3 Patrols might not be best

I'm currently thinking the following on initial maths:

A BH Batallion mech-Kabal (flyers, ravagers and venoms) with Archon, Drazar and a Sslyth or two;
A Cursed Blade outrider with Wyches (travelling with the Succubus and Drazar in raiders), a blob of Hellions and 2x Scourges;
A Red Grief outrider with 3x Reavers (the Succubus can be part of the Archon's retinue and help for counter charges).

For BH, the vehicle FNP is enough for me considering the stratagem and warlord trait - and I think 8 CP scales well enough if you are farming using the trait. Start the Archon on foot for +1 buffs before retreating into a Raider when the screen collapses.

Cursed Blade is great for the Hellions blob because of morale, and the +1S is useful for the Wyches. Either rush the Hellions up the board or deep strike them on turn 2 (depending on terrain, etc.)

Red Grief + Reavers is a no-brainer - provide the turn one charge and tying up vehicles and tanks.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Quote :

We can take one Brigade>

But then you either get no obsession, or you have to play full Kabalite/Coven/Cult (one of the three).

While reading this topic, I got really confused, for example by the above quote.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I got it, is that a specific Kabal obsession goes for all Kabal units in that detachment, right? But that doesn't unable us to also put a Cult unit (with it's own Cult obsession) in that same detachment as far as I read it. :/
If we hypothetically put one unit of Kabalites, and one unit of Reavers in a single detachment, we'd have to pick a Kabal obsession for the Kabalites, and a Cult obsession for the Reavers, right?
If this is correct, then we could (again, hypothetically) use 3 patrol or battalion (or whatever kind) detachments, and litterally use all 9 obsessions in one army, right? One Kabal obsession + one Cult obsession + one Coven obsession per detachment.
This means at least 3 HQ and troop choices, but allows you to give your Reavers an other Cult obsession than your Wyches, or your Talos an other Coven obsession than your Wracks, simply by not putting them in the same detachment.

This means that if we use 3 patrol detachments, we'll have 7 CP + whatever an Haemonculus with Diabolical Soothsayer, or an Archon with Labyrinthine Cunning generates.
Combining this with Alliance of Agony, this means we need only one of each 3 HQ's, only 3 troops, have 7 CP to start with plus 2 HQ's generating more of them, and can mix all 9 obsessions if we want to.
Aside from that, we'll be allowed up to 6 elites, 6 fast attacks, 6 heavy support, 6 flyers, or more troops or HQ's if you'd want that, by simply dividing them in the detachment with the right obsession for that unit.

So, please either explain to me what I completely misunderstood (me being a noob means this is very possible), or what "tax" you guys are talking about?

You have to select a faction archetype for every detachment. Every unit in it has to have that faction keyword.

So if you mix Kabal and Cult units in a detachment, you create a Drukhari detachment, and not a Kabal/Coven/Cult detachment.

You can only assign obsessions to pure Kabal/Cult/Coven detachments. No mixing.

This is the same for how all factions traits buffs are working currently

If that's so, I completely misunderstood that.
However, all I can find in the Index is this:
"DRUKHARI datasheets may have either the <KABAL>, <WYCH CULT> or <COVEN> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Kabal, Wych Cult or Haemonculus Coven the unit is from."

To me, this does not even say that 2 coven units in 1 detachment can't be from 2 different covens, so so far, no limitations.

In the rulebook I can only find that units in one detachment must have a faction keyword in common. In this case "Drukhari". But it doesn't say that my Kabalites being in a Drukhari detachment will lose their <KABAL> keyword if there's a cult unit in the same detachment. A Kabalite could still have both the DRUKHARI, and <KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART> keywords for example.

And reading the obsession previews, it only says "Units with this obsession have... bla bla bla". "Units", not "Detachments".

So did they put this in some FAQ or Errata or something? Or am I just reading the wrong pages?

Thats b.c thats an Index and not a Codex

In a Codex it literally has 1/2 a page explaining it

But the 1st couple sentence will do

"If your army is battle-forged, all units in (input army name) Detachments gain a <Insert trait names>, so long as every unit in that Detachment is from the same <Input trait here>

Ah, that explains why I missed it. I have not read any codex yet since I only have Dark Eldar and some Harlequins. :/ Thanks for explaining.
That does indeed limit the use of obsessions a LOT.

It will be possible to work around it, but the negative is glaring. Why would I reach for a Wych Cult detachment when I could use an Eldar or Harlequin detachment that fills the same role but also psychic powers and an entire codex of units to choose from? If we could take 1 obsession from a cult and coven and Kabal in one detachment then we'd be able to slug it out with the big boys without being tempted to borrow other armies.

TeenageAngst wrote:

It will be possible to work around it, but the negative is glaring. Why would I reach for a Wych Cult detachment when I could use an Eldar or Harlequin detachment that fills the same role but also psychic powers and an entire codex of units to choose from? If we could take 1 obsession from a cult and coven and Kabal in one detachment then we'd be able to slug it out with the big boys without being tempted to borrow other armies.

Because, stratagems and war gear?

I'm not tempted to borrow from other armies, I think our army will work just fine as is. I see where you're coming from being frustrated with being forced to take several characters to unlock more detachments for seperate kabal/cult/coven, but I rather like how all three subfaction are now unique and get their own abilities.

TeenageAngst wrote:

It will be possible to work around it, but the negative is glaring. Why would I reach for a Wych Cult detachment when I could use an Eldar or Harlequin detachment that fills the same role but also psychic powers and an entire codex of units to choose from? If we could take 1 obsession from a cult and coven and Kabal in one detachment then we'd be able to slug it out with the big boys without being tempted to borrow other armies.

I do get what you're saying but compared to other armies it seems O/P. It would be like Alpha Legion or Aliatoc being able to switch out the -1 on their melee units to re-roll charges (etc.).

The best that could have realistically been hoped for, IMHO, is that including a Coven unit in a Kabal detachment (for instance) and that unit gets no benefit but the rest of the detachment (providing they are Kabal) gets to keep their obsession. (This has precedent in Tempestus and IG). However, it would then still be some debate as to whether this is actually better than taking them in another detachment and therefore getting their buff.

All told, its not a particularly easy problem, and I think they do seemed to have spent time thinking about it. People may not agree with the solution but that's life/the internet.

More a comment on the current state of the competitive meta, you say we may not then have needed to borrow from other armies to compete at the top tables ... there are virtually no "pure" armies at the top tables any more!

TeenageAngst wrote:

It will be possible to work around it, but the negative is glaring. Why would I reach for a Wych Cult detachment when I could use an Eldar or Harlequin detachment that fills the same role but also psychic powers and an entire codex of units to choose from? If we could take 1 obsession from a cult and coven and Kabal in one detachment then we'd be able to slug it out with the big boys without being tempted to borrow other armies.

Exactly, you don't. If the goal was simply to add detachments, I'd always recommend a Doomseer and Hemlocks 9/10. They work absolutely perfectly with our current army.

Obviously its more forced upon us than on others, but in the end its not much different from competitive builds in other armies. Most "pure" tournament IG lists take Cadian mortars/Catachan Basilisks/Tallarn tanks. Eldar take Aliatoc rangers/Samm Hain spears. CSM take Alpha Legion cultists and World Eater Beserkers. In practice its really not that different.

TheMortician wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

It will be possible to work around it, but the negative is glaring. Why would I reach for a Wych Cult detachment when I could use an Eldar or Harlequin detachment that fills the same role but also psychic powers and an entire codex of units to choose from? If we could take 1 obsession from a cult and coven and Kabal in one detachment then we'd be able to slug it out with the big boys without being tempted to borrow other armies.

I do get what you're saying but compared to other armies it seems O/P. It would be like Alpha Legion or Aliatoc being able to switch out the -1 on their melee units to re-roll charges (etc.).

Of if their HQs could actually buff any unit in their army, rather than just a tiny fraction.

Oh. Right.

I like the diversity of my army. Therefore I actually try to avoid having more than 2 of the same units on the field. Also, I think an army without one of our sub factions would be unbalanced.

I have a mix of Kabal, Coven and Cult units, and also some Harlequins. I like Wracks, I like Reavers, I like Kabalites, and I like Harlequins. This forces me to use at least 4 detachments, but apparently a lot of places keep a limit of 3 detachments. Well crap. :/
And because I wanted a fast HQ for an Outrider detachment but we lack those in Drukhari, I am kind of forced to use one Craftworld Farseer Skyrunner HQ.
To be honest, if that's really the rules, I might be forced to use an army without any kind of obsession. :c

Yep, those Kabalite Warriors are unplayable without re-roll 1's in melee and +1 to their invulnerable saves

That's right pure armies are rare, but GW has made no secret of wanting to rid the meta of soup. This is them basically doubling down on it which is weird. Covens, Cult, and Kabal should all be able to be run in the same detachment without hamstringing themselves, otherwise bringing just a patrol of Dark Heart and shoving all the other points in Eldar and Clowns or Ynnari works better.

TheMortician wrote:

Yep, those Kabalite Warriors are unplayable without re-roll 1's in melee and +1 to their invulnerable saves

Well apparently they'd be overpowered and would completely break the game.

TeenageAngst wrote:

That's right pure armies are rare, but GW has made no secret of wanting to rid the meta of soup. This is them basically doubling down on it which is weird. Covens, Cult, and Kabal should all be able to be run in the same detachment without hamstringing themselves, otherwise bringing just a patrol of Dark Heart and shoving all the other points in Eldar and Clowns or Ynnari works better.

It doesn't look to me like they've shown any desire to get rid of soups. The community page write up of the Dark Creed trait actively encouraged doubling up with a Hemlock detatchement

By the way, is fear (i.e. ld debuffs from Coven and PGL on Kabalites) the only synergy we have between our different subfactions?

Or am I forgetting something?

Gonna try this tonight!

Quote :

2000 // 7 CP
Realspace Raid

Black Heart Patrol +0 CP

HQ:
Archon, Blaster = 89
Warlord Trait: Labyrinthine Cunning

TROOP:
10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
199

10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
199

FLYER:
Razorwing, 2x Dinsintegrators = 135

HEAVY:
Ravager, 3x Dinsintegrators = 125
Ravager, 3x Dinsintegrators = 125

+++

Black Heart Patrol +0 CP

HQ:
Archon, Blaster = 89

TROOP:
10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
199

10x Warriors, 2x Blaster, Dark Lance = 114
Raider, Dark Lance = 85
199

FLYER:
Razorwing, 2x Dinsintegrators = 135
Razorwing, 2x Dinsintegrators = 135

HEAVY:
Ravager, 3x Dinsintegrators = 125

+++

Strife Patrol +0 CP

HQ:
Succubus, Whip/BP/PGL = 67
Warlord Trait: Blood Dancer
Drug: Adrenalight +1A

TROOP:
20x Wyches, Agonizer/BP, Shardnet = 179
Drug: Grave Lotus +1S

Look mom! I'm using 3 Patrols for our +4 CP, total of 7.

Will it be good?  Probably not!  But who cares!

@HERO Are you walking those wyches or are they arriving by wwp?

Quote :

It doesn't look to me like they've shown any desire to get rid of soups. The community page write up of the Dark Creed trait actively encouraged doubling up with a Hemlock detatchement

To quote a bible, "the prophet Elijah is coming down on his chariot from heaven, swinging a flaming sword called FAQ"

What is in it no one can say but it will be profound and, if history is any indicator, probably going to punt top table lists into the territory of unplayable. Like how they tend to nerf Ynnari so often you could set your watch to it, or how they removed Razorwing spam.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

@HERO Are you walking those wyches or are they arriving by wwp?

They're going to WWP their ass in.

I'm also probably going to eat 1 CP, take the extra Warlord Trait.  Might make them Strife instead of +1 attack on everyone.

That gives the Succubus 4 base +1 Strife +1 Drug +3 from Whip for a total of 9 attacks with an Agonizer that hits on 2s, re-roll 1s, and each hit for 6s become 3 more hits because of Blood Dancer.

Meanwhile, all Wyches are 3A base due to Strife with +1 Strength.

Yes, will try 10/10.

I'll add to the playtesters that I much love the work you guys have done for this codex. I play a lot of armies, but Dark Eldar were my first and it's still the army I love the most. So far, this codex feels like my favorite one out of all of the codexes they've had and I'm sure you playtesters were instrumental in giving this codex such a fun feel. I even see why they split the obsessions across the cults and kabals because I don't think I'd be able to pick a single benefit that I want to apply across all units if it was army-wide anyways.

I am definitely hoping that the ITC will adjust their perception on the detachment restrictions, but I've been commenting on the FLG posts to express the problems and the outlook doesn't seem positive. Reese is acting like the detachment restriction is coming down from GW and not from them, so he seems to be washing his hands of the situation. That means unless we can get GW to FAQ something that adds "3 patrols count as a single detachment selection" as part of the rule then we're probably out of luck. I still think the codex is great and I think it can be played competitively, but it would sure as hell be easier if we didn't hit detach limit just accessing everything in the book.