THE DARK CITY
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.



 
HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityRegisterLog in

 

 New Codizes and what we think about them

Go down 
+22
Gelmir
Sarcron
Dalamar
The Strange Dark One
Burnage
Count Adhemar
CptMetal
Shadowharte
Dabbarexe
toldavf
fisheyes
sekac
Soulless Samurai
Kalmah
Zenotaph
Marrath
Barking Agatha
Yziel
Some_Call_Me_Tim
Deckard_2049
sweetbacon
Luc1fer
26 posters
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 16  Next
AuthorMessage
Soulless Samurai
Incubi
Soulless Samurai


Posts : 1843
Join date : 2018-04-02

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeTue Mar 22 2022, 12:02

Cerve wrote:

Yes but...they have like 6 units. Of course their HQs are so different each other.

What.

Cerve wrote:

I don't know guys, I can't see our Codex in this gloomy way.

That's fine. My opinion on the DE codex is just that - an opinion. I don't demand that you (or anyone else) share it.

The one thing that I ask is for you to keep in mind that my complaints are not born of malice but sadness at seeing the army I once loved picked apart piece be piece.

I criticise not for the joy in complaining but because I want to see the codex improve. I want to return to a time when I enjoy playing Dark Eldar and when list building is a fun and rewarding exercise, rather than a tedious collection of accumulating frustrations.

Cerve wrote:

First of all: the design. Our army is NOT an "aura" army. Not a castle one. We are an army full of egoism and selfpride, every single DE loves himself and no other.  

So then why are all of our HQs stuck with auras?  tongue

I mean, I agree with you that Dark Eldar shouldn't be a castling army - but then surely that's a reason to abandon the aura mechanic? Or, at the very least, give us auras that debuff enemies, rather than buffing allies. Give us abilities like the Eldar Banshee Mask or the Shadowseer's Agent of Pandemonium. Or, hell, something like the Death Jester's Lord of Crystal Bones that lets us debuff enemies by shooting them.

Cerve wrote:

1) The simple Archon, which is more like mandatory to have it, everyone have this rule these days;

But we're not "everyone".

You made some excellent points above about why Dark Eldar is not an aura army . . . yet you then rush to defend the Archon having the most basic, bog-standard aura possible, despite it being antithetical to both his fluff and the mechanics of our army (especially Kabal).

Surely you can stretch to admit that this aura isn't a good fit for the Archon?

Cerve wrote:

2) Haemonculus, which is fine from the bg perspective. Coven units are not full of pride, they're more like slaves themselves, it's perfectly fine that their doc boost them;

The aura is functional, sure, but it's also an extremely boring thing for a mad-scientist to spend his time doing.

I'm not sure it's really a point in the Haemonculu's favour when you could replace him with a self-propelled hat-stand and not notice the difference. Razz

Cerve wrote:

3) Drazhar. Because he IS Drazhar, a legend.  

Except that he isn't a leader. Drazhar is just a murder-machine. He doesn't speak. He doesn't lead. All he does is kill.

Make his Tormentors function automatically and scrap his aura entirely.


Cerve wrote:

HQ sides: ok so because we are super pride lords, we WANT relics! We WANT traits, that's design! If you are an Archon, a Succubus, or an Haemonculus, you MUST (bg) have some sort of personal trait, title, the most shiny tools, etc. Every single lord of Commorragh is famous for his trait, so it's perfectly fine that the Codex push players to build up their lords with Traits and Relics. It's not "being poor written", it's a precise choice of design. If you want anonymous leaders go play SpaceMarines with their lieutenant number 67.

In most areas, I'm happy to chalk up our disagreements to simple differences in opinion.

However, this just sounds like mental-gymnastics to try and excuse terrible design. "Nah, guys, it's great that our HQs suck balls! It means you're forced to use the same handful of artefacts and warlord traits to create the same tiny pool of builds! This is much better than having the freedom to do whatever you want without having your HQ's effectiveness fall off a cliff! I mean, why would a race of vampiric space-pirates and mad-scientists want freedom and creativity? Pah! Pah, I say!"

In all seriousness, even if the intention was to encourage characters to take artefacts and warlord traits, this seems like the absolute worst, most anti-fun way of going about it.

Surely it would be far better to have more options like Allegiance of Agony, which effectively offers a 2-for-1 on extra warlord traits? Hell, other armies have abilities that let you put a second artefact or warlord trait on a single model. Surely this would offer another way to encourage appropriately blinged-out HQs, without needing to make them crap?

In fact, there was another method, long since lost to history, that allowed HQs to be blinged out without even needing artefacts or warlord traits. What was it called? Warbear? Warbeer? Warseer? Alas that our history is so incomplete. Wink


Cerve wrote:
In this scenario, we have multiple choices from the same datasheet. For example the Archon could be builded as:
1) Full heavy melee oriented (Djinn+Hatred Eternal, or Savage if you play Skulls)
2) Full Support (AncientEvil+Animus/Writ)
3) Mixed Bag (Djinn+AncientEvil usually)
4) Sniper support (embarked with Trueborns, helping the Jester closing kills)
5) CP farmer
etc

Okay. Before I get into these, let me offer a few points of comparison:

A Huskblade Archon does 1.85 wounds to Marines in melee (before you ask, his other weapons are no better).
A Shadowseer also does 1.85 wounds to Marines in melee. It also has a decent gun, a powerful aura, and 2 psychic powers.
An Incubus does 2.77 wounds to Marines in melee.
A Troupe Master does 3.33 wounds to Marines in melee.
A Canoness with Blessed Blade does 3.7 wounds to Marines in melee (i.e. twice that of the Archon)
An Autarch with a Star Glaive does 4.63 wounds to Marines in melee
A Troupe Master with Veiled King does 5.55 wounds to Marines in melee.

Bear in mind, these are all without artefacts or warlord traits - only wargear or similar, point-based upgrades.


Now, let's get back to your builds and I'll try to demonstrate the issue:
1) Yep, a perfectly fine melee build. Does 8.5 wounds to Marines in melee, so reasonably above the others on the list.
2) This is a "full support" build, yet what he brings is pathetic. He's got Ancient Evil, so he needs to be in melee for that to work, yet we've gone right back to his melee being utterly pathetic (1.85 wounds). Again, a Shadowseer can do 1.85 wounds in melee and that's without any artefacts or warlord traits. And I can tell you right now that I value 2 psychic powers *and* an aura *and* a second aura *and* a decent gun a hell of a lot more than two crappy reroll 1 auras and a strike-last ability. And this is *still* without adding a single warlord trait or artefact to the shadowseer.
I'll point out, too, that an Autarch can take a 5pt piece of wargear that's far superior to Ancient Evil, without completely compromising its melee ability. It also has a better buff than the Archon and also an extra ability that let's you double up on your command reroll. Oh, and it can also take a gun. Again, this is without taking a single artefact or warlord trait.
Even the Canoness can take an upgrade that lets her make an enemy strike last, and without having to relinquish her Blessed Blade. And, once again, this is without touching warlord traits or artefacts.
3) Honestly, this build just further highlights the above issues. We've now taken a melee Relic and pushed the Archon's melee prowess all the way up to . . . 3.89 Marines dead. So barely more than a Canoness and still less than that of a basic Autarch. And you've also had to sacrifice part of your support ability for that privilege.
4) I'm assuming this is with Soul Seeker? I'll assume that plus Hatred Eternal. In which case, you're doing all of 2.5 wounds even to a Platoon Commander. If you end up in melee, you're at 3.6 wounds to Marines. So about the same as a Canoness... and still fewer than an Autarch that can just take a fusion gun or a reaper launcher as standard. You've also now given up all the support abilities for this pathetic excuse for a sniper weapon.
(Aside, I'm puzzled as to why you brought the Death Jester up here - I thought the whole point of this discussion was to get away from needing to ally with other Eldar factions?)
5) This is presumably with Labyrinthine Cunning and something else? Yet it brings us right back to the previous issues - by taking that trait, you've once again compromised the Archon's melee ability. Plus, you can't even take the Soul-Seeker to have some sort of ranged weapon, however crappy, because it's locked behind a different Kabal. In contrast, the other HQs listed here are all free to take CP-generating warlord traits, without screwing over their other abilities in the process.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the Archon is constantly forced to make compromises in ways that other HQs aren't. If he wants to be good at melee, he has to spend both his relic and his warlord trait to achieve it. If he wants a ranged weapon, it costs him a relic. If he wants a support ability, it costs him a relic or warlord trait (which immediately compromises both his melee and shooting).

Meanwhile, we have HQs like the Autarch that can just take a good melee weapon without needing to dip into artefacts/WLTs. They can take a gun without needing to dip into artefacts/WLTs. They have support abilities without needing to dip into artefacts/WLTs. Same goes for the Canoness.

The thing is, though, this doesn't mean I don't want to take warlord traits or artefacts on those characters. It just means I have far more freedom in which warlord traits and artefacts I take, because I'm not starting with a severe handicap in the form of no guns, no worthwhile support abilities, and terrible melee weapons on what is ostensibly a melee character.

Again, it doesn't mean that artefacts and warlord traits are ignored - it means they can be chosen for flavour, rather than to address the HQ's litany of shortcomings. And, to me at least, taking traits and artefacts based on the unique personality of the Archon seems far more thematic than being forced to take the same handful because everything else is worthless.


Sorry for the long post but I wanted to try and articulate my thoughts as clearly as possible, as this is the central sticking point for me with regard to the current codex. I don't know if we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this, as it seems we start with the same premise yet somehow manage to reach opposing conclusions on the matter. Razz

_________________
TeenageAngst wrote:
Never trust the French.

Count Adhemar, Archon_91, sekac and Gelmir like this post

Back to top Go down
sekac
Wych
sekac


Posts : 741
Join date : 2017-06-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeTue Mar 22 2022, 23:27

I've been noodling a list concept and it very much suffers from the rigid HQ issue. We can take a patrol of Drukhari and call it Raiding Force for 0CP and then a Traveling Players harlequin patrol (because it doesn't invalidate the "must be all Drukhari patrols" portion of the Raiding Force) and put the warlord in there to make it 0CP as well. Since you lose Luck of the Laughing God no matter what, Raiding Force is the only way I can justify bringing Drukhari into a harlequin list.


But if I make a harlequin character a WL, that means no WL trait or relics for Drukhari. So Archons are straight up unusable. The only usable build for a succubus is with Shardnet/Impaler, but it is not a good value for 80 points. She doesn't hit that hard, and she's super squishy, but she is capable of being annoying if she isn't just casually removed from the board.


So the only actual options are basic haemonculus or Drazhar, and that's it. There are no customization options other than the Haemonculus Ancient upgrade which now does not open up another relic and WL because those aren't allowed. Simply gaining a 2+ to get back up isn't worth 20 points. 2 characters to choose from and 1 customization option between them, which is a very easy "no, thank you".  The only time I spend on my HQs is figuring out how to not make them feel like a tax.


Either haemonculus and flood the board with wracks while harlequins dance with enemies, or Drazhar and Book of Rust hellions with 1 squad of 5 wracks to make it legal.

Soulless Samurai likes this post

Back to top Go down
Sarcron
Sybarite
Sarcron


Posts : 353
Join date : 2018-11-05
Location : Studying under Mr. Rakarth Sir

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 08:20

I sort of agree with both arguments here?
Drukhari characters shouldn't really interact with other stuff too much, other than a haemonculus.

What makes a lord (or lady) of the dark city rise above their peers is influence, wealth, and means of threats. The greatest of archons command legions of warriors in their kabals, have influence over something of importance in commoragh, and as a personal hobby or interest, typically collect something of value, e.g. Archon Mallixian and his various winged creatures, or Aestra Khromys and her various perfectly crafted or esoteric weapons.

To that end, an archon that steps onto the battlefield would have nothing but the best armaments they can get a hold of. A haemonculus that seeks to personally attend the gathering of subjects would arm itself with multiple tools of torture, and likely a last resort weapon or two if their prey proves too dangerous to easily subdue.

Both would have servants and attendants on hand.

Rather than restrict building to that same HQ, do as other's have said numerous times. Bring back Dracons and Syrens. Haemonculi I'll get back to, but for now they don't need haemconlus ancient (and how I loathe it being called 'master haemonculus') as a separate datasheet.

Have Dracons act as what an archon currently is, persons of some importance with the role of directing the forces of the kabal, typically with some manner of rare-er equipment than a footsoldier would find as a sign of their rank. Re-roll aura for a lieutenant works fine, they're giving orders and focusing fire on key targets.

The archon though? They'll be lounging on their throne aboard a raider or whatever their personal craft, waiting for the moment to grace the lesser species with their presence. Give actual Archons a rule saying they get a free relic that doesn't count towards the base free 1, and doesn't count towards having a relic. Give back all the wargear they lost. Expand the relic list so that there's options for an archon that does sit back and order their forces.

Do something similar with Succubi, but made to leap into the frey, leading by example.

For haemonculi I'd like to see something similar to what crypteks currently have, I want mirrorshards and all the interesting rare items that we know exist have a presence. Haemonculi ancients can simply be an upgrade that makes them sturdier, and gives more options for disciplines or relics.

The actual top .1% of commoragh, those of ancient houses or have studied for millenia should be showcased by having unique and exceptional wargear, but it shouldn't be inherently limited without costing us something.

Mild wall of text over.

_________________
~Kabal of the Black Dawn
~Coven of the Dark Heaven
Sarcron wrote:
Sarcron

Archon_91, Gelmir and Soulless Samurai like this post

Back to top Go down
Gelmir
Sybarite
Gelmir


Posts : 342
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : near Rotterdam

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 11:36

For me the #1 thing that needs to be fixed on the Archon, is a ranged weapon other than a friggin' pistol. We have plenty of close combat HQ's! But no, the leader a Kabal, which is pretty much only ranged units, surely must be a melee fighter. :S
It just doesn't work with the fluff, it doesn't make sense rule-wise, and yet, here we are. It's as if they actively tried to make him the least useful character. "Let's make him buff ranged units, but only give him melee weapons! And maybe a pistol just to mock them!"
The only reason I put an Archon on my list, is that GW makes him pretty much mandatory. :/ Which seems like another way to just mock us.

_________________
For my introduction and pics of some of my models:
https://www.thedarkcity.net/t17117-noob-alert

The Strange Dark One and Soulless Samurai like this post

Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
Count Adhemar


Posts : 7589
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 11:54

Some good points there @Sarcron. This seems to boil down to model kits, which have been the bane of our existence since 6e. Those of us who were around during 5e (and earlier) will recall the wonderful range of special characters and the many wargear options that were available in our codex. Many of us converted up models to represent the likes of Duke Sliscus, Lady Malys and Baron Sathonyx. We converted our Archons to carry the appropriate wargear. We converted Trueborn etc, etc.

Then Chapterhouse Studios started selling stuff that was in 40K codexes but that GW didn't make a model for. GW went nuts, took them to court and were promptly told to piss off as you can't copyright stuff you don't make, especially when it is based on generic sci-fi and fantasy tropes that you yourself cheerfully ripped off for decades. The upshot of that was that GW would only put stuff in a codex if they made a model kit for it. And I mean a specific model kit for that exact unit and every item of wargear it can potentially take (unless it's a Space Marine of course). Rather than make kits for the stuff that was missing from our model range, they took the easy option and removed the entries from the codex for which there were no kits. And thus the abomination that was our 6e codex was born and the trend has continued ever since. No model, no rules. That's fine when you have a vast model range or if GW feels inclined to make a lovely multi-piece kit with loads of wargear options like the new Autarch. But if they don't, then you get no options and no variety.

_________________
New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 YhBv3Wk
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?

Soulless Samurai likes this post

Back to top Go down
Soulless Samurai
Incubi
Soulless Samurai


Posts : 1843
Join date : 2018-04-02

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 14:01

Count Adhemar wrote:
Some good points there @Sarcron. This seems to boil down to model kits, which have been the bane of our existence since 6e. Those of us who were around during 5e (and earlier) will recall the wonderful range of special characters and the many wargear options that were available in our codex. Many of us converted up models to represent the likes of Duke Sliscus, Lady Malys and Baron Sathonyx. We converted our Archons to carry the appropriate wargear. We converted Trueborn etc, etc.

Then Chapterhouse Studios started selling stuff that was in 40K codexes but that GW didn't make a model for. GW went nuts, took them to court and were promptly told to piss off as you can't copyright stuff you don't make, especially when it is based on generic sci-fi and fantasy tropes that you yourself cheerfully ripped off for decades. The upshot of that was that GW would only put stuff in a codex if they made a model kit for it. And I mean a specific model kit for that exact unit and every item of wargear it can potentially take (unless it's a Space Marine of course). Rather than make kits for the stuff that was missing from our model range, they took the easy option and removed the entries from the codex for which there were no kits. And thus the abomination that was our 6e codex was born and the trend has continued ever since. No model, no rules. That's fine when you have a vast model range or if GW feels inclined to make a lovely multi-piece kit with loads of wargear options like the new Autarch. But if they don't, then you get no options and no variety.

I think one of the most frustrating aspects of this is that GW has updated most of our HQ kits since then, so they had the perfect opportunity to flesh out their wargear in line with the new rules.

Instead, the Archon model lost his Soul Trap and gained nothing (unless you count a head that makes him look like an angry potato), while the Haemonculus model lost his liquifier gun and Crucible and ended up stuck with a mess of un-swappable melee weapons that aren't even cross-compatible with Wrack kits.

_________________
TeenageAngst wrote:
Never trust the French.
Back to top Go down
Kalmah
Wych
Kalmah


Posts : 684
Join date : 2020-08-21
Location : Montréal

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 16:30

If GW just don't want to throw us a bone in a customizable Archon, at the least they could allow auras to be functional inside transport if only for the models inside the same freaking transport.
At least the Archon (would still be a tax) would have a minor role to fulfill.

As of late, the only build I love-ish is the black heart one with the WT and Relic for the additional CPs and reroll WR1, but still, he is footlogging behind my raiders or hanging next to a squad of kabalites holding a back objective....still not what i would call an elite HQ or warmaster. (and doing so, i'm stuck playing only Black Heart obsession).

I totally agree that our Archon is in dire need of an update, be it armament wise or rule wise.

Succubus and Haemonculus, imho, perfectly fulfill their role, but the Archon is truly in a strange place.
Back to top Go down
Archon_91
Wych
Archon_91


Posts : 795
Join date : 2017-01-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 16:47

Honestly I think kabalites 1/3 of our army as a whole needs to be reworked, their shooting (let's face it) is beyond pathetic ... I seriously don't understand why they were so reluctant to give splinter rifles ap-1 when it seems like literally every other standard troop gun so far has had an increase in ap, I honestly don't give a damn that our weapons wound toughness anything on a 4+ ... and with army rules that push the whole army into wanting to be in CC range by turn two or three splinter rifles should have rules closer to that of the Tau breacher team Pulse blasters, that way even though all of our HQ are melee based our shooting would want to close in with them and be close to the fighting with the archon

Cerve likes this post

Back to top Go down
The Strange Dark One
Wych
The Strange Dark One


Posts : 874
Join date : 2014-08-22
Location : Private subrealm of the Eldritch Skies Kabal.

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 17:48

Archon_91 wrote:
Honestly I think kabalites 1/3 of our army as a whole needs to be reworked, their shooting (let's face it) is beyond pathetic ... I seriously don't understand why they were so reluctant to give splinter rifles ap-1 when it seems like literally every other standard troop gun so far has had an increase in ap, I honestly don't give a damn that our weapons wound toughness anything on a 4+ ... and with army rules that push the whole army into wanting to be in CC range by turn two or three splinter rifles should have rules closer to that of the Tau breacher team Pulse blasters, that way even though all of our HQ are melee based our shooting would want to close in with them and be close to the fighting with the archon

What do you mean? Kabalites already got twice as good in close combat!
What would we even do with better shooting? According to GW we only belong in close combat.
Back to top Go down
Archon_91
Wych
Archon_91


Posts : 795
Join date : 2017-01-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 24 2022, 21:00

The Strange Dark One wrote:
Archon_91 wrote:
Honestly I think kabalites 1/3 of our army as a whole needs to be reworked, their shooting (let's face it) is beyond pathetic ... I seriously don't understand why they were so reluctant to give splinter rifles ap-1 when it seems like literally every other standard troop gun so far has had an increase in ap, I honestly don't give a damn that our weapons wound toughness anything on a 4+ ... and with army rules that push the whole army into wanting to be in CC range by turn two or three splinter rifles should have rules closer to that of the Tau breacher team Pulse blasters, that way even though all of our HQ are melee based our shooting would want to close in with them and be close to the fighting with the archon

What do you mean? Kabalites already got twice as good in close combat!
What would we even do with better shooting? According to GW we only belong in close combat.

I completely forgot about that! I never take them out of their transports so I've been wasting their close combat potential! Very Happy nevermind then Kabalites have already been fixed!
Back to top Go down
Zenotaph
Hekatrix
Zenotaph


Posts : 1106
Join date : 2014-04-22
Location : Munich/Bavaria

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeSat Mar 26 2022, 12:09

Man, when I see THIS HERE!!!, I go big and green!!!
Thats the kind of options, I so whished for years...

_________________
When I'm good, I'm very, very good. But when I'm bad I'm better.

Gelmir likes this post

Back to top Go down
Kalmah
Wych
Kalmah


Posts : 684
Join date : 2020-08-21
Location : Montréal

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeMon Mar 28 2022, 17:30

i got to say that we should now take a little bit of inspiration from our little cousins instead of just bashing them. They clearly worked hard to gear and train their units a lot better than ours.

I recently joined the "light side" of the Aeldari and this week end i played my first game with them and they are seriously fun to play!

One thing though, even our humble Kabalites far a lot better in melee than their guardians counterpart with our natural 3A vs 1A for them (being raised in a Drukhari environment where EVERYTHING has minimum 3A it can be disappointing when you see the 1A on the guardians datasheet!)

Other than that, Asuryani are indeed really strong and fun to play.
The Strands of Fate and Battle Focus are real game changer IMHO and their shooting prowess is insane!

Ho! and i wished our Poison weapon would be on par with the shuriken system! the AP +2 on WR6 is just insane!
Back to top Go down
Gelmir
Sybarite
Gelmir


Posts : 342
Join date : 2018-01-06
Location : near Rotterdam

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeMon Mar 28 2022, 18:50

Kalmah wrote:
i got to say that we should now take a little bit of inspiration from our little cousins instead of just bashing them. They clearly worked hard to gear and train their units a lot better than ours.

I recently joined the "light side" of the Aeldari and this week end i played my first game with them and they are seriously fun to play!

One thing though, even our humble Kabalites far a lot better in melee than their guardians counterpart with our natural 3A vs 1A for them (being raised in a Drukhari environment where EVERYTHING has minimum 3A it can be disappointing when you see the 1A on the guardians datasheet!)

Other than that, Asuryani are indeed really strong and fun to play.
The Strands of Fate and Battle Focus are real game changer IMHO and their shooting prowess is insane!

Ho! and i wished our Poison weapon would be on par with the shuriken system! the AP +2 on WR6 is just insane!

What you describe is exactly why a lot of DE players have complaints. We're not "bashing them", because nobody thinks that Craftworlds shouldn't have all these shiny new toys. All their new stuff is awesome, and it was about time they got a proper overhaul.
We're complaining because we feel left out. Craftworlds, Harlequins, Corsairs and Ynnari are easier to mix than ever! But DE are Aeldari too. However, GW seems to have forgotten about that. Several of the articles on Warhammer Community that I read, were talking about "All Aeldari", but they meant "All Aeldari that are in the new codex", excluding us. That crap just hurts.

_________________
For my introduction and pics of some of my models:
https://www.thedarkcity.net/t17117-noob-alert

Soulless Samurai likes this post

Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Dracon
CptMetal


Posts : 3067
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeMon Mar 28 2022, 19:52

Gelmir wrote:
Kalmah wrote:
i got to say that we should now take a little bit of inspiration from our little cousins instead of just bashing them. They clearly worked hard to gear and train their units a lot better than ours.

I recently joined the "light side" of the Aeldari and this week end i played my first game with them and they are seriously fun to play!

One thing though, even our humble Kabalites far a lot better in melee than their guardians counterpart with our natural 3A vs 1A for them (being raised in a Drukhari environment where EVERYTHING has minimum 3A it can be disappointing when you see the 1A on the guardians datasheet!)

Other than that, Asuryani are indeed really strong and fun to play.
The Strands of Fate and Battle Focus are real game changer IMHO and their shooting prowess is insane!

Ho! and i wished our Poison weapon would be on par with the shuriken system! the AP +2 on WR6 is just insane!

What you describe is exactly why a lot of DE players have complaints. We're not "bashing them", because nobody thinks that Craftworlds shouldn't have all these shiny new toys. All their new stuff is awesome, and it was about time they got a proper overhaul.
We're complaining because we feel left out. Craftworlds, Harlequins, Corsairs and Ynnari are easier to mix than ever! But DE are Aeldari too. However, GW seems to have forgotten about that. Several of the articles on Warhammer Community that I read, were talking about "All Aeldari", but they meant "All Aeldari that are in the new codex", excluding us. That crap just hurts.

We can take a corsair patrol with that Prince as HQ to replace the Kabal patrol, right? And they could even ride in Raiders that were bought from units from another patrol.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Back to top Go down
Kalmah
Wych
Kalmah


Posts : 684
Join date : 2020-08-21
Location : Montréal

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeMon Mar 28 2022, 20:30

Gelmir wrote:

What you describe is exactly why a lot of DE players have complaints. We're not "bashing them", because nobody thinks that Craftworlds shouldn't have all these shiny new toys. All their new stuff is awesome, and it was about time they got a proper overhaul.
We're complaining because we feel left out. Craftworlds, Harlequins, Corsairs and Ynnari are easier to mix than ever! But DE are Aeldari too. However, GW seems to have forgotten about that. Several of the articles on Warhammer Community that I read, were talking about "All Aeldari", but they meant "All Aeldari that are in the new codex", excluding us. That crap just hurts.



oops my bad! wrong choice of word i made here.....my intention was not about the community "bashing" them, it was more in the lorewise, in the book when they say that we (Drukhari) look at those other Aeldari as "inferior" ones, because seriously i totally understand the salt coming from the community (me included).

They are seriously playing at an entire different level than the Drukhari!
D3+3D output almost everywhere, AP on almost every single weapon (hell, even the Scatter Laser at 6 S6 AP0 1D can be a serious nuisance for the enemy, even on SM with the quantity of shots).

My game was against Grey Knight (1000pts each) and seriously on the first 2 turns i did not do a single scratch to the opponent (i was rolling WAYYYYYY below odds and my opponent was rolling decently enough) and i lost all my troops, but only from turn 3 to 5 i completely tabled him, just because i was rolling average (seriously it was laughable, every reroll i did i failed them, each and everyone!!!!!), so despite my poor rerolls, i nonetheless tabled my opponent!
I just can't imagine in the hands of a luckier-than-me what would have been the result!
It was my 1st game with them (my opponent played GK for a long time) and my list was only:

1x Start Collecting (Farseer, Wraightguard, Wraithlord)
Omen Aeldari contents (Autarch, Ranger, Shroud)
1x Guardians
1x Windrider

so nothing built for the win! but still somehow i won :/
Back to top Go down
sekac
Wych
sekac


Posts : 741
Join date : 2017-06-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 02:00

Well, the new Goonhammer article on this weekend's results has posted and....well...it's bad. It's really bad.


If you want to have a win percentage north of 50% you need to be playing one of 3 books: Aeldari (by far the best of the best), Custodes, or Tau. Crusher Stampede is now the only A-tier army in the game, and only Ad-Mech and GSC are sitting right at the coveted 50% rate. Every other codex (yes, even Drukhari) is under 50% because you're nearly guaranteed to lose to the big 3. 


That definitely settles the "Drukhari are still competitive" debate. They are competitive against many armies, but Drukhari are strictly not an option if you want to perform well tournament. Drukhari are now one of the many, many "show up and have fun" armies.


I guess the 3 rounds of nerfs in 4 months with no chance to see if the 1st one had any impact before sending the 3rd one to the printers wasn't a great idea after all. Weird.
Back to top Go down
Burnage
Incubi
Burnage


Posts : 1501
Join date : 2017-09-12

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 02:14

Rolling my eyes at the idea that Drukhari aren't competitive. No, we're not in the current S tier (because the current S tier armies are insanely broken by traditional standards), but a ~50% win rate on average leaves us ahead of the vast majority of factions. It's not actually an exaggeration to say that most armies in the game currently have a win rate of about 40%.

Competitive 40k has some major issues right now, but you can still perform perfectly well at events with Drukhari.

The Strange Dark One likes this post

Back to top Go down
sekac
Wych
sekac


Posts : 741
Join date : 2017-06-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 03:28

Burnage wrote:
Rolling my eyes at the idea that Drukhari aren't competitive. No, we're not in the current S tier (because the current S tier armies are insanely broken by traditional standards), but a ~50% win rate on average leaves us ahead of the vast majority of factions. It's not actually an exaggeration to say that most armies in the game currently have a win rate of about 40%.

Competitive 40k has some major issues right now, but you can still perform perfectly well at events with Drukhari.


Well, since your entire counter point hinges on your personal definitions of "competitive" and "perfectly well", let me rephrase to take that subjectivity out.

If you want to win more than half of your games, Drukhari are not a good choice. If you hope to win a tournament or even have a decent chance to make it to elimination rounds Drukhari are strictly not an option.

 Better?
Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Dracon
CptMetal


Posts : 3067
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 05:28

But are they competitive for a game with friends?

I couldn't care less about 'I need to abuse the game'- tournaments.

The Strange Dark One likes this post

Back to top Go down
sekac
Wych
sekac


Posts : 741
Join date : 2017-06-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 06:27

CptMetal wrote:
But are they competitive for a game with friends?

I couldn't care less about 'I need to abuse the game'- tournaments.


I find that I rarely mention things I don't care about. Why would it occur to me to waste time going out of my way to tell people how much I don't care about something? Do they care that I don't care? Probably not, so why bother?

So...it kinda seems like you do care quite a bit. You might not care about Drukhari performance in tournaments but it sure seems to bother you that other people care about that.

Different strokes for different folks and this game is big enough for everyone to play. You're allowed to approach the game however you want to. 

Maybe you should consider that others are allowed to do that too?
Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Dracon
CptMetal


Posts : 3067
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 07:45

sekac wrote:
CptMetal wrote:
But are they competitive for a game with friends?

I couldn't care less about 'I need to abuse the game'- tournaments.


I find that I rarely mention things I don't care about. Why would it occur to me to waste time going out of my way to tell people how much I don't care about something? Do they care that I don't care? Probably not, so why bother?

So...it kinda seems like you do care quite a bit. You might not care about Drukhari performance in tournaments but it sure seems to bother you that other people care about that.

Different strokes for different folks and this game is big enough for everyone to play. You're allowed to approach the game however you want to. 

Maybe you should consider that others are allowed to do that too?

Lol
Did I forbid anything to you?

I just have accepted that W40k will never be balanced. It is difficult to do so and GW has no intention in ever doing that. So there will always be some OP army.
Would I like that to be not true? Yes. Totally.
Would I like that to be us? Nope. Not fun to play Wack-a-mole with friends.

I am just reminded of the bad old days when the forum is filled with whining and sobbing when in fact, we have a better codex then ever before.
Is it perfect? Hell nah.
Do I miss certain options? Of Course.
Do I think the triple nerf was necessary? Hm, no, I think the have gone overboard.

Do I care that I offended your feelings by asking if they are viable for a game with friends? Not at all.

The Strange Dark One likes this post

Back to top Go down
sekac
Wych
sekac


Posts : 741
Join date : 2017-06-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 09:18

CptMetal wrote:
sekac wrote:
CptMetal wrote:
But are they competitive for a game with friends?

I couldn't care less about 'I need to abuse the game'- tournaments.


I find that I rarely mention things I don't care about. Why would it occur to me to waste time going out of my way to tell people how much I don't care about something? Do they care that I don't care? Probably not, so why bother?

So...it kinda seems like you do care quite a bit. You might not care about Drukhari performance in tournaments but it sure seems to bother you that other people care about that.

Different strokes for different folks and this game is big enough for everyone to play. You're allowed to approach the game however you want to. 

Maybe you should consider that others are allowed to do that too?

Lol
Did I forbid anything to you?

I just have accepted that W40k will never be balanced. It is difficult to do so and GW has no intention in ever doing that. So there will always be some OP army.
Would I like that to be not true? Yes. Totally.
Would I like that to be us? Nope. Not fun to play Wack-a-mole with friends.

I am just reminded of the bad old days when the forum is filled with whining and sobbing when in fact, we have a better codex then ever before.
Is it perfect? Hell nah.
Do I miss certain options? Of Course.
Do I think the triple nerf was necessary? Hm, no, I think the have gone overboard.

Do I care that I offended your feelings by asking if they are viable for a game with friends? Not at all.


First of all, you weren't asking a question, so don't pretend you were. Were you honestly expecting me to tell you if it's okay to play this book with your friends? No. It was a rhetorical question intended to demean. If you're gonna insult people, at least have the spine to stand behind it, rather than pretend you're just asking honest questions. Nobody is stupid enough to believe you.

Secondly, I understand why you think you hurt my feelings. You think your opinion is very important and carries a lot of weight. That's why you felt compelled to make a post entirely about YOU in the first place. I'm sorry to inform you, I don't care at all what you think. You can tell because I never asked (this usually the way people show that they don't care, just in case you want to get better at trying to trick people in the future).


No, you didn't hurt my feelings, but you did gave me a good chuckle. I found the "I care about this so little that it is of paramount importance that everyone knows exactly how unimportant this is to me" post more than a little ironic. Not only because the time ro type it and emotional nature of it lcompletely undermines the notion that you don't care, but also because I've always found the inherent superiority complex and elitism of many "casual" players pretty entertaining. A complete lack of introspection.


I have a foot in both camps. I mostly play 40k competitve but do the occasional casual game or crusade campaign. I play several other games strictly casual. So I get both sides and I don't judge or disparage players for how they like to play.


If you don't want this site to be a negative place, consider being less of negative force. I criticized GW's design philosophy based on data. You decided to make personal attacks because the facts I stated made you feel some kind of way. 


Do you really think lashing out at people who type things you don't want to read will create that positive atmosphere?
Back to top Go down
Burnage
Incubi
Burnage


Posts : 1501
Join date : 2017-09-12

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 09:46

sekac wrote:
Burnage wrote:
Rolling my eyes at the idea that Drukhari aren't competitive. No, we're not in the current S tier (because the current S tier armies are insanely broken by traditional standards), but a ~50% win rate on average leaves us ahead of the vast majority of factions. It's not actually an exaggeration to say that most armies in the game currently have a win rate of about 40%.

Competitive 40k has some major issues right now, but you can still perform perfectly well at events with Drukhari.


Well, since your entire counter point hinges on your personal definitions of "competitive" and "perfectly well", let me rephrase to take that subjectivity out.

If you want to win more than half of your games, Drukhari are not a good choice. If you hope to win a tournament or even have a decent chance to make it to elimination rounds Drukhari are strictly not an option.

 Better?

I mean, if you want. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that any faction with a ~50% win rate in a competitive game isn't actually competitively viable - firstly because in an ideal world all factions should have roughly a 50% win rate, and secondly because the average statistics are completely ignoring player skill. If you're in the better half of Drukhari players you'll be entirely capable of taking them to a game and winning half or more of your games.

I'm not going to deny that we'll have trouble actually winning events right now, because two of the best armies are intensely bad match-ups for us; Tau are extremely good at blowing us off the board, and Harlequins almost entirely dominate us in a game theoretical sense. But, man, I don't look at stuff like the chart below and think "we, specifically, are in an awful spot."

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Unknown

By the standards of most armies we're in a great spot! We're quite literally the top of the pack out of all of the factions that aren't currently in "emergency nerf" territory. Now, the competitive meta as a whole is absolutely horrendous right now, but that's a very different issue.

The Strange Dark One and CptMetal like this post

Back to top Go down
sekac
Wych
sekac


Posts : 741
Join date : 2017-06-03

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 10:36

Burnage wrote:

By the standards of most armies we're in a great spot! We're quite literally the top of the pack out of all of the factions that aren't currently in "emergency nerf" territory. Now, the competitive meta as a whole is absolutely horrendous right now, but that's a very different issue.

I don't think they are different issues. Not to me.


You're judging our standing relative to the total quantity of other armies. I'm judging our standing relative to the meta as a whole which includes the best armies too, as well as the relative commonality of that army in the meta. They aren't different issues, just different perspectives on the same one.


You can see how frequently the army is seen in that graph by the size of the dot. If, say, 60% of the field at a tournament is the big 3 and 40% is all other armies combined, then the chances are better than not that I'm losing 60% of my games.


I might take solace in the fact that while I only went 2-3, there are a lot of other players with weaker books who went 1-4 or 0-5, but I don't. Other people doing worse than me doesn't make me feel better. Just makes me feel bad for them too.
Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Dracon
CptMetal


Posts : 3067
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 31 2022, 11:08

[quote="sekac"][quote="CptMetal"]
sekac wrote:
CptMetal wrote:
But are they competitive for a game with friends?

I couldn't care less about 'I need to abuse the game'- tournaments.

[...]
First of all, you weren't asking a question, so don't pretend you were. Were you honestly expecting me to tell you if it's okay to play this book with your friends? No. It was a rhetorical question intended to demean. If you're gonna insult people, at least have the spine to stand behind it, rather than pretend you're just asking honest questions. Nobody is stupid enough to believe you.

Do you really think lashing out at people who type things you don't want to read will create that positive atmosphere?

Ah. That's the source for the misunderstanding.
I was really asking that question. And I mean it.
Are Drukhari competitive and good for a competitive but friendly beer and Bretzel game with friends?

My Chaos Marines are so much garbage, it is no use taking them even against friends.

Now, no need to go nuclear because I asked a question, geez.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 Empty
PostSubject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them   New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 11 I_icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
New Codizes and what we think about them
Back to top 
Page 11 of 16Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 16  Next

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

GENERAL DRUKHARI DISCUSSION

 :: Drukhari Discussion
-
Jump to: