Scourge Gear

Looking at getting enough scourges to run 3 squads for outriders. Was thinking 2 squads with 4 haywire blasters each and the 3rd with 4 blasters.
Any thoughts on these loadouts

Difficult to say, really depends about your list and how you wanna play them. I play 2 squads w/haywire, but I got a third and I'm going to build it with Haywire too. 3x5 Haywires is my playstile. Honestly, I love how that weapon works both for antitank and anti infantry, being so cheap.

Another playstile that I'm curious to try is them with DarkLances. The thing is that DS them is like losing their impact in turn 1 (or almost, their reliability still on the opponent: if he advances or just stay back and shoot). I want to impose my game in turn one, so getting all my antitank on the board, hiding them first turn (if would go second/lose the initative) and then fire at first turn. Yes, it will hit at 4+, but still good in my opinion (you're shooting 9-12 DL anyway). AND if you manage to get cover, you will get +2 saves for the stratagem.

Blasters are fine too. I guess all depends about your list.

I second this. I'm not a huge fan of the dark lances on scourges, especially when it means they hit on 4s. Amother good option is 2x haywire squads and 1x shredders. Shredders are excellent against chaff. But once again, like @Cerve said, it depends on your meta/rest of your list

What are your thoughts on an outrider with Yvraine and 3 units of Scourges? Load out could be a haywire unit, a shredder unit and a blaster unit (alternatively a dark lance unit that starts on the table).
Optimally, one unit drops each turn and therefore eligible for Yvraine’s Word of the Phoenix and Ancestor’s Grace. Dark lance would start on table.
Not counting on them surviving much more than one round.
Threat range varies per unit of course, but 18” spells + 12”/18”/24”/36” respectively is not bad. But then there’s always the option of running dark reapers of which I own none and I do not wish to own any. Scourges offer more maneuverability.
Protecting Yvraine is of course pivotal.

Edit: Sry for trying to hijack your thread.

Mikoneo wrote:

Looking at getting enough scourges to run 3 squads for outriders. Was thinking 2 squads with 4 haywire blasters each and the 3rd with 4 blasters.
Any thoughts on these loadouts

Probably depends on the rest of your list.

I've been leaning much more towards Haywire on Scourges, rather than Blasters. Mostly due to the price. I mean, given how fragile they are, 92pts for 4 Haywire is a significant difference from 128pts for 4 Blasters.

Also, if the enemy moves forward on turn 1, Haywire Scourges can potentially engage them from my deployment zone (deep striking in). On the other hand, Blaster Scourges will almost certainly have to wait until turn 2. Not a huge deal, just something to consider.

I tried Yvraine plus 3xScourges last night. Not a single Word of the Phoenix went through. Haywire took out the only vehicle target and proceeded to take out death company. Shredders came in second with more death company and blasters didn’t really earn their points back even with plenty of juicy targets.
I’m all aboard the haywire hype train from now on.

Mine are always Haywire, but if I was taking 3 units of them? I'd make the third Blasters if I could afford it, or Shredders if I couldn't.

Then again, I run Flayed Skull with Craftworld psyker support so I don't really have anti-infantry issues anyway.

So I guess it comes down to using the Scourge to offset what the rest of your list can/can't do as well. Not worried about vehicles but weak against hordes? Take the Shredders. Are your Ravagers full Dissie (like mine) and your only S8 is from the 6-8 Blasters you have? Take Haywire.

One issue I have with Haywire Scourges now (in the context of a combined Aeldari force) is that Haywire Skyweavers are almost unequivocally better - more durable, mostly more mobile, similar damage and basically the same price. It can be trickier to slot them into a list if you're mostly running Dark Eldar, but they're pretty much a straight up better unit that fills the exact same niche.

That's completely fair, but you do have to factor in the tax component. If you're already running a Harlies detachment? Sure, zero arguments from me. But if you weren't planning to do so already, I don't see what the bikes bring over the Scourge to justify the tax component, which with Harlies point cost, is huge, to the point of taking you back to the drawing board.

Are you kidding? Scourges are WAY better than those expensive Skyweavers. 2D3 is better than 1D6, and they DS.
Skyweavers are one of the most overrated unit in the game. Completely unoptimized, you"re paying too many points for doing everything...not so well in fact.
93 points for 4DS HB is the way.

I'm actually more fond of the Skyweavers, I think they're way more durable and mobile enough to make up for not having deep strike.

I wouldn't fudge a list just to bring Harlequins for their Skyweavers but if you're sitting with almost 100pts to spend in either your Harlequin or Drukhari detachment I would go for Skyweavers first. Their movement and mobility more than makes up for lack of deep strike, and they can also tie up enemy vehicles. They're just as mobile, more durable, and more versatile.

Cerve wrote:

Are you kidding? Scourges are WAY better than those expensive Skyweavers. 2D3 is better than 1D6, and they DS.
Skyweavers are one of the most overrated unit in the game. Completely unoptimized, you"re paying too many points for doing everything...not so well in fact.
93 points for 4DS HB is the way.

I'm not so sure.

Assuming Zephyrglaives, the Skyweavers are slightly more expensive (102 pts vs 92pts for a comparable Scourge squad), though not by much.
- The Scourges are slightly better in terms of Haywire (4d3 shots vs 2d6).
- The Scourges can deep strike.

However, that's really all the Scourges have going for them. Meanwhile:
- The Skyweavers are vastly more survivable, with more wounds (that is, 2 Skyweavers have more wounds than a 5-man Scourge squad), T4, a 4++, and enemies have to subtract 1 from their hit rolls.
- Unlike Scourges, they can actually benefit from HQ Auras, psychic powers (without needing to ally in a different army), and army-traits.
- The Skyweavers are faster, with +2" movement, automatic 6" Advance, and the ability to Advance and Charge.
- Unlike the Scourges, they're pretty good in combat (3 attacks apiece at S4 AP-2 D2 is nothing to sneeze at).
- Every Skyweaver adds the same value to the squad (unlike Scourges, where only 4 models - not including the sergeant - can bring special weapons).
- Skyweavers are less vulnerable to morale (as they have fewer models and Ld8 without a sergeant, whilst Scourges will usually want to remove their Ld8 sergeant first, due to his lack of special weapon).

Scourges are, at best, marginally more efficient at killing vehicles at range. But Skyweavers just bring so much extra that they should be the first choice whenever you have the option.

Cerve wrote:

Are you kidding? Scourges are WAY better than those expensive Skyweavers. 2D3 is better than 1D6, and they DS.
Skyweavers are one of the most overrated unit in the game. Completely unoptimized, you"re paying too many points for doing everything...not so well in fact.
93 points for 4DS HB is the way.

2D3 versus 1D6 is an average of... 0.5 an additional hit. Not really a big difference. Deep striking is good, but the Skyweaver's dramatically greater movement speed and ability to shoot after advancing without a penalty means that I'd consider them to have similar (if not better) mobility.

Then add in the -1 to hit, greater toughness, greater number of wounds, better invulnerable save, actual close combat ability... and I have a very hard time seeing how Scourges are "way" better than them. The only thing preventing me from including them in lists is needing to pay a fairly hefty tax in other Harlequin units.

Burnage wrote:

The only thing preventing me from including them in lists is needing to pay a fairly hefty tax in other Harlequin units.

Might depend on your list.

I mean, I can't see myself ever bothering with my Outrider of Red Grief Reavers again. Not when Skyweavers can basically replace both them and Scourges at the same time.

Burnage wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Are you kidding? Scourges are WAY better than those expensive Skyweavers. 2D3 is better than 1D6, and they DS.
Skyweavers are one of the most overrated unit in the game. Completely unoptimized, you"re paying too many points for doing everything...not so well in fact.
93 points for 4DS HB is the way.

2D3 versus 1D6 is an average of... 0.5 an additional hit. Not really a big difference. Deep striking is good, but the Skyweaver's dramatically greater movement speed and ability to shoot after advancing without a penalty means that I'd consider them to have similar (if not better) mobility.

Then add in the -1 to hit, greater toughness, greater number of wounds, better invulnerable save, actual close combat ability... and I have a very hard time seeing how Scourges are "way" better than them. The only thing preventing me from including them in lists is needing to pay a fairly hefty tax in other Harlequin units.

They are two completely different units. The thing is as an opponent, I will shoot at those Skyweavers because they are a main unit. They're dangerous, and they are extremely expensive so if I kill them I will take out a good solid unit from your list. And they need to expose themselves to get value.

Scourges are quite the opposite. They DS, so they're safe until they will appear. They are extremely cheap, you can lose because they're expendable. And for that, the opponent is not happy to focus them when you can offer way more valuable units on your list.


So basically, Scourges are way more valuable in terms of priority targets and cost than those bikes they're not bad per se, but such a different unit.

I like Dark Lances more than blasters. The extra range gives you a lot of flexibility in deployment options, whether it’s a distant point on the table with cover and commanding view of enemy lines, or hiding out of LOS in your deployment zone, flying out to shoot, and using fire and fade to hide again.

Blaster Scourges can’t do either of those things, are off the table for the first turn, and are a squishy high priority target within 18” of enemy lines. All those things spell one turn survival rate.

I don’t really mind the to hit penalty at all, 4 BS4+ lances have same average hit rate as a triple lance ravager, with a higher ceiling.

I kind of feel the same way about shredders on them. 12” is suicide.

Cerve wrote:

They are two completely different units. The thing is as an opponent, I will shoot at those Skyweavers because they are a main unit. They're dangerous, and they are extremely expensive so if I kill them I will take out a good solid unit from your list. And they need to expose themselves to get value.

Scourges are quite the opposite. They DS, so they're safe until they will appear. They are extremely cheap, you can lose because they're expendable. And for that, the opponent is not happy to focus them when you can offer way more valuable units on your list.


So basically, Scourges are way more valuable in terms of priority targets and cost than those bikes they're not bad per se, but such a different unit.

If your opponent has vehicles in his list and doesn't see how dangerous the Scourge are, he's not a very experienced/skilled opponent.

You can deep strike the bikes as well, or hide them out of LoS, same as you would Scourge.

You also can't use how cheap Scourge are as a win for the Scourge because they're only 10 points less than the bikes.

All it takes to kill Scourge is a bit of Las/Bolter fire. Other guy will have to dedicate either more bolters or something spicier to get rid of the bikes.

I'm not saying you should take a Harlie detachment just for the bikes, but if you have a detachment of Drukhari and a detachment of Harlies, it's a no-brainer to take the bikes if you need Haywire (and with Knights being such a big part of the meta, we do).

withershadow wrote:

I like Dark Lances more than blasters. The extra range gives you a lot of flexibility in deployment options, whether it’s a distant point on the table with cover and commanding view of enemy lines, or hiding out of LOS in your deployment zone, flying out to shoot, and using fire and fade to hide again.

Blaster Scourges can’t do either of those things, are off the table for the first turn, and are a squishy high priority target within 18” of enemy lines. All those things spell one turn survival rate.

I don’t really mind the to hit penalty at all, 4 BS4+ lances have same average hit rate as a triple lance ravager, with a higher ceiling.

I kind of feel the same way about shredders on them. 12” is suicide.

They're also a great candidate for the Hunt From the Shadows Stratagem, especially against small arms fire.

Chippen wrote:

Cerve wrote:

They are two completely different units. The thing is as an opponent, I will shoot at those Skyweavers because they are a main unit. They're dangerous, and they are extremely expensive so if I kill them I will take out a good solid unit from your list. And they need to expose themselves to get value.

Scourges are quite the opposite. They DS, so they're safe until they will appear. They are extremely cheap, you can lose because they're expendable. And for that, the opponent is not happy to focus them when you can offer way more valuable units on your list.


So basically, Scourges are way more valuable in terms of priority targets and cost than those bikes they're not bad per se, but such a different unit.

If your opponent has vehicles in his list and doesn't see how dangerous the Scourge are, he's not a very experienced/skilled opponent.

You can deep strike the bikes as well, or hide them out of LoS, same as you would Scourge.

You also can't use how cheap Scourge are as a win for the Scourge because they're only 10 points less than the bikes.

All it takes to kill Scourge is a bit of Las/Bolter fire. Other guy will have to dedicate either more bolters or something spicier to get rid of the bikes.

I'm not saying you should take a Harlie detachment just for the bikes, but if you have a detachment of Drukhari and a detachment of Harlies, it's a no-brainer to take the bikes if you need Haywire (and with Knights being such a big part of the meta, we do).

If my opponent has skills he will not shoot my Scourges because you can be sure that I'm pressing him like hell with Grots, Talos, Wychcult, Ravagers and any other bigger unit that my opponent want to kill down.
I'll repeat: my Scourges are totally expendable. Honestly, I WANT my opponent focus them

And you're talking about 2 Bikes. I mean, 2 Bikes do nothing. 2D6 are not so much reliable as 4D3 (which they will be always almost 4 shots, where 2D6 can be 3 or 2), I can focus them down pretty easy (6 wounds at 4++ saves? They're dead; Scourges almost DS), or, If I'm not afraid from tarpits, I can just ignore their assault. Just 6 attacks, maybe 8 with FrozenStar (but so you will shooting with -1 to hit, because you're advance with them like always).
No...the truth in game is that you will of course deploy more of them. Where Scourges are in 5 as a standard size unit, Skyweavers will be almost in 3 most of the times.

And personally, even with an Harley detatchment, I will never prefer Skyweavers over Scourges. Skyweaver are extremely expensive (I think even overcosted), and pretty bad optimized. They can do all, and you're paying for that, but they will never be able to do all at the same time.
They can run and shoot, but with a -1 to hit.
You can buy them from SoaringSpite for avoiding that. Fine to me. But in melee they are totally overrated...just 3 attacks for model, S5 Vp-3 D2. So basically they are Disintegrator Cannons? And 3 attack each one is not enough for their cost. They are 50ish points! At that cost, 3 attacks are NOTHING.
Let's consider 3 of them: 9 attacks, 6 inside, so they will wounds on 3+ (or sometimes even 4+ if you're hitting something big): what do you have achive? 3-4 wounds against what?
You can take them from FrozenStars, so they got 4 attacks in charge! But then they will shoot with BS4+ or you're not advancing with them....which is kinda a shame, because they have that ability and you're paying for that.
They are litterally the SpaceMarines for the Eldar. They can do all..........and they pay this "all".
Harlequins are not cheap per sè. Reavers are better tarpits, where Shining Spears are better hitters. And Scourges gives me better shooting.
Why I need to mix all of them, badly, into one single fragile unit? It's nonsense and totally opposite from the Drukhari playstile.

If I'm going to ally some Harlequins in my Drukhari army, I will never go for those Skyweavers. Just a bunch of Troupes into Starweavers, a Solitaire (he is a beast!) and 1-2 Troupe Masters. Deploy these Starweavers with my Raiders/Venoms, and consider that my opponent need to choose between shooting my Weavers or my Ravagers at first.

But I'll never go for those Skyweavers. They look great on paper...but in game they results extremely expensive for what they get on the table.
IF ONLY they would be able to drop their shooting weapons, and keeping them only for mele (-10 points for the Cannon) they should be great. But their fire weapons are mandatory, and that, honestly, sucks.


All my opinions

I'm not trying to be harsh here (and I'm a bit worried I've derailed the conversation) but I really don't understand your reasoning. Two Haywire Skyweavers deal comparable damage in the shooting phase to five Haywire Scourges, cost a similar number of points, take twice as much bolter fire to kill, do more damage in close combat... but they're apparently expensive, fragile, don't deal any damage and are overcosted while Scourges aren't? Er?

Even if you take away the melee component, the shooting is comparable. I don't know the exact math but off the top of my head I think the average of 2D6 is 7 and the average of 4D3 is 8.
In return, you get a T4 4++ multiwound platform, that can also smack people with a Dissie.

It's not that the Skyweavers are a mix of things and don't do anything as well as the Scourge. It's that the Skyweavers do the exact same thing as the Scourge, for similar points, and also do a lot more stuff on top of that.

You keep harping on the cost of Skyweavers vs Scourge but it's a 10 point difference. If you could pay 2 points per model to give your Scourge a 4++ and T4, would you not do it?

Chippen wrote:

You keep harping on the cost of Skyweavers vs Scourge but it's a 10 point difference. If you could pay 2 points per model to give your Scourge a 4++ and T4, would you not do it?

Don't forget the -1 to hit.

And yeah, I'd definitely pay 2pts per Scourge model for that.

Guys, the thing is Skyweavers are a must-kill unit, where Scourges are not. If you play Scourges as expendable unit (which they ARE), you get the value that makes them better than Skyweavers.

As an Opponent, if I see Skyweavers and other stuffs, I would kill them first because they can do a lot of things and so they becomes my preferred enemy.
If I see some Scourges, I will HATE to must shoot them down because they are totally expendable for my opponent! They are NOT a valuable unit per se, I would prefer to shoot down Ravagers, fully loaded Raiders, Razorwings, Grotesques, Starweavers with Troupes/HQs more than those miserables Scourges.

That is the huge difference. Subdivision of targets, a matter of priority, Scourges are like DS Scions but for tanks. Scions are great because they're cheap and they are expendables. You would love to avoid shooting them down because they already had carried their fire after deepstriking...but you MUST do that, you must spend your energy killing those little guys because if you don't they'll still fire you again and again.
But if the Astra player lose their Scions, do he loss the game? Heck no, it's what they are maded for! Deepstriking, shooting, and hope to die draw the opponent fire away from your best units.
Haywire Scourges are the same. They DS, they shoot, and then they stay there drawing opponent fire away from your better units.

Otherwise, Skyweavers are on the board since the beginng, and as an Opponent I will enjoy to focus them down for their Haywire because....well, I would shoot them anyway it's a win/win for me.
So no, they're totally opposite to Scourges for this fact. That's why I normally end my games with 1 or both Scourges units. Because all the time they died, I manage to bring my better unit on my opponent and (usually) win.
Skyweavers cannot litterally do this work. You will buy more of them because you want to use them both for shooting and melee. They will never be expendables, and in order to expensive units, there are way better units to pick than theme.

That makes zero sense. Two Skyweavers are just as expendable as five Scourges because they're virtually the same price.

Cerve wrote:

Guys, the thing is Skyweavers are a must-kill unit, where Scourges are not. If you play Scourges as expendable unit (which they ARE), you get the value that makes them better than Skyweavers.

As an Opponent, if I see Skyweavers and other stuffs, I would kill them first because they can do a lot of things and so they becomes my preferred enemy.
If I see some Scourges, I will HATE to must shoot them down because they are totally expendable for my opponent! They are NOT a valuable unit per se, I would prefer to shoot down Ravagers, fully loaded Raiders, Razorwings, Grotesques, Starweavers with Troupes/HQs more than those miserables Scourges.

Sorry but this is a terrible argument.

The reason Skyweavers are a must-kill unit and Scourges aren't is because Skyweavers are drastically better and represent a significantly greater threat.

This is not a point in the Scourges' favour. The fact that your opponent can comfortably ignore Scourges because of how nonthreatening and fragile they are is not a point in their favour.


This is like when people used to argue that Hellions were great in 6th because 'they didn't look like a threat and so your opponent would ignore them'. Or, to put that more accurately, Hellions weren't a threat and your opponent understood the concept of target-priority.