Opinions on incubi

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Personally, it doesn't make sense for Beastmasters to be mercinaries and not Hellions. It would be fun having a gang of Hellions as a Patrol and a Helliarch/Hellion HQ/Baron serving as HQ. But going this route is only splintering our faction further.

Well, there was always the option to not split us at all.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

As for Incubi, I think giving them <Kabal> wouldn't redeem the unit. Black Heart Incubi would be interesting, but I don't see why Incubi should benefit from Kabal obsession for fluff reasons. Incubi are also completely devoid of purpose.

Fluffwise, could they not simply be used to mirroring the fighting style of the Archon they're serving?

I agree with you about them lacking purpose. But still it would be nice if Kabal had a melee unit that wasn't limited to 4 models. And which could actually benefit from the Archon's aura.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Heck, if I wanted some melee power in a Kabal, I'd take beasts. Clawed Fiends really aren't that bad.

How are you taking beasts in a Kabal detachment? You need the Beastmaster and he's a Cult unit.

I think that he's saying he would want to switch beasts to <Kabal> which doesn't make a ton of sense to me but . . .

Vect's Masque wrote:

I think that he's saying he would want to switch beasts to <Kabal> which doesn't make a ton of sense to me but . . .

Well, having Beastmasters be mercenaries would make some sense (not like it would make a huge difference, since the actual beasts don't get Obsessions).

Personally, I think it would also make more sense to have Beastmasters be HQ choices (give them Ld8 and the 'reroll failed hits' aura from the index).

Both of those seem fine to me. Though if you make Beastmaster an HQ, I'd hope they have more loadout options than they currently do. Beasts seem weird right now, so does the Court of the archon. They feel like "forgotten" parts of the codex but that may just be the fact that the models are a horrendous purchase so a lot folks don't play them in my area other than maybe sslyth party bus.

Vect's Masque wrote:

Both of those seem fine to me.  Though if you make Beastmaster an HQ, I'd hope they have more loadout options than they currently do.

I think the issue there is with the model having a whip and nothing else.

And if they were going to release a new kit, I'd far rather see a winged Archon or Scourge HQ, or something more unusual like a Mandrake HQ, rather than just getting more options for the Beastmaster.

Of course, if they were willing to give him more options without needing a new model I'd be all for that.

Vect's Masque wrote:

Beasts seem weird right now, so does the Court of the archon.  They feel like "forgotten" parts of the codex but that may just be the fact that the models are a horrendous purchase so a lot folks don't play them in my area other than maybe sslyth party bus.

I still think splitting us up was a mistake. There's so little synergy between our subfactions that we might as well be 3 separate Eldar (I'm sorry - Aeldari) races at this point. That or we're Codex: Transports, Scourges and Mandrakes.

Yeah I don't know. It wasn't perfectly executed, but I think that it makes us pretty unique. Like we're so evil that we're not some united force, but an alliance of (agony!) psychos that only help each other to further their own nefarious ends. Drukhari have a political aspect to them that the obsessions convey to the table quite well so I'm not gonna complain about the subfactions as much as the weird mercenary decisions that got leftover. And I do think there is SOME synergy between the factions. The Covens are definitely the anvil to the hammer of the Cults, and the kabals are the shooting/support subfaction.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Personally, it doesn't make sense for Beastmasters to be mercinaries and not Hellions.

From a fluff perspective I think it could've worked just fine for hellions to have been grungy street-level mercs, while beastmasters are glamorous, specialized arena figures.

zelatar wrote:

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Personally, it doesn't make sense for Beastmasters to be mercinaries and not Hellions.

From a fluff perspective I think it could've worked just fine for hellions to have been grungy street-level mercs, while beastmasters are glamorous, specialized arena figures.

they really missed an opportunity to nerf hellions but make them real cheap, we would have to buy tons as they would be a great horde unit. 8-9pts/model, only 1 dmg, maybe an invulnerable save for their agility, or a -1 to hit, as they lack durability.

Maybe Incubbi are giving the pure kabal player an option to include close combat units? Well...they got the Sslyth but the incubbi enable them to play another close combat unit, too.

I really really want them to be good, since I got the toughest girls in the galaxy executioner, but I fear that adding a coven part with grotesques and some wracks is better.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Heck, if I wanted some melee power in a Kabal, I'd take beasts. Clawed Fiends really aren't that bad.

How are you taking beasts in a Kabal detachment? You need the Beastmaster and he's a Cult unit.

I might be mistaken, but I was sure that you could take Beastmasters as free mercinaries in any of your lists. And the reason why they had a Cult keyword was so they can potentially benefit from Cult obsessions.

Unfortunately, I don't have the book at hand.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

I might be mistaken, but I was sure that you could take Beastmasters as free mercinaries in any of your lists. And the reason why they had a Cult keyword was so they can potentially benefit from Cult obsessions.

Beasts are mercenaries but Beastmasters are Cult units.

I can only assume that the former is done for purposes of Narrative play, since in Matched Play you can't include Beasts in a detachment unless you also have a Beastmaster - making their status as mercenaries completely pointless.

CptMetal wrote:

Maybe Incubbi are giving the pure kabal player an option to include close combat units? Well...they got the Sslyth but the incubbi enable them to play another close combat unit, too.

Except they could have done that much better by making Incubi Kabal units.

That way they'd also benefit from the Archon's aura and also from melee Obsessions (Poison Tongue rerolls to wound or Black Heart's +1 to PfP).

It would also give them a role as the bodyguard for a second Archon, since a Battalion necessitates 2 Archons but only allows for 1 Court.

The issue with them being mercenaries is one of 'You can, but why would you want to?' You can take them in a Kabal, but you get nothing for doing so. They're not great on their own, and they get no benefit from the Archon or his detachment. As you say, you'd be better off taking a Coven detachment to get some Grotesques. Or, hell, even sticking to Mercenaries, I'd far rather use Mandrakes as my Archon's bodyguard.

I get that the incubi are far from an optimal unit, but i've been using them for non-tourney lists for fun, and they've ended up being one of my MVP's every game. They make a great tag-team combo with some wyches with a shardnet (I take red grief for the turn 1 jet bike charges, so my wyches themselves aren't that hitty). While Grot's would probably be better, I haven't gotten around to adding any coven into my list yet.

I have also made good use of the strategem for them that gives extra hits when they roll a 6 - my opinion on their biggest benefit is that they don't LOOK like a super threatening unit, as there's only 5 infantry models, I find my opponents tend to overlook them until it is too late.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

It would also give them a role as the bodyguard for a second Archon, since a Battalion necessitates 2 Archons but only allows for 1 Court.

But fluff wise, they are no bodyguards, al least not in the classical sense. They are murderers and not loyal enough to be bodyguards.

CptMetal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

It would also give them a role as the bodyguard for a second Archon, since a Battalion necessitates 2 Archons but only allows for 1 Court.

But fluff wise, they are no bodyguards, al least not in the classical sense. They are murderers and not loyal enough to be bodyguards.

Alright, then, it would give them a role as a retinue for a second Archon.

They used to be bodyguards, the 3rd edition dex had rhem as the archons retinue

CptMetal wrote:

Maybe Incubbi are giving the pure kabal player an option to include close combat units? Well...they got the Sslyth but the incubbi enable them to play another close combat unit, too.

I really really want them to be good, since I got the toughest girls in the galaxy executioner, but I fear that adding a coven part with grotesques and some wracks is better.

I write this to GW at least every couple of days. Make Incubi <Kabal>, so the melee buffs of Black Heart and Poisoned Tongue work on something more than the archon and his four court models.

Would it make sense for the 'mercenary' units to gain the <Kabal>, <Cult> or <Coven> of any detachment they're in? (Assuming it has one.)

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Would it make sense for the 'mercenary' units to gain the <Kabal>, <Cult> or <Coven> of any detachment they're in? (Assuming it has one.)

I think making mercinaries benefit from obsessions will result in broken units and combinations that don't make sense.

Why would Mandrakes get a 4++ from PoF? And Obsidian Rose Scourges would be seriously too good.

Perhaps it would be fine for Incubi. But mercinaries are all just hired blades that do their own thing and see an Archon as a business partner, their supervisor.

Incubi are the only mercinaries who is really lacking and I'd rather give them a distinctive purpose on field. I think they should simply deal 2 damage against non-vehicle models and perhaps cost a bit more.

They should be the elite glass-cannon samurai who go on murder sprees as they are described in the fluff.

Prophets increases existing rolls, so would do nothing to mandrakes. While things like Scourges would be obnoxious with extra range, the rule of 3 would probably keep this from getting out of hand. Maybe not. I am content with Drakes and Scourges as they are.

Incubi - multi-damage or <Kabal> would be good. Uncap stratagem, make Drazhar not crap. Color me happy with my newly acquired metal Incubi.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

I think making mercinaries benefit from obsessions will result in broken units and combinations that don't make sense.

We seem to have very different ideas on what would constitute a 'broken' unit.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Why would Mandrakes get a 4++ from PoF?

They can't and wouldn't.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

And Obsidian Rose Scourges would be seriously too good.

I don't see what makes Scourges with +6" range so much better than Ravagers with +6" range.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I don't see what makes Scourges with +6" range so much better than Ravagers with +6" range.

Because +6" range make blaster and shredder far more strong when +6" on Dark Lance and disssie dont matter that much.

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Because +6" range make blaster and shredder far more strong when +6" on Dark Lance and disssie dont matter that much.

+1

Also, Flayed Skull Scourges anyone? 17" move and ignoring cover for all your jump infantry? No... Mercenaries are balanced to not having the benefit of Obsessions; they're already obsessed with other stuff!

I think Incubi are solid, they're just marginally more difficult to use than Grots or wyches in that they pay a bit of a premium to get good AP and a good Sv without the S or T to back either of those up. They're priced about right, but they're quite specialized... What you end up with is a decent beatstick whose 'ideal targets' are just a little too narrow for TAC lists where the durability and/or price of wyches/Grots gives them a lead. Unless you know you're facing large amounts of MEQ or TEQ they just don't quite get an edge on the other assault units we have.

Personally I think they should have made Tormentors a little more interesting and relevant vs. GEQto help them do a little more 'lawnmowing' when they need to. 3A each is solid, but T3 1W and a 3+Sv does not exactly breed confidence when charging blobs of 15+. Making Tormentors into 'exploding 6s to hit' or something would be nice...

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Because +6" range make blaster and shredder far more strong when +6" on Dark Lance and disssie dont matter that much.

I'm not seeing it.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Quauchtemoc wrote:

Because +6" range make blaster and shredder far more strong when +6" on Dark Lance and disssie dont matter that much.

I'm not seeing it.

+6" on a basic 12" range is +50% range vs + 16.6% range on a Lance or Disintegrator.

Heck - 24" shardcarbines would put Scourges in the running for most effective basic infantry shooting in the game, easily outshooting most other units outside 12", and even things like Firewarriors outside 15". Add to that a natural M of 14" and you'd have a disturbingly efficient kiting unit.

In essence, giving Obsessions to Scourges would make them a better choice than Kabalites in all cases except where you wanted Troops for Command Points. They'd suddenly have better save, better shooting, better mobility... They'd be 'Kabalites +2'. Rule of 3 would be the only thing keeping them from being abused.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Dr.Clock wrote:

+6" on a basic 12" range is +50% range vs + 16.6% range on a Lance or Disintegrator.

Sure, but I simply don't see that as being broken.

Dr.Clock wrote:

Heck - 24" shardcarbines would put Scourges in the running for most effective basic infantry shooting in the game, easily outshooting most other units outside 12", and even things like Firewarriors outside 15". Add to that a natural M of 14" and you'd have a disturbingly efficient kiting unit.

Except that, by definition, they're not basic infantry.

Dr.Clock wrote:

In essence, giving Obsessions to Scourges would make them a better choice than Kabalites in all cases except where you wanted Troops for Command Points.

That last part is pretty bloody important.

They also cost more, but I guess that's irrelevant, too.