Improved AP vs. higher S

It feels like many here would prefer to see improved AP on our weaponry as opposed to improved strength. I fall in the category of wanting to see higher strength standard weaponry (melee or ranged). Simply put, I feel like invulnerable saves are more prevalent as are mobs of units with S3 T3...and in those cases...we still require a standard 4+ to wound in both the ranged and melee phases.

Death from a thousand cuts begins with landing hits (never been our issue), but it ends with apply the wounds (big issue with lower cost, high model count units)

Just curious if others agree with this, and if not...what is your rationale for AP over S?

Dark eldar are very much about death by a thousand cuts. If I have to pick between those higher strength is better, but my preferred option is actually more dakka. (More shots!)

It depends very much on what we are talking about.

Giving wyches etc a base str of 4 just feels wrong to me, they are not supposed to be hulking masses of muscle. On units like grots and wracks I think higher str is no problem (although grots already have s5).

A lot of our weapons are poison right now, which is annoying against t3 but actually means there is no s value and we don't need a higher s value to wound high t creatures. Our shooting is relatively expensive against guardsmen etc with t3, but wounding all infantry on a 3+ is to much in my mind (it means we effectively have s5 against infantry). Against monsters which now have quite good armour saves some ap would make us better at tackling them like we used to.

So I think a clear function for most units would sort it out. Give those wyches lot's of attacks even at slightly lower str (possibly with some ap weaponry). Give the grots the high str. Give the incubi the high ap (with maybe a bit of str). Hellions already have s4 base s5 with drugs) because of their weapon but most multiwound models also sport a healthy save so could do with a little ap. Reavers are fine if in str and ap, just way overpriced. wracks are though guys, so I don't mind much to keep them as they are offensively. Mandrakes are already str 4, so I would rather see also mortal wounds in melee or some ap. Beast have varying str and all have their uses (although 14 for a flock is slightly much if you must take at least 3..)
So I would say we do not need a standard 4+ in the melee phase against t3 (hellions, reavers, mandrakes, grots, most beasts all need a 3+) the problem is that most of those are right now to expensive for what they bring, so we see less of them.

Give shredders more shots (s6 is fine for anti inf). Give heat lances more str (s6 is not enough for tankbusting). Leave lances alone. Give haywire something special (for tank disabling). Give splinter cannons more shots/ some ap to make it different from splinter rifles and possibly make it slightly better against medium/heavy armored foes/monsters. Leave dissies as they are (for heavy armored/multiwound infantry).
And we are missing some "common" ap busting shots. We either have lances/blasters which are to expensive and not enough shots to shoot at 1w high armour infantry. Dissies which are great but only can be fitted on a limited number of vehicles and then directly compete with dark lances.
So I would like to see some ap -1 ranged weapon which is not mounted on vehicles and can get out a decent number of shots (which is why I think the splinter cannon is a good option, and it right now is to weak so could do with a boost). For we pretty much just have darklight right now to shoot at marines in cover. Even a simple -1 ap on splinter cannons will suddenly kill double the number of marines.

|Meavar wrote:

It depends very much on what we are talking about.

Giving wyches etc a base str of 4 just feels wrong to me, they are not supposed to be hulking masses of muscle. On units like grots and wracks I think higher str is no problem (although grots already have s5).

A lot of our weapons are poison right now, which is annoying against t3 but actually means there is no s value and we don't need a higher s value to wound high t creatures. Our shooting is relatively expensive against guardsmen etc with t3, but wounding all infantry on a 3+ is to much in my mind (it means we effectively have s5 against infantry). Against monsters which now have quite good armour saves some ap would make us better at tackling them like we used to.

So I think a clear function for most units would sort it out. Give those wyches lot's of attacks even at slightly lower str (possibly with some ap weaponry). Give the grots the high str. Give the incubi the high ap (with maybe a bit of str). Hellions already have s4 base s5 with drugs) because of their weapon but most multiwound models also sport a healthy save so could do with a little ap. Reavers are fine if in str and ap, just way overpriced. wracks are though guys, so I don't mind much to keep them as they are offensively. Mandrakes are already str 4, so I would rather see also mortal wounds in melee or some ap. Beast have varying str and all have their uses (although 14 for a flock is slightly much if you must take at least 3..)
So I would say we do not need a standard 4+ in the melee phase against t3 (hellions, reavers, mandrakes, grots, most beasts all need a 3+) the problem is that most of those are right now to expensive for what they bring, so we see less of them.

Give shredders more shots (s6 is fine for anti inf). Give heat lances more str (s6 is not enough for tankbusting). Leave lances alone. Give haywire something special (for tank disabling). Give splinter cannons more shots/ some ap to make it different from splinter rifles and possibly make it slightly better against medium/heavy armored foes/monsters. Leave dissies as they are (for heavy armored/multiwound infantry).
And we are missing some "common" ap busting shots. We either have lances/blasters which are to expensive and not enough shots to shoot at 1w high armour infantry. Dissies which are great but only can be fitted on a limited number of vehicles and then directly compete with dark lances.
So I would like to see some ap -1 ranged weapon which is not mounted on vehicles and can get out a decent number of shots (which is why I think the splinter cannon is a good option, and it right now is to weak so could do with a boost). For we pretty much just have darklight right now to shoot at marines in cover. Even a simple -1 ap on splinter cannons will suddenly kill double the number of marines.

There is really nothing to add to this.

I think GW should give Meaver a job on the rules team.

|Meavar wrote:

It depends very much on what we are talking about.

Giving wyches etc a base str of 4 just feels wrong to me, they are not supposed to be hulking masses of muscle. On units like grots and wracks I think higher str is no problem (although grots already have s5).

A lot of our weapons are poison right now, which is annoying against t3 but actually means there is no s value and we don't need a higher s value to wound high t creatures. Our shooting is relatively expensive against guardsmen etc with t3, but wounding all infantry on a 3+ is to much in my mind (it means we effectively have s5 against infantry). Against monsters which now have quite good armour saves some ap would make us better at tackling them like we used to.

So I think a clear function for most units would sort it out. Give those wyches lot's of attacks even at slightly lower str (possibly with some ap weaponry). Give the grots the high str. Give the incubi the high ap (with maybe a bit of str). Hellions already have s4 base s5 with drugs) because of their weapon but most multiwound models also sport a healthy save so could do with a little ap. Reavers are fine if in str and ap, just way overpriced. wracks are though guys, so I don't mind much to keep them as they are offensively. Mandrakes are already str 4, so I would rather see also mortal wounds in melee or some ap. Beast have varying str and all have their uses (although 14 for a flock is slightly much if you must take at least 3..)
So I would say we do not need a standard 4+ in the melee phase against t3 (hellions, reavers, mandrakes, grots, most beasts all need a 3+) the problem is that most of those are right now to expensive for what they bring, so we see less of them.

Give shredders more shots (s6 is fine for anti inf). Give heat lances more str (s6 is not enough for tankbusting). Leave lances alone. Give haywire something special (for tank disabling). Give splinter cannons more shots/ some ap to make it different from splinter rifles and possibly make it slightly better against medium/heavy armored foes/monsters. Leave dissies as they are (for heavy armored/multiwound infantry).
And we are missing some "common" ap busting shots. We either have lances/blasters which are to expensive and not enough shots to shoot at 1w high armour infantry. Dissies which are great but only can be fitted on a limited number of vehicles and then directly compete with dark lances.
So I would like to see some ap -1 ranged weapon which is not mounted on vehicles and can get out a decent number of shots (which is why I think the splinter cannon is a good option, and it right now is to weak so could do with a boost). For we pretty much just have darklight right now to shoot at marines in cover. Even a simple -1 ap on splinter cannons will suddenly kill double the number of marines.

Yep, I think it is a pretty darn accurate synopsis. I would like to see more mortal wounds outside just Mandrakes. I would like to see more -1AP on ranged. Shredders could be great if they were D6 shots, but D3 for the point cost and minimal number of models that can carry them make it meh.

I want our advanced weapons to actually be able to cut through armour. I get showing off your prowess (wyches) but could you at least bring a sharp knife?

RedRegicide wrote:

I want our advanced weapons to actually be able to cut through armour. I get showing off your prowess (wyches) but could you at least bring a sharp knife?

My concern is invulnerable save prevalence...but it could just be the armies I typically face.

With the exception of Daemons, most models with an invulnerable also have a better armour save. So higher AP still has some use against most models. Higher S would be of limited use to DE as most of our weapons are either poison, where S is irrelevant, or high S already, where the extra S would only come into play against models that are T8+

I think Splinter Cannons should be AP-1. I feel completely useless against space marines in cover (big here in my meta) without Disintigrator cannons... And D. Cannons are gonna be on maybe 1 of my 3 ravagers..... so easliy sought out and destroyed.

Splinter Cannons can go on infantry as well as vehicles, so its all-purpose, and would make a great fix

I'd like our Shredders to become more flamer like.

I'd like my mandrakes to live longer... 4+ invul like regular demons.... Means they have to actually prioritize taking them out, instead of just throwing some bolter fire in there and watching em melt...

The OP's question is far too broad. Better strength or better AP is entirely dependent on what the weapon is supposed to be doing. For our poison weapons better AP es always going to be the choice because it's, generally, not wounding that is the problem but getting through armour whilst higher strength on things like Dark Lances and Disintegraters would be preferable since they already have good AP.

It's all about taking the right tools for the job, which is generally DE's main problem at the moment.

Aschen wrote:

I'd like my mandrakes to live longer... 4+ invul like regular demons.... Means they have to actually prioritize taking them out, instead of just throwing some bolter fire in there and watching em melt...

Daemon's only have a 5+ unless they're Tzeentch, and Mandrakes aren't Daemons any more.

One thing of note is that we don't get much in the way of strength enhancing weaponry. We get Klaives and the Glaive, but that's about it. Many armies get access to stuff like Power Axes, Power Mauls, power fists ect. we don't, and it's kinda odd that we lack that option.

FuelDrop wrote:

One thing of note is that we don't get much in the way of strength enhancing weaponry. We get Klaives and the Glaive, but that's about it. Many armies get access to stuff like Power Axes, Power Mauls, power fists ect. we don't, and it's kinda odd that we lack that option.

That seems to be an Eldar thing in general as even Craftworlders only have a very small number of strength enhancing weapon options, especially for an army with double the unit choices of our own, and most of them are +1S.

Something else to consider is that some strength gains are more important than others.

For example, going from S6 to S7 rarely matters. You're still wounding T3 on 2s, you're still wounding MEQ and bikers on 3s. You might be slightly better off against some MCs/vehicles, but for the most part it's a pretty insignificant gain.

However, going from S4 to S5 is a much bigger change. Suddenly you're wounding all MEQ units (and there are a lot of them) on 3s instead of 4s. What's more, you now have twice the chance of wounding T8/T9 vehicles.

For AP, I'd say its usefulness starts to decline significantly once you get past AP-3. There just aren't many units where AP-4 is a huge gain. And most of the ones where it might make a significant difference have invulnerable saves anyway.

On the other hand, going from AP0 to AP-1 or from AP-1 to AP-2 can make a lot of difference against most units in the game.

And then, as already mentioned, you've got the function of the weapon. For example, with the Dark Lance, I'd happily lose a point of AP in exchange for a point of strength. As above, I firmly believe that AP-3 is enough for most targets, but going up to S9 would allow it to wound basically any non-superheavy vehicle on a 3+. A definite gain IMO.

I disagree immensely. I've found that denying your opponent an armor save is one of the best things in the game. I am so happy with the dark lance right now. It's not too often you run into T8, and if you Do, I much rather maintain ap-4 as opposed to the additional strength. There's something so dark eldar and satisfyingly when you tell your opponent "you don't get a save. lets see how much damage I do..."

If mortal wounds were more prevalent in our army, I would say AP, but invulnerable saves seem a little more common. Of course I also find myself fighting Tyranids predominantly and I'm just tired of genestealers and their 5+/5++

SushiBoy013 wrote:

If mortal wounds were more prevalent in our army, I would say AP, but invulnerable saves seem a little more common. Of course I also find myself fighting Tyranids predominantly and I'm just tired of genestealers and their 5+/5++

Against genestealers and such I shoot normal splinter stuff, I don't care if their save is a 5+ or 5++ they get their save anyway.

Bad-baden-baden wrote:

I disagree immensely. I've found that denying your opponent an armor save is one of the best things in the game.

It's not that I don't consider it useful - it's that I consider it less useful compared to other buffs. Or, failing that, to the resulting cost increase.

I'd far rather have many weapons that ignore most of my opponent's saves than rely on a handful of expensive weapons that ignore their save entirely.

What's wrong with making the Dark Eldar base strength 4? That's not saying that they're all hulking, muscle bound monsters. It is saying that they're physically more capable than a guardsman or their florist cousin on the craftworld.

Put another way, who should win in combat- a wych or a tactical marine. Or how about a wych vs an Ork boy?

Our combat capabilities in game are nowhere close to their lore counterparts.

Leninade wrote:

What's wrong with making the Dark Eldar base strength 4? That's not saying that they're all hulking, muscle bound monsters. It is saying that they're physically more capable than a guardsman or their florist cousin on the craftworld.

Put another way, who should win in combat- a wych or a tactical marine. Or how about a wych vs an Ork boy?

Our combat capabilities in game are nowhere close to their lore counterparts.

The Wych should win, but not because they're punching harder. They should win because they're more skilled and faster - in game mechanics terms, they should have a better WS and more attacks.

S3 and T3 is kind of the iconic Eldar drawback. I'd like to see us keep that where reasonable (i.e. - everything except Covens and Reavers) and get better other stats instead.

Leninade wrote:

What's wrong with making the Dark Eldar base strength 4? That's not saying that they're all hulking, muscle bound monsters. It is saying that they're physically more capable than a guardsman or their florist cousin on the craftworld.

Put another way, who should win in combat- a wych or a tactical marine. Or how about a wych vs an Ork boy?

Our combat capabilities in game are nowhere close to their lore counterparts.

But the thing is that a Wych should not win by strength. If they were to use their physical strength as main weapon, they would attack in a way that is far more direct and leaves them open to enemy attacks. Thus, they would need armor and you end up with something like a Storm Guardian.

Wyches use speed and precision. They dance around the enemy and make strikes of opportunity and deliver the killing blow once the enemy starts to get exhausted. Their superior physique manifests in super-human speed and a nimble and fragile body is only capable of having so much muscle mass.

Wyches should get rules to deal with armor as a sign of their precision and coordination.

A higher strength characteristic can easily be representative of a more skilled fighter that is able to maneuver towards the vulnerable bits of their prey. GW is never going to make any of our units any good if the community keeps getting their panties in a bunch at the mere suggestion that our power is increased. Their only option is points drops and a horde army without the support of any heavy hitters.

Leninade wrote:

GW is never going to make any of our units any good if the community keeps getting their panties in a bunch at the mere suggestion that our power is increased.

I do not think that the Dark City as a whole is guilty of this at all. As a community we're salivating for our power to be increased.

Leninade wrote:

A higher strength characteristic can easily be representative of a more skilled fighter that is able to maneuver towards the vulnerable bits of their prey. GW is never going to make any of our units any good if the community keeps getting their panties in a bunch at the mere suggestion that our power is increased. Their only option is points drops and a horde army without the support of any heavy hitters.

No one is saying they don't want a power increase.

They're saying they don't want to sacrifice fluff for power. Probably because they're desperate to preserve what little flavour we have left.