Incubi are pretty good.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

@Thor - off topic slightly, but how would you run a Grot unit? My biggest issue with them is that I can't see myself taking any more than 4 unless I go all out coven assault and take two big units to step out of a portal and go 'shoot me, let's see how much it hurts, and when you're done I'm going to squash what's left'

I actually think 4 in a Raider + HQ is not a bad starting point, though I will admit that I am 'meh' on the whole DS angle they have now shoved at us, because I don't think reserves are that good.

I think the Coven Grot formation isn't shabby either, though that is a lot of Grots.

I also like the Abberation+scissorhand combo, as the potential rending helps out against high armor saves, which is the one stumbling block the unit has (though they do have a lot of attacks to force saves with)

With that in mind I think an answer to 2+/3+ saves is valuable in the attached HQ.
I would say a Succubus w. Glaive is good, so is Archon w. Aggie+Trap+S.Field, and so is Lelith, frankly, if you want to go that route though that is pretty pricy. An attached Autarch w. BansheeMask and some assault gear also isn't shabby if you're going with allies as he can be a solid brawler and the Mask helps alleviate the grenade issue to be almost meaningless for the Grots.

The Abberation also helps here, as between him and the attached HQ you should always have a solid answer to any challenge issues.

aurynn wrote:

I think that we are getting to the point of our difference in opinion. Firstly - I really do not like comparing one unit to another as the situations that would need to be considered are endless in number and comparing anything else than marines in terms of gear is again very very tricky and I think even impossible. Simple example. What value would you place on the fact that MEQ dont have a dedicated assault transport for most units? What value would you place on the fact that Incubi do...? :-)

The value is in how functional they are to get into assault, there is no other value. MEQ don't need a dedicated assault transport because they have two of the most effective assault delivery tools in the game - and those are the Drop Pod and the Landraider. Also, Marines are more durable and we are more fragile, which makes our need for a transport more needful in balance. I think our army has the better delivery tools overall - but paired with inferior assault tools to put in them. If I wanted to build an assault focused army I would be more likely to consider the Marine one competitive.

aurynn wrote:

I dont consider incubi to be "Assault unit" as in "go there and chomp everything". I consider them ... well something like "scalpel unit".

They are an assault unit. Calling them a scalpel unit is just expressing awareness that they are not an assault unit with a wide range of optimal targets.

aurynn wrote:

Grots. They have slightly, just slightly different role because they can bear different amount of targets and some punishment too. I love diverse lists and I am thinking of running a small Grot unit along with my incubi. :-) Again, their synergy could be absolutely great and they might be able to take on almost anything together and form a solid and great assault part of otherwise Shooty army.

Of course, 2 Grot units could also do that, whereas 2 Incubi units could not. The only advantage the Incubi have is lack of a need for an HQ (though if you were running 2 units of them you would probably go Coven and make them fearless, removing this issue)

And, yes, Grots can bear a different amount of targets insomuch as they can handle substantially more types of targets and situations than Incubi. Meanwhile, the Incubi+Grot synergy will only help Grots against foes with high armor saves, whilst the Incubi will be of moderate to no help versus anything else and require the Grots to do all the heavy lifting.

aurynn wrote:

Does this make sense? :-)

Not really. I feel you're just repeating your previous stance, one which I already felt I understood;
Incubi are not a very solid TAC assault unit because they are a "scalpel".
That's what I'm getting here, and I don't think it's what you want me to get. I understand that Incubi need to be treated as a scalpel because they are not capable of handling a wide range of assault issues. My simple point is - that makes them a flawed unit since their only purpose is to be an assault unit.

Being a bullet magnet only works if they can actually threaten something, and since they are actually only a moderate to no threat against a wide range of targets - they're not actually that good of a distraction unless your opponent is a fool (in which case, you'll probably win with or without Incubi). Also, Grots can serve that role as well - and do it better than the Incubi both in being threatening *and* in requiring a larger outpouring of resources to fire upon them with. That makes Grots provably superior at the scalpel task as well...except they're a very sharp broadsword with a scalpel glued on the hilt as an afterthought if you feel like using it.

Meanwhile the Incubi are strutting around with their scalpel acting like I'm supposed to give a hang.

I don't.

Hmmm... I must be missing something with the Grots then... 5 Incubi and Klaivex are roughly equal to 3 Grots and Aberration...

Discounting Overwatch or Difficult terrain and including Rampage:
Incubi dish out Avg 17 attacks - 11.3 hits, 5.66 wounds on MEQ or TEQ without SS, 1.88 with SS.
Grots dish out avg 19 attacks - 9.5 hits, 8.44 wounds, 2.81 on MEQ, 1.4 TEQ...

Grots have more wounds, ablatives before losing attacks and ability to put some wounds on MCs and take some hits in return.

They dont seem really superior to me. Just... different. What am I missing then? Grots may be bit more forgiving and durable but... not offensively better, especially when you bring them in later with FC and FNP.

And the need to take the HQ with them is a negative for me TBH.

Yes, I agree, ignoring the effects of overwatch and difficult terrain and avoiding any units with Invulnerable saves allows the Incubi to look a bit better than Grots against the optimal targets and situation for Incubi to assault. I ill also note that I have never suggested Incubi are bad at dishing out damage - indeed, that is one of their finer points - their issue is in absorbing it nd getting to do it prior to their opponents and against certain types of opponents.

Make it an assault through cover against Marines with a Sarge w a power sword and a flamer. Are the results similar?
What about against anything with a Storm Sheild?
What about Nobz?
What about a block of mass infantry?
What about a monstrous creature?
What about Tau with their overwatch shenanigans?
What about a unit of Bladstorming Eldar?

Ect. and et al.

Simply because Incubi perform better at a specific task does not actually make them better - or even equivalent.

I will agree the HQ is a price.
So is the second assault unit you indicated that you run to support the Incubi. I am pretty sure points wise the Grots come out ahead in that situation by the time transport is figured in and I bet I would still end up with the superior assault tool.

I still think that I would be most comfortable running 1 unit of grots providing shelter for my Warlord as well and 1 cheapycheap unit of incubi with Klaivex. :-) And as a bonus it will be in agreement with my philosophy of "highlander lists" which I find most entertaining. :-)

But thanks for the explanation.

Thor wrote:

The Warriors have ObjecSec, the Incubi do not.

You mean you would take a C.A.D. over Realspace Raiders? Wow. That's just.....wow.

Well I dont consider RR superior. In fact I consider CAD+Covens formation or Coterie detachment superior to the RR. But thats just my subjective opinion. I have been "drunk" with the 6 FA too, but realizing that scourges are actually MEH, I wont prolly need more than 3FA for the future. But that is a discussion for different topic.

Timatron wrote:

Thor wrote:

The Warriors have ObjecSec, the Incubi do not.

You mean you would take a C.A.D. over Realspace Raiders? Wow. That's just.....wow.

Yes, I would.

I think RR is a good detachment. That said, CAD is also a good detachment.
In most tournaments, with the way they are pushing objective based missions, I feel that ObjecSec is more valuable than one turn of slightly boosted cover saves. If a tournament was more about kill points then I would tend to favor RR over CAD as, then, the survivability aspect would be substantially more valuable to me.

Timatron wrote:

Thor wrote:

The Warriors have ObjecSec, the Incubi do not.

You mean you would take a C.A.D. over Realspace Raiders? Wow. That's just.....wow.

Every time, without question. If I can't get a cover save for my army in the first turn then I'm doing something wrong and ObjSec is far too valuable to give up IMO. Plus, if I feel a desperate urge to run 6 Fast Attack I can just run 2 CADs.

Incubi are like Ferrari. There is no reason to have them by sure look cool.

And ObSec before Realspace Raiders every time.

Timatron wrote:

You mean you would take a C.A.D. over Realspace Raiders? Wow. That's just.....wow.

ANYTIME!

The cover save of RR is a joke and it allows you only to reroll WL traits on the DE WL list.

Im im really really really desperate for 6 FA slots, I just get a 2nd CAD with ObSec and a reroll on ALL trait lists. (Command and Strategic Traits are very very good for DE btw.)

They are quite a good tool for dealing with assault units. Especially ones that could rip you apart normally. I think if you pounce with incubi on to say assault marines, death company, even Termies (not TH SS terms though!). They can slow that advance, allow the rest of your army a bit of breathing room and also, chop through a lot of stuff. Plus who's worried about 10 pistols overwatching?


I don't know. I love my Incubi and I've rarely had issues with them not doing a job well and stylishly. Even in a shooty list they tend to do well, at least knocking a squad out if not the HQ death star that comes out occasionally. Perhaps its more cost effective to use something else if all goes to plan but I find security in assault (once your in it!) that you are either going to remove that unit as a viable threat or/and you cant be killed in their next shooting. Plus, they look awesome and if the Duke was still with us today, I'm sure he would agree that looking cool while doing something is more important!

I think there are very few occasions when I would choose one thing over another 'every time' in this hobby. For me, ObSec is great, if you're playing maelstrom missions. Eternal War missions it's not so crucial as there are very few occasions (in my experience) where it would have affected the outcome. Realspace Raiders the cover save is nice, not because I can't get a cover save for my units, but because I don't have to - night fighting then gives me a 4+ for my troops units and 5+ for everything else without having to jink on my first turn, and I don't have to place things according to where the scenery is, meaning I can be more aggressive in my deployment and really turn the screw from turn 1

For me incubi are for funzies. I enjoy using them in casual games. Even if they had nades I would be surprised to see them in a tournament.

RSR is what i'm enjoying winning with at the mo. I would take double CAD for 6 FA but I just can't spare the points for the extra HQ and troops.

If I start losing because I don't have Obsec I'll switch to CADs.

Incubi would be very good if they were part of the Archons court (like they should be) instead of the Ur-Ghouls (which could be safely given the Beast rule and stick with Beast packs)

You know klaivex. I generally find your posts to be too negative to agree with, but this diamond in the rough here may be the most agreed with post I've ever read lol. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

Thor665 wrote:

Incubi are good at assaulting...things with decent armor saves that lack much overwatch or ability to hit back.

Which is, y'know... nothing.

I must say that I agree with Thor665's analysis of Grots compared to Incubi. His prevailing point seems to be that Grots are more valuable strictly because they're more applicable to a variety of situations whereas Incubi are not. If your building a generic list for a tournament, it seems that being prepared to handle all kinds of threats and situations is a more valuable spec.

Thanks for taking the time to type all this stuff out, guys.

I enjoyed reading the discussion and I must say that my opinion supports both sides.
If any unit stood out in this codex it were the Grotz. They are a must have unit, just because the point effectiveness.
So yeah if you would pick 1 assault unit, you should always pick grots in Tourneys.

On the other side I like to see the Dark Eldar the hardcore Eldar. In the way that only the weakest units use grenades. The other ones want to feast on the flood of emotions their opponents feel when they go from believing in your death to see death straight in the eye.
I mean even our PfP now rewards the Dark Eldar more power, the longer the struggle is stretched.

So for more casual games I would go for µ assault units: wyches, incubi and grots. Push that in the opponents face while 3x 3Reavers dive into his back-angle. So you opponent got only bad choices as Hayscourges can be looking out for LoS on that tank/transport.

Since combat drugs and PfP are assault oriented I believe CC is important to Dark Eldar. It is our only ignore cover weapon. We have transport to get units into battle, not back. Even making it to battle should give any sane man a hart attack. "What is this cardboard !!?"

So yeah I'm thinking GW build Dark Eldar for hardcore use: it takes skill and luck to pull off in tricking your opponent into an error, but when he does, the gratification is there in the bloodbath!

I did some math on 3 Incubi surviving into Rage.
:Edit: Thanks Cout Adhemar to remind me that TEQ has 5++
They kill 5,34 MEQ on the charge.
If opponent has WS5+ 4 MEQ.
that would mean (if an averga MEQ costs 18 points) that the Incubi would kill 145,45% of their own worth (22 a pop); that would strike back 'cause it's dead before striking.

Vs TEQ this would give:
3,56 WS-4 TEQ kills and 2,67 WS5+ TEQ Kills

But as you should always take the Klaivex, lest add him to the equation:
MEQ WS-4: 6,67 wounds and WS5: 5,78
TEQ WS-4: 4,44 wounds and WS5: 3,85

Which doesn't look bad for 3 models

El_Jairo wrote:

I did some math on 3 Incubi surviving into Rage.
They kill 5,34 TEQ on the charge.
If opponent has WS5+ 4 TEQ.

I only make it 3.55 and 2.66 respectively as the TEQ have a 5++. Still respectable but they take 4.16 casualties in return unless the Terminators are out in the open.

Count Adhemar wrote:

El_Jairo wrote:

I did some math on 3 Incubi surviving into Rage.
They kill 5,34 TEQ on the charge.
If opponent has WS5+ 4 TEQ.

I only make it 3.55 and 2.66 respectively as the TEQ have a 5++. Still respectable but they take 4.16 casualties in return unless the Terminators are out in the open.

My excuses, I stand corrected. I did the math for MEQ and than thought: "wait a minute they do have AP2 weapons".

I'll edit it show the correct values. And to be perfectly honest I'll swap one Incubus to a Klaivex, as he is a must take (the point-effectiveness of this guy is INSANE)

But than again, I would presume by turn 4-5 you can have the TEQ unit reduced in numbers with poisonous shooting. My point is that they can still finish off units even when their numbers are reduced.

They still have the problem that they are located in the same section as Grots and Blasterborn. Both perform better and have other uses.

Grots are not only meatshields but can also tackle Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles.
Blasterborn are not only very good vs Vehicles but are also a threat to TEQ.

Incubi are... I dont know... a melee specialist with a very very narrow field of possible targets?

You are right about the FOC restrictions and that Incubi do have a fierce competition but I see many people stating they will double CAD to get ObSec and 6 FA. So I would reckon this also applies to Elites and with the Coven Formations you can get 2 units of Grots, but than the point in taking also Incubi might not be so relevant

I see Incubi as a fear unit: all marine players will remember what they're capable of doing so it will affect the way he is going to position himself in response to them. So they don't really have to kill anything to have an impact.
And also that they are our only source of AP2 ignoring cover weapons. I only played a phew times with Graviton Centurions combined with Divination Tigurius but the gratification of saying: "that are 15 wounds, AP2 and yes ignore cover" was immense.

So yeah, they are not super-competitive but a still fun unit for me as I like to bring as much confusion to mess with my opponents plan

:Edit: come to think about it: with AP2 Incubi with FC are also a real threat for vehicles, right? Ok more situational as you don't want to leave them in LoS of heavy shooting. But that's true for most of our units.

El_Jairo wrote:

:Edit: come to think about it: with AP2 Incubi with FC are also a real threat for vehicles, right? Ok more situational as you don't want to leave them in LoS of heavy shooting. But that's true for most of our units.

Probably still outdone by the threat from Grotesques, they bring more attacks and by the time Incubi have furious charge so do Grots, which makes them S6.