Dark Eldar Codex Review

Coming from a 14-year veteran of the army, the game, and several other armies out there, both in competitive and casual play.

http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2014/10/de-dark-eldar-codex-review.html

I'll post the summary here:

Quote :

While the internal balance of the book is fine for the most part, it really looks to me like a money-grab from GW. In the book, the most apparent thing to me is that most of the tried-and-true options for Dark Eldar has been nerfed for virtually no reason, and most of the unused, unpopular, and thus unsold models have been noticeably buffed. It's really quite clear for me that they're trying to sell off the model boxes that have been gathering dust, but at the same time, this conflicts with the fact that Dark Eldar is a very popular army with a lot of new plastic kits. So if money-grab isn't the problem, what is? There seems to be a lot of shoddy design flaws in the book itself. I can't tell you the amount of times I scratched my head, trying desperately to form some rationale and logic from the decisions that were made. Why was the Power from Pain table designed the way it is? If I was to have a go at it, I would have flipped everything in reverse, that DE are the most powerful when they enter the battlefield and have the jump on their opponents. What they have right now goes against function of the army as a whole, and ultimately proves to me that GW have no idea how the army is intended to work. Who would have guessed that an army of AV10 open-top and T3 models with barely any saves are not designed to fight for 6 game turns?

I'm not really that mad that the army lost 5 of its 8 special characters, but I know a lot of people who are. What I'm really mad about is that on top of losing so many SCs, the army has lost a lot of its flavor for the sake of simplification. Reavers losing their pass-by effect, Implosion Missiles not taking W-tests or suffer ID, Hellions no longer able to pull ICs out of squads, these are just some examples of flavor being lost for simplicity. Then you remove half of the DE artifacts, randomly increase and decrease points (Succubus needed a points increase? Soul Trap was too powerful? Agonizer needed a points increase? Were Huskblades too good?), and you wonder at the end of the day if GW wanted Dark Eldar to be Eldar-cheerleaders for life, or essentially punching bags for all the marine armies out there. We all know anyway that most of Dark Eldar's leadership gimmicks out there is worthless on ATSKNF. By the time I finished the book, I was thinking about more ways how DS Raiders can benefit my Eldar more than how Dark Eldar can function as an army by itself without allies. This is most evident with the WWP, providing a much bigger boon to Eldar Fire Dragons than almost anything else in the DE arsenal. The price to punch ratio for the army is atrocious, especially in an army that's so vulnerable to Ignore Cover are basically running around naked with T3.

It's not like Dark Eldar were a point and click army to begin with, but now they'll suffer even more in the current meta. They were already in the decline since 5th Ed., and they were involuntarily nerfed several times since then. Now in 7th, they're barely holding on as an army and this new book does nothing to improve their current situation. Even before, DE was used primarily as a Baron supplement in the competitive scene, and now that they've lost that, I don't think anyone will think twice about them. For me, points-wise, my army basically stayed the same with barely any buffs. This is hardly a good thing considering they were already hanging on by a thread vs. the likes of Eldar, Tau, SM and the like. It's OK though, we'll always have that Day 1 DLC to make everything better right? Not even. Outside of some gimmicky WWP play, I don't see a very bright future for the Dark Kin at all. Overall, just a very poor showing by the GW design team.

I would like your feedback either here, or on the blog, ty

From reading your summary:

So here is my gripe about people who say "money grab" on things that weren't selling previously. To me this means that GW listened and made that unit actually worth using...it benefits both sides! Last edition we complained that mandrakes, scourges, etc were not great because reasons x, y ,z. Now they get better and you claim that GW is money grabbing and saying screw the customer? Hardly! Seems hypocritical to me.



I'd say some of the nerfs (mainly thinking wyches and liquifiers) were bad, those I can't argue with. The others I think it depends on how you approach it. I really like the change to the soul trap as now it doesn't require an IC but rather just a character which is much easier and more widely available to prey upon!


The problem with DE buffing eldar comes down to one thing and one thing only, they are battle brothers. Making either side good benefits the other in some way. That is the nature of that type of alliance. Just look at IK's and the imperium. I don't mind simplification, it seems that 7th as a whole has been about simplification and streamlining some things (whether successfully or not is another matter). I also think you can't simply think: I have my army; it should just get better and be cheaper...that's not the way 40k has ever worked...ever. It always changes the flavor of the month and its been that way for sometime between editions and codices. A new codex should invigorate you to delve into something new and try a different take at things. I think this codex has done that well from what I can see. My personal philosophy of course.


Furthermore, I am getting sick of people comparing everything to Eldar...at this point they are an exception to the game. They are a product of early 6th edition. 7th edition codices and late 6th edition are very much different  and looking at just those ones, much more evenly balanced between each other from what I have seen...especially compared to the Eldar power curve.

I see several modes of play for the new book coven, balanced list...similar to an eldar list that doesn't use WKs or serpents, or even wwp shenanigans with court bombs, etc.  These are options that simply didn't exist last edition. Last edition was about taking the Baron...everyone complained...he's gone now...so naturally everyone still complains. And if you didn't do that then maybe you did venom spam or beastpack, both of which are still there and I think both are still viable for sure.


\rant

I hope you mange to have some fun with the Dark Kin!

I hate to be short like this but... that's not a review. That's a rant. Maybe it's because I'm not in tournament scene, but I've had no issues handing out butt-kickings since I started DE ~6 months ago and this new codex has me excited for more of them.

This dex looks great for me. I can make a diverse and balanced Kabal list which is what I wanted from the get-go.

Power from Pain is one gripe I've seen a lot of people say "should be backwards"... um, why? At the start of the battle there isn't all that pain, death and emotion fuelling our bodies and minds. By turn 6 there's nothing but pain, death and turbulent emotions.

To say that Dark Eldar should start a battle super-charged on pain and then get weaker as they inflict misery and agony is one of the most ludicrous claims I've seen and goes completely against how 5th Edition PfP worked as well... but no-one complained there.



Argh. I'm going to stop now. I just don't think this codex is bad, but I doubt anyone's mind will be changed.

Haven't played a game with the new PfP but it looks like it's better designed to me. Dark Eldar is an alpha strike army. If you haven't won the game by turn two you probably won't. But now you're telling me by the time all my transports have blown up my infantry units will have feel no pain?

And I haven't made my mind up whether GW is doing these rapid releases as a cash grab or to bring the codices in line. My pro-GW friends swear they're just balancing the game. If that's true they're doing it wrong in my opinion, by making all the codices weaker and ignoring the two elephants in the room: Tau and Eldar. It's like if your transmission is shot but you fix and improve all the other parts of the car first. I'm happy if this is the course they're taking but they're way to secretive when they're bleeding profits and customers. So the cynic in me looks at a failing company and of course thinks they're trying to recoup losses. Especially on that stupid website.

As for your review if you saw what I was saying in the nerfhammer thread I do agree with you that the codex is a little weaker overall, but I don't think it's that bad. Six venoms bought in the troops section and six AT units bought in the FA will be competitive.

Just not against the broken codices called Eldar, Tau, and Daemon Flying Circus. The AT in FA might actually be pretty decent against knights.

I think the big mistake that GW made was to nerf too much some very useful unit such as the Ravager.
Every Dark Eldar player have a couple of them. But now, will you still field them at all ? That's what I call money grab. If they added 10 pts to the last Ravager price... well ok, but now you lost the NS, you lost 5+ invu, you lost aerial assault and for a higher price ? C'mon ...

And people who are saying : "Stop comparing to the TAU and Eldar" well we have to. I play against TAU and I'm done after turn 2. Will this codez make it better ? No. Also there is some army that can deepstrike on the 1st turn... with some heavy flamer... So cover save ? meh.

But if you forget about the real money that it would cost to field the new Dark Eldar, there is some good combo that can be made. I like how the Tyranid player will hate us for the T7 Talos with 5+ FnP ( possibly a 4+ if you have a Chronos around ).

Maybe I would rate the new codex around 6/10 ( for now ).

I think there's serious internal strife going on with the design team, in addition to other unforseen business decisions being made in the background.

Quote :

Power from Pain is one gripe I've seen a lot of people say "should be backwards"... um, why? At the start of the battle there isn't all that pain, death and emotion fuelling our bodies and minds. By turn 6 there's nothing but pain, death and turbulent emotions.

To say that Dark Eldar should start a battle super-charged on pain and then get weaker as they inflict misery and agony is one of the most ludicrous claims I've seen and goes completely against how 5th Edition PfP worked as well... but no-one complained there.

How in the world does it go against how it worked in the 5th Ed. book?  How did you earn pain tokens in 5th?  By killing people.  How do you earn it now?  By doing nothing for a few turns.  Sure, you CAN kill things, but you don't need to.  In 5th, you needed to in order to get the benefit from pain.  Which one makes more sense?  Kill things and wreath in their pain?  Or do nothing and get it anyway.

Your statement is more ludicrous than the claim you falsely identified.

Furthermore, is it true that in the DE fluff (3rd, 5th, now) that Dark Eldar are Raiders first and foremost.  Do raiders announce themselves and then fight an attrition battle?  No, they do not.  They ambush, hit and run and appear out of nowhere via Webway Portals.  Their strikes are lightning fast, precise and highly destructive.  During this short window, they kill a lot of things and inflict a lot of pain.  Nothing about the new DE rules suggest they should be fast and destructive, instead, it makes DE want to play more conservatively so they can bring larger numbers to bear when the turns make them stronger.  This is completely against how DE wage war:  They do not attrition, they fight quick and dirty.

I had another talk with someone today who claimed that the new DE looks really good, but have had 1 play experience with them from the other side of the table. He doesn't own the army, but yet has a lot of positive things to say about the book. You have played for a meager 6 months, and have maybe seen half an edition pass with the 5th Ed. book. Your string of ass-kicking might also be because of an underdeveloped meta, very casual opponents, or a combination of the new and inexperienced. Dark Eldar suffer immensely in the current competitive metagame and the only reason why people allied with them, is so they provided the Baron. Take that away and the book is a hallow husk, and pretty much a one-tricky WWP delivering pony. But hey, if you enjoy it, so be it. A lot of gaming veterans say otherwise, but don't let us longbeards drive you away from your hobby.

Despite what you said about my "rant", it's well-educated and backed by years of experience, and I'm sad to say that the new book makes me quite sad.

Hey Hero. I am your long time follower with both High Elves and Dark Eldar and I usually agree with you, but now I have to say that I agree only partially.

First - overall the dex is not bad. It has bad elements. It forces us to review and revise our mechanics, which may or may not to be to ppls liking. Fluff aside (for the record I dont think that fluff was hurt by the rules that much overall, only with individual units), we did become more durable. No matter what I or you think about the PfP sequencing, people will never agree on this issue. From the rules point this chart is not bad. Might not be best, but its is not bad and makes our army a litlle bit more forgiving in the first turns and helps keeping its teeth on end turns despite losses.

Yes, we still struggle against armies that ignore cover, but there are mechanics to go around that. While talking of our vulnerablility against serpent spams, pathfinders, etc. one needs to consider the cheese that we can bring about. We have been given new tools for null deployment and DSing, some great new formations and unit boosts.

But... we lost Wyches in a very unforgivable way, leaving us with only one troop option. Our new model did not live to our expectations. We expected something WK level, but got a no-good paperweight. Hellions are nowhere near usable and Archon was brought so low in power that no IC will fear him now (well he would still prolly beat a succubus although she is our only AP2 option).

As for your comparison to Eldar and Tau - I talked to a guy I consider well informed and while debating our new Dex he told me that Eldar and Tau will get a similar treatment relatively soon.

Overall, while I understand your complaints, I believe that we will not know how our dex really stands before the end of the year and enough games behind us.

Lastly, years of experience and education do tend to leave ppl prejudiced. You might have a new, fresh view had you have only few months or years of experience and a keen mind (just to clarify, this is meant just to point out different point of view and is in no way meant as any slight). I wouldnt discard anyone's opinion as bad just because he does not have the same experience as you. I always remember the saying that a thing seems impossible only until someone does it. And no, thats not a pep-talk. I have a friend who enjoys taking things considered by the general community unplayable or bad and making them work. And he is very successful with it. Meaning I am very reserved when someone says that something is bad to play...

Let's stay chill here, please.

Part of the reaction to the book is a reflection of 6th where everything did get cheaper and better. Lots of armies got buffs, virtually every army got points reductions. Not every army got the same amount of these things, but even an early 'dex like Dark Angels got cheaper tacticals, funky new Ravenwing units, cheaper bikes etc.etc. Even a late 'dex like IG got orders, cheaper tanks and psykers.

GW have set an edition's worth of precedent that books will get a major buff. It sets expectations and it set a need for this edition's books to be buffed in turn to stay consistent in power level as, by the end of 6th, virtually every 5th codex was at the bottom end of the power level. As noted, Dark Eldar were a bad tournament army through 6th and that is backed up by the stats at ToF and anecdotal evidence from everyone.

So it is entirely reasonable that there should be criticism for a book that did not give a major buff and basically make everything cheaper and better. Because that was the standard set and the standard needed.


As for the money grab criticism - I agree that it is incredibly unreasonable if we complain when GW strengthen weaken units. But that is not what has happened. GW have strengthened weak units and weakened popular ones and it is that combination - forcing radical rethinks of many people's armies - that invites the criticism. If they had strengthened weak units and left strong units strong, allowing people to play their army as is but tempting them with new options, there would be far less criticism and accusations of money grab.


Finally, we will always be compared with Eldar, as they are the army most like us. When we wonder whether the Ravager's price is fair, it is very easy to compare them with the War Walker, which used to be the same cost for 6 lance weapons. When we consider what the right price is for T3 5+ infantry, they're the most like comparison. They are also a natural comparison, for the top of the pile is always a natural comparison. Plus, of course, there is the comparison made by any commander when considering an allied army, of whether he'd have units from column A or column B. Yes, some allowances have to be made for the strength of the book, but it's always been noted that the Eldar codex is pushed over the edge by a few units and that most of it is fine. Nobody complains about how War Walkers are overpowered.

---

I am of the party that does not like this codex. I think, even if I did like it, I would be worried by the sheer numbers that do not. A codex should not be a divisive experience for the army's fans. Common armies that were not particularly broken should not be completely unfeasible. If you have 30 Wyches or 30 Khymearae, you now have 30 paperweights. Those were mainstays of a lot of people's DE armies and now they will be put away from an edition. Whichever way you dress that, that is bad games design.


Bluntly, my main criticism of Hero's article is it does not go far enough.

There are a lot of things in the new book that make me sad, too. Some of them are missed opportunities, some are units or weapons that are so close to being good, bar one or two inexplicable shortfalls. And some of them are simply the number of our already narrow wargear and weapon options that were lost.

But there's no point dwelling on them.

I admit I've done my fair share of complaining, but once it's out of your system (and like you, HERO, I had to get it out), it's best to look at how you will use the good parts, and perhaps more importantly, the fun parts of the book.

Because there are some. Do we have units as blatantly awesome as the Craftworlders? No. But nor are we in as bad shape as Tyranids or Sisters.

Personally, I like the new Power from Pain. I like it from a design standpoint, as it is a nice way to offset the way we disintegrate in the late game. And while you can argue that you get your pain benefits for just standing around, I think it instead encourages the Dark Eldar to leave more in reserve, so that we can appear suddenly where our opponents least expect us, ably assisted by webway portals and Deep Strike. Perhaps that Power drunk in by the unit that only arrives on Turn 3 is the uncertain fear of the enemy, waiting for more Commorites to leap from the shadows, teeth bared and weapons blaring? Seems fluffy to me.

Sure, it might not be easy to adjust. But I know I will - I love my Dark Eldar too much not to. And I bet there are plenty of others here who feel the same.

Besides, we've always been playing 40k on hard mode. Why stop now?

So what I'm essentially reading is your a bit miffed that the codex has changed and you need to adapt your list.

I played my first game with Reavers last night and they are INSANE now, however flavourful you think their flyby attack was, being 6pts cheaper per model and being able to kick out an avalanche of high str HoW is so much better.

The dilemma with Reavers was always planning where they were going to end up, they almost always ended their turn within assault range of whatever unit they had just blade-vaned (unless said unit was conveniently standing in front of them to begin with) now they can pile into assault, kill a load of models on the way in and H&R to do it again next turn.

The archon isn't bad, he's just different, he's no longer the guy who can murderise the enemy HQ with his Huskblade, now he's the blender lord that carves through tac marines like butter, the soul trap isn't worse, its just different, you don't have to kill a IC any more (just as well because the majority have 2+sv), instead you can rip the head off a sergeant and profit. The Huskblade is worse, there are relatively few multi-wound models that aren't either T6+ or 2+sv and the archon can't do jack vs either of them. Its only real application is ignoring FNP if that is a problem for you.

I don't really have a problem with the archon losing drugs, it always seemed like a wych cult thing anyway since none of the kabalite units use them, if anything that adds flavour in my eyes because it further distinguishes the three main DE factions from each other.

Hellions are crap, I'll give you that, losing grenades, the baron and one of their attacks has made them ultra-poor, but for some reason you chose to lament the changes to the stun claw? Scourges on the other hand are brilliant.

Something else that made me chuckle was the continuous rage at the increase of DL prices on vehicles, I think its pretty obvious why DLs now cost more than dissies, when they were a free swap you almost never saw dissies. Its worth pointing out that at least in the case of raiders its not a case of DLs going up in cost, its a case of dissies going down which is only fair to my kind since they are far less useful to an army that literally oozes anti-infantry shooting.

The WWP alone makes this codex competitive, I think the only fail with this codex is they obviously didn't take into account what obscenities an Eldar army could pull off with that thing.

I'm a 20 year hobbyist, so have seen the Dark Eldar from their very beginnings. I only became a regular player in the last couple of years, but have plenty of experience in a non-tournament environment (I wouldn't say non-competitive, several of the guys I play are very competitive).

I thought the review was brief in the extreme - largely limiting its assessment of units to the stat or special rule changes from the previous codex, and I can't understand why anyone would want to do a review on that basis, surely a codex review should look at the abilities of the units as they now are and how those units combine with the others in the book to create a workable list? That's how I do my codex reviews anyway.

I very much agree with ligolski that to claim money grab when units we wanted to use but didn't perform (like Mandrakes and Scourges) are made better seems unreasonable, maybe it is because GW want to sell those kits, but if it means they become playable, I don't care.

I agree that wyches got a severe nerf to their capabilities to take on different units on the tabletop through the loss of haywire - but actually since haywire grenades were an upgrade wyches themselves haven't changed, in fact they just brought them more in line with their fluff (how many tanks do you really see in a gladiatorial arena anyway). If you want to look at AT options in the new book, we have scourges and Talos units with haywire blasters/heat lances, ravagers (I'll come to them later) both flyers, massed raiders, and a few new ones - reavers with caltrops have a significant capability of taking down tanks by charging the rear armour (with no potential explosion ruining their day afterwards!), particularly if you've softened them up a bit first, Grotesques and Sslyth are both S5 and have a pile of attacks each, all of which strike rear armour and can be kept safe until they're needed through DS reserve.

Ravagers - yes they lost aerial assault. so now you can only move 6" and fire all three weapons at full BS. Yes, technically it's a nerf, but I read an interesting article elsewhere on what actually constitutes a unit that breaks the rules of the game and the Ravager fits it perfectly - it's a unit that can do something no other unit of the same type can do for no apparent reason. Ravagers are fast skimmers, and fast skimmers have specific rules to allow them to shoot more often when moving. Why should the Ravager be allowed to fire three weapons when other fast skimmers can only fire two? This is an example of them streamlining the rules to make things more understandable, because the only answer to that question is 'because we're DE'. Yes, it takes flavour away.

Power from pain - I completely get the point you're trying to make about this, a raiding force should cause most damage when it arrives and isn't likely to hang around in a war of attrition. You're thinking army wide though, and the rule is intended to represent the fact that the DE become more capable individually as they soak up death and destruction. It's not intended to make them hit harder to start with, its intended to represent the individual models being able to hit harder and better as they swell with power (from pain). I get your point that the way the rule is written you don't actually have to inflict casualties for it to work and that the previous incarnation represented this better, but this version will work more smoothly (and involve less blood on my part since I used the spears from vehicles to represent pain tokens and regularly impaled myself on them).

I can also understand why they haven't given vector dancer to the DE flyers. They're meant to be fast, the design of the actual model makes it clear that they aren't dogfighters.

Viable builds - I can see several options here, though I think the Deep Strike list is likely to be our best. A tough board presence to get through Turn 1 combined with perhaps a comms relay to allow reserve manipulation, with gunboats and jump infantry all arriving and swamping the enemy so that their interceptor options, if they have them, can't decide which unit to target. We also have good potential for a surprisingly tough army - everyone expects DE to be T3, but through use of grotesques, sslyth, reavers/beasts and talos/cronos we can field an army with a very high average toughness.

As a final point, I noticed you bemoaned the lack of transport options for the Talos - forgive me but I'm struggling to think of any monstrous creatures that have transports?

HERO wrote:

Beastmasters - Points decreases all over for the most part with very little changed. The lack of the Baron to go with these guys will hurt, but otherwise they just received a minor buff because of the better prices.

Going to have to disagree with this. Khymeraes dropped 2 points but their 4++ went down to 5++ although they did gain T4. Flocks went up 5 points but went from WS4, W5, A5 to WS2, W3, A4 and 'gained' the Swarm rule. Clawed Fiends dropped 10 points but lost a point of WS, a Wound and Bestial Fury, gaining Rampage (probably a wash). Beastmasters dropped 2 points but lost Character status.

Combine all this with the reduced unit size (Max 12) and loss of Baron and you get to the sad state of affairs that there is little or no point in taking a Beast Pack.

Pfp encourages dark Eldar to sit around and do nothing?

I think you're very wrong on that. You are correct in pointing out that most of our units, coven excepted, are T3 and not very durable. Try sitting around doing nothing and waiting for Pfp to kick in and see what you have left on the board late game to actually gain the benefits, if you even make it to late game. Anyways Eldar don't care who is in pain and will sometimes prey on each other, so if you sit around doing nothing, Pfp can be justified by the pain being inflicted on your units. Pain is pain to he dark Eldar.

The Pfp rule now is easier to handle, easier to remember, and benefits the ENTIRE army all at once. How many units do you actually have gaining Pfp by killing off enemy units before? I doubt your whole army got full potential out of the old system.

Further to that Pfp helps to mitigate our glass cannon nature. We are not durable and cannot win a war of attrition. Pfp give us a chance to have units that survive into late game hold a consistent damage output despite taking losses. Without it, our damage output decreases faster than most other armies damage output after casualties. Your idea to reverse Pfp is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone play an army that got weaker and easier to beat as the game progressed? Fluffwise, how and why would dark Eldar be stronger at the beginning of a battle before they have had the chance to inflict pain and collect souls?

I think that the way pfp works now definitely encourages us to reserve our CC units and either DS them or run them on to the board at full speed in a raider with sails. I might actually give Wyches a go with a WWP Succubus a time or two and see how they go with their new toys.

I also think the animus vitae is worth looking at to get us to furious charge a turn earlier, slightly bummed that it is only S4 which means the chances of it actually working are slightly below 50:50

I like the new PfP. It's consistent and dependable.

Our army shouldn't be based around waiting for it though. People are correct to say that it'd be more useful from a gameplay perspective if it were 'backwards' but that misses the point.

Just play your natural DE game; get into position on turn 1 and strike with deadly effect on turn 2. If you've done it right, by the end of turn 3 everyone who's left has FnP(5+). Lovely.

It isn't intended to be an "Oh good, I have FnP(5+), I can attack now" kinda rule, it's meant to be an "I'm already on the front foot from my first couple of turns, let's push home my advantage with what's still on the table" kinda rule.

I think your interpretation of the codex depend on what kind of player you play against. I merely have 2 years of experience playing the Dark Eldar but people around me have more than 10 years. So when Hero said that the codex is not really good I can understand why.

There is one TAU player in our group and when he will look at the new codex he will certainly have a friendly laugh. No more flickerfield and stealth for the night shield. TAU ignore cover most of the time. Also, deepstriking against TAU is not a good idea why ? Couple of their strongest units have interceptor and can use blast/large blast to obliterate your forces. But let's forget the TAU and look at all the army that have acces to flamer. It's not the overpriced new night shield that is going to protect us against that. And all SM army can deepstrike 1st turn in drop pod.

So Talos/Chronos is the new way to go to hold on until your deepstrike comes into play ?

I dont understand the reasoning behind PfP encouraging doing nothing. The situation for first two turns is... well the same as in previous dex. From T2-3 it only gets better than in previous dex. We did not sit idly for first two turns in the previous dex and hunting Paintokens was not a priority no. 1 for anyone...

@Selvhan - please show me where Tau ignore cover "most of the time". :-)

Expletive Deleted wrote:

Haven't played a game with the new PfP but it looks like it's better designed to me. Dark Eldar is an alpha strike army. If you haven't won the game by turn two you probably won't.

I really dont see DE as an alpha strike army anymore, but I do agree that after turn two you are likely screwed if you are not in the enemy's face
Never been a fan of Ravagers, takes 3 of them to kill an av 12+ tank not in cover, unless you are lucky (which I never am). Splinter Cannons were great against none tanks (of course) but I have played several games where my opponent didnt have any targets for my SCs the first turn, everything was in tanks or had av, like land speeders, war walkers etc. Our assault is not the best (pricy squishy units) but at least we got speed so we can decide on what to attack, most of the time.

Now we have to rely on reserves to come in, so we can ds in turn 2 and assault in turn 3.. DS without scatter is great, trueborn can really do some dam here. I am not having any fun playing against Eldar or Tau and doubt this new Codex will change that.

We have become a supplement to Eldar

I think it's reasonable to say that most Tau players take enough markerlights to ensure they ignore cover when they want most of the time.

Goofydk - look at it this way - some of the Eldar units are so worthless they have to take us as allies to justify taking them

aurynn wrote:

@Selvhan - please show me where Tau ignore cover "most of the time". :-)

You never played against the TAU to ask me that or you are trolling me.

TAU use marker light to upgrade their BS and to ignore cover. They have the pathfinder who are mostly there to do that job. So TAU suit with BS 5 ignore cover is no joke.

Quote :

Further to that Pfp helps to mitigate our glass cannon nature. We are not durable and cannot win a war of attrition. Pfp give us a chance to have units that survive into late game hold a consistent damage output despite taking losses. Without it, our damage output decreases faster than most other armies damage output after casualties. Your idea to reverse Pfp is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone play an army that got weaker and easier to beat as the game progressed? Fluffwise, how and why would dark Eldar be stronger at the beginning of a battle before they have had the chance to inflict pain and collect souls?

That's what you'll think it'll do vs. what will it actually do. PfP in its current form is trying to make DE more durable and nasty as the game goes on. A 6+/5+ FNP means absolutely nothing on T3 models with virtually no saves, really, you're kidding yourself if you do. Only GW thinks a 5+ save is any good. What's happening here is an illusion, cleverly drawn by GW, making you think that the army will be a good attrition army. What's really happening is that you're an army with crappy durability, and trying to put a bandage on it and call it good, and then sending you off with a smile on your face. It's a farce, and some of you are believing it.

For those of you that also seem confused, the new PfP wants you to hold as much as you can in reserve. Why would you send your stuff in piecemeal when you can hold it back as long as you can so you can strike when you have FNP and all the other special rules? Hmm..? Is there any logic to attacking early when you're the most defenseless and have no benefits from PfP? Why even attack on Turn 1?

And thus you'll see why I'm disappointed in the new PfP. As Dark Eldar, you SHOULD be attacking on Turn 1, and it SHOULD be so devastating that it will leave your opponents' reeling. This is currently NOT the case with the new PfP rules, and therefore backwards how our army is supposed to preform.

HERO wrote:

Quote :

Further to that Pfp helps to mitigate our glass cannon nature. We are not durable and cannot win a war of attrition. Pfp give us a chance to have units that survive into late game hold a consistent damage output despite taking losses. Without it, our damage output decreases faster than most other armies damage output after casualties. Your idea to reverse Pfp is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone play an army that got weaker and easier to beat as the game progressed? Fluffwise, how and why would dark Eldar be stronger at the beginning of a battle before they have had the chance to inflict pain and collect souls?

That's what you'll think it'll do vs. what will it actually do.  PfP in its current form is trying to make DE more durable and nasty as the game goes on.  A 6+/5+ FNP means absolutely nothing on T3 models with virtually no saves, really, you're kidding yourself if you do.  Only GW thinks a 5+ save is any good.  What's happening here is an illusion, cleverly drawn by GW, making you think that the army will be a good attrition army.  What's really happening is that you're an army with crappy durability, and trying to put a bandage on it and call it good, and then sending you off with a smile on your face.  It's a farce, and some of you are believing it.

For those of you that also seem confused, the new PfP wants you to hold as much as you can in reserve.  Why would you send your stuff in piecemeal when you can hold it back as long as you can so you can strike when you have FNP and all the other special rules?  Hmm..?  Is there any logic to attacking early when you're the most defenseless and have no benefits from PfP?  Why even attack on Turn 1?

And thus you'll see why I'm disappointed in the new PfP.  As Dark Eldar, you SHOULD be attacking on Turn 1, and it SHOULD be so devastating that it will leave your opponents' reeling.  This is currently NOT the case with the new PfP rules, and therefore backwards how our army is supposed to preform.

Thing is, it's called power from pain, not power causes pain.
And I am certainly under no illusions that we will become an attrition army. However, 5+ FnP still means that to anything S5 or less, I'm taking 33% less casualities than I would have been, and Fearless means I don't need to worry about those casualties making my guys run away.

I don't think either that we should necessarily be attacking on Turn 1, I personally think that the DE thing to do is see where your opponent has deployed and then attack him where he's weakest, and DS on most of my units lets me do that. In 5th Edition we could reserve everything, units could charge out of wwp's, and the current fluff for the army was written on that basis. The current codex tries to apply philosophy of everything appearing suddenly from unexpected directions to 7th edition.

HERO wrote:

Quote :

Further to that Pfp helps to mitigate our glass cannon nature. We are not durable and cannot win a war of attrition. Pfp give us a chance to have units that survive into late game hold a consistent damage output despite taking losses. Without it, our damage output decreases faster than most other armies damage output after casualties. Your idea to reverse Pfp is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone play an army that got weaker and easier to beat as the game progressed? Fluffwise, how and why would dark Eldar be stronger at the beginning of a battle before they have had the chance to inflict pain and collect souls?

...  A 6+/5+ FNP means absolutely nothing on T3 models with virtually no saves, really, you're kidding yourself if you do.  Only GW thinks a 5+ save is any good.  ...

Come on now, you save 1/3 of your guys with FnP(5+) who'd normally snuff it. I think we're all in agreement that having FnP is a good thing.

Quote :

For those of you that also seem confused, the new PfP wants you to hold as much as you can in reserve.  Why would you send your stuff in piecemeal when you can hold it back as long as you can so you can strike when you have FNP and all the other special rules?  Hmm..?  Is there any logic to attacking early when you're the most defenseless and have no benefits from PfP?  Why even attack on Turn 1?

You are correct, striking with FnP and FC and all the rest of it is clearly better than striking without it. BUT. Starting with most of your models on the board and setting up a turn 2 strike (turn 1 ideally, but realistically turn 2) is better than hanging around in reserve until turn 3.

An EARLY strike WITHOUT FnP is, in my opinion, better than a LATE strike WITH it. Hold a small elite squad in reserve with a webway portal, yes, but don't base your entire army's alpha(ish) strike on waiting for PfP and arriving from reserve.



Sorry Hero, I don't mean to pick on you personally (although that seems to be what I'm doing...), I've just seen a few posts about this subject and I'd like to put my thoughts out there. No hard feelings man

No hard feelings at all, I welcome it all.

In fact, after 5 years of running my blog, I got my first hate mail today from my article that's now mirrored on BoLS.

I was basically called "Betrayer of the Dark Kin". crap, I think it would be hilarious to set that as my title on this site, if that's even possible.