Biggest Losers

So we are all stoked about the many improvements to our units. But what units do you think are left in the dust?

For me it is sadly Drazhar and the Incubi.

I really feel like these guys need D2 weapons. We have no real way of handling Terminators in melee, and having -3 D2 weapons in a squad would have filled this gap nicely. Or hell, since our design is low damage unless you roll a six, the whole unit should have precision strike, not just the Klaivex.

And why does Drazhar not have precision strike? As it stands, even with up to 10 attacks, all he can really target is regular infantry. Not even counting all our regular ways of dealing with infantry, both the Archon and Succubus can approach this volume of attacks, except better (all attacks happen simultaneously) and for nearly half the cost. On top of that, he has no real force multiplier, with his aura being twice redundant (he and Klaivex already hit on 3+, and level 3 PfP brings the grunts to 2+ too).

Damn shame. Drazhar may be a 3rd edition model and Incubi may still be failcast, but the unit looks really sweet. This is a great injustice in my mind.

Then there is the Cronos. While it’s own damage output is bad, and it takes a huge amount of models being buffed by its aura to make up its points, at least it has some reason for inclusion in a heavy Coven army of slow stuff that can hang out in its aura.

Finally, Hellions. I am heartened by the positive feedback some have on these guys. Here we have that D2 damage I crave, but no AP. Some screening and the T drug may keep them alive long enough to really abuse that flyover stratagem.

Only two stinkers and two maybes isn’t bad at all, although our Codex is skinnier than most. Just a shame that the prettiest ones are in the former category.

I’m not really going to go into the beasts and courts, they were always flavor models. Medusae are the only ones I would call outright meh.

Tell me I’m wrong!

You're wrong. Was that what you wanted to hear?

Incubi aren't as bad as many people seem to think. They are up there with Lhamaeans for heavily armoured targets. Drazhar sure, still not competitive with other options.

Cronos got a massive drop in points, and was one of the big winners in the Codex. By far our most resilient model against small arms now.

Hellions and Voidraven were the units that missed out in my mind. Both got a little cheaper and have some stratagems that can help, but got overtaken by other options (and Hellions were too expensive/squishy already).

Razorwing Flocks were a major loser, and Sslyth who were ablative wounds for the Archon losing a wound are a little sad.

Great the negative mindset already setting in after a few days...granted you have some valid points.

Incubi are not terrible for 16pts, it's probably the best source of ap-3 we have on an assault unit, and 16pts/m was a nice discount for them. Problem is you compare them to mandrakes which are the same price, and man do they fall short. Same number of attacks, same strength, but mandrakes also have a shooting attack, deep strike, have an invul save, are -1 to hit and a good shooting attack. Man that's a lot of points in favor of mandrakes. Yeah incubi have better ap, but that ap won't really let them beat another dedicated assault unit that well like world eaters unless you get a really good round of combat. Plus the +3 armor is good, but it's somewhat even to +5 invul and -1 to hit.

All that goes to say that incubi, our most kick ass assault unit should be better. 3 attacks is probably enough for them, but I'd love base strength 4, with their weapons turning them to s5 they would be much better than marines. Than the D2 you mentioned would also be very reasonable as well. That might boost their cost to I'd say 20, 21pts a model but I'm ok with that. What I actually want more than better rules for incubi though are plastic models, man I want that finecast to go.

Drazhar is meh, but is model is also super meh to my mind. I also don't really like using special characters anyway, so not a huge deal to me.

Yeah the cronos is always tough to fix. It's cheaper at least, maybe in a full coven or assault oriented list I'd take it because the reroll 1s aura is nice. Otherwise I'd pass. I'm not entirely sure how to fix them up though. Maybe make their melee attack a little better, higher strength and/or attacks, not talos level but a bit better. Shooting attack also needs to be better than s3, or maybe just a chance for mortal wounds. Then maybe boost the healing ability to d3 wounds, not 1.

Hellions I actually disagree with. They are not incredible, they are probably overshadowed by the improvements to wyches and reavers but man can they pack a punch. With cursed blade a massive horde of 20 is basically immune to moral and depending on your drug choice inflicting a whole bunch of damage. Yeah, at least ap-1 is a bummer but I do think they can be a decent amount of damage. They are the ultimate glass cannons but if you have a fair amount of other fast hitting targets to distract your opponent they should make contact. I need to actually test them out though, soon as I have a chance to grab a few hellions..

Drazhar is our only generic HQ, so I would have really liked to have him as an option. The model is garbage due to age, but I like conversions and already had one in mind. Ah well.

I kinda disagree: Drazhar is the only HQ to come with a 2+/5++. He also comes with a Str4 T4. Is the lack of dmg2 on his weapon annoying? He can fight twice in the fight phase, so dmg2 would be OP I think.
His price is kinda high, true, but even with that I don't see him as a "loser" in this codex.
Did he gain? probably not, specially when you look how you can easily gear up our other HQs for a ridiculous amount of pts. But I think he is still a solid HQ choice.

Alezya wrote:

I kinda disagree: Drazhar is the only HQ to come with a 2+/5++. He also comes with a Str4 T4. Is the lack of dmg2 on his weapon annoying? He can fight twice in the fight phase, so dmg2 would be OP I think.
His price is kinda high, true, but even with that I don't see him as a "loser" in this codex.
Did he gain? probably not, specially when you look how you can easily gear up our other HQs for a ridiculous amount of pts. But I think he is still a solid HQ choice.

Compare with Kharn the Betrayer. for 40 extra points you have Kharn fighting twice every round (with +1 attack on the charge), a D2 no overheat plasma pistol, reroll all failed hits for beserkers aura, and his attacks are S 7 AP (-3 or -4 can't remember), d3 damage. and his saves are 3+ 4++, meaning against serious opposition he has a better save too.

Hard to sell D2 as really being that OP.

I have to agree with the OP on Drazhar. When I read his stats I just couldn't see why I would take him other than to take out infantry which isn't the most glorious of jobs for what should be a CC beast.

Once I moved on to the other HQ options and I noticed the load outs we have access to when combining Obsessions, Traits and Relics...WOW it just made Drazhar look even more pointless.

I won't rule anything out until I have play tested it though...I really feel like play testing everything is the better way to go. At the moment though I'm super interested to see what combos I can arrange for my HQ's. They look very strong for the points costs, especially being able to buy a 2nd relic for 1 CP...I don't think an extra 2 relics for 3CP is worth it.

- I don't know about Hellions.

- Cronos seems like a voluntary HQ tax.

- Incubi don't seem too bad on their own. I think the issue is that, even counting Drazhar, they've basically got nothing to support them. Also, it occurs to me that their attacks amount to Disintegrators but with worse strength and damage, and which need to be in melee to fire. Still, I don't think you can call them the biggest losers.

- Drazhar . . . bleh. I heard he'd got a big price cut, but it was nowhere near big enough. I think I'd struggle to justify him even at 80pts. He might fight twice now, but he's still barely better than a Klaivex (and doesn't even have the Klaivex's multi-damage rule). I can't believe they didn't fix his aura. He really does seem like the worst unit in the book.

Bit of a left field answer; I think the biggest losers in the Codex are allies.

We need to field so many detachments just to get our core list onto the board that it means we've already sunk a lot into required units, making even more compulsory spending start to seem prohibitive. If you take an Alliance of Agony and a Farseer you're spending 300 points just on characters. If you're trying to build a list for an event that has harsh detachment restrictions? Forget about it.

This might not seem like an issue if you're a Dark Eldar purist, but I quite enjoyed mixing some Craftworlds and Harlequins into my list every so often and the Codex has made that quite a bit trickier.

I think the biggest losers might actually be Scourge.
I think they're still a great unit with awesome weapon options, but the inability to give them a Kabal does suck a bit. It pushes them out into a place where they make little sense in the grander scheme of things, despite being establish in narrative as people who do ally formally with specific Kabals, and are part of them.

Scourge? They are one of the most improved units in the whole codex for me. Purely due to the points decrease on their weapon options and the Blaster becoming D6 damage and the Haywire Blaster being decent means they just became twice as good as before and people used them before.

Scourge don't need the Kabal obsessions. The right build for Scourge shouldn't have rapid fire weapons. They don't need extra speed. They don't need to re-roll charges on turn one. They don't really need extra range although that would of course be the best of the Obsessions for them.

Squidmaster wrote:

I think the biggest losers might actually be Scourge.
I think they're still a great unit with awesome weapon options, but the inability to give them a Kabal does suck a bit. It pushes them out into a place where they make little sense in the grander scheme of things, despite being establish in narrative as people who do ally formally with specific Kabals, and are part of them.

I think your completely wrong on this. The drop in points on the unit as well the improvements to pretty much all of their weapons means they will always have a spot in any list if they're wanted. Sure, not having access to Obsessions hurts a bit, but they're a cheap unit with natural deep strike and excellent weapon options.

I'm going to have to go with what everyone else has said, Incubi just don't have the damage output these days, they either needed +2S on the Klaives or ways to actually buff them but they have neither. Drazhar's problem is that Demi-Klaives have kept their terrible 7th ed nerfed profile so he's got no damage output, and his aura doesn't buff anything.

The Cronos would be good if it could heal D3 wounds and it was bassed on damage caused by shooting (thats kind of the point of the Spirit Vortex and Syphon to begin with) because it's not killing anything in combat.

Squidmaster wrote:

I think the biggest losers might actually be Scourge.
I think they're still a great unit with awesome weapon options, but the inability to give them a Kabal does suck a bit. It pushes them out into a place where they make little sense in the grander scheme of things, despite being establish in narrative as people who do ally formally with specific Kabals, and are part of them.

It is a bit weird that they're not Kabal models (I find myself wondering if that was done just so Coven could have a FA unit ), and it would certainly be nice if they could benefit from Obsessions.

However, in spite of that, I still don't think they can really be considered losers. They're still pretty good and fit the glass cannon theme well enough.

(I'd still love a winged archon or HQ scourge, though. )

Burnage wrote:

We need to field so many detachments just to get our core list onto the board

We really don’t, unless you’re just chasing army bonuses with no plan. The same battalions and spearheads/vanguards etc are available to us. Just because we can have have warlords doesn’t mean every list needs three warlords.

Quote :

If you take an Alliance of Agony and a Farseer

Get out.

Scourges can in no way be considered losers. 12pts/m is such an incredibly good bargain for a deep striking m14 model that can have 4/5 models in the unit carry special weapons. Add onto that more special weapons are useful now, so scourges are also more useful. In any of the lists I'm making I'm finding I often take an outrider detachment made up of scourges because they are awesome.

On the topic of losers, I'd like to give the cronos a shot before completely writing it off. I could see it being useful in an assault heavy list.

Take one of the best unit in the index.

Boost every weapon it can take.

Cut its price.

"Nerf" it.

Give Drazhar lerhal precision a la Klaivex and he'd be worth 120pts imo

withershadow wrote:

Burnage wrote:

We need to field so many detachments just to get our core list onto the board

We really don’t, unless you’re just chasing army bonuses with no plan. The same battalions and spearheads/vanguards etc are available to us. Just because we can have have warlords doesn’t mean every list needs three warlords.

Quote :

If you take an Alliance of Agony and a Farseer

Get out.

I just mean that in order to run all three aspects of our Codex side-by-side - which is encouraged by our stratagems, rules and even tactical objectives - then you need a minimum of three detachments in order for them to all have trait bonuses. That's a minor drawback, but it is still a drawback compared to other armies who can shove all of their units into a single detachment freely. It also starts to feel very restrictive if people stick to the "no more than three detachments in an army" suggestion or house rule even lower limits.

No hate for the Doomseer please!

Mm 3 str 5 AP -1 D1 attacks on the cronos will probably kill one maybe 2 GEC and 1 MEQ per combat round, but I do agree the cronos should be more of a shoot version of the talos with the ability to heal other models off it's shooting attacks instead of melee ... They even buffed it's shooting ability.

I'm already missing my Voidraven. With Scourges, Razorwings and Ravagers being such fantastic units there is no point in taking them anymore. And Disintegrators being 15pts is the last nail in the coffin.

I was really hoping for a Void Mine strategem. Or maybe even S10 Void Lances and better Dark Scythes.

Squidmaster wrote:

I think the biggest losers might actually be Scourge.
I think they're still a great unit with awesome weapon options, but the inability to give them a Kabal does suck a bit. It pushes them out into a place where they make little sense in the grander scheme of things, despite being establish in narrative as people who do ally formally with specific Kabals, and are part of them.

Umm what?? Scourge are and have always been neutral messengers in the dark city hired purely because they dont care about the politics of those stuck on the ground. In fact the fluff text for scourge in the new dex is exactly the same as it has been since the 5th ed dex.

and really? 12pts a model all their weapons got either cheaper or better except the dark lance and they somehow lost??

I've gotta say voidraven. I've always been a voidraven apologist but it now represents the only way to get darklight guns that only do D3 damage. Yay!

sekac wrote:

I've gotta say voidraven. I've always been a voidraven apologist but it now represents the only way to get darklight guns that only do D3 damage. Yay!

2d3 d3D dark sythes shots do statistically more damage than 2 d6D dark lances shots, more than 2 d6D void lances shots against up to T7, and 0.444 less than void lances against T8, getting the upper hand again against T10 or better.

Sure. My point is blasters make D-scythes pretty pointless.

The only advantage of blasters is they are spammable, but the voidraven bomber is still a solid choice, with missiles and void mine it is reasonably priced.
It may not have been actively improved, but the price drop is an improvement by itself.
If you thought it was a good choice in the index you should still think it.