Any luck with non-obsession detachments?

TeenageAngst wrote:

Burnage wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

If someone can figure out a way to get all that clumped into one 2000 point list I'm all ears.

Cult of Strife Battalion with two Succubi, three units of five Wyches, a Beastmaster with twelve Razorwing Flocks.
Prophets of Flesh Battalion with a Haemonculus, Urien, and three units of ten Wracks.
Black Heart Spearhead with an Archon, three Ravagers and a Voidraven.

Hits all of your holy grail requirements. Gives you 14 Command Points to work with. Less than 1500 points.

See, I ran that very list and it ended up not doing well against Tau of all things. The Wyches I had too many of, the Succubi were a waste of points, but the Ravagers and the Wracks did work. Razorwing Flocks ate an entire shooting phase on their own.

I didn't run Grotesques, instead opting for monster mash, so that might have had something to do with it, but really I think it was the lack of warriors and excess of Wyches. The synergy is all knocked outta whack and I don't know specifically what I could do to change it.

How about this as an alternative;

Black Heart Battalion with two Archons, three units of five Kabalites and a Voidraven.
Prophets of Flesh Battalion with a Haemonculus, Urien, and three units of ten Wracks.
Cult of Strife Vanguard, with a Succubus, a unit of five Wyches, two units of five Mandrakes, a Beastmaster and the twelve Razorwings.

That comes in at a smidge under 1250 points without upgrades or transports and only really has a single Archon as a weak point, but I'd rather spend 72 points than lose 4 CP.

Including extra Archons is the listbuilding equivalent of adding water to single malt scotch. The appeal of the warriors is cost efficiency, which the extra Archon eats in points and then some. I would rather run an Archon with 3 units of Scourges, a Prophets of Flesh battalion, but that still leaves me with the headache of a Cult battalion. I guess what I *could* do is use Succubi as HQs, a unit of Wyches as one troop and warriors to fill out the rest, and shove the beastmaster and flocks in there. The Cult obsessions are functionally useless if you aren't using them for a turn 1 charge or the meat of your melee damage, they're more utility units to hold stuff down.

TA,

PM'ed you a couple ideas. One thing I'll say here is that you can look at a second Succubus as a smaller footprint Wych unit by putting a Shardnet/Impaler on her. Same number of wounds as 5 wyches, similar points cost, better save v shooting, easier to hide. There are definitely worse ways to fill those HQ slots.

I look at the second succubus as basically being told I need to play 60 points down. Because by including it I'm playing 60 points down.

As for your list suggestion, it checks the boxes, but it doesn't have a cohesive internal balance. Lemme explain:

2 Succubi, one is obviously a melee oriented fighter, the other is armed with a Shardnet and Impaler for some reason. IMO the Succubus' main job is to get into combat with something, don't die for a turn, and then Dirty Harry them with a Blast Pistol. Paying for any other weapons on them is just throwing more points at their already tepid melee performance. Hitting on a 2+ is hitting on a 2+ and when the model comes with a rule that lets it lock infantry in combat, I'll spend the points on the sure thing Pistol over the wonky melee loadouts.

10 Grotesques sounds good but they realistically can only murder one thing at a time, and usually that thing is whatever your opponent specifically places in their path. Also, that thing can *very* easily pull the ol' 3-man triangle on a single Grotesque and hold the entire unit in combat with chaff from now until doomsday. I'd much rather have 2 units of 5 if I was going that route, or 3 units of 4.

Putting power swords on Wyches is pearls before swine.

Why does the Archon have a Huskblade? What is it going to get into combat with if it's hanging out with the Ravagers?

The Wracks look good, the Haemonculus I would probably drop the kit except for the mask.

Personally I would swap out the Grotesques for a mix of Talos and Chronos since the Ravagers are bringing the mid strength power to the table already. I would also give at least one Ravager Dark Lances because reasons.

Mandrakes, I included them in my Brigade to round it out, and while I'm not opposed to them being there, they don't do anything.

There's other problems too. A distinct lack of warriors for cheap shooting, meaning I am relying *very* heavily on my melee component. This coupled with a lack of mobility means my Wyches, Wracks, and Grotesques will need to get where they need to go immediately and have very little fire support. It also means the 3 Ravagers are going to be primaried instantly since they are my only source of anti-tank and long range fire. There are no Scourges for shredders or haywire blasters, meaning mid-game reinforcements are out unless I want to lose a turn or two of shooting (and some CP to boot) dropping my Ravagers in. The Wyches are going to get shot off the board by anything looking at them sideways unless they stick to terrain, which means it will be turn 3 by the time they get to their target at least.

To compare this to my Brigade, I had 3 units of Scourges for every application. 4 units of Warriors and a mere 1 Wych squad that was big enough to have expendable bodies. I had fewer Wracks, fewer HQs, and dropped the Ravagers entirely, instead putting my Talos/Chronos units in the HS slots.

I prefer streamlined and diverse, while the 3 detachments force needless redundancy. This is why I was thinking of using warriors as the main troop component of the second battalion with only a single unit of Wyches.

2 words ynnari brigade.
You're giving up obsessions anyway so why not receive a benefit from it? I can think of quite a few of the units you mentioned using to benefit greatly from sfd

You lose Obsessions, you lose Power From Pain, you lose Covens, you lose Mandrakes, you lose good Warlord Traits.

Strength From Death, especially diluted across an entire Brigade, isn't worth that.

TA, What about something like this:

BH Battalion:
- Archon w/ Venom Blade, Writ of the Living Muse (Warlord - Labyrinthine Cunning)
- Archon w/ Agoniser, Blaster
- 3x 5 Warriors w/ Blaster
- 3x Venom
- 2x Ravager w/ 3 Disintegrators
- Ravager w/ 3 Dark Lances
- Voidraven

PoF Battalion
- Urien
- Haemonculus w/ Vexator Mask
- 3x 10 Wracks w/ 2 Ossefactors

RG Patrol
- Succubus w/ Blood Glaive
- 2x 5 Wyches w/ Agoniser, Shardnet & Impailer
- Beastmaster
- 12 Razorwing Flocks
- 2x Raiders (can also go in the BH Battallion for the 6+++ if you prefer)

Comes to about 1850pts (depending on wargear preferences). So there's about 150pts left if you want to add anything else and/or mess around with wargear.

(I've added artefacts, but they're really just suggestions - especially since you appear to run HQs with far less wargear than most here.)

I believe I got in everything you asked for in your previous list (and, as noted above, there are still some points left for whatever you want). The only thing I couldn't avoid was a second Archon. Trust me, I don't like it any more than you do, but I think you're going to have to bite the bullet on this one.

The issues with that list are the lack of punch. Once the Ravagers are out of the picture the list has no moving parts. For example, there's a Prophets of Flesh battalion, but the only usable units in it are 3 10-man Wrack squads. If there were Grotesques or Talos the HQs would have something to do but following around a bunch of Wracks is a waste. Also if you're running a patrol of Cult at least give a 9-man Wych squad instead of 2 5-man squads.

I don't understand why Warriors are in Venoms with Blasters, or why there are more than 1 Raider. Venoms are overpriced garbage and Blasters on Warriors are a waste. You could scrap both and come out with enough points for Scourges with shredders and haywire. 1 Raider is good for a 9-man Wych squad and a Succubus but the 2nd one is unnecessary.

I guess I could almost stomach a 2nd Archon but it would have jack all to do, and both would have jack all to do if I dropped the Ravagers, which I really really want to do but seem forced to bring to make at least 1 Archon worth having on the table. I could make them suicidal melee characters but Succubi are so much better suited for that.

TLDR: I can't get absolutely everything I want in a list so the codex must be broken.

Count Adhemar wrote:

TLDR: I can't get absolutely everything I want in a list so the codex must be broken.

No, TL;DR: I could get absolutely everything I want in a list if the army was made like Eldar or any other army in the game currently and not smashed into 3 completely incompatible subfactions, thank you playtesters.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

TLDR: I can't get absolutely everything I want in a list so the codex must be broken.

No, TL;DR: I could get absolutely everything I want in a list if the army was made like Eldar or any other army in the game currently and not smashed into 3 completely incompatible subfactions, thank you playtesters.

Will you seriously just change the frikkin record? Your constant whining about playtesters is becoming unbelievably monotonous and tedious. It's a good codex. If you don't like it then don't play it. Play another army or another game. I've lost track of the number of occasions you've said that you dislike the current version of 40k and the current version of the codex. If you don't like it, don't play it!

Count Adhemar wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

TLDR: I can't get absolutely everything I want in a list so the codex must be broken.

No, TL;DR: I could get absolutely everything I want in a list if the army was made like Eldar or any other army in the game currently and not smashed into 3 completely incompatible subfactions, thank you playtesters.

Will you seriously just change the frikkin record? Your constant whining about playtesters is becoming unbelievably monotonous and tedious. It's a good codex. If you don't like it then don't play it. Play another army or another game. I've lost track of the number of occasions you've said that you dislike the current version of 40k and the current version of the codex. If you don't like it, don't play it!

I criticize because I care, Count. I care about the game, I care about the army, I care about the lore and the competitive scene both. Which is why I will on any fitting occasion dredge up the reasons why I think all of the above could be better and point fingers at the ones directly responsible for it not being as good as it otherwise could be. Had I been a playtester myself I would have understood that with the responsibility of taking the wheel of game design input you're also opening yourself to the criticisms of the community you're trying to serve. Because you know what happens when you don't criticize things? You get Frontline Gaming aka Warhammer Community 2 telling people Chapter Approved is a pot of gold. You get the entirety of the London GT. You get slow-playing Orks winning the actual Games Workshop grand tournament by never progressing beyond turn 3. You get 5 minutes of live-streamed footage of pre-game setup and a handshake for the final round of a GT invitational match. And yes, you also get a faction chopped into 3 subfactions that do not work together trying to masquerade as an army.

And as for your snide comment about my critique of the proposed list changes people are giving me, I am grateful for the help. However as I've said before, my listbuilding and army construction tends to be vastly different from everyone else's for better or worse, so a lot is lost in translation.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The issues with that list are the lack of punch. Once the Ravagers are out of the picture the list has no moving parts.

Yeah, that was what I was thinking as well, but you seemed to want a lot of units that lacked punch.

TeenageAngst wrote:

For example, there's a Prophets of Flesh battalion, but the only usable units in it are 3 10-man Wrack squads. If there were Grotesques or Talos the HQs would have something to do but following around a bunch of Wracks is a waste.

I didn't include Grotesques because you seemed to indicate earlier that you didn't want them.

As for the Wracks, I'm really not a fan of them at all. But you wanted 10-man squads of them, and Haemonculi/Urien were the only HQs you were willing to include in multiples, hence I used those and 3 units of Wracks to make up the Battalion for the CPs you wanted.

You could probably squeeze in a couple of Talos or Grotesques (messing around with wargear options to gain the extra points). But if you want more you'd probably have to remove the Ravagers, in which case you're not going to have much net gain so far as punch is concerned.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Also if you're running a patrol of Cult at least give a 9-man Wych squad instead of 2 5-man squads.

Maybe I misinterpreted your request, but I thought you wanted at least 2 Wych units?

TeenageAngst wrote:

I don't understand why Warriors are in Venoms with Blasters, or why there are more than 1 Raider.

Well, you made no mention of which transports you preferred, so I just went with Venoms.

The 2 Raiders are because I thought you might want to put the spare Archon and Succubus with separate Wych units. However, I realise that not everyone shares my distaste for putting multiple HQs together, so if you'd prefer to put them together in the same Raider then I apologise.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I don't understand why Warriors are in Venoms with Blasters, or why there are more than 1 Raider. Venoms are overpriced garbage and Blasters on Warriors are a waste. You could scrap both and come out with enough points for Scourges with shredders and haywire.

But in the previous list, you criticised the lack of Warriors for cheap shooting.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I guess I could almost stomach a 2nd Archon but it would have jack all to do, and both would have jack all to do if I dropped the Ravagers, which I really really want to do but seem forced to bring to make at least 1 Archon worth having on the table. I could make them suicidal melee characters but Succubi are so much better suited for that.

Out of interest, what would you replace the Ravagers with? I ask because earlier you said they were basically the only bite in the list.

Anyway, regarding Archons, here's a non-exhaustive list of potential uses for them:
- BS2+ Blaster
- Sniper (via Soul Seeker)
- General Melee threat (For example, you could put a Huskblade Archon with a unit of Wyches with a Shardnet, relying on the Archon to actually do the damage while the Wyches tie the target in combat. Or you could just put him with a unit of Grotesques or such - so he can add a bit of damage while they act as bodyguards.)
- Suicidal melee (I've grown fond of using a secondary Archon with a unit of Lhamaeans - ideally sending them after a big, non-vehicle threat to put some damage on it and hopefully either kill it or else tie it up for a while.)
- Aura (possibly 2 if you also take the Writ. If you want him to buff stuff other than Ravagers, consider that he can disembark 11" from a vehicle, +Advance if necessary, and then embark again next turn, should the need arise.)
- Caddy for Helm of Spite, Labyrinthine Cunning and the like.

(These might not sound amazing, but bear in mind that many aren't mutually exclusive - e.g. an aura-Archon can still be firing a blaster at stuff, a sniper can still join in a melee etc.)

I hope something I've said has been helpful, but I fear we may have very different philosophies when it comes to list-building. I know I have quite a few quirks/eccentricities with my lists that probably wouldn't make sense to anyone else and which I'd struggle to even explain beyond 'I'm a bit weird'.  


Anyway, I've got one final consideration. Instead of looking for the best/strongest possible option, have you tried looking for something fun?

I know that fun is subjective, but you might find that you have more fun with a list that's a little less strong overall, but which includes more models you actually like and want to use, rather than a tournament-strength list with a load of stuff you have no interest in. From a competitive standpoint, I think DE is in a pretty good place at the moment, so you probably have a decent amount of leeway in terms of taking fun/fluffy options over strong ones (as opposed to, say, 7th edition, when you were basically scrounging for every shred of advantage you could get).

For example, I use a Kabal of the Poison Tongue army for no other reason than because I love the Soul Seeker relic. Is my army as strong as one using Black Heart? Almost certainly not. But I don't give a damn because it's fun. I don't want an Archon who sits back boring Ravager crews with Vect's monologues. I want one who can snipe a character from the other side of a solid wall.


By the way, I really hope I'm not coming across as insulting/condescending, because I promise you that's not my intent at all. I just wonder if you're a little too focused on bringing the strongest list possible, to the exclusion of all else.

TeenageAngst wrote:

No, TL;DR: I could get absolutely everything I want in a list if the army was made like Eldar or any other army in the game currently and not smashed into 3 completely incompatible subfactions, thank you playtesters.

I'm also not fond of how our army has been split (might have worked better if we had more units per subfaction or if more interaction had been permitted between them). But I'm also not fond of our HQs being the slowest in the game, bar Admech and arguably IG.

The thing is, much as I might dislike those (and other) things, they're what we've got to work with at the moment.

If you want that to change, you'd probably be better off compiling your complaints in a letter to GW (assuming you haven't done so already). I fear all we can offer is suggestions and tactics for the stuff in the current codex.

Lemme give a list I've been working on for illustration:

Spoiler:

The punch comes from the 4 monsters, the 3 units of Scourges, and the Voidraven Bomber. That means you have 4 units of direct and 3 units of indirect threat, as the Scourges can be dropped where they are needed, forcing your opponent to play tight with his units until the end of turn 2/3 when they are all on the board. Also, 5 units of Warriors footslogging allow for plenty of chaff and annoying objective holding. The Haemonculi have something to follow now too, and the Succubi can be stuck in with the footslogging Wracks for protection, getting them where they need to go and increasing the liklihood of the Succubus getting into combat with a choice character which you can then execute with the pistol. Everything has a place and purpose.

Quote :

Anyway, I've got one final consideration. Instead of looking for the best/strongest possible option, have you tried looking for something fun?

My distaste for the Ravager spearhead and my constant attempts to subvert it's inclusion in my lists should be evidence enough that I favor certain units for flavor over reliable tournament results. I thought running my brigade was fun. I had fun when I was able to run my Sisters of Battle with my Dark Eldar since it was fluffy for my army. As the army becomes mode pigeonholed however my options for variability dwindle and how I have fun with the game isn't so simplistic as running this Kabal over that Kabal.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Venoms are overpriced garbage and Blasters on Warriors are a waste.

What?

TeenageAngst wrote:

Lemme give a list I've been working on for illustration:

Spoiler:

The punch comes from the 4 monsters, the 3 units of Scourges, and the Voidraven Bomber. That means you have 4 units of direct and 3 units of indirect threat, as the Scourges can be dropped where they are needed, forcing your opponent to play tight with his units until the end of turn 2/3 when they are all on the board. Also, 5 units of Warriors footslogging allow for plenty of chaff and annoying objective holding. The Haemonculi have something to follow now too, and the Succubi can be stuck in with the footslogging Wracks for protection, getting them where they need to go and increasing the liklihood of the Succubus getting into combat with a choice character which you can then execute with the pistol. Everything has a place and purpose.

I get some of your list, but other parts seem a little strange to me. Would you mind if I asked a few questions?

- Do you find Wracks that useful? I know they're decent now, but 30 of them seems like it might be a little excessive.

- Might 3 Talos and 1 Cronos be better? Cronos, while cheap, don't really bring a great deal to the table in terms of offence. And if you're clumping stuff together, you surely only need 1 aura?

- Are Wyches necessary? With 30 Wracks and 4 Monsters, I'm wondering if you already have enough melee without needing to include a squad of these.

- How do you use the Razorwings? I guess I'm just curious as to how necessary they are with the new deep strike rules.

- Shredders on the Scourges seem like an odd choice. With most of your other stuff (especially your 30 Wracks) being better suited to anti-infantry, I'd have thought Blasters or more Haywire would be a better bet.

TeenageAngst wrote:

My distaste for the Ravager spearhead and my constant attempts to subvert it's inclusion in my lists should be evidence enough that I favor certain units for flavor over reliable tournament results.

Fair enough. In fairness, you also rejected quite a few units that I (and many others) considered good on the basis that they were crap, so you'll forgive me for not automatically assuming that your dislike of Ravagers was based on you simply not finding them fun.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I thought running my brigade was fun. I had fun when I was able to run my Sisters of Battle with my Dark Eldar since it was fluffy for my army. As the army becomes mode pigeonholed however my options for variability dwindle and how I have fun with the game isn't so simplistic as running this Kabal over that Kabal.

I get you. I was mostly thinking about HQs. I mention it because, not unlike you, I tended to view them almost exclusively as dead-weight and lamented having to even take them in my lists (and stuff like the BH Spearhead just isn't my thing). What helped was taking a more lighthearted approach and just playing around with some fluffy builds on them. Maybe it's not your thing, but it seemed worth mentioning on the off-chance.

Regarding Sisters of Battle and DE, I don't suppose you could add in some Eldar and refluff them as SoB (using your SoB models for them)? (Howling Banshees as Death-Cult Assassins, Fire Dragons as Dominions, Warp Spiders as Seraphims, Dark Reapers as Retributors, Autarch as a Cannoness etc.).

I know it's far from perfect, but it might get you a little closer to the army you want to play.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

- Do you find Wracks that useful? I know they're decent now, but 30 of them seems like it might be a little excessive.

I find them useful, but not 3 full units. That's one of the tradeoffs I have to make, preferably I would like to have 1 or maybe 2. Granted I could run them as 5 man squads but using Black Cornacopians on a 5 man squad is a bit of a waste and that's one of the primary reasons I bring them.

Quote :

Might 3 Talos and 1 Cronos be better? Cronos, while cheap, don't really bring a great deal to the table in terms of offence. And if you're clumping stuff together, you surely only need 1 aura?

There's a few reasons for this. First off, the Chronos is, IMO, very cheap for its durability. Second, those Spirit Probes stack their regenerating benefits, so each Chronos has the chance to heal a wound on something nearby. Including a third Talos instead however isn't a bad idea, this is just my preferred loadout.

Quote :

- Are Wyches necessary? With 30 Wracks and 4 Monsters, I'm wondering if you already have enough melee without needing to include a squad of these.

They're a utility unit, designed to hold stuff in place with the shardnet & impaler long enough for the slower monster mash to catch up or get stuck in combat.

Quote :

- How do you use the Razorwings? I guess I'm just curious as to how necessary they are with the new deep strike rules.

Depends what I'm playing against. If I'm going against smite spam or gunlines I'll throw them in front to eat a psychic/shooting phase or two. If I'm going against alpha melee they'll be my screen. If I'm going against a highly mobile army like Eldar then I'll deep strike them in on turn 2 for zone control.

Quote :

- Shredders on the Scourges seem like an odd choice. With most of your other stuff (especially your 30 Wracks) being better suited to anti-infantry, I'd have thought Blasters or more Haywire would be a better bet.

Shredder Scourges are goofy, they will mulch any infantry they can touch for half the cost of Blasters. I used them to great effect against Guardian blobs, Dark Reapers, and Genestealers and find them a cost effective problem solver.

Quote :

Fair enough. In fairness, you also rejected quite a few units that I (and many others) considered good on the basis that they were crap, so you'll forgive me for not automatically assuming that your dislike of Ravagers was based on you simply not finding them fun.

That's some hyperbole on my part. Blaster Warriors in Venoms obviously aren't as bad as I say but they, like Ravagers with an Archon, are dependable and boring. Their performance will never be amazing or disappointing, and chances are they'll play the same way every single game. You can make a perfectly functional list that depends on nothing more than 3 Ravagers with an Archon, 6 units of Warriors in Venoms with Blasters, and a sprinkling of other units to taste. To some, that might be what tickles their fancy. To me that's not entertaining to play.

Quote :

I get you. I was mostly thinking about HQs. I mention it because, not unlike you, I tended to view them almost exclusively as dead-weight and lamented having to even take them in my lists (and stuff like the BH Spearhead just isn't my thing). What helped was taking a more lighthearted approach and just playing around with some fluffy builds on them. Maybe it's not your thing, but it seemed worth mentioning on the off-chance.

Regarding Sisters of Battle and DE, I don't suppose you could add in some Eldar and refluff them as SoB (using your SoB models for them)? (Howling Banshees as Death-Cult Assassins, Fire Dragons as Dominions, Warp Spiders as Seraphims, Dark Reapers as Retributors, Autarch as a Cannoness etc.).

I know it's far from perfect, but it might get you a little closer to the army you want to play.

There's a few problems. First, I only have about 500 points or so of SoB because they're so expensive. Because of this I can't even run them on their own, so they haven't had any use in 8th edition. Second, because all the models look the same, running them as so many varied units as the Eldar have would be almost impossible. Third, if I want to run Eldar with my Dark Eldar, I have Eldar. I want to run Sisters of Battle with my Dark Eldar. I want flamers and an Immolator and my Penitent Engine and melta not a Wave Serpent that looks odd.

Prophets of Flesh Battalion:

Urien
Haemonculus w/Electrocorrosive Whip, Vexator Mask

3x 2.5x 10-man Wracks w/2x Ossefactors and Electrocorrosive Whip

2x Chronos w/Spirit Probe
1x Talos w/Twin Haywire and 2x Macro Scalpel
1x Talos w/Twin Heat Lance and 2x Macro Scalpel

Kabal of the Black Heart Outrider:

Archon w/Blaster, Agonizer, and Phantasm Grenade Launcher
Archon

6x Kabalite Warriors

2x Scourges w/4x Haywire Blasters
1x Scourges w/4x Shredders and Power Lance

Voidraven Bomber w/Dark Scythes and Voidraven Missiles

Raider w/Disintegrator and Shock Prow

Mixed Detachment:

2x Succubus w/Blast Pistol

2x Scourges w/4x Haywire Blasters
1x Scourges w/4x Shredders and Power Lance

5x Kabalite Warriors
1x 8-man Wyches w/Shardnet & Impaler, Phantasm Grenade Launcher, Agonizer

Beastmaster w/Agonizer

12-man Razorwing Flocks

your list, I say switch the kabalites in the black heart with the scourges to the cult, along with changing a succubus to an archon, and lose either a few razorwings or a few wracks to take another kabalite squad.
Suddenly everything is in the right detachment and you changed 3or4 wracks/razowings for another kabalite squad.
If those 4 out of 30 wracks are essential to your game I think there might be bigger issues.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

TLDR: I can't get absolutely everything I want in a list so the codex must be broken.

No, TL;DR: I could get absolutely everything I want in a list if the army was made like Eldar or any other army in the game currently and not smashed into 3 completely incompatible subfactions, thank you playtesters.

Will you seriously just change the frikkin record? Your constant whining about playtesters is becoming unbelievably monotonous and tedious. It's a good codex. If you don't like it then don't play it. Play another army or another game. I've lost track of the number of occasions you've said that you dislike the current version of 40k and the current version of the codex. If you don't like it, don't play it!

I criticize because I care, Count. I care about the game, I care about the army, I care about the lore and the competitive scene both. Which is why I will on any fitting occasion dredge up the reasons why I think all of the above could be better and point fingers at the ones directly responsible for it not being as good as it otherwise could be. Had I been a playtester myself I would have understood that with the responsibility of taking the wheel of game design input you're also opening yourself to the criticisms of the community you're trying to serve.

You do realise that playtesters merely comment on the rules that GW come up with? They make suggestions on how they feel the rules work or don't work. They don't write the rules! They simply provide feedback. How much weight that feedback is given is entirely down to GW. There is also the question of opinion. Your opinion seems to be that the codex is a dumpster fire. Many, many others disagree. But you never let that stop you from wheeling out your tiresome comments on the playtesters over and over and over again. It's boring, inaccurate and disrespectful to some very good people. We get it. You don't like the codex. You've made it abundantly clear on many, many occasions. Now please for Vect's sake, move on!

Quote :

Because you know what happens when you don't criticize things? You get Frontline Gaming aka Warhammer Community 2 telling people Chapter Approved is a pot of gold.

Another matter on which your opinions are well known.

Quote :

You get the entirety of the London GT.

Which I was at and you weren't and, in spite of the issues, was still an enjoyable weekend.

Quote :

You get slow-playing Orks winning the actual Games Workshop grand tournament by never progressing beyond turn 3.

There were accusations of slow play but there were plenty of people who were at the GT who said this was rubbish and he just played the missions really well. Not seen anything concrete either way.

Quote :

You get 5 minutes of live-streamed footage of pre-game setup and a handshake for the final round of a GT invitational match.

Not sure what this even refers to

Quote :

And yes, you also get a faction chopped into 3 subfactions that do not work together trying to masquerade as an army.

You mean the army that, since the codex launch, has been performing well in pretty much every tournament?

Quote :

And as for your snide comment about my critique of the proposed list changes people are giving me, I am grateful for the help. However as I've said before, my listbuilding and army construction tends to be vastly different from everyone else's for better or worse, so a lot is lost in translation.

You're grateful are you? Because it seems to me that you're providing a list of 'must haves', other people are kindly putting together lists with every one of them included and you're then whining about not having X or having too much Y etc.

Criticism is one thing. Constant bitching and negativity is an entirely different matter. For at least a year now you've been moaning about how poor the game and latterly how rubbish the codex is yet you're still here and still playing. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. If you're not having fun then why bother?

TeenageAngst wrote:

I find them useful, but not 3 full units. That's one of the tradeoffs I have to make, preferably I would like to have 1 or maybe 2. Granted I could run them as 5 man squads but using Black Cornacopians on a 5 man squad is a bit of a waste and that's one of the primary reasons I bring them.

The thing is, I'm wondering if your distaste for HQs is making you effectively waste more points on redundant troop units than you'd 'waste' on HQs, if you see what I mean.

For example, you could drop the Covens down to a Spearhead with either Urien or a Haemonculus (not both) and just 1 unit of Wracks, and then have a BH Battalion instead of a spearhead. You won't be spending any more points on HQs than you would be anyway, and one of them is likely to be redundant regardless of whether you use Coven or Kabal.

TeenageAngst wrote:

There's a few reasons for this. First off, the Chronos is, IMO, very cheap for its durability. Second, those Spirit Probes stack their regenerating benefits, so each Chronos has the chance to heal a wound on something nearby. Including a third Talos instead however isn't a bad idea, this is just my preferred loadout.

I suppose what puzzled me is that you said in your initial description that the army's punch came from (amongst other things) the 4 monsters. However, while cheap for their toughness, Cronos have very little punch. They're much more anvils than hammers.

It's up to you, obviously, but I don't think I'd want to rely on them for their offensive abilities.

TeenageAngst wrote:

They're a utility unit, designed to hold stuff in place with the shardnet & impaler long enough for the slower monster mash to catch up or get stuck in combat.

I guess it just seems weird to have only one of them. I'd have thought having ~3 5-man squads would be more logical, giving you some redundancy and also allowing you to tie down multiple targets. Currently, you've also got a single unit and 2 HQs in what appears to be your only transport, making it a prime target for anti-vehicle weapons.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Depends what I'm playing against. If I'm going against smite spam or gunlines I'll throw them in front to eat a psychic/shooting phase or two. If I'm going against alpha melee they'll be my screen. If I'm going against a highly mobile army like Eldar then I'll deep strike them in on turn 2 for zone control.

I'll admit to being dubious that they're a worthwhile investment, but then I don't use beasts at all so I'll trust your experience here.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Shredder Scourges are goofy, they will mulch any infantry they can touch for half the cost of Blasters. I used them to great effect against Guardian blobs, Dark Reapers, and Genestealers and find them a cost effective problem solver.

Fair enough.

TeenageAngst wrote:

That's some hyperbole on my part. Blaster Warriors in Venoms obviously aren't as bad as I say but they, like Ravagers with an Archon, are dependable and boring. Their performance will never be amazing or disappointing, and chances are they'll play the same way every single game. You can make a perfectly functional list that depends on nothing more than 3 Ravagers with an Archon, 6 units of Warriors in Venoms with Blasters, and a sprinkling of other units to taste. To some, that might be what tickles their fancy. To me that's not entertaining to play.

Personally, I don't object to having some dependable units in my army.

I do get what you mean, though. I like using several small Warrior squads, mainly because I just enjoy having a lot of stuff on the board (hence I naturally gravitate towards small, cheap squads). They can be a bit boring/samey, though I've also found an odd pleasure in having so many little squads around.

I don't suppose it would help to add a little extra gear to the squads to differentiate them? Maybe distribute some Agonisers, Power Swords, PGLs and even Blast Pistols around the squads?

TeenageAngst wrote:

There's a few problems. First, I only have about 500 points or so of SoB because they're so expensive. Because of this I can't even run them on their own, so they haven't had any use in 8th edition. Second, because all the models look the same, running them as so many varied units as the Eldar have would be almost impossible. Third, if I want to run Eldar with my Dark Eldar, I have Eldar. I want to run Sisters of Battle with my Dark Eldar. I want flamers and an Immolator and my Penitent Engine and melta not a Wave Serpent that looks odd.

Alright. Sorry, I'm just trying to offer possibilities within the rules.

@ Count Adhemar, Do you get the feeling that you are (in the words of Pink Floyd) banging your head against some mad buggers wall?

Silverglade wrote:

@ Count Adhemar, Do you get the feeling that you are (in the words of Pink Floyd) banging your head against some mad buggers wall?  

Frequently!

@|Meavar That seems like a pretty simple change, I'll see how it works.

Count Adhemar wrote:

*Angry Elf Noises*

Look, I know you think the guys here who playtested the codex are the bees knees, but I've heard enough humble-bragging from other playtesters to know how involved they are in the rules writing. If a playtester says something needs to be in the codex, there's a really good chance GW is going to do it. To borrow a line from Ross Scott, like if you give a homeless guy a bottle of whiskey, will he take swig, it's that level of consistency. So when the rules come out and I have a bone to pick with a couple significant army mechanics, I'm not gonna ask GW because they just took their info from the playtesters. I'm gonna go straight to the horses mouth. And to be honest I don't ever expect it to change, I just wanna know why these decisions were made. Was there some design philosophy? Was there a mechanical gameplay reason? Am I completely off base and missing a huge tactical benefit or something? Was ESE just running on 3 hours of sleep when he was looking things over? Any of those would be fine but when I'm told to just shut up and enjoy what I'm given I get resentful.

Be that as it may, if my attempts at finding a new list are that much of a thorn in your side I'll stop asking for help and just roll with whatever. Six blaster warriors in venoms, an archon with three ravagers, scourges with haywire, and a flyer wing with razorwings, that's almost 2000 points right there.

Thing is, you're basically assembling an obsession-based force in this thread anyway, if you just shuffle some units around in the already existing detachments. From obsession-less ones you go to obsession detachments. By shuffling these few models around, you make your models more powerful, in line with the design philosophy of this codex.

I've been going through this thread and I honestly have no clue what your beef is. You don't want to take triple ravagers, alright. Don't want to spam Blaster warriors, cool. Yet to then claim that because of you consciously choosing to not use powerful models, the codex is busted 'cause you're getting pidgeonholed into taking what, detachments with obsessions? So much of the choices you make and try to argue for just seem contrarian for the sake of it.

I play Eldar. I like Eldar listbuilding as they have their specific playstyle of super specialized, yet rigidly defined units with rigid benefits. I play Dark Eldar. I like Dark Eldar listbuilding, as their playstyle too intuitively guides you towards several types of detachments. I love the fact that both armies operate differently, as that simply makes sense and makes the purchase of another codex worth it. It is exciting to have to shift things around and weight costs and benefits, rather than just boiling a big soup like the Imperium players do, park their ass in a ruin and call it a day as that is the pinnacle of their tactical genius.

So really, you've answered your own questions. Was there a design philosophy? Yes, absolutely. It's written right there in the codex. Mechanical gameplay reason? Yes, to make the army play the way they are portrayed in their background. Are you off base and missing a tactical benefit? If by insisting to go against the grain and play an army against the way it has been designed, losing out benefits while doing so with barely any visible benefit when you could get them all with the same list by simply shuffling some options around, the answer is also affirmative.

Quote :

I've been going through this thread and I honestly have no clue what your beef is.

I want to bring my army as one army rather than 3 smaller armies and not have to go without any and all tactical benefits, the same way every other army in the game works.

It's that simple.