New FAQ Out Today

On the one hand I think the restrictions to deep striking are not that bad, but on the other hand it removes a tactical aspect during positioning of your army if you don't have to care about deep striking during turn 1 at all. Being allowed to bring only half of the units turn 1 sounds like a much nicer solution to the actual problem.

I think bubble wrapping was a negative element of the game. Players were forced to take cheap units that they didn't really want. Just the visual aspect of having a conga line of cheap troops was a put off.

I think we've come out of these FAQ's better than just about every other army in the game.

As an army with no real way to screen (no, Razorwing Flocks at 12pts a base didn't count), turn 1 deep strike with all the firepower in the world was a real problem for us and probably the biggest question mark regarding the strength of our codex in the meta going forward. No it's not a problem. Sure, those deep strikers will come in turn 2 instead but I found that if you went second you lost control of the entire board against certain armies if you had your own deepstrikers. Now, not remotely a problem and a great change to the game IMO. It also has no negative effects on us, our assault units preffered to come down turn 2 for re roll charges anyway and I only ever used Screaming Jets on Ravagers which will be just as happy coming down in my deployment zone to shoot their targets as they would be anyware else, it's still a very usable tactic.

I feel that the rule of 3 on datasheets is pure cancer. It's a hamfisted solution to a few problematic units that takes a sledghammer to MSU armies, though it doesnt effect us too badly. Thankfully it's not a rule and just a suggestion for organised play, as an organiser of our groups league I'm going to completely ignore it.

Imateria wrote:

I think we've come out of these FAQ's better than just about every other army in the game.

I agree. I am trying to figure out where all the vitriol is coming from.
Finally, De are competitive, well balanced, powerful and will see the top tables.

I guess that is why so many DE players are tossing their cookies over nonsensical perceived slights that mean nothing.. (Come on, people are upset about our raiding force? Who gives a flying rats a$$?) they are just not used to being in a position where we are not underpowered or overpriced.
That means their win/loss is based on their skill. No more excuses.
Guess that is scary to some..

we are a good army now, we have to accept it.

Imateria wrote:

I feel that the rule of 3 on datasheets is pure cancer. It's a hamfisted solution to a few problematic units that takes a sledghammer to MSU armies, though it doesnt effect us too badly.

I think it effects us quite severely due to the fractured nature of our codex. We don't really have that many units to start with and those we do have are then divided up into 3 separate sub-factions. This leaves us with very few choices in each battlefield role and our only option in some cases is to spam. If this rule comes into effect at tournaments it will make us jump through some pretty serious hoops in order to construct viable lists.

Kabal: 2 HQ, 6 Elites (4 of which are further limited), 1 Fast, 1 Heavy
Cult: 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 6 Fast, 0 Heavy
Coven: 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 1 Fast, 2 Heavy

Imagine telling a CWE or SM player to build a list with similar limits!

It might not reduce our most competitive builds but it really hampers our choices overall.

I think that poisoned tongue will be played a lot now.
Their stratagem offers a lot of alpha strike potential, and a good defensive option.
They are also a good alternative now that flayed skull has been faq'ed.

Sent from Topic'it App

Count Adhemar wrote:

Imateria wrote:

I feel that the rule of 3 on datasheets is pure cancer. It's a hamfisted solution to a few problematic units that takes a sledghammer to MSU armies, though it doesnt effect us too badly.

I think it effects us quite severely due to the fractured nature of our codex. We don't really have that many units to start with and those we do have are then divided up into 3 separate sub-factions. This leaves us with very few choices in each battlefield role and our only option in some cases is to spam. If this rule comes into effect at tournaments it will make us jump through some pretty serious hoops in order to construct viable lists.

Kabal: 2 HQ, 6 Elites (4 of which are further limited), 1 Fast, 1 Heavy
Cult: 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 6 Fast, 0 Heavy
Coven: 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 1 Fast, 2 Heavy

Imagine telling a CWE or SM player to build a list with similar limits!

It might not reduce our most competitive builds but it really hampers our choices overall.

I agree.

However, aside from the Court of the Archon restriction (which is nonsense), I think this just as much the fault of the codex itself. This wouldn't have been anywhere near as much of a problem if they hadn't palmed off every subfaction with just a single HQ choice (not counting special characters). They could have easily given us a Dracon, a Lesser Haemonculus and a Syren as demi-HQs. Moreover, they could have given us Incubi, Scourge and/or Mandrake HQs - so that we'd have some HQs (outside of a single special character) that can be taken by any of our subfactions.

Put simply, whilst I don't think that the 0-3 restriction is a particularly good idea, I also don't think it deserves all the blame. Our codex set us up for this fall by limiting our options, removing options and refusing to replace them with any more options. It deserves at least half the blame for this, arguably most of it.

i guess im the only one who will keep playing the raiding party...
Yes it got a huge blow but 1 more cp (battalion and something else vs 3 patrols and something else - yeah im not playing tournaments so we dont impose 3 detachment limits) is not enough to make me pay for another archon or to drop my beautiful triad of the archon, sucubuss, haemy now that i can finaly field it ^_^

DevilDoll wrote:

i guess im the only one who will keep playing the raiding party...
Yes it got a huge blow but 1 more cp (battalion and something else vs 3 patrols and something else - yeah im not playing tournaments so we dont impose 3 detachment limits) is not enough to make me pay for another archon or to drop my beautiful triad of the archon, sucubuss, haemy now that i can finaly field it ^_^

I might be more enthused with the whole Raiding Party thing if Alliance of Agony wasn't the only synergy between our 3 subfactions. Oh, and I guess we can play musical chairs with transports. Yay?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

DevilDoll wrote:

i guess im the only one who will keep playing the raiding party...
Yes it got a huge blow but 1 more cp (battalion and something else vs 3 patrols and something else - yeah im not playing tournaments so we dont impose 3 detachment limits) is not enough to make me pay for another archon or to drop my beautiful triad of the archon, sucubuss, haemy now that i can finaly field it ^_^

I might be more enthused with the whole Raiding Party thing if Alliance of Agony wasn't the only synergy between our 3 subfactions. Oh, and I guess we can play musical chairs with transports. Yay?

well the tantalus can carry all 3 minimum troop units from the patrols plus one of the warlords...! thats something ^_^

I think the synergy lies in the complementarity the profiles have.

You can take Ork boyz (wyches), escort them with heavy destroyers (ravagers), and pimple up with some Death Guard (coven).

Few armies can do that ^^

I have been thinking over how to write a new list today. I haven't come up with anything I am over the moon with yet.

I have to be honest I am a very optimistic poster on this site and I have a headache at the moment trying to get a list together that I want to use.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I have been thinking over how to write a new list today.  I haven't come up with anything I am over the moon with yet.

I have to be honest I am a very optimistic poster on this site and I have a headache at the moment trying to get a list together that I want to use.

I think a lot of lists will look like this :

- Kabalite battalion (flayed skull or poisoned tongue) with a crap load of raiders/venoms, and some flavor units.

- Kabalite vanguard with 3 ravagers in Black Heart

- Wych outrider with red grief reavers.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I have been thinking over how to write a new list today.  I haven't come up with anything I am over the moon with yet.

I have to be honest I am a very optimistic poster on this site and I have a headache at the moment trying to get a list together that I want to use.

I think a lot of lists will look like this :

- Kabalite battalion (flayed skull or poisoned tongue) with a crap load of raiders/venoms, and some flavor units.

- Kabalite vanguard with 3 ravagers in Black Heart

- Wych outrider with red grief reavers.

Or switch the reavers for taloi for a similar, but different feeling variant, yeah.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I have been thinking over how to write a new list today.  I haven't come up with anything I am over the moon with yet.

I have to be honest I am a very optimistic poster on this site and I have a headache at the moment trying to get a list together that I want to use.

I think a lot of lists will look like this :

- Kabalite battalion (flayed skull or poisoned tongue) with a crap load of raiders/venoms, and some flavor units.

- Kabalite vanguard with 3 ravagers in Black Heart

- Wych outrider with red grief reavers.

Yep. For such a flexible list, I think our good options are boiling down to be remarkably samey. Kind of inevitable when we've got an average of a single unit choice per detachment slot in each of our factions.

That is close to what I have so far...but in truth I didn't want 3 fast attack. I wanted a squad of 9 reavers so that I can really take advantage of the mortal wound strategem. Maybe I will x2 6 man squads.

Seems now we are maybe going to be possibly taking some Scourge with a Cult Outrider to take up another slot.

Maybe take Talos with a Haemy in a Spearhead detachment. Another way would be taking a haemy with Mandrakes and Grotesques in a Vanguard...etc etc etc

I really did want the 3 warlords in my army. So I am trying to work out a way to make a decent list with a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment.

I am sure over the coming days people on here will start to come up with list builds that inspire me.

To be fair, the FAQ has changed nothing in my current list. It does however stump me when coming up with alternatives to that list.

Quote :

That is close to what I have so far...but in truth I didn't want 3 fast attack. I wanted a squad of 9 reavers so that I can really take advantage of the mortal wound strategem. Maybe I will x2 6 man squads.

I'll be playing 3*9. And only because GoCommoragh is out of store, because i'd love to field 3*12. It's only 700pts after all.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I really did want the 3 warlords in my army.  So I am trying to work out a way to make a decent list with a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment.

im with you and i think thats near impossible without raiding party...

DevilDoll wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I really did want the 3 warlords in my army.  So I am trying to work out a way to make a decent list with a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment.

im with you and i think thats near impossible without raiding party...

I've done it with flayed skull battlelion for gunboats and troops, prophets of flesh spearhead for urien and talos and red grief outrider for bikes and scourge.

If it's not a tournament you can even take a black heart spearhead too for ravagers and warlord trait.

Cult Outrider :

- Scourges
- Bikes
- Bikes

Coven Vanguard :

- Mandrakes
- Grotesques
- Grotesques
- Talos/chronos*2 (you have FA and HS slots in a vanguard, let's not forget that ^^)

Kabal Battalion



10 CP for 4 HQ is not ideal (you could get 13 CP if you mixed 2 battalions, or 15 with only 3 HQs with the briguade) but if variety is so important to you, you can do it.

That many Reavers?! LOL

I could take 6 Reavers, 6 Reavers and a unit of Scourge in an Outrider detachment I guess.

It seems that Coven is the tricky one. 3x3 Talos would be awesome but that would cost me £250 to buy and I am not doing that!

It seems like all of this could be made a lot easier if they had just said Dark Eldar get a CP for taking a Patrol detachment...then it would be so simple again and fluffy as well I think.

Battalion Kabal
Patrol Cult
Patrol Coven

Quote :

It seems like all of this could be made a lot easier if they had just said Dark Eldar get a CP for taking a Patrol detachment...then it would be so simple again and fluffy as well I think.

This would indeed have been the most elegant solution.

Or if they allowed 4 detachments.

Then it could have been...

Kabal Battalion - Any
Kabal Patrol - Black Heart
Cult Patrol - Any
Coven Patrol - Any

5 CP (battalion) + 4CP (raiding party) + 3CP (battle forged)