Insight after some games in 9th

ok i have played a few games in the new edition now and id like to share some things that i have noticed, feel free to share your own insight and feedback

- Generaly we suck BUT we can get away due to our speed by doing the mission objectives and not really focusing on doing too much damage to the oponent but surgicaly removing key units to hamper their own objective caping. I won my last game although my space marine oponent tabled me at turn 5 because i focused purely on getting as much points as possible each turn and not being affraid at sacrificing anything for that. Also 5 turns max instead of 6 or 7 is a plus for us for that matter.

- Triple ravagers are still mandatory imo if you want to make precision strikes. No idea on technomancer reapers since i dont own any yet

- Venoms are key units, they are fast, somewhat resiient they can hide and they can get our troops to objectives

- Im very sad to say this since i have been playing with at least 2 from the beginning, but our planes are complete trash this edition. They have no role, they are offensive units but our offense is crap right now, no rerolls to be used for sniping and they barely help with the objectives that you really should be focusing on. Only thing redeeming them is that you can use them for "engage on all fronts" secondary, but a clever oponent will remove them from the table imediately. Also the new terrain rules screw them over completely

- The Yncarne is really good imo due to her teleport she can help IMMENSELY with objective caping and getting where she is needed the most. She requires some careful positioning and knowing when to teleport but when you use her corectly she can deal serious damage to oponents plans. Also she can help with our 3rd secondary objective that is usualy a really tough choice for us (the other two being Engage on all fronts/linebreaker and raise banners/deploy scramblers depending on the situation) since you can take one from the psycher group with her...

- Talos and generaly focusing on coven is a bit of a trap imo because you focus on survivability and standing your ground and i dont think even with PoF that we are capable of pulling of especialy against powerhouses like space marines and factions that are far better at surviving like Custodes and Deathguard. Instead speed and hidding in the more desnse terrain of this edition is the key imo and venoms or deep striking units can pull that off better

- Drazhar is a powerhouse and should be auto-include imo

- im torn between flayed skull and technomancer venoms... Im leaning towards technomancer because i still want to have something threatening on the table except ravagers and the extra 3 move of flayed skull does not make THAT much of a diference usualy but im still testing it

DevilDoll wrote:

- Generaly we suck

Yes. But we really can score points.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Triple ravagers are still mandatory imo if you want to make precision strikes. No idea on technomancer reapers since i dont own any yet

Nah. Too expensive. Require Archon babysitter. Require free relic. And still can screw up in killing even marines.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Venoms are key units, they are fast, somewhat resiient they can hide and they can get our troops to objectives

Disagree completely. Venoms are free points for our opponent in scoring 2 missions - killing vehicles and attrition. How ever their damage output is minimal. Even with techomancers. Lack of AP kills venoms IMHO

DevilDoll wrote:

- our planes are complete trash this edition.

Sad but true

DevilDoll wrote:

- The Yncarne is really good.

Never tested it but it looks powerful.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Talos and generaly focusing on coven is a bit of a trap imo because you focus on survivability and standing your ground and i dont think even with PoF that we are capable of pulling of especialy against powerhouses...

Taloi are great. I usually run about 4-6 in Artisits of Flesh with -1 damage. They die last, they kill and they distract. Single disadvantage is they can't do actions. So I take PoF Grots for that.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Drazhar is a powerhouse and should be auto-include imo

True. I take him as HQ for BH Kabal patrol.

DevilDoll wrote:

- im torn between flayed skull and technomancer venoms... Im leaning towards technomancer because i still want to have something threatening on the table except ravagers and the extra 3 move of flayed skull does not make THAT much of a diference usualy but im still testing it

Just try a list with some Artists of Flesh Raiders, Taloi and PoF Wracks and Grots. You will lack shooting, but you will be surprised, how surwiwable you are. In the 9th you don't need to kill the enemy. You just need to grab objectives and hold them.

thanks for the comment! its really helpful!
I'm just back from playing my first game, and some hints like that won't hurt!
I was playing against AdMech.....lot of vehicle and stuff like that, so my poison weapon sucked a lot, but at least i've learned a lot!
Objectives are truly the name of the game, so mobility is our only hope as we can't hope to survive in a fire for fire fight.
If i get it right, a mix of Kabal and Coven seems a good and viable mix in the future, to seize and control objectives.
in my next game i'll give a try to some of your suggestions!

I've had the opposite experience thus far.

Whenever I build a list designed to take and hold objectives, do actions, and generally designed around playing to the mission, I lose horribly.

Whenever I build a list purely to kill things, I do much better. The easiest way to protect your scoring units is to kill the things that threaten them. The easiest way to prevent your opponent from scoring is to kill their scoring units.

I have to say, my lost admech game was the same experience as OP. Would have done better ignoring the enemy and just grabbing primaries and then retreating from them as soon as the enemy contested, just to fly across the map and snag the others. Maybe try to get linebreaker or a secondary in there too. Instead, I tried to use cover and whittle them down before going for the exposed objectives and I never caught up.

Here is the thing though, losing sucks, losing convincingly sucks even more. Losing when you made your army 3 days before setting up really, really sucks. But at least I had a bit of fun blowing stuff up (in a very swingy fashion). Nothing about playing the objectives seems fun.

I have now watched quite a few 9th games on twitch. And so have my friends. None of us are enjoying them, regardless of which armies are there and who is playing. The game is now TOO objective based, and fighting is just what happens outside of capturing objectives. I really dont think I like 9th...

DevilDoll wrote:

ok i have played a few games in the new edition now and id like to share some things that i have noticed, feel free to share your own insight and feedback

- Generaly we suck BUT we can get away due to our speed by doing the mission objectives and not really focusing on doing too much damage to the oponent but surgicaly removing key units to hamper their own objective caping. I won my last game although my space marine oponent tabled me at turn 5 because i focused purely on getting as much points as possible each turn and not being affraid at sacrificing anything for that. Also 5 turns max instead of 6 or 7 is a plus for us for that matter.

- Triple ravagers are still mandatory imo if you want to make precision strikes. No idea on technomancer reapers since i dont own any yet

- Venoms are key units, they are fast, somewhat resiient they can hide and they can get our troops to objectives

- Im very sad to say this since i have been playing with at least 2 from the beginning, but our planes are complete trash this edition. They have no role, they are offensive units but our offense is crap right now, no rerolls to be used for sniping and they barely help with the objectives that you really should be focusing on. Only thing redeeming them is that you can use them for "engage on all fronts" secondary, but a clever oponent will remove them from the table imediately. Also the new terrain rules screw them over completely

- The Yncarne is really good imo due to her teleport she can help IMMENSELY with objective caping and getting where she is needed the most. She requires some careful positioning and knowing when to teleport but when you use her corectly she can deal serious damage to oponents plans. Also she can help with our 3rd secondary objective that is usualy a really tough choice for us (the other two being Engage on all fronts/linebreaker and raise banners/deploy scramblers depending on the situation) since you can take one from the psycher group with her...

- Talos and generaly focusing on coven is a bit of a trap imo because you focus on survivability and standing your ground and i dont think even with PoF that we are capable of pulling of especialy against powerhouses like space marines and factions that are far better at surviving like Custodes and Deathguard. Instead speed and hidding in the more desnse terrain of this edition is the key imo and venoms or deep striking units can pull that off better

- Drazhar is a powerhouse and should be auto-include imo

- im torn between flayed skull and technomancer venoms... Im leaning towards technomancer because i still want to have something threatening on the table except ravagers and the extra 3 move of flayed skull does not make THAT much of a diference usualy but im still testing it

Wow....I just completely agree with you! Point by point I'm not crazy at all I guess.

Except that we don't suck, because 9th it IS a game about VPs, not about killing/surviving. So yes, we're super good in 9th.

Cerve wrote:

Wow....I just completely agree with you! Point by point I'm not crazy at all I guess.

Except that we don't suck, because 9th it IS a game about VPs, not about killing/surviving. So yes, we're super good in 9th.

But we do though. Chasing VPs and ignoring the enemy/hoping we can score well enough before we are reduced to too few units to function IS sucking. Outside of a few top tier players who are only in it for tournament wins, few people will find that entertaining. The whole premise if the game, of every edition of the game previously is total, never ending war. What we are finding as nearly the only thing that works is IGNORING the war aspect.

You cant even argue that this is in keeping with DE lore. Sure, we are not supposed to trade blow for blow with terminators, but we also shouldnt be caring about board control, data centres, teleport beacons, etc. The whole objective system is currently set up either to invoke a feeling of "we must overrun with superior forces and crush the enemy, removing them from objectives" or "we must claim the objectives and hold out until reinforcements arrive", neither of which apply to DE. We dont want territory or data and there are no reinforcements coming. What we want is pain, suffering, and slaves. And just about the only objectives that fit that right now are the secondaries "attrition", "bring it down" and the one that means we target the leader, only that last one is nearly impossible for us.

We are being encouraged to actively take a certain meta force that directly counteracts our lore role.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Generaly we suck BUT we can get away due to our speed by doing the mission objectives and not really focusing on doing too much damage to the oponent but surgicaly removing key units to hamper their own objective caping. I won my last game although my space marine oponent tabled me at turn 5 because i focused purely on getting as much points as possible each turn and not being affraid at sacrificing anything for that. Also 5 turns max instead of 6 or 7 is a plus for us for that matter.

I'll be honest, this is the sort of thing that just makes me not want to bother.

I signed up to play Dark Eldar - a race of murderous space-pirate-elves and deranged scientists who strike with devastating precision, often employing horrendous weapons and arcane wargear so advanced that it boarders on magic.

I didn't sign up to play an race of wooden ducks, who can only waddle about the battlefield, acting as nothing more than NPCs for the real races to shoot at.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I cannot get the least bit enthusiastic about "winning" even after my opponent has tabled me. Because it doesn't feel like a win. It feels no different to "winning" against someone by finding a tiny error in how they filled out their application form.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Venoms are key units, they are fast, somewhat resiient they can hide and they can get our troops to objectives

- im torn between flayed skull and technomancer venoms... Im leaning towards technomancer because i still want to have something threatening on the table except ravagers and the extra 3 move of flayed skull does not make THAT much of a diference usualy but im still testing it

I was actually about to ask you how you were taking Venoms.

Out of interest, do you take the extra Splinter Cannon on Technomancer Venoms?

Also, does this mean you rate Venoms higher than Raiders?

DevilDoll wrote:

- The Yncarne is really good imo due to her teleport she can help IMMENSELY with objective caping and getting where she is needed the most. She requires some careful positioning and knowing when to teleport but when you use her corectly she can deal serious damage to oponents plans. Also she can help with our 3rd secondary objective that is usualy a really tough choice for us (the other two being Engage on all fronts/linebreaker and raise banners/deploy scramblers depending on the situation) since you can take one from the psycher group with her...

Can I ask how you deal with character-targeting with the Yncarne?

It seems like either you're very limited in where you can put her, or else your opponent can just freely target her.

DevilDoll wrote:

- Drazhar is a powerhouse and should be auto-include imo

Do you take him with Incubi or just on his own?

Drazhar is auto take no matter what, you don't need Incubi for him to be good. I play Incubi sometimes and I don't even keep them near him b.c double threat from 2 places is better (mostly b.c they kill w/e they attack) and i like to spread out.

albions-angel wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Wow....I just completely agree with you! Point by point I'm not crazy at all I guess.

Except that we don't suck, because 9th it IS a game about VPs, not about killing/surviving. So yes, we're super good in 9th.

But we do though. Chasing VPs and ignoring the enemy/hoping we can score well enough before we are reduced to too few units to function IS sucking. .

You're misreading that "ignoring". You cannot ignore an opponent that is going to do VPs too. It's more like divide the opponent deploy, force him to spread into the table, and overwhelming him piece-by-piece.
Which is TOTALLY lore-wise.

If you're going to ignore your opponent in 9th you're going to lose.
If you're going to face off ypur opponent in 9th, you're going to lose.
If you're going to divide your opponent and hitting him where is weak, you're going to win. That"s how you play them in 9th.

The 9th ed just helps you to divide your opponent, because he is going to do it anyway for conquering objectives on the table.


No, we don't suck until you're going to play full PoF and hope to bring more bodies on points than the opponent. In that way, yes, you will lose.


Guys, we CAN'T be able to control the board, being fast, AND wipe out our opponent c'mon! We can't have everything. As I said I'll repeat: this is not an easy faction to play, you (as a player, not yourself Albions) have to play on fastness, board control and hitting on multiple corners. Saying that we suck just because we have not the firepower/melee power to wipe out the opponent, and then saying that we are great on doing VPs is...strange.

Cerve wrote:

Guys, we CAN'T be able to control the board, being fast, AND wipe out our opponent c'mon!

Harlequins and Craftworlders do just fine at both of those. Hell, there seems to be a consensus developing that Harlequins are probably one of the best factions in the game right now.

I don't think any DE player actually wants us to be the best at everything, but I don't think there's any reason we couldn't have high mobility and offense as long as we have really weak defense - that's fluffy and hardly game breaking.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'll be honest, this is the sort of thing that just makes me not want to bother.

I signed up to play Dark Eldar - a race of murderous space-pirate-elves and deranged scientists who strike with devastating precision, often employing horrendous weapons and arcane wargear so advanced that it boarders on magic.

I didn't sign up to play an race of wooden ducks, who can only waddle about the battlefield, acting as nothing more than NPCs for the real races to shoot at.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I cannot get the least bit enthusiastic about "winning" even after my opponent has tabled me. Because it doesn't feel like a win. It feels no different to "winning" against someone by finding a tiny error in how they filled out their application form.

We win because we are more mobile than space marines and we focussed of the objectives, yes. But it's only partly true. Spaces marines have the options to be fast and counter our skirmish play-style. But they are building their list with killing in mind. If they only focus on killing, and they are losing because of it, it's normal it looks like a butchery on the battlefield.

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'll be honest, this is the sort of thing that just makes me not want to bother.

I signed up to play Dark Eldar - a race of murderous space-pirate-elves and deranged scientists who strike with devastating precision, often employing horrendous weapons and arcane wargear so advanced that it boarders on magic.

I didn't sign up to play an race of wooden ducks, who can only waddle about the battlefield, acting as nothing more than NPCs for the real races to shoot at.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I cannot get the least bit enthusiastic about "winning" even after my opponent has tabled me. Because it doesn't feel like a win. It feels no different to "winning" against someone by finding a tiny error in how they filled out their application form.

We win because we are more mobile than space marines and we focussed of the objectives, yes. But it's only partly true. Spaces marines have the options to be fast and counter our skirmish play-style. But they are building their list with killing in mind. If they only focus on killing, and they are losing because of it, it's normal it looks like a butchery on the battlefield.

I don't mean to be impolite but I have no clue what point you're trying to make here.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'll be honest, this is the sort of thing that just makes me not want to bother.

I signed up to play Dark Eldar - a race of murderous space-pirate-elves and deranged scientists who strike with devastating precision, often employing horrendous weapons and arcane wargear so advanced that it boarders on magic.

I didn't sign up to play an race of wooden ducks, who can only waddle about the battlefield, acting as nothing more than NPCs for the real races to shoot at.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I cannot get the least bit enthusiastic about "winning" even after my opponent has tabled me. Because it doesn't feel like a win. It feels no different to "winning" against someone by finding a tiny error in how they filled out their application form.

We win because we are more mobile than space marines and we focussed of the objectives, yes. But it's only partly true. Spaces marines have the options to be fast and counter our skirmish play-style. But they are building their list with killing in mind. If they only focus on killing, and they are losing because of it, it's normal it looks like a butchery on the battlefield.

I don't mean to be impolite but I have no clue what point you're trying to make here.

My point is, they kill, but we win. When they'll realise that the old setting of "the one who kill the most will win" is gone, they will adapt their list to include counters to hit-and-runs. Doing so, their list will be less efficient at killing, bringing balance back.

In our BG our Lord never fighted once in his life...
....just saying

My insight after two games is that you should just play Harlequins if you want to have fun playing an Aeldari faction that plays like DE are SUPPOSED to play like . Fast, full of tricks, hit like a ton of bricks, and rely on movement and cunning rather than brute force to win. Maybe someday DE will be able to do that effectively again.

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'll be honest, this is the sort of thing that just makes me not want to bother.

I signed up to play Dark Eldar - a race of murderous space-pirate-elves and deranged scientists who strike with devastating precision, often employing horrendous weapons and arcane wargear so advanced that it boarders on magic.

I didn't sign up to play an race of wooden ducks, who can only waddle about the battlefield, acting as nothing more than NPCs for the real races to shoot at.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I cannot get the least bit enthusiastic about "winning" even after my opponent has tabled me. Because it doesn't feel like a win. It feels no different to "winning" against someone by finding a tiny error in how they filled out their application form.

We win because we are more mobile than space marines and we focussed of the objectives, yes. But it's only partly true. Spaces marines have the options to be fast and counter our skirmish play-style. But they are building their list with killing in mind. If they only focus on killing, and they are losing because of it, it's normal it looks like a butchery on the battlefield.

I don't mean to be impolite but I have no clue what point you're trying to make here.

My point is, they kill, but we win. When they'll realise that the old setting of "the one who kill the most will win" is gone, they will adapt their list to include counters to hit-and-runs. Doing so, their list will be less efficient at killing, bringing balance back.

Perhaps you'd be good enough to nudge me awake if and when that change occurs.

Or if we get mobile-HQs or a Mandrake HQ

Whichever comes first.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Perhaps you'd be good enough to nudge me awake if and when that change occurs.

Or if we get mobile-HQs or a Mandrake HQ

Whichever comes first.

Nope. You shall suffer, like a good Dark Eldar and seize the price when the opportunity comes.

Cerve wrote:

In our BG our Lord never fighted once in his life...
....just saying Wink

That's not quite true. Vect personally assaulted an imperial facility to steal Nulls to place them around the gate of khaine.

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Perhaps you'd be good enough to nudge me awake if and when that change occurs.

Or if we get mobile-HQs or a Mandrake HQ

Whichever comes first.

Nope. You shall suffer, like a good Dark Eldar and seize the price when the opportunity comes.

Cerve wrote:

In our BG our Lord never fighted once in his life...
....just saying Wink

That's not quite true. Vect personally assaulted an imperial facility to steal Nulls to place them around the gate of khaine.

When?

Cerve wrote:

In our BG our Lord never fighted once in his life...
....just saying Wink

Dumpeal wrote:

That's not quite true. Vect personally assaulted an imperial facility to steal Nulls to place them around the gate of khaine.

When? [/quote]

978999.M41 Stealing the Void

dumpeal wrote:

Cerve wrote:

In our BG our Lord never fighted once in his life...
....just saying Wink

Dumpeal wrote:

That's not quite true. Vect personally assaulted an imperial facility to steal Nulls to place them around the gate of khaine.

When?

978999.M41 Stealing the Void[/quote]


Is it something "new"? I remember that in 5' ed Codex Vect never fight in his life, but he always used minions for that. If that's something new, it is another example of terrible BG writing

Out of curiosity, how are you guys handling allies?

I ask because towards the end of 8th, I had an idea for a themed army that was going to be a mix of DE and Harlequins, with the latter representing various Mandrake-like daemons.

However, it seems like this idea is going to be rather screwed by the new rules for Allies, because I'll be penalised for including a Harlequin detachment (fine), and then penalised again if I want to include more than one DE subfaction.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Out of curiosity, how are you guys handling allies?

I ask because towards the end of 8th, I had an idea for a themed army that was going to be a mix of DE and Harlequins, with the latter representing various Mandrake-like daemons.

However, it seems like this idea is going to be rather screwed by the new rules for Allies, because I'll be penalised for including a Harlequin detachment (fine), and then penalised again if I want to include more than one DE subfaction.

Don't bet on it. I heard Marines are all being lumped together in one book. There has been talk about combining the Eldar/ Dark Eldar/ Harlies in one book for years.
This may be the time they do it.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Out of curiosity, how are you guys handling allies?

I ask because towards the end of 8th, I had an idea for a themed army that was going to be a mix of DE and Harlequins, with the latter representing various Mandrake-like daemons.

However, it seems like this idea is going to be rather screwed by the new rules for Allies, because I'll be penalised for including a Harlequin detachment (fine), and then penalised again if I want to include more than one DE subfaction.

Don't bet on it. I heard Marines are all being lumped together in one book. There has been talk about combining the Eldar/ Dark Eldar/ Harlies in one book for years.
This may be the time they do it.

Surely it wouldn't make any difference, though?

Even if they were in the same book, they'd still be locked into their subfactions. So you wouldn't be able to freely mix Harlequins and Eldar in the same detachment, for example.