HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Any luck with non-obsession detachments?

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Quauchtemoc
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 253
Join date : 2017-06-19

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 20:25

@TeenageAngst wrote:
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.

The solution is simple then, play something else
Back to top Go down
Burnage
Wych
avatar

Posts : 675
Join date : 2017-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 20:40

I can definitely sympathise with TeenageAngst here because it feels frakking weird for a faction that's functioned cohesively for twenty years to suddenly turn into three mini-factions, but I think that's just different, not worse.

It also feels like part of a concerted effort over the past couple of years to turn the Eldar from two main factions (Craftworlds/Dark) into a far more diverse set of factions that can be mixed and matched at leisure; hopefully, as 8th continues to progress, we'll see them all fleshed out a bit more.
Back to top Go down
Quauchtemoc
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 253
Join date : 2017-06-19

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 20:57

Yes i understand thats some people are unhappy about such an huge change, but thats still not mean its a bad army design
Back to top Go down
Siticus the Ancient
Wych
avatar

Posts : 898
Join date : 2011-09-10
Location : Riga, Latvia

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 21:15

That's a bit bizarre to say, because since 5e, it has been the case in name only. Yes, in 5e you could take all units in one list if you wanted - so did everyone else because that was the overall design of the game back then. One Force Org chart, one-two HQs, two to six troops, three of each from Fast Attack, Elites and Heavy Support, go.

6e was Allies: The Edition. Mono DE simply didn't work because the brilliant new Dataslate system completely neutered vast majority of options available to the army and half the units in the codex were trash where only Kabal units and the boat fleets pulled their weight. Most of the work was done by the Eldar if given chance, because they simply did everything the DE could do better. I was so disappointed with the codex I did not even purchase it, after seeing how they had butchered the army.

7e was Formations: The Edition. DE formations were pure trash except for Haemonculus Coven supplement where the Dark Artisan formation was a decent enough addition to an Eldar force. Needless to say, only the Kabal units saw any play, with the exception of the Covens, but only as a completely separate detachment. Oh yeah, Lhamaen was the go-to HQ as she cost only 10 points and could be hidden away somewhere to hinder Slay the Warlord. But she's still a Kabal model, right.. Don't even get me started on the schizophrenic design of the Razorwing and Voidraven, where Voidraven BOMBER was better at aerial dogfighting and Razorwing JETFIGHTER was better at bombing the crap out of ground targets. Oh, and in 7e Voidraven was also overpriced trash. Brilliant!

I suppose technically there was the option of playing pure codex and fielding the army as a cohesive codex. It's a shame it was terrible and completely outdone by the Craftworlds on all counts (not to mention pretty much every other army), starting from the overall design to unit options to simply having proper bloody formations already included in the main codex where DE got Realspace Raid which was just a giant pile of nothing. So really, after five years of terrible mediocre design and barely functioning army, I am absolutely okay with the Cults, Kabals and Covens being separate mini-armies, because that was the the reality of the army for five long years, except with Wych Cults also being trash!

To me, this codex is a return to the army I picked up to play back in 2010 in terms of the feel, gameplay and power, even surpassing it in the latter case. If anyone truly misses the bloody roadkill that were the Dark Eldar in the Dark Age of Kirby, be my guest, but that's contrarianism at its most spiteful and pointless.

_________________
Siticus Empyrean Vision - my Facebook page with various painting projects
Siticus' Empyrean Visions log - the project log for my Aeldari works and beyond
Back to top Go down
Cerve
Wych
avatar

Posts : 661
Join date : 2014-10-05
Location : Ferrara - Emiglia Romagna

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 21:32

Totally agree with Siticus!
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Incubi
avatar

Posts : 1699
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 22:22

Quote :
Yes i understand thats some people are unhappy about such an huge change, but thats still not mean its a bad army design

It's not bad army design but it is incredibly restrictive. What if I want to run a single Talos Pain Engine with my Kabal, like I used to do all the time in 7th? I have to either include it in an entirely different detachment now or I have to give up all my obsessions AND named stratagems to throw it in the existing detachment, and sure as hell the Kabal buffs won't work on it. The codex is designed to filter players into optimal builds and outright punishes deviancy and diversity. You HAVE to run 3 Ravagers with an Archon. If you want Kabal troops you HAVE to run blaster warriors in venoms. If you want Reavers you HAVE to run Red Grief. If you want covens you HAVE to run Prophets of Flesh. Oh sure, you CAN run Kabalites as your troops with Grotesques as your elites and Reavers as your fast attack, and you'd be barking mad for doing so because you'd lose every single thing that makes them playable.


I hate cookie cutter builds, but as everyone has repeatedly told me, that's how the army is designed now. So 2 archons, 6 warriors in venoms, 3 scourges, 3 ravagers, and a flyer wing. Done like dinner. No one's gonna tell you it's a bad list, no one is gonna complain about it, no one is gonna say it doesn't make sense.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Wych
avatar

Posts : 506
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Wed May 23 2018, 22:42

@Quauchtemoc wrote:
Yes i understand thats some people are unhappy about such an huge change, but thats still not mean its a bad army design

I don't think the idea is bad, but I'd argue that it was poorly executed for a number of reasons:

1) Firstly, this isn't the best idea when you're planning to remove yet another two units from an already anaemic codex. Just look at how few units each of our subfactions have - they'd embarrass Sisters of Battle. Under no circumstances should each faction have ended up with just 1 generic HQ. On top of that, most have maybe 1 option per slot (sometimes none), not counting mercenaries. That's really not good design.

2) Lack of overall cohesion. We're still supposed to be a single codex, but they might as well have released us as 3 entirely separate codices for all the interaction there is between our subfactions. There are basically no buffs that work between subfactions or on mercenary units. This means that there's no real synergy between factions, since they effectively all operate independently. At the very least, I think we're really missing an overall leader - one who can buff mercenaries and other subfactions, rather than just his own.

3) Poor HQ design. Our army is required to take more HQs than most - hell, we need at least 3 just to unlock our full selection of units. However, rather than being designed to be useful in multiples, they seem designed to be superfluous to their own army. Outside of maybe the Haemonculus, their buffs are generally so weak and affect so few units that they rarely work as force-multipliers. Moreover, most are dependant on artefacts and/or warlord traits to be effective - both of which are limited (and get costly in numbers). What's more, their lack of mobility combined with increased squad-sizes and low transport capacity makes it a pain to even find space for them. I mean, it doesn't seem like good design when the best use of what is ostensibly a melee HQ is standing at the back of the field, babysitting 3 gunships.

4) On a similar note, we've got 3 subfactions that already struggle to fill slots in detachments, and yet GW made it that 7 of our units can never be used to fill slots in matched play. That's almost a quarter of our codex that isn't allowed to contribute to filling space in a detachment - on top of all the units we've lost.

5) In fact, it seems like we suffer far too heavily for including different units in the same detachment. Given how few units we have and that we're supposed to be the same codex, I think they could have been a bit more lenient. For example, they could have said that you can include Kabal, Coven and Cult units in the same detachment, but you have to pick which one the detachment will be overall and only those units will get the bonus.  

6) Then you have our unique detachment - something they were bragging about in the previews. Okay, so if we take 3 Patrols we can get 4 CPs - 1 more than a Battalion. I mean, it's still not great but it's not unreasonable - you have to take an extra HQ over a Battalion but you get an extra CP and can use all 3 of your subfactions. Oh, wait, now GW have made the Battalion give 5CPs, whilst our 3-Patrol detachment - with more unit requirements - still yields only 4CP. Thanks for making it completely pointless barely 2 weeks after releasing the codex.

It's frustrating because I really do think it was a good idea, but I just can't get behind the execution. Evil or Very Mad

_________________
@TeenageAngst wrote:
Never trust the French.
Back to top Go down
sekac
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 80
Join date : 2017-06-03

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 07:46

I think those are all valid, well-reasoned criticisms.

For my part, I kind of like some of the restrictions. You can run it all mixed up and the army operates very similarly to how it did before. Or you can go down the path of specialization but there are mounting taxes depending on how fast you want to take it.
Back to top Go down
Burnage
Wych
avatar

Posts : 675
Join date : 2017-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 10:46

@Soulless Samurai wrote:
We're still supposed to be a single codex, but they might as well have released us as 3 entirely separate codices for all the interaction there is between our subfactions.

Just throwing this out there, but I'd bet a solid chunk of money that something like this is the eventual plan for the Dark Eldar. Fleshing out each subfaction more would go a long way towards fixing most of the (valid) issues that you raise.
Back to top Go down
Cerve
Wych
avatar

Posts : 661
Join date : 2014-10-05
Location : Ferrara - Emiglia Romagna

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 11:30

Mmm....for my view, I like how they manage to build up our army. The thing is we are not 3 single armies; we are ONE big army with different warlords. We are Pirates, precisely. Any warlord has his desire of conquest, but they fight together under a single banner....for that battle.

So, we shouldn't count our choices per subfaction. Of course Coven have 1x of any, Cult 1x of any and same the Kabal (and sometimes neither that, Cult doesn't have any HS if not from forgeworld). A SM army can have 3-4 FA, we have them as well, only in different subfactions. But that is the character of the army itself.

And that is how we should've worked since the 5 edition, in my opinion. So the fluff is perfect ruled here. Honestly, I like the idea that if I want some Wyches I have to bring in their leader first. It's obvious that an Haemonculus will offer their creations, but only under his leadership. He will join to the battle, but HE will rule over his creations. In the same way, Wyches will obey to their Succubus, not to an Archon of a some high narcisist Kabal. It fit perfectly with the lore of the army itself.

In my opinion, when I play Drukhari, I FINALLY feel myself as I'm bringing the background into the table. And this is all what I want from a game with this lore.





Talking about rules, we can't really complain anything. We are one of the best armies in the game. Anyone play with multidetatchments right now, we can do it even better and with a better fluff.
And I can't understand who says that Coven, Cult and Kabal doesn't sinergyze together. Of course they doesn't have specific rules triggering togheter (which is not true at all, if we consider the Alliance strategem), but they work amazing together in a tactic view of the game. We have literally everything: number, check. Firepower, check. Fast stuff, check. Toughness, check. We can manage the game in any situation, and that is possibile precisely because we have different subfactions.

The only thing that I can complain is the Patrols rule, but ok I will accept this flaw.


PS: our Characters are amazing for their costs. Try to play on them more, we can costumize them as we want. We have buffer Archons, melee Archons, melee Succubus, tarpit Succubus, buffer Haemi, melee Haemi, anti-psyker HQs, sniper HQs etc. But the best thing is that all of our HQs have amazing stats for their costs. Honestly, a Succubus for 50ish points can clean up 5 Marines and never get focussed. Or just bring a Shardnet on her and have fun.
No, they're not Taxes, seriously. You run a fully Kabal and you have 2 Archons? One with 3 Ravagers, the other in DS with 20 Kabals. It's just an example, but my advise is to never stop thinking about them. I'm finding always new ways for our cheapy HQs.
They're not a tax, that's sure.
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1041
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 12:03

@Cerve wrote:
So, we shouldn't count our choices per subfaction. Of course Coven have 1x of any, Cult 1x of any and same the Kabal (and sometimes neither that, Cult doesn't have any HS if not from forgeworld). A SM army can have 3-4 FA, we have them as well, only in different subfactions. But that is the character of the army itself.

And that is how we should've worked since the 5 edition, in my opinion. So the fluff is perfect ruled here. Honestly, I like the idea that if I want some Wyches I have to bring in their leader first. It's obvious that an Haemonculus will offer their creations, but only under his leadership. He will join to the battle, but HE will rule over his creations. In the same way, Wyches will obey to their Succubus, not to an Archon of a some high narcisist Kabal. It fit perfectly with the lore of the army itself.

The first part, means that we are limited a lot more than most in either power (since we lose our subfaction rules, most of which are really good) or variation (since in that faction we only have 0-2 units per slot).

While I agree that our HQs are not as much of an liability as some seem to think I disagree that it should be this much split up. I am nearly certain that in previous books for the chronos or talos it actually mentions them being send with an archon.
The "Court" were lorewise always a bunch of mercenaries, why would an heamonculus not be able to hire them?
I must say I like that we are split into 3, but it does feels like it might have been done slightly to restrictive.
Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Wych
avatar

Posts : 506
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 12:10

@Cerve wrote:

PS: our Characters are amazing for their costs.

By what possible measure?

@Cerve wrote:
Try to play on them more, we can costumize them as we want.

Okay, I'll have an Archon with a Clone Field. Oh, wait, that's not allowed. Soul Trap? Nope. Haywire Grenades? Nope. Literally anything that isn't a weapon? Nope.

Okay, how about if I want a Kabal HQ that isn't an Archon? Well, there's the worst special character in the game. Okay, next. Oh, that's it. Archon or terrible special character.

Well, fine. Given that we're supposed to be the fastest army in the game, clearly our HQs will have a great range of mobility options and . . . oh. None whatsoever. Not even as artefacts.

You'll pardon me if I fail to be overwhelmed by the level of customisation available.

@Cerve wrote:
We have buffer Archons


Who can buff all of 4 units. And their buffs don't work if they're in a transport. Well that's okay, I'll just put them on a Jetbike and . . . oh, that's right, they're not allowed one. Or wings or a Skyboard or anything else that would let them keep up with our vehicles.

@Cerve wrote:
melee Archons

Which go so well with all of our melee Kabal units.

@Cerve wrote:
melee Succubus

The only dedicated-melee HQ in the game who needs an artefact weapon in order to be competent in melee.

@Cerve wrote:
tarpit Succubus

Not sure this is really something to celebrate, but whatever.

@Cerve wrote:
buffer Haemi


Wow, one that's actually half-decent at its job. Pity it leaves all subsequent ones without any useful role.

@Cerve wrote:
melee Haemi, anti-psyker HQs, sniper HQs etc.

You can do these, yes, but the latter two both require artefacts. And none of them are particularly great at their jobs.

@Cerve wrote:
But the best thing is that all of our HQs have amazing stats for their costs.

What are you comparing them to?

@Cerve wrote:
Honestly, a Succubus for 50ish points can clean up 5 Marines and never get focussed.

That's quite impressive for a model with just 4 attacks (because, naturally, our dedicated melee HQs have the fewest attacks).

@Cerve wrote:
Or just bring a Shardnet on her and have fun.

My shardnet model did not appear to include any fun. I guess I'll have to ask for a refund from GW since clearly it had a missing part.

@Cerve wrote:

No, they're not Taxes

They are absolutely taxes. The fact that you can find a vague role for them if you scrounge around hard enough doesn't change that.

@Cerve wrote:
You run a fully Kabal and you have 2 Archons? One with 3 Ravagers

I love how the 'Archon buffing 3 Ravagers' example is wheeled out every single time anyone suggests that HQs are a tax. Because having a melee HQ who's only meaningful use is apparently to impersonate an IG Master of Ordnance really shows some great HQ design.

@Cerve wrote:
the other in DS with 20 Kabals.

You must be joking if you think that nonsense is worth 3 CPs. Oh, hey, going back to HQ customisation, remember when they were allowed to take Webway Portals? Sure am glad that went down the toilet.

@Cerve wrote:
but my advise is to never stop thinking about them. I'm finding always new ways for our cheapy HQs.

I often do. And then I'm reminded that whatever I was thinking of won't actually work, because our codex was written by a haddock. And, incidentally, this also applies to battlefield tactics with HQ.

We also appear to have very different ideas about what constitutes a cheap HQ.


Look, I'm willing to put up with our HQs. I'm happy to look for different ways to use them. In fact, I believe I already have come up with unusual ways to use them. But I have no intention of praising their design because, quite frankly, it's abysmal. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that ours are among the worst-designed in the game.
- We have HQs for a fast army that among the slowest in the game.
- We have transport capacity that prevents HQs and full-strength units from occupying the same transport, but then units which need to be full strength to take all their weapons.
- We have open-topped transports to facilitate shooting, but which doesn't work with the shooting HQ aura.
- We have redundant unit auras (the Archon grants rerolls to hit to nearby units, but his Court have their own rerolls for being near him).
- We have barely any customisation beyond artefacts. None in terms of non-weapon wargear.
- We're expected to take more HQs than most other armies, yet their effectiveness is based on taking artefacts.
- They are also very limited in the units they can actually buff, making multiple HQs redundant (since we only have 1 HQ per subfaction, and so can't pick ones with different auras that compliment each other).
- We have no variety in HQs in our subfactions.

The only things I will praise are our artefacts and warlord traits - which are fluffy, fun and effective. But, as above, our HQs are far too reliant on them. Far too often, when I see people defending our HQs, I see them referring to them with artefacts (and often warlord traits) as though they are a part of the base model. e.g. talking about Succubi melee ability as if the Blood Glaive or Triptych Whip were their standard wargear. I'm sorry but artefacts should be a bonus, a way to add a little extra power or flavour to a particular model. HQs shouldn't need to rely on them to be functional the way many of ours do.

Again, I can live with our HQs. I can even have fun with them. But their design is absolutely not worthy of praise.

_________________
@TeenageAngst wrote:
Never trust the French.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7188
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 12:20

I'll agree on the HQ issue. It is the one area that I think GW really dropped the ball in terms of the new codex. Personally I've not found our HQ's to be any good outside of the Coven characters.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Cerve
Wych
avatar

Posts : 661
Join date : 2014-10-05
Location : Ferrara - Emiglia Romagna

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 13:21

You're thought is too close.

Archons babysitting on Ravagers doesn't do only that. It works on first/second turn when you still have 2-3 Ravagers. But tuey tend to fall down fast, and at this point I'm user to use my Archon alone, just wandering on the map like a Solitaire. It is surprisly good in this work, as Succubus are too.
This game is dynamic. A lot of enemies just advance on you or DS on you. It's common to get some.opponent near enough to your Babysitter Archon for a following charge, maybe backed up with other units from your army.
It helps a lot on countercharges, and area denial against any low/mediu armoured unit. And even again DC and other units like these, I'm used to throw 5 Wyches+1-2 wandering Succubu/Archons and you will be surprised for how much these guys hits together.
For the customization point, I'm not talking about wargear, but usefull settings for them.
-Babysitting Ravagers: you can distingue a good player from a medium one from this. The last one will just sit with his Archon buffing Ravagers, and once he lose their lovely boats will find himself totally lost with his Archon. A good one knows when boosting Ravagers with him, and when advance (even leaving the boats alone for that turn). Use your models at 360'!!! He can grab objectives, doing Maelstorm, killing Scouts alone, get some casualties against any faster/DS unit (A LOT of opponents understimate his melee skills, you can soak the Overwatch with a Venom and charge Obliterators squad for example), tied em.up with his 2++ (which sometimes doesn't work but most of it it does, still a dice game), use him at a bait (he is usually the General, some people try to get him at all costs, even exposing them)...
1 CP, 3 points and he will cast a better Smite per turn.
From the Index he still have even a blaster (but I don't buy it for him usually).
And he can boost even Razorwings/Voidravens in the first turn (sometimes even second one) if you move well your units.

Other Archons: similar to the one up there, but without the babysitting stuff. Stick him into a Raider, into a Venom w/Court, or at foot behind Talos/20Wyches/FootGrotesques, it work in all these ways and it works well. When you have to protect a key model, the 2++ becomes risky it's true...but when you're fielding 2-3 disturbing Archons around the board, that 2++ becomes a real pain in the ass for the opponent! Because your Archons becomes expendables, but they turn to be extremely tought thanks for that.

With Relics, Traits and Obsessions you can build up some heavy hitters Archons, some sniping ones, you can build them up in 3-4 different ways and you call it bad? I mean, who cares if you can't equip a SoulTrap/WebwayPortal/stuffs if you actually have ALL of these items for EVERY ARCHON at 0 points? They are stratagems now, it's even better because you don't have to spend points in any game for niche tools. Use what you want whenever you want.

Succubs works similar to the Archons, but theme are cheaper, faster, and can tarpit units thanks for the Shardnets. Here to: relics, traits and obsession makes them super custom, you can have heavy hitters, multiple drugs, adaptable ones, or just expendable ones. These ladies are cheap. Guys seriously, if know how to bring them in melee (which you should if you play DE from years, and not only Kabals) they becomes amazing. The thing is you're adding too many threats on your opponents, because any or these little HQs+little other units+other big guys (Coven usually) you're swarming your opponent with threats. I lost the count about how many times my opponent tend to focus down Grots, Talos, even Wyches sometimes and lost the advantage because 1-2 Succubus masters to engage him in combat, blocking his firing units, tarpit his infantries etc. Seriously, they're little extremely cheap harass Soilitaires. You don't need to hit as a truck with them, you need to harass your opponent's firing units, objective keepers, or just add them into a bigger melee. Add 1-2 Succubus/Archons into a bigger melee and add a pretty fine amount of ap-2/-3 attacks for your side.

And boost your Cult units around you.


Haemonculus. Usually used for +1T they still good hitters persè. But I will not explain more on them, we all knows how they works and their wargear.


Just....move. Move. Move. Use your models at their maximum capacity. Charge with Venoms, advances with Archons, hide your Succubus on the table and if you lose one of them who cares? They are cheap enough foe not crying on them.
But don't play the BH Archon with 3 Ravagers only by keeping him back. Judge during the game, it's not an useless weaponless Lietenaut, it's a good, tought (2++) brawler too.
I'm using my HQ's for all of their stats and I'm finding pretty well. They're extremely cheap for the edge they can gives to you.

And forget this issue about embarking them, you don't really need it, seriously Wink
Back to top Go down
Gelmir
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 57
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : near Rotterdam

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 15:37

I pretty much understand all of your arguments. And I agree with some arguments of both sides. This is exactly why I struggle to make a list.

First of all, about the original subject of this thread, let me point out that our Index army wasn't the worst army at all. It worked, even without Obsessions. With the Codex, stuff mostly just got cheaper, and Blasters do some more damage... Actually, we only got improvements. So, if our Index army already did ok without Obsessions, shouldn't we still be able to do so? In this edition, we're faster than ever, we are cheaper than ever, and we can pick our combat drugs. That deserves some praise, right?

However, nope, stuff isn't perfect. And although I do agree that our HQ's are really not bad for their point cost, they still are a tax. Not because they are too expensive or too weak, but because we can't properly field them.
- They don't fit in a transport if we want to use a full-strength unit. Putting an Archon with 9 Kabalites instead of 10 means you lose both a Heavy and a Special weapon. That kind of cancels out any bonus you get by adding an Archon. Same goes for Wyches and Wracks. An HQ does not just cost points.
- They don't have their own way of transporting themselves either. And although I do agree that an Archon or Haemonculus on a Cult Jetbike or Hoverboard just sounds ridiculous, I do think a Succubus should be able to take that. We used to have Baron Sathonyx, amongst about 4 other HQ's that got removed from the Codex. Now what do I put with my Cult-Outrider detachment? A footslogger to lead my Reavers and Hellions? That's just as ridiculous as an Haemonculus on a Jetbike.
- Putting them in their own dedicated Transport also doesn't solve anything. Aside from the fact that it more than doubles their point-cost, their Aura's can't be used anymore.

Moving on. Ignoring weather HQ's are good or not, I want some units of all factions. Cult, Coven, Kabal and I also want some Harlequins. I like diversity, and don't want the stereotypical 7th edition armylist with just a crap of MSU Kabalites on Venoms. How the crap do I do that?
The Raiding Force is nice, but only works with 3 Patrol Detachments, getting you to 7CP. That's too little, and still doesn't get me what I want. I want an Outrider Detachment because I like both Reavers and Hellions, and want more than just 3 Fast Attack slots. But my Cult Detachment being an Outrider means I'll now be down to only 4CP now, and I'm still not able to include Harlequins because I already have 3 Detachments.

As a result, I now have a Cult Outrider detachment with a footslogging Succubus (or Lilith, haven't decided yet), because the Baron doesn't exist anymore. But at least It'll have a Cult Obsession.
Second, I have a Harlequin Patrol with their Masque rules.
That leaves a mixed Battalion to put the rest of my army in, and have some much needed CP. No Coven Obsession for my Wracks and Haemonculus and Talos, no Kabal Obsession for my Kabalites and Trueborns.
Also, I bought a Farseer Skyrunner before the Codex came, because back then I could still use that as a Fast Attack HQ for my Outrider Detachment and I would have that much needed Psycher. Now I need to put that in a separate Detachment as well. But I also have no room for the Craftworld Supreme Command Detachment with a Farseer and two Warlocks on Skyrunners...

In short, I don't have a problem with our army being divided in 3 sub-factions, but I have a problem with that meaning I have to give up everything else, including Command Points. I want a Prophets Coven, I want more than 3 units of Reavers/Hellions, I want to include Harlequins, and have enough CP to support all of it, and I can not even figure out how to get 3 out of those 4 in my army.

Most of my problems would be solved if there wasn't a limit of 3 detachments, and if I could get more Command Points without having to sacrifice units I want for more standard Kabalites that I don't want.

_________________
For my introduction and pics of some of my models:
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t17117-noob-alert
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7188
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 16:22

@Gelmir wrote:
In short, I don't have a problem with our army being divided in 3 sub-factions, but I have a problem with that meaning I have to give up everything else, including Command Points. I want a Prophets Coven, I want more than 3 units of Reavers/Hellions, I want to include Harlequins, and have enough CP to support all of it, and I can not even figure out how to get 3 out of those 4 in my army.

Most of my problems would be solved if there wasn't a limit of 3 detachments, and if I could get more Command Points without having to sacrifice units I want for more standard Kabalites that I don't want.

I feel your pain but, just like TeenageAngst, you're trying to cram an awful lot of very specific units into your army, not have anything superfluous and still retain all the benefits of every detachment. Something has to give!

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Gelmir
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 57
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : near Rotterdam

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 16:28

@Count Adhemar wrote:
@Gelmir wrote:
In short, I don't have a problem with our army being divided in 3 sub-factions, but I have a problem with that meaning I have to give up everything else, including Command Points. I want a Prophets Coven, I want more than 3 units of Reavers/Hellions, I want to include Harlequins, and have enough CP to support all of it, and I can not even figure out how to get 3 out of those 4 in my army.

Most of my problems would be solved if there wasn't a limit of 3 detachments, and if I could get more Command Points without having to sacrifice units I want for more standard Kabalites that I don't want.

I feel your pain but, just like TeenageAngst, you're trying to cram an awful lot of very specific units into your army, not have anything superfluous and still retain all the benefits of every detachment. Something has to give!

You're right. The point is that when I started, we had a 5th edition codex, and this could all be used in one army. With every new edition, it seems I am forced to permanently put some of my models in a box, and buy more stuff that I already have. Makes me sad. Sad

_________________
For my introduction and pics of some of my models:
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t17117-noob-alert
Back to top Go down
Quauchtemoc
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 253
Join date : 2017-06-19

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 17:36

@Gelmir wrote:
@Count Adhemar wrote:
@Gelmir wrote:
In short, I don't have a problem with our army being divided in 3 sub-factions, but I have a problem with that meaning I have to give up everything else, including Command Points. I want a Prophets Coven, I want more than 3 units of Reavers/Hellions, I want to include Harlequins, and have enough CP to support all of it, and I can not even figure out how to get 3 out of those 4 in my army.

Most of my problems would be solved if there wasn't a limit of 3 detachments, and if I could get more Command Points without having to sacrifice units I want for more standard Kabalites that I don't want.

I feel your pain but, just like TeenageAngst, you're trying to cram an awful lot of very specific units into your army, not have anything superfluous and still retain all the benefits of every detachment. Something has to give!

You're right. The point is that when I started, we had a 5th edition codex, and this could all be used in one army. With every new edition, it seems I am forced to permanently put some of my models in a box, and buy more stuff that I already have. Makes me sad. Sad

Honestly these model where so bad in 5th that its like they didnt exist back then
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Incubi
avatar

Posts : 1699
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 18:06

I love how you say "something has to give" because we want specific units. Go make a Craftworld/Harlequins list and tell me how many brick walls you hit. Add whatever units you want, it doesn't matter you can have them all and as many as you want and whatever you want with whatever benefits you want. It is not unreasonable to have everything in the army work.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
hexxenwyrd
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 90
Join date : 2018-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 18:13

And fir that sacrifice you can get better bonuses for each type of thing you want to add.
Outside of "-1 to hit outside 12"" being annoyingly good if you play exactly stay at range gunline lists, the bonuses for craftworld aren't nearly as good as the obessions.

Harlies don't have this problems because outside of the two hq and 2 elites options they have exactly one option for each type. So they have even less choices than any obessions qualifying detachment.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Incubi
avatar

Posts : 1699
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 18:28

Then there should have been an overall Dark Eldar set of traits like there are for stratagems and warlord traits that everyone can use. One that favors shooty, like +1 poison shots if in rapid fire range. One that favors stabby, like enemy -1 to hit with shooting if within 12". And one that favors elf trickery, like +1 to all cast values that target a DE unit.

See? Not OP, not as good as obsessions we have now, but still good enough for an army of mixed stuff to not be completely shafted.


Last edited by TeenageAngst on Thu May 24 2018, 18:29; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Cerve
Wych
avatar

Posts : 661
Join date : 2014-10-05
Location : Ferrara - Emiglia Romagna

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 18:28

@TeenageAngst wrote:
I love how you say "something has to give" because we want specific units. Go make a Craftworld/Harlequins list and tell me how many brick walls you hit. Add whatever units you want, it doesn't matter you can have them all and as many as you want and whatever you want with whatever benefits you want. It is not unreasonable to have everything in the army work.

I can get it for Craftworlds, but Harlequins? You mean that 2xElite, 1xTroop, 1xFA and 1xHS army? :-/
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Incubi
avatar

Posts : 1699
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 18:30

You know what has less unit selection than Harlequins?
Any of our subfactions.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
Cerve
Wych
avatar

Posts : 661
Join date : 2014-10-05
Location : Ferrara - Emiglia Romagna

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 18:35

@TeenageAngst wrote:
You know what has less unit selection than Harlequins?
Any of our subfactions.

Because 3 of them makes a Codex Smile All of them have PfP, same Stratagems, same Drukhari Keywords.

That's the thing you still don't get it. It's PART OF THE FLUFF. We ARE an agglomeration of pirates.

Don't you like it? Play another army, it's simple. These are DarkEldar, they always been like this in their BG and the old Codexes were all bad writed for ignoring this thing.



Yes, it still annoying reading you that whine all the time for the same thing.
Back to top Go down
hexxenwyrd
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 90
Join date : 2018-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   Thu May 24 2018, 19:12

Each subfaction gets me options for 2 elites, and fast attack, and two dedicated transports.
With the troop and hq that's 7 options. Covens have elite and two hs, cabal has elite hs and 2 fliers, cult have 3 fast attack and two fliers. So that's between 10 and 12 options.

Harlies have 8 total options.
Sorry angst, you're just flat wrong.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Any luck with non-obsession detachments?   

Back to top Go down
 
Any luck with non-obsession detachments?
Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Drukhari Tactics
-
Jump to: