3 Patrols might not be best

TeenageAngst wrote:

I love how everyone is telling me it's someone else's fault other than the people who's fault it clearly is; the playtesters who told GW to make it this way in the first place.

How? Why should GW care about ITC? I fail to understand this.

Don't get me wrong, I will HAPPILY light my torch, get my pitchfork, and scream about GW all day. I will talk about the tire fires the lit and trashed their company for the better part of 10+ years.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I love how everyone is telling me it's someone else's fault other than the people who's fault it clearly is; the playtesters who told GW to make it this way in the first place.

Who said the play testers had ANY part, saying, ability to change the core design of what GW wanted for the codex?
GW cmost likely told them "some things can and something cant change", why do you think this is one of those things testers can change?

sethlight wrote:

@amishprn86  Please correct me if I'm wrong, the main beef is the 3 detachment limit correct?  Which was done my ITC.

Also, just curious.  For warhammer world did they have that limit?  I'd be surprised if they screwed over their own army for the next one that comes around.  (It wouldn't be a first though).

I didnt watch warhammer world, so if someone else can answer that be great, all i know is Orks actually did very well.
here is the rules (I think)

https://s20889.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/40K8_Grand_Tournament_Rules_Pack_FINAL.pdf

here is heat 3 of 4 results (orks did well)
https://i.imgur.com/9Unea5I.jpg

GW cares about the ITC and all major tournaments. GW broke their own FAQ release schedule so they could modify it after the results of Adepticon because it matters that much to them.

Quote :

Who said the play testers had ANY part, saying, ability to change the core design of what GW wanted for the codex?
GW cmost likely told them "some things can and something cant change", why do you think this is one of those things testers can change?

I hold them responsible for everything in the book, cover to cover, because they were our self-appointed liaisons with the rules writers. If they get the credit for making some things good then they get the flak for making some things bad.

TeenageAngst wrote:

GW cares about the ITC and all major tournaments. GW broke their own FAQ release schedule so they could modify it after the results of Adepticon because it matters that much to them.

Yes, b.c when a Harpy is the same cost as a Flyrant, with a 4++, powers, better melee, DS ability Synapse, SITW, relics/WL traits, Deny the witch... and there was something like over 100 Flyrants at the tournament, thats a problem.

Edit: Nids is my other large army and i have 6 Tyrants, 3 of them are Flyrants and i think they are broken AF.

A couple of us did 5-6 Flyrants and 3-4 Mawlocks when the book 1st dropped. We all knew it would get nerf soon.

amishprn86 wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

GW cares about the ITC and all major tournaments. GW broke their own FAQ release schedule so they could modify it after the results of Adepticon because it matters that much to them.

Yes, b.c when a Harpy is the same cost as a Flyrant, with a 4++, powers, better melee, DS ability Synapse, SITW, relics/WL traits, Deny the witch... and there was something like over 100 Flyrants at the tournament, thats a problem.

So thus, proof GW cares about the ITC and independent tournaments in general.

Q.E.D.

TeenageAngst wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

GW cares about the ITC and all major tournaments. GW broke their own FAQ release schedule so they could modify it after the results of Adepticon because it matters that much to them.

Yes, b.c when a Harpy is the same cost as a Flyrant, with a 4++, powers, better melee, DS ability Synapse, SITW, relics/WL traits, Deny the witch... and there was something like over 100 Flyrants at the tournament, thats a problem.

So thus, proof GW cares about the ITC and independent tournaments in general.

Q.E.D.

Did you read what i said? I said they dont care about the rules but spammed units.............. I said there are to many house rules and differences to make "rules" but will watch for what is over played via points and adjust for those.


Edit: My comment was about this "the main beef is the 3 detachment limit correct?" GW wont make limitations of rules based on house rules from tournaments.

If "ALL" the tournaments agree to something like "Who has less drops go first" then they will change it.
We have had 3 rules changes from tournaments out of literally 40+ house rules, +1 to go first, Smite stacks +1's, cant re-rolls before or after game starts. NOTE: And these were very vocal concerns outside of the tournament, i wouldnt even count this as a tournament rules change

amishprn86 wrote:

I didnt watch warhammer world, so if someone else can answer that be great, all i know is Orks actually did very well.
here is the rules (I think)

https://s20889.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/40K8_Grand_Tournament_Rules_Pack_FINAL.pdf

here is heat 3 of 4 results (orks did well)
https://i.imgur.com/9Unea5I.jpg

I don't even need to see the list and I know what they had.... ~6 Weirdboys, ~180 boyz, and Mek Gunz. The psychers do d6 mortal wounds and they pray you didn't bring enough anti-hord. It's trash. Orks are in a horrible spot (as per usual), it's why I'm here. lol

sethlight wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

I didnt watch warhammer world, so if someone else can answer that be great, all i know is Orks actually did very well.
here is the rules (I think)

https://s20889.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/40K8_Grand_Tournament_Rules_Pack_FINAL.pdf

here is heat 3 of 4 results (orks did well)
https://i.imgur.com/9Unea5I.jpg

I don't even need to see the list and I know what they had.... ~6 Weirdboys, ~180 boyz, and Mek Gunz.  The psychers do d6 mortal wounds and they pray you didn't bring enough anti-hord.  It's trash.  Orks are in a horrible spot (as per usual), it's why I'm here. lol

I completely agree orks are in a bad spot, but something about Warhammer world made them good, it has to be the missions or time to play, something was different.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I love how everyone is telling me it's someone else's fault other than the people who's fault it clearly is; the playtesters who told GW to make it this way in the first place.

I get that you're passionate about the army and aren't feeling the changes. Let me save you additional passive aggressive sniping. We explained our role in the playtesting process on our last episode, I get people not listening to it if it's not their thing. I'll give the elevator pitch version of it here:

Rules designers design rules, send them to playtesters.

Playtesters playtest the rules, give feedback to the rules designers.

Designers read feedback, either incorporate the feedback directly, revise their rules to accommodate some of those changes, or they ignore the suggestions.

That's all the involvement of playtesters. We don't write the rules. We comment on them. We are unpaid. We volunteer our time for the love of the game. What you call "hiding behind NDA's" is us insuring that we do not violate a legally bending contract so that we might possibly have actual representation on future DE projects. We didn't know that it would be made public that we playtested and didn't want any recognition, only did it to help GW make the best codex they could with our feedback.

That's it. I have a newborn and limited time. I hope you see your way through the codex changes.

amishprn86 wrote:

I completely agree orks are in a bad spot, but something about Warhammer world made them good, it has to be the missions or time to play, something was different.

It's why I'm here.  Also, I just looked up the army.  The one I saw was all boyz and weirdboyz.  That isn't a healthy army.

@Evil Space Elves Awesome words man

@teenageAngst Just to let you know tho,I understand you want to play all 3 in one detachment and still get the buffs, but it looks like GW didn't want DE to be designed that way.

Make a topic about it instead of filling up other topics, you'll get more understanding there than here, players wants to talk about new things and toys and theory craft right now, we get tired of negativity really fast ATM.

Not saying your wrong and to stop, just talk about it in the right place.

Quote :

Not saying your wrong and to stop, just talk about it in the right place.

Just one thing before I do that.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

Designers read feedback, either incorporate the feedback directly, revise their rules to accommodate some of those changes, or they ignore the suggestions.

Did you get to comment on the new force structure for the army, and were your comments implemented in the new codex?

TA, please drop it. This is getting old.

You want to play all 3 factions in 1 competitive list, guess what.... you CAN! Yeah you have to pay for some extra HQs, but they dropped the points on just about every unit and a majority of the weapons that we have to make up for it. I've made a few sample lists from the limited knowledge that we have and so far I'm running a lot more units than before, even with the HQ tax.

I can honestly say that when you're not spewing this discontent, you typically have some solid things to say regarding tactics and list building. You have a good eye for what units are a good value on the table. I would love to read some more posts from that version TA, but right now, I'm about to start searching for an ignore option, because this is just too tiring. I see a post from you and I already know what you are going to say. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that if GW DID give us the ability to field a succubus in the same detachment with some grotesques, you'd probably be upset that it ruins the fluff of DE and then somehow figure out a way to tie it into "GWs grand scheme to turn DE into Ynarri".

This is a super noob question but I've barely played 8th and am just starting to learn about the new book... how does three Patrol Detachments get you more command points when the rule book states a Patrol Detachment gives zero command benefits?

Razkien wrote:

This is a super noob question but I've barely played 8th and am just starting to learn about the new book... how does three Patrol Detachments get you more command points when the rule book states a Patrol Detachment gives zero command benefits?

It's a special Dark Eldar rule we just got.  If you have 3, you get 4 points.  If you have 6 you get 8.  (Or at least I think those are the numbers)

Edit:  Just checked, ya it's 3 gives you 4, and 6 gives you 8.

Truth be told I think it might be fun to go 8.  Nothing to my knowledge stopping you from going the same Kabal over and over.

Razkien wrote:

This is a super noob question but I've barely played 8th and am just starting to learn about the new book... how does three Patrol Detachments get you more command points when the rule book states a Patrol Detachment gives zero command benefits?

Dark Eldar in the codex get a unique bonus of 4 command points for taking 3 Patrol Detachments, or 8 command points for taking 6 Patrols.

Excellent, makes sense now. Thank you all for the speedy reply.

Razkien wrote:

Excellent, makes sense now. Thank you all for the speedy reply.

Np, reason people get ticked is they love this game.

I was considering Flayed Skull Brigade + BH Spearhead + BH Air Wing ~OR~ Wych Cult of some flavor.


Although, you can add two flyers to the Air Wing and one to the SH, so maybe I'll skip out on the AW. I will say, two Brigades would be spicy.

@fattimusmcgee I think Having a flayed Skull brigade and a BH spearhead is just about doable at 2000, although from my estimations you'd be footslogging all your Archons if you wanted any upgrades.
The cheapest brigade (without footslogging 5 man warrior units) we have is something along the lines of this:

HQ
X3 Archon
-Aggy
Total:222

Troops
X6 5 Kabalites
-3 Dissie Raiders
Total: 420

Elites
X3 5 Mandrakes
Total:240

Fast attack
X3 5 Scourges
Total:180

Heavy Support
X3 Dissie Ravagers
total: 375

Grand total: 1437

Then the cheapest spearhead we have is like this
HQ
Archon
Agoniser
Total:74

Heavy Support
X3 Dissie Ravager
Total: 375

Gt: 449

That leaves you about 114 points to spend.

At 2.5k it's very much doable though. For all 3 of those I think you would need to hit the 3k mark!

TeenageAngst wrote:

I'm still waiting for @HERO or someone else with the book in their mitts to tell us how they dealt with it while play testing. I would hate to think they weren't thorough.

Simple.  Don't take HQ tax, period.

Be more like me and just take a Battalion with an Air Wing or something.  The more you pay for tax, the smaller your army will be, and thus less effective you will be at actually killing anything.

And also, I didn't playtest the game. I can only voice concern that they've made the army more fluffy and thematic with sub-factions, but at the same time made it more challenging for competitive play because we can't min-max as hard due to HQ tax.

So... stop taking HQs and just work with what you have. Not the best answer, I know, but it's how I'm able to justify taking an Archon or a Venom w/ 5 dudes and a Blaster when they're not that many points off.

Let me just say, the suffering and anguish in this thread will keep Slaanesh at bay for a thousand years.

Anyway, I don’t really see the problem. Between court, beasts, and mercenaries, we have tons of inexpensive options to fill out every slot except HQ and troops. All the HQs provide buffs to their relevant units, so having two for a Battalion doesn’t seem that terrible. Plus we still haven’t even seen the full range of stratagems and relics.

I am not even that concerned about the slot limitations of patrols, because I intend to lean on the variety of the army. Before I take four ravagers, I will take two ravagers and two razorwings. If I need more support, then I take a void bomber and all of a sudden I have a flyer detachment. Still got room for heavy support? Well then I’m playing a large game and now have no excuse to not run the Tantalus in the Coven or Cult patrol. Variety is the spice of life.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I'm still waiting for @HERO or someone else with the book in their mitts to tell us how they dealt with it while play testing. I would hate to think they weren't thorough.

If you want anything from anyone who helped to playtest the codex it might be a good idea not to constantly insult them.

Trueborn44 wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

@Mppqlmd I think Kabal have better troops, but Cult has better Fast Attack and their HQ is a lot cheaper.

By the way, is it me or does Kabal really not have much? With the removal of Trueborn and with Scourges and Incubi not being Kabal, it seems all you've really got is the Archon and Kabalites.

Oh, and the court, I guess. Seems weird to me that Sslyth and Ur-Ghuls are more Kabal-y than actual Dark Eldar. :/

You can at least include Incubi, mandrakes and scourges in a kabal detachment without stopping obsessions from working. I feel like the Kabals offer a lot though:
-Great obsessions
-Great stratagems
-Massed poison shooting and access to blasters en mass
-Cheapest troops choice in the army
-Ravagers

If you meant in terms of variety, then you're right for sure though.

I did mean variety, yeah. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I mean, I know I can field Mandrakes, Incubi and Scourges, but I was talking about actual Kabal units.

They might have good Obsessions and Stratagems, but those still aren't units. If I get bored of Kabalite Warriors, I can't spice up my list by putting some obsessions in a Venom instead. If I want more variety in my Elites, I can't add a unit of great stratagems to my army.

And yeah, I know Kabalites are cheap (and good). I just wish they weren't the only Kabal unit we had. Same goes for the Archon. Regardless of whether you consider him good or bad, I just wish he wasn't the only HQ choice for Kabal (not counting Drazhar).

With the Court apparently being slotless now, does Kabal even have any Elite or Fast Attack units of its own?

Kabals do not, no. They are the problem cult for list building, where Coven and Wyches for sure are in a better place.

With that said, IDk if court is fully slot less or just if its an "option with an Archon"