots in a detachment (I couldn't care less about brigades, we don't have anything to spend those CP on), I hate the fact that they are single model units now. You used to be able to take them in squads of up to 10, all mixed together. Not being able to mix them anymore is fine as it works better with 8th edition but being able to run Sslyth together as a unit of 4 was a lot of fun last edition, now thats not even remotely an option and takes away just about all utility they had. And then there's the Sslyths ability to take wounds for the Archon, which is badly worded compared to other units with a similar ability in that the Archon has to fail his save before you can pass the wound off, and given how the Shadowfield works thats just dumb.

Succubi are supposed to be amongst the most highly skilled and deadly close combat fighters in the whole god damned galaxy, but she struggles to kill more than a couple of Guardsmen a turn on the table and her signature weapon is really badly designed. Seriously, in a faction where speed and precision are paramount and on a character that embodies this to perfection, do you think they would ever even consider picking up a weapon that is so unwieldy that it's harder to swing around and in game would require a -1 to hit to reflect this? It's actually rather insulting. At least she's cheap, it lessons the sting of how bad they are a bit.

Hellions are the worst unit in the codex without a doubt, they cost more than a Space Marine with the survivability of a Kabalite. Their shooting is not too bad but their combat is terrible, they only have 2 attacks each and whilst S4 is nice, 0 AP is a problem as a lot more survives their fighting than you would expect whilst the 2Dmg is wasted, AP -1 would have been much more useful. In my experience they almost always die long before they make it into combat (you need a decent sized squad to have any hope of getting something out of them and they take up a lot of space so can't be hidden) and if they do usually don't do much.

The Reaver popularity will die away quickly once people realise that Ynnari Reavers are even worse than Red Grief Reavers (can't advance and charge without spending CP), but lets be clear about this your paying 57pts for 6 T4, 4+ wounds to tie units up quickly. Yes, shutting down shooting T1 is nice but screening is a thing and they are very easy to kill, and that stratagem is not worth 2CP and only helps the one squad. It's also telling that neither of us are talking about their ability to kill things, because they don't have any which is a real shame because theuy used to be very good at that.

Dominus could certianly be better but I think they're better than Archons and Succubi, they and the Enginseer at least have synergy with multiple units in the codex as opposed to Archons who only synergies with Ravagers (and then by forcing you into a distinctly un-Drukhari play style, we're not supposed to castle up). You're also not forced to take multiples of each, meaning massive redundancy, just to fill a Batalion.

Spoiler:

skchsan wrote:
Imateria wrote:
skchsan wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Druhkari is hands down the most internally & externally balanced army in the game currently.

They do well as a standalone army, though you'd want to optimize it by having a balanced force of kabal/cult/coven rather than specializing in one 'aspect'. They also do very well in an aeldari soup.

All in all, they have top tier options for anti-horde as well as anti-titan (the two meta-defining elements in 8th ed), making it a very strong army to play with. Some would argue it's the hardest army to play, but tbh the learning curve involved really only deals with knowing your army and what each individual aspect excels at & using them accordingly.

"Internally balanced" lol what a joke of statement...only Witch Cults are balanced between them because both Prophets of Flesh and Kabal of Black Heart/Flayed Skulls are MILES AHEAD of every Subfaction trait that applies to the models.
So balanced that HQs are 100% pure taxes and Disintegrator Cannons are always 1st choice for almost every role you might need in a game.
Of the 27 codex entries, barring 4 choices (the beasts and the beastmaster) are of "playable" status or above. 23 viable unit choices out of 27... HOW BAFFLINGLY UNBALANCED.

I really wish that was the case. Add the 3 Court of the Archon units to that, and the Succubus, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi, Drazhar and the Cronos. The Archon is questionable as well.

It's also worth remembering that this army is desperately short of force multipliers, unlike almost every other army in the game. Also, unless your running 9 Talos this army generally struggles against Knights now that we get no benefit from Doom and Jinx.
Note "playable", not "uber-competitive". Though, I'd agree the degree of "playablity" of certain units took a big hit with the Ynnari nerf.

Having said, the whole selling point of DE in 8th ed is that they don't rely on force multipliers in the sense that other armies do. Majority of other armies are unplayable without force multipliers and are often built around it.

Your requirements for playable must be extremely low then because most of what I've listed really aren't. I'd argue Hellions are amongst the worst units in the game even. The Ynnari nerf largely had no effect on Drukhari as a whole, the old Strength from Death rule worked better the more damage a squad could put out in one go and if adding more models meant getting more of their good weapons then you got even more out of that rule. Thats why it was large squads of Dark Reapers, Shinning Spears and more recently Scattbikes, because everyone in the unit has the same really good damage output potential. The only units Drukhari have that can take specail weapons in any kind of numbers are Trueborn and Scourge, and they max out at 4 in a squad, meaning larger squads are a waste of points and that we could never exploit the Ynnari rules to anything like the level Craftworlds could and in the end you would loose out more on the lack of Obsessions. Also, at least a 1/3rd of our army couldn't be Ynnari.

Unfortunately this edition is ALL about force multipliers, if you haven't got them then you struggle and the nerf to Jinx and Doom means we're going to see Drukhari drop down the competitive order pretty quickly. At GW's Heat 1 this last weekend there were no Drukhari players in the top 50, and very few Aeldari soup armies. If you want to play super casual then it's fine but at that point none of this matters anyway.

Spoiler:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
vipoid wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
vipoid wrote:

Dark Eldar HQs are among the worst in the entire game (if not *the* worst), and I doubt any of them would even see play if the godawful codex and detachment systems didn't force people to take them

Why do people keep saying this, in what way are they bad, let alone the worse in the game?

Archons:
- Vastly overcosted for what they bring (they're about on par with a Canoness, yet cost ~25pts more).
- Gimmicky, unreliable save and no longer has any option to swap it out for a better one.
- No mobility options beyond a transport.
- Can't ride in a Venom with anything except Court of the Archon or other HQs due to lack of space.
- If they ride in a Raider, then you can't take 2 5-man squads with them and 9-man units lose out on a special weapon and a heavy weapon.
- Poor melee ability.
- Passable ranged ability . . . but only if you use Index (i.e. non-Codex) options.
- Worthless aura.
- 0 synergy with his own subfaction.
- 0 ability to buff other subfactions.

Succubi:
- Dedicated melee HQ... yet has the fewest attacks of our HQs.
- In spite of being a melee HQ, her melee presence is laughably bad - not least because of how horrendously awful the Glaive is. Sorry but 4 attacks at S5 AP-3 with a miserably 1 damage is not scaring anyone. And to make matters worse, GW thought this weapon so unbelievably powerful that it needed a -1 to hit. That's how much they hate the idea of our HQs being even remotely good.
- Hope you're playing Red Grief so that you can actually access the only worthwhile melee weapon for your melee HQ. Also, just to reiterate this point, I think it says something about the quality of our melee weapons that a Power Fist is worthy of being an artefact.
- No mobility options beyond a transport.
- Can't ride in a Venom with anything except Court of the Archon or other HQs due to lack of space.
- If they ride in a Raider, then you can't take 2 5-man squads with them and 9-man units lose out on at least one special weapon.
- Piddling aura.
- As with the Archon, has no ability to buff units outside of her subfaction.
- However, she is also unable to buff some units within her subfaction - namely Beasts (incidentally, the only fast unit she could potentially keep up with).
- Because of aforementioned lack of mobility, isn't able to keep up with Hellions or Reavers.

Haemonculi:
- Probably the best of our HQs, if only because his aura isn't utter garbage and (because the units he buffs aren't either in transports or much faster than him) he's actually in a position to make use of it.
- However, he has 1 passable melee weapon and 0 worthwhile ranged weapons. And this is the guy who's supposed to be bringing all manner of diabolical weapons and arcane artefacts.
- Best of a bad bunch but still not worth his cost (though he does come closer than the Archon).

Oh, and do I even need to mention Drazhar, the glorified Klaivex? He's the only thing capable of buffing Incubi (Ynnari notwithstanding) . . . and his buff is worthless from turn 3 onwards. Yet another example of stellar design on the part of GW.

On top of all the issues above, there's yet another problem which is that the HQs are so rigid and limited that having more than 1 is pointless. This might not be so bad, except that mixing subfactions loses us our faction bonus and each subfaction has a choice of 1 non-special-character HQ. If I take a Battalion with Eldar, I could have a Farseer and an Autarch or a Farseer and a Warlock or a Spiritseer and an Autarch etc. Basically, I can tweak it to my needs to ensure that I don't end up with redundant HQ choices. Hell, even Harlequins can have a Shadowseer and Troupe Master. However, if I want a Kabal detachment, I can have 2 Archons . . . and that's it. That's my only choice outside of taking Drazhar. If I want a Cult detachment, I must take 2 Succubi. Oh, but one can be a special character Succubus. Whoopee. And when you consider that even a single Succubus or Archon contributes little enough for their cost, you'll perhaps see why I'm less than thrilled about being forced to take a second.

Alright, i'll bring up my opinion on each of your points. Keep in mind that my main army is admech so this is where my comparisons will come from.

Archons:
-The pricing seems fair, its got a better aura than a tech-priest Dominus and swaps the healing for a strong save and decent melee capabilities.
-The save might be gimmicky but its still a 1/6 chance of failing, and you are not force to use it when making saving throws, use it for weapons with big AP
-Agreed, but 8" isnt the worst. (I would still love to be able to use skyboard/wings/jetbikes)
-this is more a problem with the venom
-this is more a problem with the raiders
-His native melee capabilities might not be amazing, but its not the worse either AND you have the option of actually building a pretty strong melee Archon (hatred eternal + djinn blade)
-Agreed
-Giving ravagers a pocket archon for the reroll is a viable strategy, the aura is strong, especialyl since it works in all phases (including overwatch)
-kabals are the ranged factions, having an aura that helps their ranged capabilities sems somewhat synergistic
-Agreed

Succubi:
-Agreed
-I dont use her as a horde shredder/monster killer in most games, shes mostly there to lock as many infantry units as possible in combat, just like wyches.
-The impaler having 2 damage is actually the weapon that i find most interesting, it also works well with her role
-Hypex drug is a thing, but agreed, skyboard & co. would be a nice option on her
-this is more a problem with the venom
-this is more a problem with the raiders
-Agreed only if ignoring the cost of the model.
-Agreed
-Agreed, but thats repeating the same argument over and over (lack of mobility)

Haemonculi:
-agreed
-agreed

and yeah, drazar is a joke.

From your arguments, i get the impression that you expect your HQs to do the heavy lifting and directly impact the game by killing things themselves. I think this is the reason why you think they are terrible. all your HQs being cheaper than a Dominus while providing similar utility (rerolls for archon/succubi and heal/durability for haemonculus) shows me that they arent intended to kill things. Your archon is there to buff your ravagers/flyers. Your succubus is there to go against heavy infantry and lock them down to prevent them fro mshooting, and haemonculus are there to buff coven units. I agree that there is a lack of mobility in DE's HQ choices, but that wouldnt fix the claim that they are overcosted since you'd pay fr these upgrades on top of the base cost.

There might be some tension in the army but saying that HQs are the worst in the game really shocks me since all of them can do different roles and be quite cheap for their auras . Multiple Hqs not bringing more to the table and being a detachment tax isnt a problem of DE's hqs but of HQs in the game as a whole (most auras dont stack). I agree that hacing more choices would be nice, especially for what i think is the most important point you made : You cant take multiple detachments of the same subfaction because of the rule of 3 (and drazar sucking ass).

The problems here are at least as much to do with the overall army design as it is with the characters themselves in a vacuum, and how it just ends up making the Archon a misfit. Archons don't fit in transports with other units without costing you access to special weapons if taking Raiders, or at all if using Venoms and if you want to givem any kind of mobility to keep up with the rest of this fast moving army you have to give him his own transport. Sounds cool and thematic but doesn't remotely work in game as he's very susceptable to dying with his transport and is also freely targetable, and I've already gone through how bad the Court is but they can at least die in his place but thats a lot of points your sinking in to make him mobile and not a liability. Of course that much vaunted aura you keep pointing at doesn't work from inside transports or on units in transports, making it worthless. I can't think of another army in the game that has this kind of problem. As for sticking him with Ravagers, yes it works but it's also the single most in un Drukhari way to play this army. We are not a static castle but are being forced to play that way, and thats just terrible game design.

The Shadowfield is a joke, you have to roll those dice one at a time because the damned thing fails instantly and if that first roll is a 1 then you are completely screwed because you have no save anymore. It would be far better if it had it's 7th ed rule back where it fails at the end of the phase instead, speading things up as you can roll all those dice at once and guranteeing you will make at least a few saves before dieing instead of hoping you at least make the first one.

As for the combat capabilites of our characters, anyone thats played this army for longer than 8th ed will remember how deadly they could, how they could look a Chaptermaster in the eye before cutting his head off with any one of a variety of really nasty weapons. Now they just range from OK (Archon and Haemonculus) to down right aweful (Succubus).

Spoiler:

I want to reiterate that this is not a bad codex. Kabalites, Haemonculi, Wracks, Grotesques, Talos, Scourge, Trueborn, Mandrakes, Wyches, Razorwings, Voidravens, Venoms, Ravagers and Raiders are all good to great units but the army is working inspite of some monumentally bad decisions regarding army construction, unit/HQ syerngy and force mutlipliers instead of because of good design decisions.

**skchsan**

vipoid wrote:
skchsan wrote:
At least you're not stuck with S4's, T4's, exorbitantly priced special weapons, more than half codex entries unusable, etc.
No, I'm stuck with half a codex that no longer even exists, because GW decided to erase every unit they couldn't be arsed making a model for.
skchsan wrote:
My claims are made under comparative stand point. No one said DE codex is perfect. In comparison to other codex, DE codex as a whole is great, if not the best, codex available for monodex armies.
But this is the thing - even in comparison to other codices the balance is absolutely awful.

Unless your idea of internal balance is 'every HQ is equally crap'?

Explain to me what 'internal balance' means to you then. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on the terminology since you don't seem to be disagreeing with me on the point that DE is a strong army worth playing with (which is what this post is about, and not how bad their HQ's are).

By 'internal balance' to me, and most likely many other people in the forum, refers to the state of the affair within a given codex. There's a distinct line between 'auto-take' and 'by default'. It's one thing to take a unit over another because it performs better than the other point for point (things that cost more but performs better than the added cost), but it's another thing where you're forced to take a unit because its alternatives are outright bad (things that cost more and performs worse point for point). It's a matter of choice and apparent choice. When a codex is not balanced well internally, you're not making a cookie cutter army because it's the strongest possible build, but because that build is the only way the army can be played without severely gimping your army purposely.

Yeah DE has some poor HQ choices (rather the lack of) - but this is offset by the great choices in the other FOCs has to offer.

**pm713**

wuestenfux wrote:
TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:

This is certainly an issue.
The HQ section is a bit one-dimensional.
I used to take an Archon on skyboard or jetbike.
The argument of GW seems to be that they don't produce these models.

My response would be: 'Well who's fault is that?'

GW could easily make more DE models if they wanted to, but instead they chose to spent all their time and resources making 'slightly bigger marines', 'more evil marines' and 'Roman marines'.

Indeed, the releases during the last year or so speak for themselves:
Marines are all over the place, while Aeldari got a weakly Ynnari codex.

I think it's telling that when Space Marines had a working plastic kit for their devastators already they got a new one. Meanwhile there are things like Warp Spiders and Shining Spears.

**VladimirHerzog**

Imateria wrote:
This is going to be a damn long post, there have been a lot of responses since yesterday.

Ok so i see where you are coming from. I'll admit i havnt played the army for that long (a couple of months only) and i didnt play 40k before 8th edition, so i have no prior feel for how deadly they used to be.

I am aware that the army had many options removed with the new codex and i agree that this sucks.

It seems like you are comparing the current HQs to what they used to be in older editions and youre sad that they arent as deadly as they used to be.

Archons not being as synergistic with its army as the Dominus is true. Auras dont work well with a highly mobile army.

I see your points better now.

Still, the biggest issue IMO isnt what the HQs do, its really the lack of options.

**vipoid**

skchsan wrote:
Explain to me what 'internal balance' means to you then. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on the terminology since you don't seem to be disagreeing with me on the point that DE is a strong army worth playing with (which is what this post is about, and not how bad their HQ's are).

By 'internal balance' to me, and most likely many other people in the forum, refers to the state of the affair within a given codex. There's a distinct line between 'auto-take' and 'by default'. It's one thing to take a unit over another because it performs better than the other point for point (things that cost more but performs better than the added cost), but it's another thing where you're forced to take a unit because its alternatives are outright bad (things that cost more and performs worse point for point). It's a matter of choice and apparent choice. When a codex is not balanced well internally, you're not making a cookie cutter army because it's the strongest possible build, but because that build is the only way the army can be played without severely gimping your army purposely.

Yeah DE has some poor HQ choices (rather the lack of) - but this is offset by the great choices in the other FOCs has to offer.

For me, internal balance has always been a measure of how well the different units and options within a codex compare with one another. e.g.:
- How do the units compare with other units in the same slot? e.g. are the troops all roughly equal in their respective roles or are some outright better/worse than others?
- How do the units compare with other units in the same role? e.g. are the melee units well balanced against one another or do you only tend to see 1-2 whilst the rest sit on shelves?
- With regard to mandatory units (mainly HQs and Troops), how likely are you to see more of them than are strictly required by the detachment?
- How do different weapons (available on the same models) compare with one another? e.g. is an Agoniser as useful as a Power Sword, Venom Blade or Huskblade, or will you only ever see 1 of these used?
- How do the different Kabals/Cults/Covens compare with each other? Are you likely to see a variety or are there some that are outright better/worse?
etc.

To be honest, it seems like our definitions aren't too dissimilar.

That said, I will say that the Dark Eldar codex is trickier than most to judge because of the general lack of options for each faction. e.g. Kabal has 1 HQ choice, 1 Troop choice, 1 FA choice, 1 HS choice. Hence, I can see it being harder to gauge the bad options simply because there are so few direct comparisons that can be made.

If every Eldar Army takes Farseers but no Eldar army takes Warlocks, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Farseers are better than Autarachs. However, what conclusions can be drawn from every DE Kabal army taking Archons? There's no alternative available one way or the other.

**VladimirHerzog**

vipoid wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Explain to me what 'internal balance' means to you then. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on the terminology since you don't seem to be disagreeing with me on the point that DE is a strong army worth playing with (which is what this post is about, and not how bad their HQ's are).

By 'internal balance' to me, and most likely many other people in the forum, refers to the state of the affair within a given codex. There's a distinct line between 'auto-take' and 'by default'. It's one thing to take a unit over another because it performs better than the other point for point (things that cost more but performs better than the added cost), but it's another thing where you're forced to take a unit because its alternatives are outright bad (things that cost more and performs worse point for point). It's a matter of choice and apparent choice. When a codex is not balanced well internally, you're not making a cookie cutter army because it's the strongest possible build, but because that build is the only way the army can be played without severely gimping your army purposely.

Yeah DE has some poor HQ choices (rather the lack of) - but this is offset by the great choices in the other FOCs has to offer.

For me, internal balance has always been a measure of how well the different units and options within a codex compare with one another. e.g.:
- How do the units compare with other units in the same slot? e.g. are the troops all roughly equal in their respective roles or are some outright better/worse than others?
- How do the units compare with other units in the same role? e.g. are the melee units well balanced against one another or do you only tend to see 1-2 whilst the rest sit on shelves?
- With regard to mandatory units (mainly HQs and Troops), how likely are you to see more of them than are strictly required by the detachment?
- How do different weapons (available on the same models) compare with one another? e.g. is an Agoniser as useful as a Power Sword, Venom Blade or Huskblade, or will you only ever see 1 of these used?
- How do the different Kabals/Cults/Covens compare with each other? Are you likely to see a variety or are there some that are outright better/worse?
etc.

To be honest, it seems like our definitions aren't too dissimilar.

That said, I will say that the Dark Eldar codex is trickier than most to judge because of the general lack of options for each faction. e.g. Kabal has 1 HQ choice, 1 Troop choice, 1 FA choice, 1 HS choice. Hence, I can see it being harder to gauge the bad options simply because there are so few direct comparisons that can be made.

If every Eldar Army takes Farseers but no Eldar army takes Warlocks, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Farseers are better than Autarachs. However, what conclusions can be drawn from every DE Kabal army taking Archons? There's no alternative available one way or the other.

agreed on your definition except for your point about "how likely are you to see more of them than are strictly required by the detachment" when talking about HQs, i think you can have a good balance while still never wanting more than the minimum amount of HQs.

**vipoid**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
vipoid wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Explain to me what 'internal balance' means to you then. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on the terminology since you don't seem to be disagreeing with me on the point that DE is a strong army worth playing with (which is what this post is about, and not how bad their HQ's are).

By 'internal balance' to me, and most likely many other people in the forum, refers to the state of the affair within a given codex. There's a distinct line between 'auto-take' and 'by default'. It's one thing to take a unit over another because it performs better than the other point for point (things that cost more but performs better than the added cost), but it's another thing where you're forced to take a unit because its alternatives are outright bad (things that cost more and performs worse point for point). It's a matter of choice and apparent choice. When a codex is not balanced well internally, you're not making a cookie cutter army because it's the strongest possible build, but because that build is the only way the army can be played without severely gimping your army purposely.

Yeah DE has some poor HQ choices (rather the lack of) - but this is offset by the great choices in the other FOCs has to offer.

For me, internal balance has always been a measure of how well the different units and options within a codex compare with one another. e.g.:
- How do the units compare with other units in the same slot? e.g. are the troops all roughly equal in their respective roles or are some outright better/worse than others?
- How do the units compare with other units in the same role? e.g. are the melee units well balanced against one another or do you only tend to see 1-2 whilst the rest sit on shelves?
- With regard to mandatory units (mainly HQs and Troops), how likely are you to see more of them than are strictly required by the detachment?
- How do different weapons (available on the same models) compare with one another? e.g. is an Agoniser as useful as a Power Sword, Venom Blade or Huskblade, or will you only ever see 1 of these used?
- How do the different Kabals/Cults/Covens compare with each other? Are you likely to see a variety or are there some that are outright better/worse?
etc.

To be honest, it seems like our definitions aren't too dissimilar.

That said, I will say that the Dark Eldar codex is trickier than most to judge because of the general lack of options for each faction. e.g. Kabal has 1 HQ choice, 1 Troop choice, 1 FA choice, 1 HS choice. Hence, I can see it being harder to gauge the bad options simply because there are so few direct comparisons that can be made.

If every Eldar Army takes Farseers but no Eldar army takes Warlocks, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Farseers are better than Autarachs. However, what conclusions can be drawn from every DE Kabal army taking Archons? There's no alternative available one way or the other.

agreed on your definition except for your point about "how likely are you to see more of them than are strictly required by the detachment" when talking about HQs, i think you can have a good balance while still never wanting more than the minimum amount of HQs.

That's fair.

Ideally, I'd ask whether those units would be taken if they weren't mandatory, but that's a lot harder to measure (you can count the number of lists that take extra HQs but you can't count the number that would have taken fewer if the option had been available).

**Imateria**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Imateria wrote:
This is going to be a damn long post, there have been a lot of responses since yesterday.

Ok so i see where you are coming from. I'll admit i havnt played the army for that long (a couple of months only) and i didnt play 40k before 8th edition, so i have no prior feel for how deadly they used to be.

I am aware that the army had many options removed with the new codex and i agree that this sucks.

It seems like you are comparing the current HQs to what they used to be in older editions and youre sad that they arent as deadly as they used to be.

Archons not being as synergistic with its army as the Dominus is true. Auras dont work well with a highly mobile army.

I see your points better now.

Still, the biggest issue IMO isnt what the HQs do, its really the lack of options.

I would agree that the HQ's being a bit lackluster on their own is secondary to the problem of a badly thought out army construction as well as a lack of options and utility.

**VladimirHerzog**

Imateria wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Imateria wrote:
This is going to be a damn long post, there have been a lot of responses since yesterday.

Ok so i see where you are coming from. I'll admit i havnt played the army for that long (a couple of months only) and i didnt play 40k before 8th edition, so i have no prior feel for how deadly they used to be.

I am aware that the army had many options removed with the new codex and i agree that this sucks.

It seems like you are comparing the current HQs to what they used to be in older editions and youre sad that they arent as deadly as they used to be.

Archons not being as synergistic with its army as the Dominus is true. Auras dont work well with a highly mobile army.

I see your points better now.

Still, the biggest issue IMO isnt what the HQs do, its really the lack of options.

I would agree that the HQ's being a bit lackluster on their own is secondary to the problem of a badly thought out army construction as well as a lack of options and utility.

i'm unfamiliar with how list building worked in older editions, i assume there wasnt a strick division between kabals/Cults/Covens?

Still, i hope the balance tips towards Aeldari soon enough for new units. Imperium/Edgy imperium have had many more releases recently. I think the last aeldari model was the spiritseer?

If we do get new releases, getting additionnal HQ choices would be at the top of my requests. Another one would be additionnal troops choices for subfactions.

**Imateria**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Imateria wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Imateria wrote:
This is going to be a damn long post, there have been a lot of responses since yesterday.

Ok so i see where you are coming from. I'll admit i havnt played the army for that long (a couple of months only) and i didnt play 40k before 8th edition, so i have no prior feel for how deadly they used to be.

I am aware that the army had many options removed with the new codex and i agree that this sucks.

It seems like you are comparing the current HQs to what they used to be in older editions and youre sad that they arent as deadly as they used to be.

Archons not being as synergistic with its army as the Dominus is true. Auras dont work well with a highly mobile army.

I see your points better now.

Still, the biggest issue IMO isnt what the HQs do, its really the lack of options.

I would agree that the HQ's being a bit lackluster on their own is secondary to the problem of a badly thought out army construction as well as a lack of options and utility.

i'm unfamiliar with how list building worked in older editions, i assume there wasnt a strick division between kabals/Cults/Covens?

Still, i hope the balance tips towards Aeldari soon enough for new units. Imperium/Edgy imperium have had many more releases recently. I think the last aeldari model was the spiritseer?

If we do get new releases, getting additionnal HQ choices would be at the top of my requests. Another one would be additionnal troops choices for subfactions.

The faction traits abilities is new for 8th ed (except for space marines, they had it in 7th). Before this edition, from 3rd onwards, you had a single force organisation chart that was basically a Battalion but with 1 HQ and 2 Troops mandatory, having Wyches, Kabalites and Talos running around together was not a problem. 6th and 7th ed also had formations, a specific detachment that specified which units you could take.