Play-testing Coven; A Review

Yeah it sounds a bit odd to me. I mean, its like they took a standard unit and just gave it some pretty dark elderish rules which I'm fine with. But if you were to take Wracks anyway and use them I imagine I would stick them in a venom anyway? The other formations have a more of a unique feel about them.

I mean, if you can get them both down together and pick out a small squad great. But it depends on what you are playing against a lot. Also, for the 130 points each for the unit, I don't really want to chuck them down and hope, I would want them to get into a position where they can cut off a small isolated unit and then not get shot to pieces in the subsequent turn!

Quote :

I would want them to get into a position where they can cut off a small isolated unit and then not get shot to pieces in the subsequent turn!

Actually I have no issues with that. Game is won by VP after all.
My "standard" deployment is 2x1 Chronos and 2x5 Kabalites on Venoms. The rest sits in reserve (Razorwing, Grots on Raider, 2x Trueborn on Raider, Scourges,..).
So I sit there and hope to survive turn 1 (not too hard most of the time as the Cronoi take a lot of punishment and im basically immune to S3 shooting and givin S4 a hard time too).
Thats only 10 points less per Venom ( I run them with Blasters) and they cant deepstrike round 1, have no FnP and T4 turn 1 AND dont have a chance to get me additional VP.
They probably WILL get shredded but for me the game starts on turn 2 & 3 anyways and its a small price to pay to get the other 1500 points right into his face unscathed.

@ Laughingcarp: Based on your reviews, it seems like you were playing in situations where there were no limits on the number of detachments you could take.

As an example, you mentioned having both the Dark Artisan formation, and the grotesquerie formation. As most tournaments limit you to 2 formations, such a setup would leave you with a total of 3 units(Dark Artisan, and 2 units of grots). If this were an ACTUAL rule, rather than simply the way most tournaments were set up, would that alter your opinion of the supplement?

Personally, I am not a fan, primarily because of the tournament landscape at this time. I'd HOPE that tournament organizers would see the direction GW is pushing us, and alter their rules accordingly. However, unless GW pigeonholes far more codices into situations like this, Dark Eldar are simply going to be a casualty of poor design, and TOs will continue to limit detachment selection to 2 because it will be viewed as a greater good. Sure, it bars much of the intended customization of a single army(DE), blocking most of their formations from tournament play, but it keeps the cheese out of all the other ones.

Thoughts?

GW doesn't write based on what individual TOs do to my knowledge. I don't think we should expect them to stop doing formations just because TOs don't like them.

Even though I don't see myself using it often if at all (I might try Dark Artisan), I still rate the Coven book highly. Itsold itself as a way to play a thematic Coven army and it delivered. With Altar/Echo of War missions that deliver as well. It produced Warlord Traits and even a new Power From Pain chart designed specifically for Covens to prevent Feel No Pain redundancy.

Izathel wrote:

GW doesn't write based on what individual TOs do to my knowledge.  I don't think we should expect them to stop doing formations just because TOs don't like them.

We're not talking about "individual TOs" here. We're talking about every single large-scale, national-level, somewhat recognized organisation. It's NOT that TO's don't like formations, it's that all other codices have been designed to fit well within the confines of the basic combined arms detachment, while our codex has been designed to work far better with several special formations.

Because their basic rules for combined arms detachments can get broken quickly with other codices being able to take unlimited detachments with unlimited armies, all the recognized gaming orgs are limiting competitive play to 2 detachments. This ALMOST prohibits dark eldar from competitive play completely, and almost certainly makes DE a sub-par army, at best.

Perhaps its worth simply getting in contact with a TO or even the manager of your local GW. They can sometimes know people. If you were to show them that you wanted to use a coven list but the coven supplement relies on formations, I'm sure you could work something out. Some TOs can actually be pretty reasonable if you can show that your not simply trying to get an unfair advantage!

Tournaments can't really make special exceptions for individuals and maintain a good reputation. They'd have to alter their rules completely.

amishprn86 wrote:

Septimus wrote:

I love articles like this! Keep adding to this thread please

Somebody tried out the 5x Talos formation yet? I'm especially interested in how they're doing vs. eldar.

Yes, I played it against Orc's (A more mech orc army) and it was AMAZING. 3+/4+FnP with scout HWB's, it killed a Battle wagan, then chagred, killed a unit in Melee and another on turn 4 with a IC for giving 3 WP's total.

I'm probably missing something, but how did they get 4+ FNP?  Were you running a Cronos behind them for the +1?

I dont hate the covens but i dislike the fact that our one formation out of it is garbage and that we have no other choices, too much time was spent on making covens good and not enough love ppuut into the codex

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

@ Laughingcarp: Based on your reviews, it seems like you were playing in situations where there were no limits on the number of detachments you could take.

As an example, you mentioned having both the Dark Artisan formation, and the grotesquerie formation. As most tournaments limit you to 2 formations, such a setup would leave you with a total of 3 units(Dark Artisan, and 2 units of grots). If this were an ACTUAL rule, rather than simply the way most tournaments were set up, would that alter your opinion of the supplement?

Personally, I am not a fan, primarily because of the tournament landscape at this time. I'd HOPE that tournament organizers would see the direction GW is pushing us, and alter their rules accordingly. However, unless GW pigeonholes far more codices into situations like this, Dark Eldar are simply going to be a casualty of poor design, and TOs will continue to limit detachment selection to 2 because it will be viewed as a greater good. Sure, it bars much of the intended customization of a single army(DE), blocking most of their formations from tournament play, but it keeps the cheese out of all the other ones.

Thoughts?

Yeah my meta doesn't place restrictions on number of detachments so I've had the opportunity to pull from multiple sources which is definitely colouring my view of the supplement.
If it were an actual rule that a list could only be written using 2 detachments my play style would likely have to undergo some re-tuning, but I think my opinion of the supplement would stay the same. Even without the capability to use multiple formations simultaneously I believe the Coven supplement does several things for us:
-Gives us options. Many of these formations (granted I haven't playtested them all, that's why this thread was created) sound like they're pretty darn solid and could see good use and table time in friendly and potentially even competitive lists.
-The Coven Coterie Detachment, while probably not being the most competitive ever, does give us a bit of a spin we didn't have before and can be a fun way to play Dark Eldar. Or if you are going competitive, take your Dark Eldar CAD and add in a couple small units of Wracks or something with multiple Haemonculi to lend special wargear as well as giving early fearless buffs to your regular Dark Eldar units.
-Gives us more fluff, information, and art that helps us understand, visualize and get into our army more than ever before. I love the narratives and support fluff in every bit of this supplement.
Still a solid win in my books.

I'm getting that you think it is *currently, due to Tournament meta rules*, less optimal than it could be. Without the tournament restriction of 2 detachments/sources/etc, what are your thoughts on the Supplement?

@Fauxmonculus, gotta be a Cronos 'cause that's the only way to boost their FNP.

@Grimcrimm, what do you mean "our one formation out of it"? Are you talking bout the Kabalite Raiding Party, or a formation out of the supplement?

I am personally of the opinion that it would be "OK" if tournaments didn't have the current stipulation of only allowing 2 detachments. I wouldn't be overly excited about it, but it also wouldn't be as bad as it is now, either.

I know it's not GW's fault that tournaments are using house rules that GW's rulebook doesn't support, but it'd be nice if they'd drop the facade of saying this isn't a competitive game, and just work with people for a change to make the game we all want to play. Without the "competitive gamers" that play it, I doubt GW would have a brand.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I know it's not GW's fault that tournaments are using house rules that GW's rulebook doesn't support, but it'd be nice if they'd drop the facade of saying this isn't a competitive game, and just work with people for a change to make the game we all want to play. Without the "competitive gamers" that play it, I doubt GW would have a brand.

AMEN.
Though I'd say the beer & pretzel players still make up a huge portion of their sales, that doesn't mean the beer & pretzel players don't want a cohesive ruleset that flows and makes sense and is balanced and proofread.