Combat Drugs

I am quite new to playing the True Kin, and I was wondering what other Archons consider are the best combat drugs for each unit?

I have quite a few Cult units (which is ok in my very casual meta), so last game I took +1 Strength on my Hellions to get Str 5, +1 Toughness on Reavers for T5, and +1 Attack on Wyches for killing chaff, leaving my Succubus to take +1 WS to cancel her Glaive penalty. Is there a better way to do it?

Also, the wording on choosing/rolling for drugs is a little iffy. Can I choose for a few units, and roll for the rest? Or if I roll for one, do I have to roll for all?

On the question of choosing/rolling, there was a thread about it here but the gist of it is that you take what you're given if you roll but if you choose you can only take a drug that has not already been given to another unit unless all 6 drugs have been taken already.

Best units per drug are, in my opinion:
+1A - Wyches
+1S - Hellions
+1T - Reavers
+2MV - possibly Reavers or Hellions to help get a first turn charge or maybe a Succubus so she can keep up with a Raider that she can't get in as it's full
+2LD - Beastmasters
+1WS - no good option for this one really!

+1T on Wyches is an option if you need a tarpit - T4 with a 4+ invulnerable save isn't bad at all considering how cheap they are.

There is an argument weather or not the +1WS can nullify the archite glaive malus. There is a full thread about it.

dumpeal wrote:

There is an argument weather or not the +1WS can nullify the archite glaive malus. There is a full thread about it.

Huh. I've been treating it as doing so, I didn't realise that was controversial.

I'd rather see the +1 A on Hellions (+1 S4 D2 attack is better than +1 S3 attack), and +1 S on wyches, or even better, on bloodbrides (if they were valid to begin with).

dumpeal wrote:

There is an argument weather or not the +1WS can nullify the archite glaive malus. There is a full thread about it.

Really? It doesn't look controversial at all to me. Main Rules p175 has a sidebar on Modifying Characteristics, that specifically calls out "Strength, Toughness and Leadership can never be modified below 1"; the fact that they don't mention a lower/higher bound for any other characteristic shows that there isn't one.

A Succubus can have a WS of 1+ (or even -1+ if you find enough weird buffs to stack), but per the rules on Hit Rolls (p181 and p183) a natural 1 on the dice always misses. So if she's using her Glaive then she can roll a 2, give it -1 from the penalty and still beat the 1+ required without rolling a natural 1: she hits.

Things never look controversial by the viewpoint of a single person. It's when you start debating it that you notice how people understand it differently.

We've debated around rules that were far more clear than this subject, so i'll give you this advice : never underestimate the ability of 40k fans to overinterpretate rules and to give importance to tiny, probably useless, details.

+1 WS seems like it's a good choice for almost everyone (except, possibly, a succubus) but not a great choice for anyone. It's not cheesy, but at the same time I'm not going to weep salty man tears about having to include it.

When you build your list, you don't have to pre-assign your combat drugs. You can see what your opponent will bring and choose what buff will benefit you the most.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Things never look controversial by the viewpoint of a single person. It's when you start debating it that you notice how people understand it differently.

We've debated around rules that were far more clear than this subject, so i'll give you this advice : never underestimate the ability of 40k fans to overinterpretate rules and to give importance to tiny, probably useless, details.

No there is nothing controversial with Mod's you can mod infinity, but you still have to roll within a 1-6 and 1's always fail.

If someone is arguing this then they are trying to cheat.

Jimsolo wrote:

+1 WS seems like it's a good choice for almost everyone (except, possibly, a succubus) but not a great choice for anyone.  It's not cheesy, but at the same time I'm not going to weep salty man tears about having to include it.

I like LD, Atk, or Str on her, the +1 to hit isnt needed since turn 3 she gets +1 to hit.

amishprn86 wrote:

Mppqlmd wrote:

Things never look controversial by the viewpoint of a single person. It's when you start debating it that you notice how people understand it differently.

We've debated around rules that were far more clear than this subject, so i'll give you this advice : never underestimate the ability of 40k fans to overinterpretate rules and to give importance to tiny, probably useless, details.

No there is nothing controversial with Mod's you can mod infinity, but you still have to roll within a 1-6 and 1's always fail.

If someone is arguing this then they are trying to cheat.

Jimsolo wrote:

+1 WS seems like it's a good choice for almost everyone (except, possibly, a succubus) but not a great choice for anyone.  It's not cheesy, but at the same time I'm not going to weep salty man tears about having to include it.

I like LD, Atk, or Str on her, the +1 to hit isnt needed since turn 3 she gets +1 to hit.

You should avoid to say others try to cheat. Even if you're sure of your point of view, your opponent may genuinely think he is right. Accusing your opponent of cheating, when debating on rules is not a good practice.

dumpeal wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Mppqlmd wrote:

Things never look controversial by the viewpoint of a single person. It's when you start debating it that you notice how people understand it differently.

We've debated around rules that were far more clear than this subject, so i'll give you this advice : never underestimate the ability of 40k fans to overinterpretate rules and to give importance to tiny, probably useless, details.

No there is nothing controversial with Mod's you can mod infinity, but you still have to roll within a 1-6 and 1's always fail.

If someone is arguing this then they are trying to cheat.

Jimsolo wrote:

+1 WS seems like it's a good choice for almost everyone (except, possibly, a succubus) but not a great choice for anyone.  It's not cheesy, but at the same time I'm not going to weep salty man tears about having to include it.

I like LD, Atk, or Str on her, the +1 to hit isnt needed since turn 3 she gets +1 to hit.

You should avoid to say others try to cheat. Even if you're sure of your point of view, your opponent may genuinely think he is right. Accusing your opponent of cheating, when debating on rules is not a good practice.

Pg 175, "All modifiers are cumulative"

I mean... there isnt any other simpler way to put it, if someone wants to argue, then i wont play with them. Its not like they used a word with 2 meanings (GW does this ALL THE TIME) or a common in a different way, or even word it one way in one place then another somewhere else. It it in 1 spot and said in 4 words with no 2nd meaning.

amishprn86 wrote:

dumpeal wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Mppqlmd wrote:

Things never look controversial by the viewpoint of a single person. It's when you start debating it that you notice how people understand it differently.

We've debated around rules that were far more clear than this subject, so i'll give you this advice : never underestimate the ability of 40k fans to overinterpretate rules and to give importance to tiny, probably useless, details.

No there is nothing controversial with Mod's you can mod infinity, but you still have to roll within a 1-6 and 1's always fail.

If someone is arguing this then they are trying to cheat.

Jimsolo wrote:

+1 WS seems like it's a good choice for almost everyone (except, possibly, a succubus) but not a great choice for anyone.  It's not cheesy, but at the same time I'm not going to weep salty man tears about having to include it.

I like LD, Atk, or Str on her, the +1 to hit isnt needed since turn 3 she gets +1 to hit.

You should avoid to say others try to cheat. Even if you're sure of your point of view, your opponent may genuinely think he is right. Accusing your opponent of cheating, when debating on rules is not a good practice.

Pg 175, "All modifiers are cumulative"

I mean... there isnt any other simpler way to put it, if someone wants to argue, then i wont play with them. Its not like they used a word with 2 meanings (GW does this ALL THE TIME) or a common in a different way, or even word it one way in one place then another somewhere else. It it in 1 spot and said in 4 words with no 2nd meaning.

But it's 2 different things. 1 is a malus on roll and the other is a bonus ou WS. They don't directly stack. I agree they should stack, and simply nullify themself, but if GW decide to explicitly state WS can't be lowered below 2+, all our defense will crumble. And its not THAT clear it CAN be lowered.

It's a debate and while it's okay to disagree, calling the other a cheater also makes you "that guy".

FAQ ruling on it:

This even talks about the +1 WS, modifying the stack, the assassin is the stack as well.

Then you have this rule to make it clear, it says count it as 1 after "all modifiers". We have a drug and pfp so we could go below a 1+, but with the glaive it will always be a 2+, 1 due to this faq and 2 to the other rule that 1's always fail.

2nd Faq never below 1 alway above 6:

Each have had there say and the rules have been quoted. Given all evidence is on the table lets agree to disagree and allow each to come to their own conclusions. There's no reason to throw cheating around regardless, a new or even intermediate guy may not know of that rule or its errata, so you show them and you play on. No one cheated, just had different interpretations of the game.

Lord Nakariial wrote:

Each have had there say and the rules have been quoted. Given all evidence is on the table lets agree to disagree and allow each to come to their own conclusions. There's no reason to throw cheating around regardless, a new or even intermediate guy may not know of that rule or its errata, so you show them and you play on. No one cheated, just had different interpretations of the game.

Ok fine, thats you, there has to be a point for each one of us where rules lawyering is way to much and some people nip picking gets to much and you cant talk or play with them.

Im not going to quote rules or talk about it anymore, this was my line and it was crossed, go along and say w/e you want, i'll be no part of modifier rules anymore.

amishprn86 wrote:

Ok fine, thats you, there has to be a point for each one of us where rules lawyering is way to much and some people nip picking gets to much and you cant talk or play with them.

Im not going to quote rules or talk about it anymore, this was my line and it was crossed, go along and say w/e you want, i'll be no part of modifier rules anymore.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have your say, just that roundabout arguments never work. Make your point (which you have, and I agree with you), but fighting each other with no productive conversation helps no one.

Wyches / Bloodbrides
+1A / +1S depending on who they are hitting.
+1T on a big blob is decent too.

Reavers
+1T, +2mov

Hellions
+2mov, +1A or +1S

Succubus
+1WS, also +1S brings her to 6 with archite glaive.
+1A & +1T are also decent.

Special thought : +2Ld on succubus, and put her in a tantalus for a 10Ld aura

Beastmasters : + 2Ld

Everyone discounts the +1 WS skill drug, and I don't really know why. Yeah, it becomes half useless at turn 3, but are your melee units just sitting around with thumbs up asses until turn 3? If you're up against a shooty army you can't wait that long. Take your 2+ hits in melee for 2 turns, and also enjoy nullifying any -1 to hit bonuses from your opponent.

That said, I'm pretty sure that mathematically in most situations the +1A is always the best offensively. I do think +1A is better spent on a unit with more models, so Wyches/Hellions over the Succubus for me.

+1T on bikes, if you for some reason take those. Neat distraction carnifex I guess?

Even when you benefit from the +1 WS, it's not the best choice.

+1 to WS is +16% dmg output.

+1 A is +50% dmg output for wyches and hellions

+1 to S is generally +16% dmg output, but it doesn't become irrelevant Turn 3

The argument against the +1 to WS assumes that you'll never have any negative modifiers put on you from an external source. It's good at counteracting some debuffs you might encounter.

Jimsolo wrote:

The argument against the +1 to WS assumes that you'll never have any negative modifiers put on you from an external source. It's good at counteracting some debuffs you might encounter.

Indeed. And since you chose your drug in every game (as opposed to on list creation), it can be chosen cometimes against, say, a Venomthrope heavy list.
But it's still, for me, a pretty weak and situationnal choice.

Yeah, it's not that +1WS is useless, just that most of the other drugs are better choices.

masamune wrote:

Wyches / Bloodbrides
+1A / +1S depending on who they are hitting.
+1T on a big blob is decent too.

Reavers
+1T, +2mov

Hellions
+2mov, +1A or +1S

Succubus
+1WS, also +1S brings her to 6 with archite glaive.
+1A & +1T are also decent.

Special thought : +2Ld on succubus, and put her in a tantalus for a 10Ld aura

Beastmasters : + 2Ld

agree on most, but honestly the succubus can fare well even with str 5. Str 6 is in that strange place where it is only useful against T3 (that is not going to be a problem anyway) and T6 (that is so uncommon that i can only recall a couple monsters here and there having it...big tyranids and daemon princes mostly. And...are you really relying on the succubus to bring down a DP or a Swarmlord??? balls of steel indeed!) So, pretty much useless. another attack seems better?