Useless DE characters?

I think Urien's value shifts considerably depending on local meta.

Thor665 wrote:

I think Urien's value shifts considerably depending on local meta.

totally agree. As soon as your local meta has a lot of HtH units with instant death type weapons (grey knights for example) then the grots become 1 wound beasties with only crappy armour. They die horribly.

without grots to buff, Urien's utility goes down significantly

Thor665 wrote:

I'd also say the Archon and the Succubus have their place in competitive builds and at various point levels (I'd say moreso than Vect, even). Baron is probably the best overall. I'd probably rate the HQs as such as far as competitive play goes;

Baron
Haem
Archon
Duke
Vect
Succubi

Malys probably has a place, I'd like to think so at least, but she is a bit of a meta counter, so it makes her hard to use in a true TAC build unless your meta has a lot of psychic shenanigans. Probably of the remainder I'd tend to go;

Malys
Urien
Lelith
Drazh
Decapitator

I'm not sure how I really feel about the Urien/Lelith/Drazh area, I feel like a lot of those could arguably bounce around amongst each other depending on local meta, but certainly none of them rank very high.

I'd actually swap Baron and the Haemonculus around. Baron is 'better', but you also have to take a beastpack to get the most out of him (unless you're me and like having him doss around with a unit of hellions and not actually accomplish anything outside of taking a starcannon to the face). If you're not running a beastpack, then a haemonculus is generally a decent option on account of being cheap if you're just trying to fill your mandatory HQ slot. In the lists you want him, Baron is a fantastic choice, but the haemonculus fits into more lists.

The Haem does fit into more lists, and indeed fits into multiple Baron lists. That said, if I was really trying to design the most competitive/overpowered/unstoppable DE list around - I'd use Baron first. That's the concept in my head behind the order on that list.

Thor665 wrote:

I do not take that as what Twocrows was suggesting, and it also isn't against what I was saying in any case. If two players want to get together and custom build some armies for a narrative game - that is fine with me, I do that too.

It doesn't make Lelith a good choice.

List tailoring is indeed what I meant...for a friendly (that is, my mates) game. Know thine enemy. Example: one of my usual opponents plays Squats as Marines, usually Salamanders. Sometimes he takes drop pods, sometimes rhinos and artillery. I don't care. I know he has a generally 24" range, and I can run rings around him. Do I take an invulnerable to 24" list? No. I play a list designed along our strengths; redeploy, shoot to take out armor, and rush to assault. We most frequently draw; he's a bit better tactician, I can weaken him faster. But we always have fun.

But, for a tournament, there is no true TAC list, not for the DE. Some builds are more likely to win against many other armies, but against a spoiler army, will suck. (Am I stating the obvious?) Consider. in the last late-lamented 'Ard Boyz tournament, I took a list designed to take down termie armies. That's what the local players were focusing on at the time, so I accounted for that. I knew, that if I faced horde Orks I would be overwhelmed. I won two, one termie, one power, and lost the third to speedFreakz. Did I tailor a list? I suppose. And I paid a price. Willingly. But the tailoring I did was to focus on what I generally thought I would play. It wasn't against the pesky Deathwing I'd had trouble with in previous games, it was against 2+ armor.

In my mind, there's some small difference between what I did, and lists involving the Baron. Perhaps there is not from the view of others here. but, consider: we all choose lists designed to win, that's tailoring no matter how phrased. A TAC list, a fluffy list, it doesn't matter. We tailor. Don't disguise it. Leave the lies to our army.

I don't equate list building to list tailoring. By that logic, the only way to build without tailoring is to use a random number generator.

I consider list tailoring to be building a list for a given opponent while specifically knowing that opponent's army/list and playing certain units as specific counters to that specific list/army.

So, quick examples;

If I always field lots of anti-aircraft weaponry, that is not list tailoring.

If I go to a tourney, and fear the flyer meta, and field anti-aircraft weaponry in the expectation of seeing fliers across the table, that is not list tailoring.

If I usually do not field anti-aircraft weaponry, and am going to play a game, and the guy says "I'll be using my IG Air Cav force" and I then modify my list to include anti-aircraft weaponry, that is list tailoring.

Personally I love vect, all my friends I play against hate him!

If I take him they will make me go first if they win the roll off, as I have an uncanny habit of stealing the initiative on a 4. If I take him I make them go first every time.
He is a beast in CC as well as long as you don't put him up against anything with 2up Armour.

My standard HQ is an archon with grot retinue.
Haeme if it's an under 1k game.

Thor665 wrote:

I don't equate list building to list tailoring. By that logic, the only way to build without tailoring is to use a random number generator.

I consider list tailoring to be building a list for a given opponent while specifically knowing that opponent's army/list and playing certain units as specific counters to that specific list/army.

So, quick examples;

If I always field lots of anti-aircraft weaponry, that is not list tailoring.

If I go to a tourney, and fear the flyer meta, and field anti-aircraft weaponry in the expectation of seeing fliers across the table, that is not list tailoring.

If I usually do not field anti-aircraft weaponry, and am going to play a game, and the guy says "I'll be using my IG Air Cav force" and I then modify my list to include anti-aircraft weaponry, that is list tailoring.

Sorry to quote the whole thing, but I need the examples: Think of these as a continuum, from the random number generator to the most opponent/army-specific list.

Actually, I look at it as a space, with several dimensions, effectiveness, cost, fluff, and so forth. Most of us stay somewhere in the middle, the TAC list. When we get too far along any axis, we suffer. Whether in rep, or victories, or actual dollar cost, we have or create less fun.

Exactly where those fuzzy boundaries of fun lie differs for every player, and every meta. When I play my friend with his Salamanders, I neither know, nor care if he's bringing Droppods or Whirlwinds. I take a list basically designed to kill Marines. If, and he has, he brings his Orks as a surprise, and I've planned for Marines, well, good luck to to me. He knows that 47 games out of 50 I'm bringing DE, and two of the others are DE plus allies. Is he tailoring? Nope, but he's not ignoring my choices, either. I'm cool with that.

Once in a while, I'll say, Eric, I'm testing out a hard TAC list, and I'm tuning it for Marines. He's as likely to say, 'OK then, I'll see what I can do." And it's all good. And I might post a note to the game group for the same thing, and actually ask for a trial list to play against. It's only when one party doesn't expect a harsh list that's it's bad.

That's why I said leave the lies for the army. It's all tailoring, some from Saville Row, some from the Sewing 1A students. Our role is to have fun, regardless of the fit. (My strongly held, hopefully courteously delivered opinion.)

I remain in a stance of disagreement that all army building is list tailoring. I agree that most of your examples above are list tailoring by my definition of the term.

The issue here is that there's list tailoring and then there's List Tailoring.

The former is building your list to match your meta, tournament, group, etc. while the latter is building your list specifically to take on single race/list/etc.

In the context of List Tailoring--which is what most people mean when they discuss Tailoring in regards to Warhammer--all list building is not List Tailoring.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with list tailoring as long as the group you play with is happy with it. My group rarely plays the same list twice and we generally know what codex our opponent will be using in advance (not the list, just the codex). So sure, if I know I'm facing Necrons who are likely to have at least 3 fliers then I'll adjust my list to make sure I have sufficient AA. In the same way that my opponent is likely to stock up on stuff that will kill light vehicles and infantry. In my view it makes for a more interesting battle.

When it comes to tournaments however, we know we need to either bring a TAC list or build a list that plays to our strengths and accept that there may be some bad match ups.

Ahem, could anyone explain 'list-tailoring' for me, please?
I don't know, what that means...

We had some debate about the definition over the last few posts in a discussion about answering that very question.

Have you tried to use the search feat to find the word tailoring?
The answer, you get, is: No topics or posts met your search criteria...

I don't understand what you're asking here.
The debate is happening in this thread - if you scroll up a few posts you'll find three different people defining 'list tailoring'.

Damn, looks like I misunderstood you. I misinterprated:

Thor665 wrote:

We had some debate about the definition over the last few posts in a discussion about answering that very question.

I thought, that you meant another topic. My apologies.

No worries.

I don't worry, but my parents educated me, to be polite. So if I'm wrong, I apologize.
Yeah, bad habit nowadays, I know, but I can't do any other way...

The problem I have with a lot of DE characters is that they're just expensive beat-sticks that don't really seem to add much. For example, which is likely to do more in a game - Lelith, or a Haemonculus with liquifier gun, plus a Ravager? They just don't seem cost-efficient enough to warrant inclusion.

Lady Malys - She's quite cheap, but also rather lacking. A 4++ save is not something I'd want to rely on to protect a T3 character, and her weapon is pretty crap. The psychic power protection feels like it would be good in a different army - one which can better support a death-star. Although, even then, most of the powers that concern me are buffs (e.g. fortune), rather than offensive powers. Redeployment can be nice, but seems very situational - and we're already a pretty mobile army.

Lelith - Waaay too expensive, and let down by S3.

Drazhar - Again, he just feels too expensive for a pure beat-stick - especially with combat being more dubious for us in 6th. But, regardless, I'd much rather just take a cheap HQ and have ~170pts left to spend on other things - rather than relying on one really expensive combat character to do enough damage to justify his cost. I feel I should also mention that this guy is only slightly cheaper than Mephiston, yet is markedly worse.

I can agree with that - though for me it's not so much that they're too expensive for a beat-stick. I'm okay with expensive beat sticks, I love playing Ghaz or Lysander. My issue is they're expensive beat sticks...who are not very good at being beat sticks.

Based on 7th Edition you can now use a Tantalus with Drazhar, 10 Incubi, 2 Haemonculus and Eldrad. Depending on if you go unbound or take a DE formation you should be able to get another Archon in there for a Phantasm Grenade Launcher.

Expensive but FNP and Furious charge plus a chance of a re-rollable is golden. S5 AP2, Incubi with 3 attacks each on the charge can easily wipe almost anything it hits. Although you might be better multi assaulting and putting all your attacks on one unit in the hope you can stay locked in combat so you dont get shot to high heaven the turn after.


Lelith is and always has been useless.


Vect is okay but hes Expensive, the only reason to take him is the 4+ Steal, in combat he is sub par, yes he gets 7 attacks on the charge and is pretty much always going to strike first and hit on 3's, but, he only has an AP3 weapon, the only saving grace is it wounds on a 3+. But if you are hitting anything with a 2+ save hes pretty much got no chance.

Vect also has the preferred enemy rule. So he rerolls all 1s in hitting and wounding.
Is he still giving it to his unit in 7th?

Zenotaph wrote:

Vect also has the preferred enemy rule. So he rerolls all 1s in hitting and wounding.
Is he still giving it to his unit in 7th?

If i`am correct he has it only for himself.

Devilogical wrote:

Zenotaph wrote:

Vect also has the preferred enemy rule. So he rerolls all 1s in hitting and wounding.
Is he still giving it to his unit in 7th?

If i`am correct he has it only for himself.

"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy"

What makes him more valuable, I would say. I'm also thinking, that his dais can be very useful in 7th...