Agents of Vect

When we use all our CP for AoV, we don't use:
- Fly-by attack
- +1 cover save
- Shoot + move
- Wyches double-dose
- screaming jets/WWP
- torments grenades

And a lot of others I don't have in mind now. How is that overpowered? Let us play it as often we want. Anyway, if we rely on it too much, we'll end without CP by the end of the 2nd turn. And if your opponent is remotely wise, he will ensure we'll struggle to decide on which stratagem use the AoV. (place a strong unit a little too far from charge and a unit close. Will we stop the reroll charge stratagem on genestealers, or the attack twice on a tyrant?)

Once per turn I could live with but once per game is massively overkill.

Having played about 6 games with it as an option, I have used it twice.

The first game it actually failed, -re-rolled, and still failed!

The second game I used it to stop an opponent's re-roll on a charge he seriously needed to get. It didn't win me the game on it's own, but it was seriously powerful.

Is it good - yes

Is it broken - no

I honestly use other strats much more, and will often find myself playing much more of the psychological game with it... I had one opponent terrified of me blocking it that he wouldn't play any strats until turn 4... when I was under 3 cp and it made little impact on the game what he did then.

This is something that many people asked for before DE came out, and not just DE players. A way to mess with/block/interfere with other players strats. Imperium first had this in one of their assassins too - don't recal which, but it increased the cost of all strats on the first turn by 1. The only thing holding back people from making more use of that is the difficulty in working the assassins into competitive lists. If that changes, I think we will see more of a shift... even now I am surprised, especially vs DE, more players are not making use of that.

As to AoV going to once per Player Turn, I think that may be a good shift - making it more of a decision for DE on when to burn it.

Once per player turn would be totally fine. It's a very slight nerf since the change would really only come in to play if there are 2 "playmaker" stratagems going off on the same player turn. As others have mentioned, spamming it liberally isn't really good enough for 3 CPs - it's best when you are deriving a significant material gain on the battlefield (surprisingly often hitting CP rerolls).

- Stopping a CP reroll to prevent perils
- Stopping a damage reroll to save a Ravager, other vehicle, or character
- Stopping a force multiplier stratagem that would kill a unit (Shoot/fight again strats)
- Stopping a stratagem that would save a unit (fire and fade tucking those Dark Reapers out of LoS of your Ravagers)

AoV is so good because it's basically impossible to have a game where this type of situation never comes up, not so much the frequency.

If anything, the bigger problem is Labrynthine Cunning in the same obsession, which combined with the larger number of command points in the game due to battalion/brigade buffs means you'll commonly have access to 18+ CP in a game (which reduces the severity of misusing/spamming AoV).

Agents of Vect is on par with other big game-changing 3-CP stratagems, but with the caveat that it’s is only ball-breaking if the opponent has a big 3-CP game-changing stratagem they want to use. Usually those are one-trick-pony lists that utterly depend on a single ball-breaking stratagem to win the game, so by merely existing, AoV makes the game better as it discourages that type of list.

Burning 3 CPs for an 83% chance to deny a key re-roll or a counter-attack stratagem is nice, but by no means over the top. As I said on the first page, Bell of Lost Souls (appropriately, all those who read it are lost souls), and Spikey crap are just clickbaiters.  I once was lost (briefly in 5th edition), then then was found (a little bit later in 5th edition), but I can assume the content of the article is something like: Goatboy failed to completely roflstomp one of the lemmings at his local meta due to AoV, and now wants it removed from the game, or better yet, for his armies to gain a version of it. Am I pretty close to the mark? frak that guy.

Oh man, when did this forum start censoring profanity? Boo hiss!

I could totally agree with the people calling for AoV to be once a turn or game, but I would haaaaaate to see other armies getting something similar. For me, DE are about cheap shots, secret weapons and downright dirty tricks. Take that away, and I think you lose a lot of the character of the army. Having some common stratagems is fine and good, but armies definitely need their own stratagems to stand out both fluff- and crunchwise.

I don't know why AoV must be changed and i'm surprised about how many DE players are complacent with that insinuation. Now i know why DE are the fool son of WH40k and why GW treat DE players with that actitud.

After 6 years with a crap codex GW give us a playable codex with a reactive, defensive an situational stratagem that allow us defend from other stratagems that realy can win a game if they are played. Seriously part of the community are saying "yes, maybe must be nerfed a little"?.If a chaos player must change his "conga cultsit list", or a BA his "alpha strike list" because if he faces a DE maybe lost the game, i don't have any pitty with them.

Where is the article of BOLS where talk about how every imperium list are spaming 3 captain custodes on bike? Oh, that's not a problem because the 80% of the 40K players have an imperial army, so if I am the beneficiary then is not a problem, is much better ask for a nerf to something that make me loose.

Let's be serious, is an DE stratagem. All people that are not Eldar player will be crying until GW nerf it just because they can not play it, not because it is broken, and that's why the response article says that every army must have a AoV stratagem, it's completly obvious.

All not DE players that suffer a AoV thinks "OMG, its broken, i was going to win and he countered my stratagem", but all the DE players know that to be able to do it we must save 4CP!!! Aprox, 1/3 of all your CP!!!!! And you only gain 1 turn to change the game.

Please, if we not defend our interes, no one will do it for us.

It's okay for Dark Eldar players to think that there's stuff that's a bit too powerful in our Codex currently. Some of the stuff that we have access to is clearly above par, while some of it is also very clearly below par (how many of us are running beasts or Incubi?). We don't need to get overly defensive and take the stance that we have absolutely nothing that requires any changes.

The reality is that virtually every Codex has seen nerfs of some kind in this edition. We're going to get some. It's fine to talk about what's a candidate, and what a reasonable nerf for it might look like. That doesn't mean I don't also think that things like Custodes Jetbikes need a nerf, because God damn they absolutely do.

It's not even necessarily thinking things are too powerful, and acting like we're all penning memos to GW to nerf our faction is just absurd and bizarrely condescending. Accusations of something being too powerful creates interesting conversation and introspection on HOW it is powerful.

I do not care in the slightest if people on the internet thing AoV is too powerful. I do care quite a lot about how they are getting trashed by it, as it allows me to understand how to replicate that in my own list construction and play patterns, as well as to think about how I would change my tactics IF it gets nerfed.

Burnage wrote:

It's okay for Dark Eldar players to think that there's stuff that's a bit too powerful in our Codex currently. Some of the stuff that we have access to is clearly above par, while some of it is also very clearly below par (how many of us are running beasts or Incubi?). We don't need to get overly defensive and take the stance that we have absolutely nothing that requires any changes.

Sure. But I think we do need to be careful here - especially when it comes to where to apply nerfs.

For example, a couple of Ravagers in a Poison Tongue army are going to be very different from 3 Ravagers in a Black Heart Spearhead with a Writ of the Living Muse Archon in the middle of them.

Just to throw in my two cents. I think the problem that other players (non-Aeldari) have with AoV comes from situations where either:

A) Aeldari soup, spammy lists that have AoV. In general I understand why these lists aren't fun to play against when there are craftworld psyker/jetbike detachments, Ynnari gimmicky interactions, and then on top of that a small Druhkari speahead with an Archon and 3 ravagers providing AoV so that the opponent can't execute their spammy, gimmicky tactics in response.

B) Drukhari-pure Battalion spam where the Drukhari player plays 3 (probably Kabalite-only) battalions and starts with 18 CPs (minimum) so that we can use AoV to counter 6 strategems - aka, every stratagem an opponent plays unless they are imperial guard. However in this case, the Drukhari player has at least 500 points invested in HQ's which, let's be honest, is a horrible list because our HQ's are pretty mediocre en masse (the first couple HQs are solid with auras in full effect, but after that Archon's are too expensive, Succubi have pretty bad offensive output with 4 attacks, and Haemonculi have the best aura, but after the first one they are super meh).

In situation A, I have a lot more sympathy for our opponent, because I too have a disdain for gimmicky soup lists that take the most OP pieces of a few factions that can be taken as "battle brothers" as the old codex called it. Personally, and this may be controversial, but I think that taking different detachments from different codexes should have a CP cost because just as it's annoying to play against Craftworld/Ynnari/AoV lists, it's horrible to play against Imperial guard armies that have a Custodes biker detachment that come and frak up your life with an unlimited conscript-screen.

In situation B, AoV probably makes the game less fun, but the Drukhari player has paid a huge HQ tax to get the CPs necessary to deny his opponent's stratagems over and over, and he should steamroll the Drukhari player unless his army is a complete one trick pony - like the guy that wrote the annoying BoLS article that started this thread . . . If AoV proves a check on one-trick-strategem lists then so be it, that sounds like a really good thing for a healthy meta honestly.

I would be fine with making AoV a once per turn or even per round type of stratagem for strategy's sake as I think it's a fun interplay for a Drukhari player to decide, "Is this the real move, or a smokescreen?" which leads to some fun decision making of when to pull the trigger. As for once per battle, that seems stupid as AoV is already expensive, and not a guaranteed success. I also definitely do not want every faction to get a counterspell, because it's nice when Drukhari have something unique that fits our fluff, and if people are complaining about just us having it, then having AoV in every game is going to cause an uprising.

In the end, I don't think AoV is an issue with a normal Druhkari - only army. It's a fun, unique, but expensive gotcha! stratagem and we shouldn't apologize for it. But as mentioned above, we should acknowledge ways it could be abused.

Vect's Masque wrote:

B) Drukhari-pure Battalion spam where the Drukhari player plays 3 (probably Kabalite-only) battalions

Doesn't the Rule of Three make using 3 Kabalite-only Battalions impossible?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Vect's Masque wrote:

B) Drukhari-pure Battalion spam where the Drukhari player plays 3 (probably Kabalite-only) battalions

Doesn't the Rule of Three make using 3 Kabalite-only Battalions impossible?

You're right, it's 2 batts with Drazhar

god i hate the rule of three for us and even more that our special detachement is completely obsolete

Vect's Masque wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Vect's Masque wrote:

B) Drukhari-pure Battalion spam where the Drukhari player plays 3 (probably Kabalite-only) battalions

Doesn't the Rule of Three make using 3 Kabalite-only Battalions impossible?

You're right, it's 2 batts with Drazhar

One Battalion it is, then.

AzraeI wrote:

god i hate the rule of three for us and even more that our special detachement is completely obsolete

Agreed about our special detachment. So glad they added it only to render it useless within a week.

In terms of the Rule of Three, I think it would be fine if we had something resembling an actual HQ section.

Let's be honest - a single HQ per subfaction (special characters notwithstanding) is dreadful design even without the Rule of Three.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Vect's Masque wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Vect's Masque wrote:

B) Drukhari-pure Battalion spam where the Drukhari player plays 3 (probably Kabalite-only) battalions

Doesn't the Rule of Three make using 3 Kabalite-only Battalions impossible?

You're right, it's 2 batts with Drazhar

One Battalion it is, then.

AzraeI wrote:

god i hate the rule of three for us and even more that our special detachement is completely obsolete

Agreed about our special detachment. So glad they added it only to render it useless within a week.

In terms of the Rule of Three, I think it would be fine if we had something resembling an actual HQ section.

Let's be honest - a single HQ per subfaction (special characters notwithstanding) is dreadful design even without the Rule of Three.

1 nice way to solve the rule of 3 problem with our HQ and detachments would be to raise "Alliance in agony" stratagem to 3CP and add: "You can include members of kabal/cult/coven associated with each warlords in a single detachment, without losing any benefit to obsessions."

dumpeal wrote:

1 nice way to solve the rule of 3 problem with our HQ and detachments would be to raise "Alliance in agony" stratagem to 3CP and add: "You can include members of kabal/cult/coven associated with each warlords in a single detachment, without losing any benefit to obsessions."

That would still be pretty bad, to be honest. It reads like a 3CP tax for playing your army. And you've still just got 1 HQ per faction. I mean, I could take a Haemonculus in a 2nd Kabal Battalion, but doing so costs me 3 CP and the Haemonculus is dead-weight, since his buff still does nothing for Kabal units.

I think this is a problem that needs a solution in the form of actual HQ choices, not stratagems or the like.

I mean, by my count we've lost at least 7 HQ choices over the years. We've literally lost more HQs than we currently have access to.

The key problem, I think, is that we're one of the factions that are causing the most amount of angst online currently (alongside the Custodes/Guard combo and maybe a couple of others). Our issues with HQs are easy to fix - give us bikes or wings and some new HQ units for each faction of differing power level - but I'm guessing we're going to need to get reined in slightly before potentially major buffs like that start to get considered.

I'm not too aggrieved by the triple split. The obsession bonuses, when compared to other factions, make up for the negatives. Ours are better than most. More HQs would be nice of course.
What we need is another army to come out and put dark eldar back into the shadows, so we can slip quietly through the webway unnoticed until we murder unsuspecting enemies. Space Wolves, but more likely Orks have potential for taking the OP crown away from Agents of Vect. Give the whingers something new to whinge about and AoV will go quiet.

i thought about our hqs, how hard can it be to include a dracon, syren and haemonculus ancient?

AzraeI wrote:

i thought about our hqs, how hard can it be to include a dracon, syren and haemonculus ancient?

You'd think it would be pretty simple, wouldn't you?

Other possibilities would be Mandrake and Scourge HQs (which could be used by all 3 subfactions), and perhaps making the Beastmaster an HQ choice.

Beastmaster should just be another Blade for Hire, so he could be included in Kabal and Coven armies without denying them their obsession (he wouldn’t get his, but no big loss). I would like some beasts in some of the Coven lists I’m writing, but not enough to pay the Succubus + Wyches/Reavers/Mandrakes/whatever tax, since the beasts themselves don’t fill FOC slots. If they make Drazhar cheaper and less crap, he would see frequent play as a one-size-fits-all HQ choice.

Raiding party was an elegant way to get around the sub-faction split we had to deal with, but sadly was swiftly made obsolete with the new battalions. Instead of 2 HQs and 3 troops, you did 3 and 3, and got an extra CP in the balance, so for a brief 2 weeks it was a fantastic rule.  I do hope it gets changed to at least 6CPs, since raiding party is not excluded from the max 3 detachment suggestion for organized/matched play.

To bring it back to stratagems briefly, I actually find our most ridiculous stratagem to be masters of the shadowed sky. +1 to hit vs. now very common flying targets for only 1CP is pretty hilarious/outrageous, especially since RAW you get to double dip on the transport and its contents. Pew pew pew!

withershadow wrote:

Beastmaster should just be another Blade for Hire, so he could be included in Kabal and Coven armies without denying them their obsession (he wouldn’t get his, but no big loss). I would like some beasts in some of the Coven lists I’m writing, but not enough to pay the Succubus + Wyches/Reavers/Mandrakes/whatever tax, since the beasts themselves don’t fill FOC slots.

Yeah, making the Beastmaster a mercenary would be nice.

withershadow wrote:

To bring it back to stratagems briefly, I actually find our most ridiculous stratagem to be masters of the shadowed sky. +1 to hit vs. now very common flying targets for only 1CP is pretty hilarious/outrageous, especially since RAW you get to double dip on the transport and its contents. Pew pew pew!

The only slightly odd thing is that you can't use it on Scourges, who seem like they really should count amongst the Masters of the Shadowed Skies.

In terms of transports, do you get much use out of that rule? I ask simply because most of the flying units I see are vehicles, so a lot of passenger shooting will be wasted against them (might as well just give it to a Ravager). Or do you tend to see more flying Hive Tyrants and such?

I see a lot of Blood Angels jump pack units, Vertis Praetors, Nurgly drones, Soaring Spite Harlequins and Talos (so many Talos). I am not really using Masters for cancelling to hit penalties (although that is nice when it happens), but to hit on 2+ (with occasional rerolling of 1s).

Against vehicles that is a lance/disintegrator of Raider + 2 blasters and lance on the squad inside (finally that moving infantry lance is not hitting on 4s!). My Ravagers tend to have 2 disintegrators and a Lance, so that is less output that would harm a vehicle, so I’m actually more likely to put it on a Ravager when targeting infantry. Plus the Ravagers are probably Black Heart with a babysitter if we’re being honest.

Unless I missed something in the rules, though, the stratagem doesn’t prevent you from splitting fire with the unit, and Custodes/Angels frequently will have flying vehicles and infantry/bikes. The double dip is not something that comes up in every game of course, but since the same guy plays Angels and Custodes, I get to use it against him a lot and his anguish over will sustain me for the next thousand years. Even without the double dip, I like hitting on 2s. When using it on a Venom with Shredderborne against infantry, I can count on hitttinf 14 of those 15 poison shots, and the shredders now have a 80.5% chance to deal a wound with every shot. The unit drops 20 wounds on things pretty reliably.

People complaining about AoV and DE in general being OP are gonna be SO mad when they find out about Knights.