HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 What needs tweaking?

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

Posts : 261
Join date : 2013-01-06

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 03:29

Okay...so I havent used the spearhead idea yet, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt....

But I dont see how overpowered a T6 model with 10 wounds, a 4+ save, thats wounded by basic weapons on a 5+ can be.....especially since you can only have three of them...
their buffing mechanism is a t3 model on foot, with a 5+ save after he fails an unrerollable save, with 5 wounds and at best 18 inch range, which will probably give your opponent Slay the Warlord if you're using him for his CP regen ability too...

the alpha strike possibility is strong, yes, but its far from uncounterable
Back to top Go down
LordSplata
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 281
Join date : 2017-06-14
Location : Sydney

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 06:29

While a few of our units are quite powerful, and more powerful than some other choices; hence you see them in a lot of lists. But I wouldn't call any of our units really over-powered.

I would say that as a whole we have a lot of options that are quite good and quite competitive, which allows us a fair amount of flexability in choosing an "Optimal" list.

Our book is good. It is fluffy, and I'm a happy DE player. And with that territory comes a shift in meta, which the player base will do. Right now we are winning tournaments and are the new hot thing. That doesn't mean that our flimsy boats with good firepower are going to continue to do that as people will learn and take more anti DE weaponry rather than anti Dark Reaper weaponry.

It won't take long. Maybe a month or two, but the meta will evolve and take us on.
Until then I don't think anything of ours needs a nerf at all.

Drazah. Oh man he needs a hand!
and Incube I would love to have seen them with 2 wound weapons. That would have been a great niche! Or at least while the klavex is alive, then everyone gets his skill. Right now they are aspect warriors, but without the "aspect" bit.
Back to top Go down
Hawkstrom
Slave
avatar

Posts : 5
Join date : 2016-09-20
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 07:10

Dissies should absolutely go up by at least 5 points, considering that against alot of vehicles, they are not much weaker than dark lances, so that would help with internal balance. I do also think ravagers should go up by 5 or 10 points because pretty much every list I have seen that is trying to be atleast semi competitive is taking 3. I'm not sure why kabalites needed to go down a point, I think they were fine at 7. Grotesques definitely need a points increase. I would raise reavers by 1 just to make an even 20 since they are doing pretty good right now. So yeah I pretty much agree with you in the buff area, I do think that wyches could go up by 1 point maybe.

I don't use hellions so Im not exactly an expert on them, but I think all they need is a points decrease, I always saw them as more of a street gang who individually would be weaker than most Dark Eldar. My biggest issue with them is they have the durability of a kabalite yet are more than double their price, and are somehow supposed to survive 2 phases of melee. If the target you picked out isn't some garbage like guardsmen or Tau firewarriors then they will take heavy losses. Pretty much anything that has 2 wounds will punch them out so the d2 on hellglaives seems pretty useless. Incubi just need either 2 damage of d3 damage so they have a niche at fighting elite units and characters. I agree on beasts but I dont know how to fix them. I also agree on the court, they just need to lower the points on ur-ghuls and medusae. I think the dark lance is fine as is, the dissies just need a small points increase to make them the lances more attractive comparatively. I don't see much of an issue with the voidraven, against several armies they void mine can be extremely useful, it is just more situational than the razorwing. I think the talos could definitely use some love, while point costs are all that can really be changed in the foreseeable future, I would really like to see its offensive power get buffed. Succubi need 1 more attack, I dont care if that brings a points increase with it, they should have at least as many attacks as an archon or haemonculus.

I don't understand these people that think we are somehow in a perfect place and shouldn't receive any nerfs. So far we are doing very well in tournaments, although from what I have seen we dont usually take first. We are very strong. We do very well against most of the 2017 codices as unfortunately codex creep is still in effect, although it is much less severe than 7th edition. We definitely are not doing bad against the 2018 codices either. I have heard the argument that people just don't know how to deal with us, but if you build your list to counter Dark Eldar, you are potentially making your list worse against someone else, I'm sure people will come up with better ways to deal with us than they are now, but I don't think its going to perfectly balance us. The cults and covens are pretty good balance wise, largely due to the fact that melee is generally weaker in 40k, but the kabals definitely have some extremely powerful builds that can be very difficult to deal with, and I think some slight points increases in that area should balance it out pretty well.

Drazhar needs to just be completely reworked, no slight buff is going to put out that dumpster fire.
Back to top Go down
mynamelegend
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 147
Join date : 2015-04-05

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 14:21

The reason we are fielding triple ravagers in most every list isn't because ravagers need a nerf or got too cheap (most lists fielded three back in the Index when they cost 155-185 points, though I suppose some would argue that this is an argument to return them to that), it's because ravagers fill an extremely important slot in our army that we simply have no other good answer for. We are forced to take three ravagers in any serious army because we need the long-range anti-tank firepower that you can't get anywhere else in our codex. And no, a unit of scourges that can't use their movement speed and will get shot off the table the first time something looks vaguely in their direction does not, in fact, cut it. Most ranged armies will be able to consistently kill three squads of scourges in one turn without even having to divert any of their real firepower their way.

Without presenting us with an actual, viable alternative in the realm of "how to take out that tank over there from all the way over here", we're going to need to field triple ravagers no matter what they cost. This isn't a Dark Reaper situation where you can look in the same codex and find missile launchers and prism cannons and bright lances and even D-weapons due to double-move powers, all sitting right there as valid-if-not-currently-as-great alternatives. Any nerfs would need to come with actual added options elsewhere.

Not even the second most breathlessly discussed nerfin' unit the grotesques are that, uh, grotesque. Among tourney lists it looks like about 50% field grots, and rarely more than one unit. They basically prosper because the metas generally happen to align in such a way that the weapons and units grots fear are ignored. The metagame will work it out, just wait and see. ("But then they'll be worse off against other armies!" isn't an argument, that's true for every good army out there, there's nothing different just because we're the ones doing well for once)

As for actual tweaks I would like to see, ignoring things like "for the love of pants make it so that we're not the second slowest HQ army in the game after AdMech"?

- More HQ Options. We end up with really boring-looking HQ rosters since we only have the one option in each of our subfactions. Simply adding "lesser" HQ variants would do it here without making GW add any new actual models. Add a Dracon, add a Syren (and give the succubus her extra attack dangit), and return the old "Haemonculus/Haemonculus Elder" option.
- (but obviously wouldn't it be great to get some jetbike HQs, or even HQ versions of some of the mercenaries with "nuGW"-style names, like Klaivex Executioner or Mandrake Shadowking, that could go in any of our three subfactions)
- Hellions need survivability. It doesn't matter what they cost, they're freaking guardsmen once the guns come out. Every viable army in the game has an answer to "I put down a bunch of T3 low-armor models". Maybe give them a -1 to be hit if they deepstruck or advanced this turn since they're all swoopy-loopy. I dunno.
- Incubi need to get Lethal Precision on every model instead of just the Klaivex, and make their goddamn extra attacks stratagem work on a 6+ to hit instead of an unmodified 6 like every other similar rule in the entire game. That should help.
Back to top Go down
Imateria
Wych
avatar

Posts : 510
Join date : 2016-02-06
Location : Birmingham

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 16:10

@Burnage wrote:
We've had the Codex for a while now, and most of us will have had a chance to play with it. I think most of us will also agree that we're in a pretty good spot, but the question does arise; what changes are we expecting for us in the future? Based upon the games I've played and tournament results so far, I'd suggest the following;

Nerf Candidates
Ravagers - they're too cheap for what they do and how well they interact with the Black Heart.
Disintegrator Cannons - these at least need to be on par with Dark Lances in price point.
Grotesques - under 9 points per wound with T6, 4++ and 6+++? Horrifyingly durable and big units of them are tearing up tournaments.
Kabalites - literally half the price of most other Eldar infantry, comparable in defense and arguably better offensively.
Reavers - maybe a consequence of the other Cult units being slightly weak, but they're overshadowing all of them in competitive environments.

Buff Candidates
Hellions - still fragile for their points, and Reavers do a similar job better.
Incubi - have no niche any more.
Beasts - outclassed by other units in the Codex.
Court of the Archon - the Llhamaean and Sslyth are fine, but the Medusae and Ur-Ghul are in a really weird spot.
Dark Lances - potentially controversial, but the shine on these has gone slightly since the Index relative to our other wargear options. Making them Assault would be a minor, yet very helpful buff.
Voidraven Bomber - it's solid, but it's also pretty difficult to justify taking over the Razorwing.

I don't think the base cost of the Ravager should go up, it's fine as is, and Dissies might need to go up but no more than 5pts each, anywhere near the 30 they used to be would be silly.

I can see Grotesques going back to the 40ppm they used to be but anything more than that would be horrible overkill.

Kabalites are half the cost of other Eldar infantry because most other Eldar infantry are Aspect Warriors, so a silly comparison. I don't think they needed to be dropped a point from the index but anything more than 7 would probably be overcosted.

Reavers are a no. Being a good unit doesn't make them overpowered, outside of full sized squads they're lacking in damage output and generally work best at tying up shooty units.

As for Hellions, yeah way too fragile and lacking in damage output for their cost.

Incubi need a rework, S4 AP-3 D1 doesnt cut it anymore, they either need S5 or D2 but you look at their rules, stratagem and keywords and I can't help feel that they were specifically designed not to synergise with the rest of the army.

Beasts definitely need an overhaul.

Dark Lances are fine.

Court also needs an overhaul, letting them be taken in squads again would be a good start at least.

A points drop on the Voidraven would be good.
Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Wych
avatar

Posts : 512
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 16:17

I think Incubi should be Kabal. They'd still need a buff, but this would at least give them synergy with Archons and melee bonuses from BH/PT Kabals.

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

Posts : 91
Join date : 2018-04-24

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 16:29

Hellions need to be somewhat fragile. They're dark eldar street gangs, I just can't see it making any sense fir them to be t4, w2, or having 4+ or better.
Super cheap I could see, their gangsters who are supposed to mob along with raids.

Incubi can't be kabal. Their fluff is all about them being independent, separate from larger cormorite society. Besides the kabal bufs are mostly bad on them. D2 would make sense. Dhrazan giving +1 to wound rolls (I know that's not his brule, but it should be) would they'd be a pretty scary when llead by him
Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Wych
avatar

Posts : 512
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 16:32

@hexxenwyrd wrote:
Incubi can't be kabal.

They really could be.

@hexxenwyrd wrote:
Their fluff is all about them being independent, separate from larger cormorite society.

Yeah, so is half our book. They still managed to work together just fine prior to 8th.

@hexxenwyrd wrote:
Besides the kabal bufs are mostly bad on them.

- Archon gives them rerolls to hit.
- Black Heart gives them +1 PfP (so they have rerolls to charge on turn 1, and hit on 2s in combat from turn 2).
- Poison Tongue lets them reroll 1s to wound.

Maybe not amazing, but I'm struggling to see how these are bad on them. Especially when the alternative is no buffs at all. Neutral

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

Posts : 534
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 16:39

If slaves, pets and bodyguards like Sslyth can have a Kabal, so should Incubi. They serve the term of their contract loyalty, often for centuries pledges to one house or archon. They absolutely could have gotten the Kabal keyword.
Back to top Go down
Burnage
Wych
avatar

Posts : 683
Join date : 2017-09-12

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 16:57

@hexxenwyrd wrote:
Hellions need to be somewhat fragile. They're dark eldar street gangs, I just can't see it making any sense fir them to be t4, w2, or having 4+ or better.
Super cheap I could see, their gangsters who are supposed to mob along with raids.

They could get -1 to hit.
Back to top Go down
Lord Asvaldir
Wych
avatar

Posts : 770
Join date : 2015-12-06
Location : Washington DC

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 17:22

Don't particularly see why hellions would get -1 to hit and why reavers wouldn't if you're just basing the rule on "they are fast". I'd just like to see hellions go down to 12pts, would make them more spamable.

Honestly though I'm really happy with our book. Regardless of what I think GW might do, I'd be content with nothing changing. Haven't been this happy about a codex/army book in ages.

_________________
The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors...
Back to top Go down
yellabelly
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 236
Join date : 2017-11-16

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 18:06

The fluff I've read has Hellions being more agile and maneuverable but lacking the flat out speed of a reaver. - 1 to hit would make sense to me.

_________________
Do you fight for the Dark Gods? The Drukhari gave birth to one of them. By partying.
Back to top Go down
hexxenwyrd
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 91
Join date : 2018-04-24

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 18:16

On incubi being kabal. Sslyths and such have no organization beyond the kbal, they are part of 'the court of the archon', them being kabal makes sense.
The incubi have their indentity as part of the incubi temples, something separate from the kabals. They have they're leader, a named character who has a long history of bring loyal to nothing but the ideals of the incubi temples.

Making the incubi kabal takes away that separate identity, and gives them only a tiny buff, with two kabals doing literally nothing for them.

Helping the incubi to be their own thing, and having the established incubi he option do more to help them seems a much much better option.
We're changing the rules, so the it's not a choice between "adding kabal or nothing". It's between "adding kabal or another change".

So what do you would do more to help incubi be an interesting a useful choice.
A) add kabal keyword
B) D2, and/or dhrazan gives an aura of +1 to wound rather than to hit. Note that dhrazan would benefit from his own aura like normal.
Back to top Go down
The Strange Dark One
Wych
avatar

Posts : 617
Join date : 2014-08-22
Location : Private subrealm of the Eldritch Skies Kabal.

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 18:42

Some units like Hellions or Drazhar are alright and are simply overpriced. Other units like Incubi, Beasts and the Court suffer from serious design issues that cannot be merely adressed with points and keywords.

Imo, Beastmasters should be mercenaries that happen to benefit from Cult obsessions. Increase the movement of beasts, lower their cost so they turn into expandable shock troops.

Incubi want to be elite killers and the only thing that will help them is dealing 2 damage. For what's worth they can go up in price, but 2 damage is mandatory and would actually fill a niche in our army.
I am also with hexxenwyrd on this.

And the Court is just a huge cluster$&@! of random units. There are many ways to make them have interesting roles on the field, but I fail to see them in a melee list. Unless they were to receive serious buffs and were limited to 1 per Archon.

_________________
Discontinued: Dark Eldar 7th Codex Redux
A pragmatic custom codex for pragmatic realspace raiders.
Back to top Go down
krayd
Wych
avatar

Posts : 609
Join date : 2011-10-03
Location : Richmond, VA

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 18:58

Drazhar should *at least* get the same abilities as the Klaivex, in addition to his own.

Beasts need a price reduction, as well as the *option* of allowing them to fill fast attack slots (requiring at least one master would be fine, but I think they should be a cheap option for filling out cult detachments).

The Master Artisan warlord trait needs to be changed to apply to 'insensible to pain' rolls, rather than 'inured to suffering' rolls. Either that, or have it give a +1 to 'inured to suffering' rolls instead.

Back to top Go down
withershadow
Wych
avatar

Posts : 534
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 20:04

Cheaper is not going to do too much since they are so damn slow compared to the rest of our army.  I would much prefer to keep the same cost but give all the beasts +2" of movement, which would be a big help in using them as expendable first-waves, which is what they are supposed to be.

They are already mercenaries, so it makes little sense to force a beast-master's inclusion to field them in matched play. Or if they are going to mandate him, give him the blade for hire rule as well.  That would fix that big chunk of the codex for me.

Then just give Drazhar a re-roll 1 aura for Incubi, and make all Klaives deal 2 damage.
Back to top Go down
krayd
Wych
avatar

Posts : 609
Join date : 2011-10-03
Location : Richmond, VA

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 20:34

Either additional movement, or a bonus to charge range would be fine.

Fluffwise, it's really silly to have masterless beasts.
Technically, beastmasters have always been considered part of the wych cult. However, I do think that the beasts themselves should have the <CULT> keyword as well.
Back to top Go down
withershadow
Wych
avatar

Posts : 534
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Thu May 17 2018, 21:10

@krayd wrote:
Either additional movement, or a bonus to charge range would be fine.

Fluffwise, it's really silly to have masterless beasts.
Technically, beastmasters have always been considered part of the wych cult. However, I do think that the beasts themselves should have the <CULT> keyword as well.
It's supported by the fluff. That Archon Maxilian or whatever from the Path books, who was obsessed with birds, all his raids began by releasing his trained and very aggressive flying critters to use as expendable shock troops.

<Cult> on the beasts would be kind of weird; the red grief movement would be useful but the offensive buffs are not what they need.
Back to top Go down
Burnage
Wych
avatar

Posts : 683
Join date : 2017-09-12

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Fri Jul 13 2018, 16:52

It's interesting coming back to this thread a few months later, as it seems like Venoms have become one of the main units of ours for other players to hate. I wouldn't have called it at first but given the outcry against them online I can definitely see GW bumping them up by a few points.

I'd ideally like base Venoms to get their points raised and Splinter Cannons to see a point reduction as compensation, but that might be a bit too fine grained a change to hope for.
Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Wych
avatar

Posts : 512
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Fri Jul 13 2018, 16:58

@Burnage wrote:
It's interesting coming back to this thread a few months later, as it seems like Venoms have become one of the main units of ours for other players to hate. I wouldn't have called it at first but given the outcry against them online I can definitely see GW bumping them up by a few points.

I'd ideally like base Venoms to get their points raised and Splinter Cannons to see a point reduction as compensation, but that might be a bit too fine grained a change to hope for.

See, I'm still not seeing Venoms as being anything to write home about. Especially since they're all but useless as gun-platforms now.

Maybe if they went up in points but Splinter Cannons became less crap.

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

Posts : 683
Join date : 2017-09-12

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Fri Jul 13 2018, 17:05

@Soulless Samurai wrote:
@Burnage wrote:
It's interesting coming back to this thread a few months later, as it seems like Venoms have become one of the main units of ours for other players to hate. I wouldn't have called it at first but given the outcry against them online I can definitely see GW bumping them up by a few points.

I'd ideally like base Venoms to get their points raised and Splinter Cannons to see a point reduction as compensation, but that might be a bit too fine grained a change to hope for.

See, I'm still not seeing Venoms as being anything to write home about. Especially since they're all but useless as gun-platforms now.

Maybe if they went up in points but Splinter Cannons became less crap.

I think they're good to start with, but where they really shine is in some of the interactions that they can take advantage of. Add Lightning-Fast Reactions, five Kabalites with a Blaster, Doom, Jinx and Flayed Skull or Black Heart to a double Cannon Venom and you've got an absolute monster of a unit for only 125 points.

I'm actually getting increasingly concerned that Aeldari soup and some varieties of Imperium Soup are so strong that they're going to wind up getting allies nerfed even further. The Battle Brothers beta rule hasn't done a whole lot to weaken them.
Back to top Go down
Frowny
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 54
Join date : 2017-08-27

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Fri Jul 13 2018, 18:45

I might say:
Dissie+5
Ravager base +5
Warrior +1
Grots +3

Clawed fiends -5
Khymearea -2
Razor wings flocks -1
Additionally, allow all to take up fast attack slots, but a beast master is still required.
Wracks-1
Drazhar -30
Chronos .. -10? I think a wholesale rework is better though. He has a lot of problems. Too cheap and people spam it as a sturdy tie up unit despite minimal damage output but it doesn't have the damage to really damage anything. The buff aura is a neat direction but it needs to hold it's own slightly better.
Hellions -5

This seems like all that is really possible in a chapter approved format. Several things would benefit from bigger changes and the hq problem remains but there is no easy way to fix that with point adjustments. I also expect the venom to go up by 5pts but don't know that it is deserved.

Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Wych
avatar

Posts : 512
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Fri Jul 13 2018, 18:51

@Burnage wrote:

I think they're good to start with, but where they really shine is in some of the interactions that they can take advantage of. Add Lightning-Fast Reactions, five Kabalites with a Blaster, Doom, Jinx and Flayed Skull or Black Heart to a double Cannon Venom and you've got an absolute monster of a unit for only 125 points.

But that's not 125pts. Doom and Jinx aren't even from the same army, let alone free. If you're going to include those in the calculations, then you have to also include their cost.

Moreover, in this instance, wouldn't the sensible thing be to nerf either Doom/Jinx or their platform? e.g. increase the cost of the Farseer or perhaps make Doom only work with Eldar units (rather than any unit that shoots the enemy).

Because this seems like both Venoms and Dark Eldar being punished for Eldar having powerful psychic powers. Neutral


@Burnage wrote:

I'm actually getting increasingly concerned that Aeldari soup and some varieties of Imperium Soup are so strong that they're going to wind up getting allies nerfed even further. The Battle Brothers beta rule hasn't done a whole lot to weaken them.

Well, yeah, that's because the Battle Brothers rule was entirely pointless.

What we need is for there to be a significant reward for taking a single army and/or a punishment for using a soup army (with the possible exception of stuff like Inquisition, though that probably needs a rewrite anyway).

For example, if Soup armies had to forfeit all Stratagems except for the Rulebook ones, that might provide a lot more incentive to only use one army.

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

Posts : 534
Join date : 2018-04-02

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Mon Jul 16 2018, 08:47

@Frowny wrote:
I might say:
Dissie+5
Ravager base +5
Warrior +1
Grots +3

Clawed fiends -5
Khymearea -2
Razor wings flocks -1
Additionally, allow all to take up fast attack slots, but a beast master is still required.
Wracks-1
Drazhar -30
Chronos .. -10? I think a wholesale rework is better though. He has a lot of problems. Too cheap and people spam it as a sturdy tie up unit despite minimal damage output but it doesn't have the damage to really damage anything. The buff aura is a neat direction but it needs to hold it's own slightly better.
Hellions -5

This seems like all that is really possible in a chapter approved format. Several things would benefit from bigger changes and the hq problem remains but there is no easy way to fix that with point adjustments. I also expect the venom to go up by 5pts but don't know that it is deserved.

What beasts really need is to make the Beastmaster a blade for hire. He wouldn’t get his own Cult obsession, but the rest of the units in the detachment would still.

Drazhar needs more than cost reductions, he needs his aura reconfigured and hopefully gain the Klaivex precision strike.

9 point Hellions is a bit much, I think, although not by much. If we’re going to split hairs between 6 and 7 point Warriors (why? Splinter weapons are probably the worst base weapon after laguns[and those get mass fire abilities], and they are worthless in melee), then 10-11 seems more appropriate for Hellions at their current profile. An extra attack and/or -1 to hit would make them more than okay at their current cost.
Back to top Go down
Frowny
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 54
Join date : 2017-08-27

PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   Mon Jul 16 2018, 13:35

I think I'd forgotten when writing that hellions had already gone down a lot in price. I think they were even more in the index? 17 ppm? and I was using that. I hadn't realized that -5 would take them to 9 points. I think 11-12 might be reasonable though.

I agree. if the beastmaster was a blade for hire I can imagine some reasonable neutral vanguards of mandrakes and a beastmaster or something. Would be nice to have a little more flexibility. I feel like the codex really needs a neutral option for each slot, since it can be pretty hard to fill out detachments without feeling like you are just duplicating e.g 3x talos, 3x3 reavers or something.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: What needs tweaking?   

Back to top Go down
 
What needs tweaking?
Back to top 
Page 2 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 :: 

GENERAL DRUKHARI DISCUSSION

 :: Drukhari Discussion
-
Jump to: