Dreaming about Dark Eldar design

stilgar27 wrote:

The problem I always see with this is that GW likes to keep parity between the craftworld/dark eldar, and even though the craftworlders certainly don't need a boost in this direction, (they already get cheap pulse lasers on quite a few vehicles) I'm sure the bright lance would also receive the same benefit.

The fact that corsair vehicles have seperate entries listed for both bright and dark lances does give me a little hope that they may diverge at some point.  Fluff wise dark lances are supposed to be technologically superior after all.

I think the issue isn't with Dark Lances and Bright Lances being equally powerful, but more that Dark Lances are the peak of our weapons, yet Bright Lances are one of Eldar's worst weapons.

If we had the option of drowning enemies in long-range S6 or if we had D-weapons or BS5 AP0 meltaguns to bust open their tanks, the crappiness of Dark Lances and Blasters would be a non-issue.

Id prefer the lance rule done away with, replace any instance of it with rending to represent "can pierce any armor"

I could see dark lances become s7 heavy2 rending. So they encourage DE to use mobility to avoid high front armor and reliable penetrate av10-11 side/rear.

Blasters become s7 assault 2 rending
Heat lances would be more interesting if comparison if they stay 1 shot and exchange lance for higher strength and/or armorbane so it's the specialist anti tank gun while blasters are still good vs marines and termies

Shredders become template monofilament weapons, maybe reduce strength to 5-4.

DE are lacking in ignore cover weapons, disintegrator can fill that role, s5ap2 heavy 3 or s7 ap3 blast ignores cover. The fluff can talk about how the weapon just disintegrates everything so hiding behind a shrub is useless.

Well - I maybe should not have said that dark lances are flatly better than bright lances, as it's never stated that simply in the fluff.

Like others have said though, bright lances are essentially low powered, accurate lascannons while dark lances are weapons that channel dark matter or the energy of black holes and/or warp storms depending on which version of the fluff you are reading.  They also mention using special containment fields for these energies as the weapons are powerful enough to be a danger to everything around them, including the operator.  There is also mention of dark matter/matter annihilation leaving nothing of a target behind.  Once again this all depends on which version of the codex you are reading, but to me this reads a lot more like a D weapon than a laser.

Miniaturization would also indicate that the dark lance is more advanced.  While craftworlders have bright lances which they can not carry themselves, the dark kin have developed their version all the way down to a hand held pistol.

If you go back to 3rd edition though, dark lances Were better than bright lances for 2 reasons.  1 they were (and still are) man portable, and a single unit of warriors could field multiple dark lances.  2 They were cheaper than bright lances, so a dark eldar army could simply field more lances than a "craftworlder".  In my opinion; if they're going to maintain the "psychically grown from crystal" versus "stamped out in a factory" theme, everything on the dark eldar side should still be significantly cheaper and more available.

Now if only the dark kin had developed this unique technology into pulse laser or scatter laser equivalents...

I like most of the ideas.
Still don`t think wyches need rending )

HokutoAndy wrote:

Id prefer the lance rule done away with, replace any instance of it with rending to represent "can pierce any armor"

That would actually make kind of sense...

HokutoAndy wrote:

Shredders become template monofilament weapons, maybe reduce strength to 5-4.

Keep in mind that Monofilament means it wounds against initiative instead of toughness.

HokutoAndy wrote:

DE are lacking in ignore cover weapons, disintegrator can fill that role, s5ap2 heavy 3 or s7 ap3 blast ignores cover. The fluff can talk about how the weapon just disintegrates everything so hiding behind a shrub is useless.

Despite its name, the Disintegrator Cannon is basically just a plasma weapon.

What I think would be easier to explain Ignores Cover for are Baleblasts. They are supposedly fire-based (without counting as flame weapons for no good reason) and are used by our designated (which sadly doesn't mean efficient) terrain combat unit.

Why are everybody's "improvements" centered around keeping some semblance of balance with our currently garbage ruleset? S7 heavy 2 rending is a great deal worse than s8 lance

Leninade wrote:

Why are everybody's "improvements" centered around keeping some semblance of balance with our currently garbage ruleset? S7 heavy 2 rending is a great deal worse than s8 lance

Mathhammering how how many hullpoints removed and chance to destroy vs various AV...
(using http://www.mathhammer40k.com/shooting/armor)
*the numbers may be slightly off as I jotted this out without double checking

av10
"Hokuto darklance" s7 ap2 h2 rending: .88 hp removed, 22% destroy
"current darklance" s8 ap2 h1 lance: .55 hp, 14% destroy
Lascannon              s9 ap2 h1: .66 hp, 18% destroy
Assault Cannon       s6 h4 rending: 1.33 hp, 14.8% destroy
Meltagun                s8 ap1 melta: .66 hp, 32% destroy
Haywire blaster                           .43 hp removed 11% destroy

av11
s7 ap2 h2 rending: .66 remove hp, 14% destroy
s8 ap2 h1 lance: .44 remove hp, 11% destroy
s9 ap2 h1: .55 remove hp, 14% destroy
s6 h4 rending: .88 hp, 7.4% destroy
s8 ap1 melta: .64 hp, 30.6% destroy
Haywire:       .43 hp removed 11% destroy


Against av10-11 the H.Darklance comes out ahead of the lascannon and current darklance, but behind melta. assault cannon removes more hp but has a lower chance to penetrate/destroy.



av12
s7 ap2 h2 rending: .44 remove hp, 7.4% destroy
s8 ap2 h1 lance: .33 remove hp, 7.4% destroy
s9 ap2 h1: .44 remove hp, 11% destroy
s6 h4 rending: .44 hp, 7.4% destroy
s8 ap1 melta: .61 hp, 27.8% destroy
Haywire:       .43 hp removed 11% destroy

Here the lascannon comes out slightly ahead in chance to destroy, but same hullpoint stripping capacity, while darklance is ahead in hp damage. Interestigly the H.Darklance is stastistically similar to an assault cannon here. Meltagun stays in the lead from  av12 onward.  
The haywire blaster begins to look good here.

av13
s7 ap2 h2 rending: .22 remove hp, 7.4% destroy
s8 ap2 h1 lance: .33 remove hp, 7.4% destroy
s9 ap2 h1: .33 remove hp, 7.4% destroy
s6 h4 rending: .44 hp, 4.9% destroy
s8 ap1 melta: .55 hp, 24% destroy
Haywire:       .43 hp removed 11% destroy

Here the lascannon and current darklance outperform the h.darklance, while haywire blaster outperforms them all.



av14
s7 ap2 h2 rending: .22 remove hp, 4.9% destroy
s8 ap2 h1 lance: .33 remove hp, 7% destroy
s9 ap2 h1: .22 remove hp, 3.7% destroy
s6 h4 rending: .29 hp, 2.5% destroy
s8 ap1 melta: .48 hp, 19% destroy
Haywire:       .43 hp removed 11% destroy

The nature of rending has the h.darklance have a slightly higher chance to destroy than the lascannon, while the a.cannon has a lower destroy% but better hp stripping, and the current darklance is better overall. Meltagun performs best as expected, with haywire blaster in second.

---
Now against toughness....

t4 3+ (marines)
s7 ap2 h2 rending: 1.1 wounds
s8 ap2 h1 lance: .556
s9 ap2 h1: .556
s6 h4 rending: .74 wounds
s8 ap1 melta: .56

Against t4 w2 3+ (battlesuit), the h2 s7 darklance is nearly the same as instant death from a s8+ shot

Against t6 2+ (dreadknight) s8 and s9 ap2 are the same, but s7 h2 ap2 outperforms them.

Against t8 3+ (wraithlord/knight) the lascannon and h2 s7 darklance are statistically the same and better than a.cannon and current darklance.

Against the Tau supremacy armor (t9 2+), the lascannon comes out ahead while the s7 h2 darklance is equal to the current h1 darklance (but then again it's an immensely tough bullet sponge you're better off blinding and ignoring.)

-----

So overall the s7 h2 darklance is better than the current darklance at...
-av 10-12 (but still able to penetrate av14 better than a lascannon)
-killing t4-t8 high save targets

the current s8 lancing darklance IS better against the highest av, but I'm fine with that being the niche of haywire and melta weapons over the 'Eldar lascannon equivalent'.

I like the idea of the s7 h2 lance being put on fast skimmers to destroy light vehicles, heavy infantry and monstrous creatures head on while using outflanking/deepstriking to hit medium tanks on the side and heavies in the rear (it even strips more HP than even the meltagun against av10-11).

For all around av13-14 heavy vehicles like the monolith and landraider, the haywire blaster and fusion gun/lance is better, as that is their dedicated role. Craftworld Eldar are already the kings of murdering heavy armor (Who else can say "lol melta, I'm bringing D"), but DE could have more widespread availability of haywire and melta weaponry. A Pain Engine with haywire attacks would be interesting, the kit already comes with funky coils that I can imagine all electrified; haywire grenades for hellions would also give them a unique role that reavers can't do and fluff-wise represent how these gangs fight kabalites in raiders and venoms.

Come to think of it, we also have a S9 lance. The problem is that it's exclusive to the Voidraven.

Honestly though, would making those Lances S8 really be that bad?

The Shredder wrote:

Honestly though, would making those Lances S8 really be that bad?

I assume you mean making those Lances S9?
It would make a noticeable difference, at least.

Triple Void Lance on AV 10
Shaken: 0.5555555555555556
Explodes: 0.2777777777777778
Other Pen: 0.2777777777777778
HP: 2.0

Triple Dark Lance on AV 10
Shaken: 0.4444444444444444
Explodes: 0.2222222222222222
Other Pen: 0.2222222222222222
HP: 1.6666666666666665


Triple Void Lance on AV 12+
Shaken: 0.3333333333333333
Explodes: 0.16666666666666666
Other Pen: 0.16666666666666666
HP: 1.3333333333333333

Triple Dark Lance on AV 12+
Shaken: 0.2222222222222222
Explodes: 0.1111111111111111
Other Pen: 0.1111111111111111
HP: 1.0

Certainly, I wouldn't be opposed to have Void Lances as an option for 15/pts each on a Ravager...

No, I meant in terms of the proposed S7 rending ones. Is there a reason they can't just be S8?

I was being conservative, but yeah there is no 'immutable reason' that rending pulse lasers can't be the standard "Eldar Lascannon". The Falcon's main gun can then become s9, with void lances sharing the same h2 profile.

Anything can be balanced by points value and unit availability anyways. Then again 40k was never terribly balanced and now we have 600+pt super units being fielded in tourney play.

...now I feel like making a "reinvented Eldar as if they were a 2016 new release" armylist of space corsairs.

The Shredder wrote:

No, I meant in terms of the proposed S7 rending ones. Is there a reason they can't just be S8?

Oh, my bad.

Well, S8 would be pretty massive, considering that it would effectively double the power of Lances on targets with AV12 and below (and even on AV13 the beat the DL).

The DL might not be the best anti-vehicle weapon in the game and of course CE have Pulse Lasers too, but we'd be talking about 6 S8 shots on Ravagers. I think that would be a bit over the top...


However, I've been thinking about that for some days and I came up with the following:
What if the Void Lance would be our primary weapon against heavy targets, while the Dark Lance is something that deals with less armored targets? To keep the consistency with other dexes, I'd give the Dark Lance a different name (I think Darklight Projector sounds nice).

I also think that it is only appropriate for a strong weapon like the Void Lance to have AP1.
Void Lance: S9, AP1, H1
Darklight Projector: S7, AP2, H2

I always wanted to have 3 heavy weapon options and I think Disintegrator Cannons (for TEQ and low AV), Darklight Projectors (AV 10-12), Void Lances (T4 instant kill, AV12-14) and complement each other nicely. Yes, it is not perfect, but I think it would help a reasonable bit

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Oh, my bad.

Well, S8 would be pretty massive, considering that it would effectively double the power of Lances on targets with AV12 and below (and even on AV13 the beat the DL).

But we've also made them markedly worse by replacing Lance with Rending - which is outright worse in every scenario.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

The DL might not be the best anti-vehicle weapon in the game and of course CE have Pulse Lasers too, but we'd be talking about 6 S8 shots on Ravagers. I think that would be a bit over the top...

Consider that I can already get 5 Dark Lance shots for 150pts with Corsairs, on a relentless unit with JSJ. And, from what I've seen so far, most people *still* don't think this is a good unit.

Is 6 shots with a vastly worse rule, on a unit that can't jump back into cover after shooting really be OP?

The Strange Dark One wrote:

However, I've been thinking about that for some days and I came up with the following:
What if the Void Lance would be our primary weapon against heavy targets, while the Dark Lance is something that deals with less armored targets? To keep the consistency with other dexes, I'd give the Dark Lance a different name (I think Darklight Projector sounds nice).

I also think that it is only appropriate for a strong weapon like the Void Lance to have AP1.
Void Lance: S9, AP1, H1
Darklight Projector: S7, AP2, H2

Would either of those have any special rules?

The Strange Dark One wrote:

The DL might not be the best anti-vehicle weapon in the game and of course CE have Pulse Lasers too, but we'd be talking about 6 S8 shots on Ravagers. I think that would be a bit over the top...

Craftworlders/corsairs can take 80 point hornets which fire 4 strength 8 ap 2 shots (and can snap shot even if they move flat out) at range 48".  Sure they have 1 less hull point, but they aren't open topped and cost roughly 60% the price of a lance boat.  They also come in squads up to 5 and come with scout.

I don't think 6 shots is at all out of line considering the cost/range/durability of ravagers.

I'd forgotten about Hornets. Yeah, they're an even better juxtaposition.

40k now is basically what Apocalypse was before except we don't have any apocalyptic units or weapons. I'm really struggling to see anything that has been suggested in this thread that could be called OP when compared to 40 point infantry models with D-Weapons, Decurions, Battle Companies, that stupid bloody White Scars relic that gives Ignores Cover, Librarius Conclaves (especially those featuring Tigurius), Scatbikes, Wraithknights, Piranha Factories/Drone Hordes, 2+ cover save units that can also make themselves invisible after you decide to fire template weapons at them etc, etc, etc.

stilgar27 wrote:

Craftworlders/corsairs can take 80 point hornets which fire 4 strength 8 ap 2 shots (and can snap shot even if they move flat out) at range 48".  Sure they have 1 less hull point, but they aren't open topped and cost roughly 60% the price of a lance boat.  They also come in squads up to 5 and come with scout.

I don't think 6 shots is at all out of line considering the cost/range/durability of ravagers.

I'd forgotten about Hornets. Yeah, they're an even better juxtaposition.

They also kinda put the current Ravager into perspective. 2/3 of the cost and have an additional shot, can fire all weapons at full BS after moving 12" or can flat out a further 24" and still fire snapshots. Also have Scout and Acute Senses and can be taken in squadrons of up to 5.

Count Adhemar wrote:

40k now is basically what Apocalypse was before except we don't have any apocalyptic units or weapons. I'm really struggling to see anything that has been suggested in this thread that could be called OP when compared to 40 point infantry models with D-Weapons, Decurions, Battle Companies, that stupid bloody White Scars relic that gives Ignores Cover, Librarius Conclaves (especially those featuring Tigurius), Scatbikes, Wraithknights, Piranha Factories/Drone Hordes, 2+ cover save units that can also make themselves invisible after you decide to fire template weapons at them etc, etc, etc.

Agreed on all of the above, but, as I ranted in the new rumor thread, are we and the game as a whole, better off by joining in on the "shark jumping contest" and seeing it continue to spread? Our current codex is imperfect and bland, but the power level seems about right for classic warhammer. I don't know that I would be more excited to be able to play nothing but my "3X Dark Wraithknight" formation with Invisibility special rule. I think the arms race approach to balance may goose short term sales but in the long run, I think it is just going to turn people away.

I know what you're saying but I don't really see the point of coming up with a fair and balanced DE codex if we're playing against every other codex that is produced in a totally unfair and unbalanced way. I'd like to bring a gun to a gunfight, not just colourful language!

To be fair the only thing I think we should get better in is killing gargantuan creatures. Well, and improve witches. And make soulfright weapons viable against Marines and fearless creatures.

Honestly, I don't even care if we get better at killing things, so long as the Codex or campaign update or whatever it is gets written well, with internal synergies and no arbitrary restrictions!

Creeping Darkness wrote:

Honestly, I don't even care if we get better at killing things, so long as the Codex or campaign update or whatever it is gets written well, with internal synergies and no arbitrary restrictions!

If we don't get better at killing things then I don't care how well it's written cos it will have failed to make us playable. I can live with our fragility but when it's coupled with the hitting power of an asthmatic octogenarian it becomes a real problem.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Creeping Darkness wrote:

Honestly, I don't even care if we get better at killing things, so long as the Codex or campaign update or whatever it is gets written well, with internal synergies and no arbitrary restrictions!

If we don't get better at killing things then I don't care how well it's written cos it will have failed to make us playable. I can live with our fragility but when it's coupled with the hitting power of an asthmatic octogenarian it becomes a real problem.

Couldn't agree more. When fragility is properly balanced against damage output then you have a good army that takes finesse to play to keep stuff alive long enough to have a significant impact on games. Without that damage output, you're just marking time until you've got nothing more on the table. That's why I don't necessarily with the criticism of the power from pain table encouraging the DE to sit back and wait for two turns until everything has FNP. In my experience, sitting around for two turns generally means having only half an army left. Hiding from drop pods and SMS and FMC is pretty impossible without being in reserve.

I get that striking that balance is difficult, because too far one way and you have the lightweight damage output we have at the moment, but one little step the other way and no other army will have sufficient stuff left to be able to respond, but that's more a failing of the current codex than the concept.

EDIT: Here's a thought about a particular unit though. Hellions. How about making them jetbike units that must always hit and run (or attempt to) in combat. They'd have a 4+ jink save then, could move up to 36" in a turn making a turn 2 charge quite reliable, plus they'd always strike with 2 attacks in close combat unless they fail a hit and run.

Ultra Magnus wrote:

Agreed on all of the above, but, as I ranted in the new rumor thread, are we and the game as a whole, better off by joining in on the "shark jumping contest" and seeing it continue to spread? Our current codex is imperfect and bland, but the power level seems about right for classic warhammer. I don't know that I would be more excited to be able to play nothing but my "3X Dark Wraithknight" formation with Invisibility special rule. I think the arms race approach to balance may goose short term sales but in the long run, I think it is just going to turn people away.

The trouble is, those sharks have already been jumped. The worms are out of the can and have mutated into the balance-devouring mega worms.

If all those other races get hit with massive nerf bats and every Wraithknight spontaneously combusts, fine. But, until that happens, there's no point in keeping our army intentionally bad and leagues behind everyone else on the power curve. It doesn't preserve balance it just makes us a crap army that rarely ever gets used.

Count Adhemar wrote:

If we don't get better at killing things then I don't care how well it's written cos it will have failed to make us playable. I can live with our fragility but when it's coupled with the hitting power of an asthmatic octogenarian it becomes a real problem.

This.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

EDIT: Here's a thought about a particular unit though. Hellions. How about making them jetbike units that must always hit and run (or attempt to) in combat. They'd have a 4+ jink save then, could move up to 36" in a turn making a turn 2 charge quite reliable, plus they'd always strike with 2 attacks in close combat unless they fail a hit and run.

So, they're an assault unit that can never hide in combat or tie up enemy units for a turn?

More seriously, I'd be wary of making them Jetbikes as it makes them even closer to Reavers. I think it would be better to go a different route, rather than making them direct competitors. What if we gave them 18" movement, like Eldar Swooping Hawks? They'd probably need better melee stuff, but it would at least give them a niche (rather than just being worse than Reavers in every way). It might also make Skyboards more enticing for characters. Could even make Hellions troops and go from there.