Dreaming about Dark Eldar design

Leninade wrote:

The fluff for the venom is that it is a sign of affluence, similar to a chariot in ancient Mediterranean civilizations. Why would incubi and the Archon they are guarding deign to travel in such a common fashion as a raider transport?

The power from pain table currently works against itself on top of rewarding passive play. Avoid not just combat until turn 4, but also avoid any fighting at all until turn 2 or 3. More importantly warriors can't make use of it beyond fnp as their weapons are rapid fire, charging is not an option for them

Sure, but you don't have to Rapid Fire. If you have Furious Charge, Rage, and FNP, you can probably get better results from charging than you would shooting Splinters at T3 low armor troops I would imagine.

I can see the argument for the Succubus receiving the Jetbike and hoverboard, but 3+ unit comps when 5 models are packed bothers me to no end. For now, I guess it's minor enough that the 3+ unit comps can stay.

Quote :

I also think our Splinter weapons should be made Poison 2+ (or at least 3+), which, at S1 AP5 still, I don't think is particularly OP on cheap(ish) troops. Then our current Poison 2+ weaponry would be made Fleshbane, which would have no difference for the most part, except against those units that can only be wounded by Poison on a 6.

Admittedly, this was before your proposed army-wide rules, but even together I don't think it's overpowered.

That's a joke, right?

S1 AP5 Poison 4+ is trash, especially in the current state of the game. Splinter weaponry needs an increase to either it's wound range or it's volume of fire.

S4 would probably do it for the rifles

Leninade wrote:

S4 would probably do it for the rifles

For when you really need those guardsmen dead.

I was thinking more along the lines of killing dreadnoughts but sure

I would take poison 4+ instead of strength 4 anytime. Guard and other horde armies will be drowned in the volume of fire, soulfright is also an option and tank shock. Done that before and it's fun.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Armory:
Agonizer: Decreased to 20 pts Still over-priced. I’d say 15 tops
Blaster: Decreased to 10 pts I’d also change to Assault 2
Dark Lance: Decreased to 15 pts I’d also change to Heavy 2

Assault 2? For 10 points? Sure, if you make a Melter Assault 2, too. It's a bit much, right? It's basically our Melter with
+6 inches traded for 1 Armour piercing
Lance traded for Melter

Yes, it should be 5 points cheaper, but I'd prefer to add a rule like blind to it our something like

Creeping darkness:
Whenever a unit is hit by a weapon with this rule it must make a initiative test. If it fails every Enemy unit it is shooting at the next turn counts as having the special rule Stealth.

What about this?

CptMetal wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Armory:
Agonizer: Decreased to 20 pts Still over-priced. I’d say 15 tops
Blaster: Decreased to 10 pts I’d also change to Assault 2
Dark Lance: Decreased to 15 pts I’d also change to Heavy 2

Assault 2? For 10 points? Sure, if you make a Melter Assault 2, too. It's a bit much, right? It's basically our Melter with
+6 inches traded for 1 Armour piercing
Lance traded for Melter

Melta weapons are far more effective against vehicles than Lances and exactly the same against infantry so we need something to make Blasters more attractive. You also may notice that we have exactly two infantry weapons in our entire codex (Baleblast and Shardcarbine) with a rate of fire greater than 1 shot. We also have only one platform capable of twin-linking (Talos) and virtually no Ignores Cover. Our shooting needs a significant boost. Assault 2 is far from unreasonable given a Gravgun is 15 points and superior in almost every way to a Blaster.

A grav gun superior in tank hunting? Correct me if I'm wrong but it's just doing a glance on 6, right?

CptMetal wrote:

Assault 2? For 10 points? Sure, if you make a Melter Assault 2, too. It's a bit much, right? It's basically our Melter with
+6 inches traded for 1 Armour piercing
Lance traded for Melter

And our toughness and armour save are lowered. I look at it this way:

SMs are T4 with 3+ saves and get meltaguns.

Eldar Fire Dragons are T3 with 3+ saves and get meltaguns that explode vehicles on (at worst) 4+.

Dark Eldar are T3 with 5+ saves and get guns that don't roll 2d6 for penetration (so, rather than glancing a land raider on average dice, they need a 5+ just to penetrate AV12), and then need a 6 to destroy most vehicles. They do have 6" of extra range, though they also cost 5pts more than a meltagun to compensate for that.

We seem to have sacrificed armour in order to get worse weapons. And it's not like we even win on the cost front - 5 Fire Dragons with 5 meltas are 110pts. 5 Trueborn with just 4 blasters are 120. Oh, and the Fire Dragons have melta bombs. And can shoot and run, or vice versa.

I can't help but feel a bit short-changed.

CptMetal wrote:

A grav gun superior in tank hunting? Correct me if I'm wrong but it's just doing a glance on 6, right?

Correct. Whilst Lances are generally glancing on 4s.

However, that's countered by Grav Guns getting extra shots. Moreover, they don't just glance, they auto-immobilise. So, for a start, any melee-walker, transport or such is already crippled without the Grav Gun ever having to roll on a damage table. But, more importantly, each additional glance will inflict 2 HPs instead of 1. So, any vehicle with 3 HPs - including heavy stuff like Leman Russ - are dead with just 2 glances.

A grav gun got Salvo rules, so it's very short ranged. And did you see my "trading chart" for Melter versus Blaster? They only reliably kill vehicles at 6 inches.
I think Blaster are good just 5 points too expensive. And grav guns are nearly useless against us

Most grav gun platforms do have relentless (Bikes, Centurions, Skyhammer Devs) so Salvo does not really matter to them.
Also grav is still not bad against us. Yes they may suck against troops (which does not matter anyways as a bolter is already a terrible threat) but they are still extremely good against our more durable units (CTC, DA) and still do a lot against or vehicles.
Yes they may need a 6 to create any effect but the auto immobilisation renders it basically useless anyways.

Let them take the relentless guys please. So he got less models that I still wound on 4+. It's as easy to kill as a marine but much less numbers.

And immobilization for a Venom? As I care. If he can shoot me I still can shoot back and my guys hop out and grab objectives

CptMetal wrote:

A grav gun got Salvo rules, so it's very short ranged.

Only if you move, If you stand still it has the same range as a Blaster. It also helps that you can mount it on relentless units like bikes (whilst the only weapons available to our bikes are Assault weapons).

That said, I'd skip the Grav Gun on non-relentless units and just buy a Grav Cannon. More shots, better range and rerolls failed to-wound and penetration rolls. Yes please.

CptMetal wrote:

And did you see my "trading chart" for Melter versus Blaster? They only reliably kill vehicles at 6 inches.

Which still seems infinitely better than not reliably killing vehicles at any range.

Also, they outperform blasters at 6-12" against anything with AV12 or less.

CptMetal wrote:

I think Blaster are good just 5 points too expensive.

I still think they need something more. As above, we're also giving up armour, yet seem to be getting worse weapons out of it. Could we at least make them AP1?

CptMetal wrote:

. And grav guns are nearly useless against us

Well, we're far from their ideal target, but I certainly wouldn't call them useless. For one thing, our vehicles don't appreciate being auto-immobilised (which also removes their Jink save). Obviously our infantry has poor armour, but on the other hand it's not like single-shot meltas or blasters will be mowing down our infantry either.

Here's the kicker though - Grav Guns will dice both the Dark Artisan and CTC. The same cannot be said for meltas or blasters.

Most of the arguments have already been covered but I just wanted to add that I'm a bit tired of people saying that we can't possibly have x, y or z because it's too powerful. Have you guys seen some of the stuff that exists in 40K these days? Can you name anything in our codex (other than a WWP to act as a taxi service) that a Craftworld Eldar player would look at and say "Wow! I wish we had those!". A Tau army can create ~2500 points worth of models during the game from an 800 point formation. Space Marines get all their transports free. Daemons can summon hundreds or even thousands of points of extra troops.

If you honestly believe that, in that context, giving some of our weapons an extra shot is OTT then you are, quite literally, playing a different game to me.

Melter outperform the Blaster at 1-6 inches. At 6-12 it depends on the Armour and at 13 to 18 the Blaster is better.

And the range of grav guns is worse because if the opponent does take relentless guys, he has less numbers and I appreciate that.

Give the Blaster one additional rule, Armour piercing 1 or make him 5 points cheaper. But the sky isn't falling nevertheless.

And always comparing us with the best of everyone else isn't right. Marines get free transports, so we should too? And in top of that additional D weapons? And in top of that create additional models?

Out of curiosity: what Tau formation can create models?

Quote :

And always comparing us with the best of everyone else isn't right. Marines get free transports, so we should too? And in top of that additional D weapons? And in top of that create additional models?

So what is right then? Claiming we are ok because tyranids got pyrovores and chaos got mutilators?

CptMetal wrote:

Melter outperform the Blaster at 1-6 inches. At 6-12 it depends on the Armour and at 13 to 18 the Blaster is better.

The thing is though, you seem to be ignoring the degree to which meltas outperform blasters at close range. They are both vastly better at penetrating vehicles, and also much more reliable at exploding them (the aforementioned fire dragons explode a vehicle on at least half of all penetrates, whilst blasters need 6 penetrating hits to destroy a vehicle).

Furthermore, is the extra range that important? Traditionally, close-range weapons offer some advantage over long-range ones. e.g. meltas are much better at one-shotting vehicles than lascannons or autocannons (or scatter lasers for Eldar), as well as being able to reliably penetrate heavy vehicles.

A Blaster has half the range of a dark lance and offers... what exactly? What is the advantage of getting troops close to use a blaster, as opposed to just staying 36" away with a Ravager?

CptMetal wrote:

And the range of grav guns is worse because if the opponent does take relentless guys, he has less numbers and I appreciate that.

I don't even know.

CptMetal wrote:

Give the Blaster one additional rule, Armour piercing 1 or make him 5 points cheaper. But the sky isn't falling nevertheless.

The sky isn't falling, it's fallen. It's currently lying around us in bits, after the Wraithknight ascended through it and shattered its floatation ring.

CptMetal wrote:

And always comparing us with the best of everyone else isn't right.

So, what are we supposed to do? Say DE are fine because they're better off than SoB?

Honest question - what do you consider a perfectly average army at the moment? What's the ideal power level of army for us to compare DE to?

CptMetal wrote:

Marines get free transports, so we should too? And in top of that additional D weapons? And in top of that create additional models?

Indeed. Obviously giving our glass-cannon army an actual cannon is an absurd notion. Imagine if our crappy, overpriced hull point stripper of a weapon was given a whole extra shot. Well, we'd just be unstoppable. Gladius? Decurion? Eldar? All would fall before the invincible might of a blaster with two whole shots.

Legend says that this was once the intent of the designers for the 7th edition DE book, yet they hadn't counted on the sheer mass of all that Awsome. Indeed, when they tried to condense so much Awsome into a single book, it collapsed into itself, forming a miniature black hole. The design team barely made it out before the entire codex, along with a significant portion of their studio, was sucked into an alternate universe, made of pure Awsome.

Of course, the DE codex still needed to be written, so once the desks were replaced, the design team had to sit down and write it again. But, now in fear for their very lives, they vowed that the revised book wouldn't contain a single ounce of Awsome - for the risk was just too great. Alas, this is the tragic story why a blaster with 2 shots will never be.

What special weapon do you know that got two shots with a range more than 12 inches?

I'd rather have them give us Armour piercing 1 or blind instead of another shot. Dirty tricks like blind are much more our style.

Out of curiosity, what would you guys prefer:

One extra shot
Armour piercing 1
Blind special rule
Point decrease to 10

For me it's blind. Very potent!

CptMetal wrote:

What special weapon do you know that got two shots with a range more than 12 inches?

Grav guns.

In any case, I'd be happy to trade 6" of range for an additional shot.

CptMetal wrote:

I'd rather have them give us Armour piercing 1 or blind instead of another shot. Dirty tricks like blind are much more our style.

Come now - sneakily attaching a second (functional) barrel to your weapon is one of the dirtiest tricks in the book, just after weaponizing your parrot! 

CptMetal wrote:

Out of curiosity, what would you guys prefer:

One extra shot
Armour piercing 1
Blind special rule
Point decrease to 10

For me it's blind. Very potent!

For me it's definitely the extra shot (I'll give you a moment to recover from the shock   ).

My issue with Blind in this case is that we're having to choose it over actual functionality. My main issue with Blasters is their ability (or lack thereof) to destroy vehicles. So, this is what I really want improved.

Blind can be useful (and is certainly appropriate to our fluff), but it's also very unreliable. Tau are outright immune - as are most vehicles (probably the Blaster's main target) - and most other units still pass 2/3 times.

More importantly though, even if you hit a unit that can be affected, you have no idea whether or not its been blinded until the end of your shooting phase. So, you can't use it to just disable a unit (and dedicate the rest of your firepower elsewhere) because you have no idea whether or not a given unit has been blinded until it's too late.

I see it more as an extra. Like, with Corsairs (most of which have Defensive Grenades), I'll often have one guy throw a grenade instead of firing his pistols, on the off-chance that their target is blinded. But, it's just that - an off-chance. I really wouldn't want to rely on it as the main feature of one of their special weapons, let alone an anti-tank weapon.

Quote :

What special weapon do you know that got two shots with a range more than 12 inches?

Grav Gun
Dire Avenger Shuriken Catapult
Psycannon
Pulse Carabine
Lasblaster

Just from the top of my head...

Quote :

Dirty tricks like blind are much more our style.

Because it is a utterly useless rule that fits to the utterly garbage rules we already have?

Grav gun is Salvo
The die avenger weapon isn't a special weapon
As is the pulse carbine or the Lasblaster

One additional shot just doesn't feel right for me. It's like giving us an additional Blaster for free.

Quote :

The die avenger weapon isn't a special weapon

The standard weapon is the ordinary shuriken catapult, that makes it a special weapon.
If you just accept thing on your personal biased opinion it has no worth discussing anyways.

Waiting till you claim the fusion gun of the Fire drakes is no special weapon because the whole squad comes with meltas. Then I have to ask: Why do we only get crap poison weapons as standard when other armies get not-special-weapon-meltas as standard?

CptMetal wrote:

One additional shot just doesn't feel right for me. It's like giving us an additional Blaster for free.

Another way of looking at it is that the blaster would be a horrible weapon even if we weren't a glass-cannon army. Giving it 2 shots would give it an actual function, rather than it just being a Dark Lance with half the range. Or a meltagun minus all the benefits of a meltagun.

Let's say you gave the Blaster to Marines (at 10pts). Do you think they'd ever take it over Grav or melta?

Or, if we replaced Fire Dragon meltas with blasters (and removed their +1 to damage table rule), do you think they'd consider it an upgrade?