PDA

View Full Version : Would you play against modified Dark Eldar rules?



volair
21-10-2008, 20:03
Would you play against a Dark Eldar player if he used a community, or personally made set of modified rules designed to bring the codex in line with fundamental 5th edition conventions and statistical prowess that is comparable to other armies? e.g. raiders can carry 12 models, incubi become elites instead of retinues, shadow field is not limit one per army, slight point reductions on units that are statistically inferior (e.g. 7 point warriors, 24 point incubi).

Would you turn down a game with such a player? What if he showed you calculations that demonstrated that the point reductions were justified, and pointed out that most of the changes are the same changes that all newer codexes are receiving?

The_Outsider
21-10-2008, 20:06
I would be heavily sceptical given that such changes to the list can really mess with it and possibly not in a good way.

I'd try it once, but I wouldn't make a habit out of it.

volair
21-10-2008, 20:12
So revising an ancient codex into something practical for 5th edition with proper math being used to adjust point costs doesn't sound like a good idea to you? GW has made it clear that Dark Eldar is low priority until 2009-2010; unless this old, old codex is fixed then we will be playing a horribly outdated army for a year or more.

Lisiecki
21-10-2008, 20:13
Would you play against a Dark Eldar player if he used a community, or personally made set of modified rules designed to bring the codex in line with fundamental 5th edition conventions and statistical prowess that is comparable to other armies? e.g. raiders can carry 12 models, incubi become elites instead of retinues, shadow field is not limit one per army, slight point reductions on units that are statistically inferior (e.g. 7 point warriors, 24 point incubi).

Would you turn down a game with such a player? What if he showed you calculations that demonstrated that the point reductions were justified, and pointed out that most of the changes are the same changes that all newer codexes are receiving?

:rolleyes:

Yes, but only if he plays against my list where Splinter Rifles are replaced with Stingers
and Singers are assault 232323

volair
21-10-2008, 20:19
:rolleyes:

Yes, but only if he plays against my list where Splinter Rifles are replaced with Stingers
and Singers are assault 232323

You make a good point in an odd way. Indeed, unless it is revised properly, possibly requiring a lot of play testing with a community effort, the power level of DE could rise too high.

Sekhmet
21-10-2008, 20:27
They're already a good list... it's not like they really need buffing. Now adding new units would be awesome... but still.

Lisiecki
21-10-2008, 20:36
They're already a good list... it's not like they really need buffing. Now adding new units would be awesome... but still.

Ya. I mean, i know everyone else is talking about how bad the DE need an update
and well i do WANT an update, but, its pretty good

==Me==
21-10-2008, 21:03
If you and your gaming buddies can come up with a good, balanced DE list I think that would be great. It wouldn't be something you could spring on somebody out of the blue but if I were asked to help playtest a home-grown DE book and got the chance to talk about it before and after I'd happily help out.

Dogsby
21-10-2008, 21:06
You make a good point in an odd way. Indeed, unless it is revised properly, possibly requiring a lot of play testing with a community effort, the power level of DE could rise too high.

Well only if it is *very* well done. And tested vigorously, however the main think that's stoppin me with these guys is their old old models.

Gorbad Ironclaw
21-10-2008, 21:10
I'd give it a look and certainly be prepared to try something new. We occasionally test tweaks to the core rules and stuff like that anyway. I'd be sceptical and just outright boosting it isn't likely to get you all that far.

Bunnahabhain
21-10-2008, 21:49
Yes, at least a few times, but it's not as if they need it.

DE are still capable of being one of the most powerful 40K armies on the table. They're not easy to use, and many, many units are not viable in a winning list.

They certainly don't need a boost. They do need an update, put not a boost.

Imp of High Noon
21-10-2008, 21:58
I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as it's a balanced list that won't alter the fundametals of the army in some crazy uberpowered sense. I mean I'd be expecting to face slightly different Eldar, not Space marines that look different.

But yeah, they've suffered over the years, so I wouldn't mind them getting some unoffical love.

Sekhmet
21-10-2008, 22:32
Ya. I mean, i know everyone else is talking about how bad the DE need an update
and well i do WANT an update, but, its pretty good

An update is fine, but the things you listed:

e.g. raiders can carry 12 models, incubi become elites instead of retinues, shadow field is not limit one per army, slight point reductions on units that are statistically inferior (e.g. 7 point warriors, 24 point incubi).
Are all strictly upgrades to the current list, upgrades that the list doesn't need.

Add new units, modify them by changing/adding/removing rules, whatever. But don't just reduce the point values, unrestrict one of the best wargear items in the game, up the transport capacity of one of the best transports in the game, and unrestrict one of the better CC units in the game, and seriously think people will play you.

HsojVvad
21-10-2008, 22:34
I would have no problem playing you, but I would have some questions. Have you played this army yet? Is this game for trial purposes? Would you change "YOUR" DE codex to critisms of the rules we have to play against? Remember it could be fun for you, but if we think it's broken then it's not fun for us.

Would you let us tinker with our codex as well like GK, or what not?

SquishySquig
21-10-2008, 22:58
:skull: I would play against it, but I would like the person playing it to atleast listen to any criticism I might come up with after each game played and take them into consideration. That way after playing a bunch of games the list could be improved where needed. :skull:

volair
21-10-2008, 23:09
Trail Version 2:

Warriors

The point cost per warrior is reduced to 7 (down by 1).
The point cost per Dark lance is increased to 15 points (up by 5).

Archon and Drachon

Archons and Shadowfields are no longer restricted to one per army. Neither Archons nor Drachons may have a retinue.

Incubi

Do not take up a FOC slot. May take one unit of 5-10 Incubi for each Archon or Drachon included in the army. These units are not retinues.

Wyches

Combat drugs are removed, WS is increased to 5, and the point cost per wych is increased to 14 (with wych weapons included).

Lisiecki
21-10-2008, 23:16
An update is fine, but the things you listed:

Are all strictly upgrades to the current list, upgrades that the list doesn't need.



Dude, that was him, not me :P

I think the Dark Eldar is pretty Bad Ass, but its kinda like the necron dex.
if you want a "winning" list, there are only so many units you can take

chromedog
21-10-2008, 23:24
There are tournament players here who WIN using the DE.
They aren't an easy list to win with, and the correct application is a learned skill.
They do need an update, but as GW have proven, new codex follows new miniature line.
We know the minis are being redone (and that whoever sculped most of the originals has been given to the inquisition for playtime), and after they are done, the new codex will follow.


So, saying that, NO, I wouldn't play against it.

volair
21-10-2008, 23:25
An update is fine, but the things you listed:

Are all strictly upgrades to the current list, upgrades that the list doesn't need.

Add new units, modify them by changing/adding/removing rules, whatever. But don't just reduce the point values, unrestrict one of the best wargear items in the game, up the transport capacity of one of the best transports in the game, and unrestrict one of the better CC units in the game, and seriously think people will play you.

You don't think the DE need those changes? Pray tell why you think the Dark Eldar don't need to be upgraded. They are currently inferior to most other armies; if you know some basic math you can quickly find out that their units are statistically inferior.

==Me==
21-10-2008, 23:30
Rules Dev is the place for this, but I'll indulge you this once ;)


Most Dark Eldar players only use warriors, wyches, raiders, ravagers, and lords. The other options in the army are horribly lack luster and rarely used. Because not many people have the models for the other options, I will not update their entrees; there isn't enough people to play test them. With my changes detailed below the structure of the army is as follows:
HQ: archon, drachon
Elites: incubi
Troops: warriors
Fast Attack: wyches
Heavy Support: ravagers

I'll stop you here. The first thing a DE update should do is make those underused units viable and balanced within the army list itself, not simply buff the stuff that's already good. And the changes you listed are just that, buffs with no disadvantages. DE need a complete re-working, not simple overpowering of what few units are used competitively currently.

So, I'm going to change ==My== answer to no based on this information. I wouldn't play against this list unless you let ==Me== "update" Dark Angels to 5th with rending bolters and double stats on every model.

Noserenda
21-10-2008, 23:36
You don't think the DE need those changes? Pray tell why you think the Dark Eldar don't need to be upgraded. They are currently inferior to most other armies; if you know some basic math you can quickly find out that their units are statistically inferior.

Id counter the simple math with Hard experience, you seem to be taking the better elements of the list and flat out improving them, theres no balancing nerf, or even work on units that need it just making the good units better. Not a great PR move.

Sekhmet
21-10-2008, 23:38
Dude, that was him, not me :P

I think the Dark Eldar is pretty Bad Ass, but its kinda like the necron dex.
if you want a "winning" list, there are only so many units you can take
Oops, my bad. But you said basically the same thing. :)


You don't think the DE need those changes? Pray tell why you think the Dark Eldar don't need to be upgraded. They are currently inferior to most other armies; if you know some basic math you can quickly find out that their units are statistically inferior.

See this post:


There are tournament players here who WIN using the DE.
They aren't an easy list to win with, and the correct application is a learned skill.
They do need an update, but as GW have proven, new codex follows new miniature line.
We know the minis are being redone (and that whoever sculped most of the originals has been given to the inquisition for playtime), and after they are done, the new codex will follow.

So, saying that, NO, I wouldn't play against it.

volair, you have to take the entire army into account. Yes, a DE warrior is less point efficient at shooting a marine than a firewarrior, and less survivable too. But you can take DARK LANCES in the squad, firewarrior squads are stuck with their pulse rifles. They'll have a highly mobile and assaulty army backing them up as well, while Tau are a little more static and basically have no close combat to speak of.

I mean, you could buff Necrons too because many of their units on paper look like crap. Flayed ones? Pariahs? Wraith? Tomb Spyders? Necron Lords? Heavy Destroyers? They're all fairly craptastic, but I can still keep up with the best of the army lists out there and I generally have a 80% win percentage, give or take.

volair
21-10-2008, 23:39
Rules Dev is the place for this, but I'll indulge you this once ;)



I'll stop you here. The first thing a DE update should do is make those underused units viable and balanced within the army list itself, not simply buff the stuff that's already good. And the changes you listed are just that, buffs with no disadvantages. DE need a complete re-working, not simple overpowering of what few units are used competitively currently.

So, I'm going to change ==My== answer to no based on this information. I wouldn't play against this list unless you let ==Me== "update" Dark Angels to 5th with rending bolters and double stats on every model.

It isn't possible to update a codex in the way you are suggesting. You can only update units that people play with and currently own the models for, so that the revision can be play tested. My revision does not overpower the units, it brings them in line with the other armies. Power level is relative. Upgrading is not always the same as making things overpowered, and certainly is not in this case. Just apply basic statistics and/or playtest my suggestions if you don't believe me

Getifa Ubazza
21-10-2008, 23:42
If someone asked me to play a game like this, i would ask to play two games.

basicly, we play one game and then swap armies for the second. If he doesnt agree, i would question his reasons. We could easily play one game one week and the other the next. Just incase he's not able to play both on the same night.

volair
21-10-2008, 23:43
Id counter the simple math with Hard experience, you seem to be taking the better elements of the list and flat out improving them, theres no balancing nerf, or even work on units that need it just making the good units better. Not a great PR move.

Of course there isn't a balancing nerf. When a unit needs to be improved to be comparable to other armies, you don't counteract your own changes with negative ones; you would be right back to where you started, inferior. Furthermore, you can ONLY update the better elements of the army, because they are all that people play with and have the models for. Revising anything else is completely pointless in an unofficial revision. It requires a new official codex to rework the army and update the weak units. I can't do that, only GW can.

volair
21-10-2008, 23:46
Oops, my bad. But you said basically the same thing. :)



See this post:



volair, you have to take the entire army into account. Yes, a DE warrior is less point efficient at shooting a marine than a firewarrior, and less survivable too. But you can take DARK LANCES in the squad, firewarrior squads are stuck with their pulse rifles. They'll have a highly mobile and assaulty army backing them up as well, while Tau are a little more static and basically have no close combat to speak of.


I fully took into account the weapon upgrades of Dark Eldar Warriors; you clearly have not if you think Warriors should be 8 points. I did discuss it in my revision post, so don't act like your explaining something to me that I didn't already know.

Sekhmet
22-10-2008, 00:09
I fully took into account the weapon upgrades of Dark Eldar Warriors; you clearly have not if you think Warriors should be 8 points. I did discuss it in my revision post, so don't act like your explaining something to me that I didn't already know.

10 Warriors, 2 with Dark Lances vs 10 Firewarriors with Pulse Rifles, both squads are exactly 100 points.

At ranges of 31"-48" vs MEQ
Warriors: 10/9
Firewarriors: 0

At ranges of 25"-30" vs MEQ
Warriors: 10/9
Firewarriors: 10/9

At ranges of 13"-24" vs MEQ
Warriors: 1.7
Firewarriors: 10/9 (1.11)

At ranges of 2-12" vs MEQ
Warriors: 2.3
Firewarriors: 2.22

How are Warriors with Lances inferior to Firewarriors vs Marines?

Warriors are also better in close combat and can fleet. The only downside is their 5+ save, which is mitigated by the fact that everyone and their mother has a 4+ cover save now.

volair
22-10-2008, 00:31
10 Warriors, 2 with Dark Lances vs 10 Firewarriors with Pulse Rifles, both squads are exactly 100 points.

At ranges of 31"-48" vs MEQ
Warriors: 10/9
Firewarriors: 0

At ranges of 25"-30" vs MEQ
Warriors: 10/9
Firewarriors: 10/9

At ranges of 13"-24" vs MEQ
Warriors: 1.7
Firewarriors: 10/9 (1.11)

At ranges of 2-12" vs MEQ
Warriors: 2.3
Firewarriors: 2.22

How are Warriors with Lances inferior to Firewarriors vs Marines?

Warriors are also better in close combat and can fleet. The only downside is their 5+ save, which is mitigated by the fact that everyone and their mother has a 4+ cover save now.

Average Results

25+ inch range

10 Fire Warriors:
5 hits, 3.33 wounds, 1.11 kills

10 DE Warriors with 2 Dark Lances against targets in cover:
Dark Lances: 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds, 1.11 kills

Rapid Fire (usually after being deployed from transports)

10 Fire Warriors:
10 hits, 6.66 wounds, 2.22 kills

10 DE Warriors (in a raider squad) with 1 Splintercannon and 1 Blaster
Splinter Rifles: 13.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 kills
Splinter Cannon: 2.66 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.44 kills
Blaster: 0.66 hits, 0.55 wounds, 0.55 kills
Total: 2.47 kills if target is not in cover, 2.145 if target is in cover

Resilience against Bolters

In both cases Bolters wound on a 3+, Fire Warriors have a 4+ save.

Other Stats

DE Warriors have 1 more leadership. In close combat warriors have better WS and S, but Fire warriors have a better save.

Conclusions

At 25+ inch range, DE Warriors kill half as many against units in cover, which is more often than not the case in 5th edition, but have longer range and the ability to kill tanks.

In rapidfire range, De Warriors are slighlty better against targets outside of cover, slightly worse against targets inside of cover

Fire Warriors are twice as resilient against Bolters outside of cover.

starlight
22-10-2008, 00:53
You make a good point in an odd way. Indeed, unless it is revised properly, possibly requiring a lot of play testing with a community effort, the power level of DE could rise too high.

You make it sound like GW is going to do this...:angel:
:angel:


Seriously? I'd look at the list, and if it wasn't *too* crazy, likely give it a game or two and go from there.

Without the information (the proposed list) any comments are simply prejudicial...:eyebrows:


That said, isn't it about getting games in? How about we quit quibbling over a point here or there and get on with the rolling of the dice.:p

==Me==
22-10-2008, 02:08
It isn't possible to update a codex in the way you are suggesting. You can only update units that people play with and currently own the models for, so that the revision can be play tested. My revision does not overpower the units, it brings them in line with the other armies. Power level is relative. Upgrading is not always the same as making things overpowered, and certainly is not in this case. Just apply basic statistics and/or playtest my suggestions if you don't believe me

That's the only way to do it right, otherwise every DE army would look the same as they do now only everything would be better and cheaper. That doesn't sound balanced at all. DE still work as an army, I've seen them win against everything from Lash-happy CSM to horde Orks.

They don't need to be buffed, they need to be completely re-done from the ground up. And I think a fan-made Codex could accomplish that, especially if they didn't disregard every criticism with "use t3h m4ths!"

Azriel45
22-10-2008, 02:27
when i first started reading this thread i was very excited. having seen the "changes" you've made to the list... i'm not nearly as excited. as has been stated before you're not really doing anything but buffing up the most common units to make them hit harder and cost less. This is not a revision.
If the math was worked out so the list was balanced, i'd be all for doing this. it sounds like fun. i think you've lost track of the purpose and just want to win some games instead of be competitive.
and FYI: in my town we have just one DE player. He uses the old rules and old models. He stands, to this day, undefeated in our gaming club. DE are most definitely still competitive and very much still a very vicious army when put in the correct hands.

Znail
22-10-2008, 02:34
I agree with the critque and would never play against the list as suggested. If it were some changes to underused units then I could consider it, but buffing the good parts is just adding extra cheeze to a tournament army.

Victomorga
22-10-2008, 03:23
So revising an ancient codex into something practical for 5th edition with proper math being used to adjust point costs doesn't sound like a good idea to you? GW has made it clear that Dark Eldar is low priority until 2009-2010; unless this old, old codex is fixed then we will be playing a horribly outdated army for a year or more.

many threads masquerade as "what do you think of this?" when really at their core they are about "I'm right aren't I?" revising an ancient codex sounds good to me. a disgruntled player(s) rewriting their own list as they see fit doesn't sound good to me.

as many people have already pointed out, DE seem to be doing just fine in serious competition. is their codex outdated? yes. is it unplayable? no.


You make a good point in an odd way. Indeed, unless it is revised properly, possibly requiring a lot of play testing with a community effort, the power level of DE could rise too high.

this is exactly why I wouldn't be particularly interested in playing someone who rewrote their own codex. it is too easy to let your problems with the existing rules temper your attitude toward the rules you write. you say you are "mathematically updating" your army list. all your rules seem to be improving an army list which is still holding its own without your "updates." that means your rewrites are all advantages for YOU, which immediately raises a red flag.


If you and your gaming buddies can come up with a good, balanced DE list I think that would be great. It wouldn't be something you could spring on somebody out of the blue but if I were asked to help playtest a home-grown DE book and got the chance to talk about it before and after I'd happily help out.

now this is something else entirely. if the thread was "Would you help a DE player develop modified DE rules?", that would be different. instead the question is how people would feel about a person showing up with their own revisions to their army's rules.



I'll stop you here. The first thing a DE update should do is make those underused units viable and balanced within the army list itself, not simply buff the stuff that's already good. And the changes you listed are just that, buffs with no disadvantages. DE need a complete re-working, not simple overpowering of what few units are used competitively currently.

So, I'm going to change ==My== answer to no based on this information. I wouldn't play against this list unless you let ==Me== "update" Dark Angels to 5th with rending bolters and double stats on every model.

agreed, 100%. a rewrite isn't supposed to be about retooling only the units YOU PERSONALLY use. it's supposed to be about making the whole army list viable. "no one has the models so we can't play test them?" I'm sorry but this is a total cop-out. use the same "balancing mathematics" on all the units in the book. use models as proxies to test rules, don't just look over your army list and say "you know what I wish was better? no, what SHOULD be better...?"



volair, you have to take the entire army into account. Yes, a DE warrior is less point efficient at shooting a marine than a firewarrior, and less survivable too. But you can take DARK LANCES in the squad, firewarrior squads are stuck with their pulse rifles. They'll have a highly mobile and assaulty army backing them up as well, while Tau are a little more static and basically have no close combat to speak of.

I mean, you could buff Necrons too because many of their units on paper look like crap. Flayed ones? Pariahs? Wraith? Tomb Spyders? Necron Lords? Heavy Destroyers? They're all fairly craptastic, but I can still keep up with the best of the army lists out there and I generally have a 80% win percentage, give or take.

jesus christ sekhmet, you don't really field pariahs, do you?

tstreet21
22-10-2008, 04:07
I have to agree that it sounds like somebody frustrated with their own army and is trying to adjust the rules to make it better. in looking at the units that you are changing, I'm assuming that this is what you play and that list screams to me that you took one or two of everything and the army has no identity. its not a 10 man/ 2 DL shooty list, and its not a raider rush into combat army either. jack of all trades-master of none issues.

ShadowDeth
22-10-2008, 05:12
I would look at the list, and if it's not too crazy give it a shot and go from there. Like someone up top said already, however i'm very weary of fan-made lists as they almost always smack of power gaming and favoritism...

That being said, statistical upgrades are not necessary or even warranted. Something like fixing the mandrakes role as an infiltrator/sneaky unit, Grots role as a meatshield unit, scourges role as a mobile heavy weapon, assault weapon unit (has anyone tried letting them fire once every other turn, allowing them to move and reposition on their off turn?), Hellions gaining the ability to actually win a combat despite being touted as menacing close combat maniacs - swooping in and cutting off heads etc...

I think roles need to actually be realized, and that isn't done by saying "this unit is -3 points per model, or this unit is +2 points per model but now it does more damage."

FashaTheDog
22-10-2008, 05:18
I know your question was would you play this but I'm answering the question of are these good changes. And so here is my take on your house rule list and things to try different:


Trail Version 1:

Hello everyone, this is my first attempt at a revision to the Dark Eldar codex.

The goal here is to carefully stream-line the Dark Eldar into a reasonably competitive 5th edition army, using very simple principles that are easy to explain quickly to strangers, to ease their worries about playing against an unofficially modified set of rules.

Most Dark Eldar players only use warriors, wyches, raiders, ravagers, and lords. The other options in the army are horribly lack luster and rarely used. Because not many people have the models for the other options, I will not update their entrees; there isn't enough people to play test them. With my changes detailed below the structure of the army is as follows:
HQ: archon, drachon
Elites: incubi
Troops: warriors
Fast Attack: wyches
Heavy Support: ravagers

Here is my first beef. Much like the others, making the common units better and ignoring the units that only need a slight tweak seems counter productive all around. The argument that no one owns the models is rather silly when you are testing house rules. Why can you not proxy something?


Updating to 5th Edition Standards

First and foremost, the conventions of the newer codices can very easily be adopted. Make Incubi an elites choice instead of a retinue. This has been happening to other armies for a while now, just look at the eldar codex and/or the ork codex for reference.

Leave Incubi in the HQ position that does not take a spot on the FOC and have it be one squad per Lord like every other command squad. There is no precedent for them to be Elites.


Make Raiders able to carry up to twelve models instead of 10, again a simple update to 5th edition standards. Make Warrior units have the same weaponry on foot or in raiders, another convention of modern codices (more on this later).

Increasing Raider capacity to 12 is something of a strech balance-wise. I'd leave it as is and see how well the other changes play out. As for making Warrior Squads and Raider Squads that similar, I would say no. If you did that you can make one entry for a squad 5-20 strong with a Raider available for 10 strong or less squads. As it stands the Dark Eldar player has a choice between a large double heavy weapon, double special weapon squad or a small squad with one each and a Raider. With the splinter cannon being an assault weapon, it works just fine.


The last change here is to remove the limit one per army restriction of shadowfield; recent codices have been less restrictive on invulnerable saves in general and limit one per army options are much more rare relative to 3rd edition codices. To help justify this, the Space marines can give their independent characters a 3+ invulnerable save, so it is no longer necessary to restrict a 2+ that ceases to exist after it fails the first time.

The problem here is that the Shadow Field is rather amazing even with the short out. While current trends do indicate that you are right on this, there will be a serious issue with two Lords going ape-crazy with 2+ invulnerable saves.


Readjusting Point Costs Based on Statistics and other Changes

This is the only part that is really challenging from a balance perspective. The math is easy, but there is more than just math involved; play testing is required. As such, this section is a work in progress and will require updating based on testing. I encourage you all to test these rules and report on your findings. Another concern is that the army shouldn't be reinvented; modifications should be in line with the spirit of the army. There isn't much storyline to go by, but it is pretty clear that Dark Eldar are supposed to be fragile, fast, and have very dangerous weapons.

Warriors

Warriors are 7 points each, 1 less than the official cost of 8 points. This makes their firepower statistically slightly worse than fire warriors against MEQ stats, and of course splinter rifles have less range, but Warriors do have better close combat stats and fleet of foot, as well as weapon upgrades.

Warrior weapon options are the same for both foot units and raider units. I suggest the following for how the upgrades should work: A unit of warriors may choose to have up to two assault weapons OR 2 heavy weapons. Specifically, 2 splintercannons, shredders, blasters OR 2 dark lances. This is more restrictive to foot slogging units, but keep in mind the cost of Warriors has been reduced, so the unit is overall more efficient.

See above for my thoughts on the weapons, although the point decrease may be alright, although the other changes may make it unnecessary.


Archon and Drachon

Shadowfield no longer restricted to one per army. No more retinues!

Incubi

Elites choice, may field units of 5-10 models. Cost is reduced to 24 points per model(a 1 point reduction) to bring them in line with berserkers, nobz, vanguard veterans, etc... They have toughness 3 and cost more than most powerful CC units, making them extremely fragile, but having power weapons and WS5,I5 they can kill a lot of models in combat. They come in at 295 points for a unit of 10 in a raider, just 5 more points than two warriors units with splintercannons in raiders.

Once more see above and the point decrease here does not seem necessary either.


Wyches

Currently they are statistically inferior to even assault marines in combat, and combat drugs have awkward rules that sometimes do nothing.

Combat drugs are removed, WS is increased to 5, the number of attacks per model is increased by one, and the point cost per wych is increased to 14 (with combat drugs). Yes, that means that combined with wych weapons, most units need a 5+ to hit wyches. Because they compete with incubi for elites, but are clearly faster having the fleet of foot rule, they are now fast attack choices instead of elites; Since Dark Eldar don't currently have any good fast attack choices, this is a perfect fit. These changes seem to be just enough to prevent them from being butchered by things like Shoota Boyz, Berserkers, etc... but they still lose to these units, which makes sense given that they are better against weapons that ignore armor saves.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wyches (excepting that they're just as well armored as Repentia but do not benefit from anime female armor rules :p). Wyches are not an assault unit for slaughtering stuff, they are super tarpits. The better the assault unit they face, the better they do in slowly sapping them so the rest of the army does not have to bother with them. Unlike Possessed random buffs, combat drugs are very well balanced, sure a 1 is nothing special but the rest are fine and do not fundamentally alter how you would use them before deployment. Think of it as a random bonus to the unit. Making them a Fast Attack unit is a bad idea because they are no faster than any other unit, unlike Reaver Jetbikes and Hellions, and are by their own fluff, elite gladiators. If any unit were to be moved, I'd vote Warp Beasts first but even then they do not take up any position on the FOC and are Wych dependent making them best left where they are (which by current standards makes the Dark Eldar codex ahead of its time). Leaving them Elites works because they compete against Mandrakes and Grotesques, both of which are also specialized units in their own right.


Ravagers

Ravagers seem to be effective enough in 5th edition, let me know if you think of anything. I might play test with armor 12 for front and sides, but this may be unnecessary.

Ravagers are perfect as is. At 140 points for a trio of distinegrators and a Night Shield, they're well balanced for what you get.

As for the units you neglected:
Scourges can be made into a perfectly acceptable Ravager alternative by giving them Relentless and leaving them untouched otherwise. Reaver Jetbikes are an amazing unit under 5th edition because for 95 points you get a unit that move 12", fires two blasters, then gets a 6" assault move and to make matters gravy, they can hide behind Raiders. Tau arn't the only kids on the block with JSJ shooting doom (well Craftworld Eldar can do it too but who cares about them). Mandrakes are a little pricy for not being able to kill things but even still, when used properly with other units, they can be a really annoying contesting unit. At 12 points they might be better priced. Warp Beasts are also a unit that at a slightly lower cost can be an amazingly useful, if limited, unit. It's a cheap agoniser that can charge 12" which can tip things in your favor with only minimal effort. The Beast Master is perfectly priced but the Warp Beasts could be a point or two cheaper and squad size limit could even be increased. Hellions are tricky but by making Hellglaives rending or reducing their cost, the can become quite the contenders. You might consider trying them with the Scout rule instead and see how that works with a small point decrease rather than make them rending. Grotesques and Haemonclui are actually fine as is. My only concern is the Talos. It seems too slow overall and may benefit from some sort of boost, perhaps a minor decrease in points and capable of being used in a squadron of 1 to 3.

devik
22-10-2008, 05:25
In my experience, most home-brew rules tend to be real unbalanced. Now, if it's set up by someone who has a background in game balance and design, then I would be willing to try it out.

I've had a bit of experience with this myself, and so it actually irritates me, more than most people in my experience, when I see what appears to be a very juvenile vomiting of rules that totally overpowers an army. Most people just go "Eh, that's no good, I'm not going to bother."

Me, I go into an hour-long rant. Well not quite, but close enough.

Sekhmet
22-10-2008, 07:37
jesus christ sekhmet, you don't really field pariahs, do you?

In certain point levels I do.

Gorbad Ironclaw
22-10-2008, 08:43
Using the argument that no one use/own those units already so they are not worth bothering with and then just boosting the stuff that people are successful with already sounds like a good way to go from "sure, lets give it a go" to "err, no I don't think so".

I got no problem at all with people wanting to redo or update an old codex, or even write a new one. But it have to be something more than "I want to make my current army loads better!"

What it should do is look at the stuff that isn't being used or doesn't work at the moment and see what could be changed to make that usable. Not disregard it because it's not being used. That is IMO entirely missing the whole point of updating/changing the codex.

Oh, and what exactly is the precedence for making Incubi a non-retinue? If you look at the latest book, Marines, there are two units that can only be used as retinues, and not even for all characters at that. It certainly doesn't seem like a rule GW is abandoning.

AdmiralDick
22-10-2008, 09:38
Would you play against a Dark Eldar player if he used a community, or personally made set of modified rules designed to bring the codex in line with fundamental 5th edition conventions and statistical prowess that is comparable to other armies? e.g. raiders can carry 12 models, incubi become elites instead of retinues, shadow field is not limit one per army, slight point reductions on units that are statistically inferior (e.g. 7 point warriors, 24 point incubi).

i love rules development and i am all up for helping another gamer generate new and exciting rules for an army. and i'm not so stupid as to think that a perfectly balanced list can be developed without significant play testing, so i am willing to participate in that too.

however, having read your ideas, i have to agree with others on this thread and say that the changes you are suggesting would be of no benefit to the C: DE, as rather than opening up other options for players you are simply making the army all the more one dimensional. against your particular version of the Codex i probably would not be willing to play and i would tell you to go back to the drawing board.


I'd try it once, but I wouldn't make a habit out of it.

i'll assume that you are talking specifically about the changes that volair suggested and not simply about everyone who tries to develop a codex, because unless you make a habit of it, no one will ever be good enough to impress you.



They're already a good list... it's not like they really need buffing. Now adding new units would be awesome... but still.

adding new units, or just increasing the potential of the units that no one uses already would be the best place to start with DE. as others have said repeatedly, those units that work work well. if they are being let down, it is by the lack of decent supporting units, not because they themselves are not effective enough.

and to be fair a lot of the lack of diversity in DE armies is due to the fact that no one wants the models in their army rather than because the units are utterly ineffective.


Well only if it is *very* well done. And tested vigorously, however the main think that's stoppin me with these guys is their old old models.

i'm not sure how you think its going to be tested vigerously unless people are willing to play against it.

also, it is possible to convert a DE army. the next project on my list (when i have enough time and money) is an entirely converted DE army using Eldar Warriors, scratch built Raiders (built like Corsair ships from LotR) and Dark Elf Black Guard as Incubi. should be a lot of fun.


You don't think the DE need those changes? Pray tell why you think the Dark Eldar don't need to be upgraded. They are currently inferior to most other armies; if you know some basic math you can quickly find out that their units are statistically inferior.

sadly, basic observation of their abilities on the battlefield suggests that they do not need a significant buff. again, the main reason certain units are unpopular in my experience is the ***** models.


It isn't possible to update a codex in the way you are suggesting. You can only update units that people play with and currently own the models for, so that the revision can be play tested.

okay, you have totally lost me now. it isn't possible to apdate a codex in a way that balances all the units in the army? then its not possible to update a codex. only to break it.

personally i find your excuse rather poor. if you were that dedicated to the DE and to developing better rules for them, you would buy/build/proxy miniatures.


If someone asked me to play a game like this, i would ask to play two games.

basicly, we play one game and then swap armies for the second. If he doesnt agree, i would question his reasons. We could easily play one game one week and the other the next. Just incase he's not able to play both on the same night.

very sage advice. though, be sure to get the game where you control the DE in first.

Grimtuff
22-10-2008, 10:47
Wow, just wow.

To the OP: Can you direct me to a brick wall, as I really need something to talk to. :rolleyes:

I could post something here, but I would just be repeating everything said in this thread, overhaul is an understatement for what is needed for DE. Buffing the current codex makes no sense.

Frostea
22-10-2008, 13:00
I'd ever only play with this modified codex... If it was not simply modified, but entirely rewritten. Because the value of points has changed drastically since 3rd edition.

jfrazell
22-10-2008, 13:08
Sure if its an opponent I'm ok with. If its not, then I wouldn't play any list you had. Its the opponent, not the list might be a better phrase.

I've played with and helped modify experimnetal lists for Epic and BFG. In actuality its an extremely rewarding thing, and can breath life into a stale game.

volair
22-10-2008, 13:35
Using the argument that no one use/own those units already so they are not worth bothering with and then just boosting the stuff that people are successful with already sounds like a good way to go from "sure, lets give it a go" to "err, no I don't think so".


You and others are claiming that DE are "successful" or "are powerful enough." Quite frankly you must be playing against people who are not using optimized lists and/or are not as good of a player as you. Basic math shows that every single unit except perhaps the Ravager and Raider in the DE codex needs to be made cheaper and/or more powerful to compete against the likes of Orks, Chaos, etc...



I got no problem at all with people wanting to redo or update an old codex, or even write a new one. But it have to be something more than "I want to make my current army loads better!"

What it should do is look at the stuff that isn't being used or doesn't work at the moment and see what could be changed to make that usable. Not disregard it because it's not being used. That is IMO entirely missing the whole point of updating/changing the codex.


That is not the case. The units I revised are the only units that have even a remote chance against modern armies, and even they have a tough time. Mandrakes, Hellions, Scourge, etc... are all a complete joke. They need to be completely reworked, and that is not something I am willing to do. I explained very clearly what my purpose was, what I was trying to do. Nothing but Lords, Warriors, Wyches, Incubi, Raiders, Ravagers exist in a "real" army. If you take anything else you are playing with a gimmick unit that is horribly sub-standard. So no, I'm not just trying to make "my" army better. I'm trying to bring "Dark Eldar" into balance with the rest of 40k. Grotesques are not DE, mandrakes are not DE, they are rubbish, until GW turns them into real units or discards them as bad ideas and puts new units in their place.



Oh, and what exactly is the precedence for making Incubi a non-retinue? If you look at the latest book, Marines, there are two units that can only be used as retinues, and not even for all characters at that. It certainly doesn't seem like a rule GW is abandoning.

There are no retinues in the Space Marine codex. Honour Guard and Command squads are separate units. They take up no FOC. I moved Incubi to elites and wyches to fast attack primarily because there is nothing else worth taking in either elites or fast attack. With my restructuring there is one unit that can be used from each section of the FOC. When a real codex comes out, Incubi can become a unit similar to the seer council or honour guard, because GW will have worked on making other options for elites and fast attack viable.

volair
22-10-2008, 13:52
The consensus in this thread seems to be that all of the units in my revision are fine how they are. I disagree with this, but I am willing to hear you out. It is pretty clear that warriors should be 7 points and that wyches need to be revised somehow. I am interested in hearing critiques on the changes to Warriors and Wyches that I made.

Everyone seems to like Incubi staying as HQ, so to update them to 5th edition they could simply become just like the seer council of the eldar codex, a separate unit; you can take one per archon/drachon.

IJW
22-10-2008, 14:01
First off, the rules development forum is thisaway (http://warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)... ;)


You and others are claiming that DE are "successful" or "are powerful enough." Quite frankly you must be playing against people who are not using optimized lists and/or are not as good of a player as you.
People claim that DE are successful and powerful because that's borne out by looking at tournament results. DE are not an easy army to play, and have very limited competitive builds, but they ARE powerful.


Basic math shows that every single unit except perhaps the Ravager and Raider in the DE codex needs to be made cheaper and/or more powerful to compete against the likes of Orks, Chaos, etc...
Competitive builds of DE do fine against Orks, CSM etc.


That is not the case. The units I revised are the only units that have even a remote chance against modern armies, and even they have a tough time. Mandrakes, Hellions, Scourge, etc... are all a complete joke. They need to be completely reworked, and that is not something I am willing to do.
[...]
Nothing but Lords, Warriors, Wyches, Incubi, Raiders, Ravagers exist in a "real" army. If you take anything else you are playing with a gimmick unit that is horribly sub-standard.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your approach - the powerful units are pretty much on a par with other army's power builds - that leaves the underpowered units to bring up to scratch. Saying that the currently under-powered units aren't part of a "real" army just boggles the mind...

I'm happy to play against tweaked lists and help playtest them (swapping armies after each game), but so far your suggestions aren't adding anything to the DE army, just making the most powerful/efficient units better.

volair
22-10-2008, 14:13
First off, the rules development forum is thisaway (http://warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)... ;)


People claim that DE are successful and powerful because that's borne out by looking at tournament results. DE are not an easy army to play, and have very limited competitive builds, but they ARE powerful.


Competitive builds of DE do fine against Orks, CSM etc.


I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your approach - the powerful units are pretty much on a par with other army's power builds - that leaves the underpowered units to bring up to scratch. Saying that the currently under-powered units aren't part of a "real" army just boggles the mind...

I'm happy to play against tweaked lists and help playtest them (swapping armies after each game), but so far your suggestions aren't adding anything to the DE army, just making the most powerful/efficient units better.

Keep in mind that I have obviously expressed multiple times that the units in my revision are not on par with other army's power builds. So I don't know why you don't understand my approach; my rationale has been spelled out clearly for you. I see that you think those units are fine, but clearly I don't, otherwise I would not have started this thread.

You say certain DE builds are fine against Orks and Chaos. As far as I am aware tournament army lists are not posted for the public to see. Perhaps I simply don't know where the army lists are shown, but in either case you clearly have more information than me. Unless you are willing to give some example or redirect me, then your claims will remain unconvincing to me.

jfrazell
22-10-2008, 14:54
Again as noted, there is a rules development forum where the issue of actual experimental list makeup is better served. Clearly if this is for fun and you're wth a group that would like to try experimental lists then there is no issue (consider yourself blessed).

I would also look the draft EPIC list. It had some additional toys that might be scaled down, at least to Armageddon size. I mean nothing says loving like a pit monster, enraged from its travel through the webway, unleashed upon the foe. Or mayhaps a DE superheavy is more to your liking :eek:

volair
22-10-2008, 14:56
Again as noted, there is a rules development forum where the issue of actual experimental list makeup is better served. Clearly if this is for fun and you're wth a group that would like to try experimental lists then there is no issue (consider yourself blessed).

I would also look the draft EPIC list. It had some additional toys that might be scaled down, at least to Armageddon size. I mean nothing says loving like a pit monster, enraged from its travel through the webway, unleashed upon the foe. Or mayhaps a DE superheavy is more to your liking :eek:

Please try to stay on topic or don't post at all.

x-esiv-4c
22-10-2008, 14:57
I'll play against anything.

Hell...I even played against StEAlTH MAERInsE!!!1!
Although that ended badly.

Grimtuff
22-10-2008, 15:03
Please try to stay on topic or don't post at all.

Excuse me, but how is that not on (this somewhat tenuous) topic? :eyebrows:

volair
22-10-2008, 15:08
Excuse me, but how is that not on (this somewhat tenuous) topic? :eyebrows:

It isn't relevant to this discussion which forum this is posted in. I posted it in the wrong forum by mistake. A mod will see it eventually and move it. We get it, so stop bringing it up (not directed at you).

Furthermore, this thread is about 40k. Any discussion about epic is off topic.

volair
22-10-2008, 15:12
Wow, just wow.

To the OP: Can you direct me to a brick wall, as I really need something to talk to. :rolleyes:

I could post something here, but I would just be repeating everything said in this thread, overhaul is an understatement for what is needed for DE. Buffing the current codex makes no sense.

Are you just trying to wise crack and derail this thread? If you don't add anything to the discussion you are just spamming.

x-esiv-4c
22-10-2008, 15:19
Come on, stop PMS'ing.
I would like to echo what some have said about making currently useless units viable. Hellions, warpbeasts etc. No one uses them and as a product of such most DE armies are the same. Take Nurglings from 4th...No one used them in any real capacity, throw them into the Daemon codex with a few buffs and BOOM! Everyone is happy!

Grimtuff
22-10-2008, 15:25
Furthermore, this thread is about 40k. Any discussion about epic is off topic.

:wtf:
So no unit from the Epic lists are allowed to make it into 40k? I think Eldar Autarches and various Forgeworld units would like to disagree with you.

The Firebase expansion Jfrazell refers to is a very good springboard for some of the "oddball" units that DE are in need of adding to their list. What you are suggesting is that you buff all of the existing good units, erm, why?

Do you not want people to see what Scourges, Grotesques, Mandrakes etc. look like? These are all underused units (for good reason or another) that add to the character of the DE race and how they operate on the battlefield.

Take a look in the current Eldar codex, what do we see comapared to the old one? Shining Spears getting a buff and Wraithlords getting a slight tonedown. Why? Because everyone took the latter and no-one took the former, thus stagnating the army.

If you cannot understand this fundemental aspect of games development (To see it "in action" look at the successive Warmachine books by Privateer Press and the Unit Attachments for underused/underpowered units) then there is no hope.

IJW
22-10-2008, 15:27
Furthermore, this thread is about 40k. Any discussion about epic is off topic.
Giving you some feeders for inspiration for new DE units is off-topic?!?

pox
22-10-2008, 15:28
you seem to be very angry at the fact that the community at large does not agree with your proposed changes. I feel that GW tweaks the rules by improving the units they DON'T see out on the battlefield, unless the army book is so old they overhaul the whole thing. you already said your not interested in fixing the under-used units, (I.E. every unit you personally don't use,) and want to beef up the "common" units. (I.E. all the units you personally use.) I have no problems play-testing new rules, as long as your a. willing to listen to my input, and b. I have plenty of time to peruse the changes ahead of time.

1. I find your changes are too strong
2. I find your lack of listening too vulgar

in conclusion, I would not play against you with your modified list.

jfrazell
22-10-2008, 15:31
Giving you some feeders for inspiration for new DE units is off-topic?!?

Indeed, ideas for Armaggedon/other units seem to be off topic. I guess I'm off topic as well.

In that case I'll revert to my original post. Judging from your comments no I would not permit your list as I would not play you.

volair
22-10-2008, 15:40
This topic is about modernizing already existing Dark Eldar units by using very simple principles and slight adjustments to make the codex adopt 5th edition standards and to make the units statistically comparable to other armies. Hellions, Scourges, etc... require a lot more than a slight cost reduction or revision based on modern standards, they require a complete overhaul. That means I would have to make up entirely new special rules, restructure the unit, and balance it. That is over ambitious for a small, unofficial revision. And yes, even mentioning anything about brand new Dark Eldar units is off topic; hopefully now you understand what the topic is upon reading this post.

I would be more willing to address feedback if it was at all relevant to my purpose. I'm not going to invent new units, and I'm not going to massively overhaul the rubbish units of the codex.

Grimtuff
22-10-2008, 15:46
This topic is about modernizing already existing Dark Eldar units by using very simple principles and slight adjustments to make the codex adopt 5th edition standards and to make the units statistically comparable to other armies. Hellions, Scourges, etc... require a lot more than a slight cost reduction or revision based on modern standards, they require a complete overhaul. That means I would have to make up entirely new special rules, restructure the unit, and balance it. That is over ambitious for a small, unofficial revision.

So basically you've come in and said: "Hi I want to make the good units in this codex even better, as they are not good enough in my eyes for some reason." :confused:

This is not how a revision works. All the units you want to buff to "5th edition standards" (whatever they are, as there is only 1 5th ed. codex out.) are good enough both in internal (very much so) and external balance already as multiple posters have shown in this thread.

If this is just a thinly veiled attempt to make "my DE army harder" as you cannot win with them in 5th edition then I point you to the Tactics forum.

Lord Damocles
22-10-2008, 15:52
OK, this is going to sound harsh, but there you go...



Would you play against a Dark Eldar player if he used a community, or personally made set of modified rules designed to bring the codex in line with fundamental 5th edition conventions and statistical prowess that is comparable to other armies?
Probably not.


e.g. raiders can carry 12 models
Why should Raiders be able to carry 12 models?


incubi become elites instead of retinues
Why should they be Elites and not a non-FOC HQ?


shadow field is not limit one per army
Why should you alter that?


slight point reductions on units that are statistically inferior (e.g. 7 point warriors, 24 point incubi).
Warriors and Incubi are fine as is.


Would you turn down a game with such a player? What if he showed you calculations that demonstrated that the point reductions were justified, and pointed out that most of the changes are the same changes that all newer codexes are receiving?
Even GW doesn't have 'calculations' to show what each model is worth. All of the points above seem poorly thought out to me, suggesting that this whole endevour is something of a bad idea...

EDIT: Having read everyon elses comments, this doesn't look so harsh after all.

The_Outsider
22-10-2008, 16:09
Units that need "fixing":

Grotesques
Mandrakes
Hellions
Scourges

Units that need mild tweaks:

Taloi
Reaver jetbikes

Units that are fine as-is (though will get points changes when the real update comes along):

Archons/dracon/archites/dracites/haemonculi
Incubi
Wyches
Raiders
Warriors
Ravagers

At its core the DE list is solid, it just needs some points tweaking and a handful of units to be brought into line. Hell just points tweaking within itself would fix 90% of the list's problems.

Lisiecki
22-10-2008, 16:49
Oops, my bad. But you said basically the same thing. :)
See this post:



Oh, ok i see where your coming from
I should have said "im looking froward to the 5th ed codex"

Lord_Squinty
22-10-2008, 17:48
I'm going to have to go with no, I wouldnt play with or against this list.

IMHO you've went about it the wrong way - Making the used units better and discarding the lesser used units totally is not the way to go.

You're objective shouldve been to bring the lesser used units into line to give players more of a choice.

And you're comment about not including the lesser used units is waaay off. I and every DE player I know (ok, about 6) has all the models, they just dont use them. Which is probably true for a large percentage of DE players.

volair
22-10-2008, 18:15
So basically you've come in and said: "Hi I want to make the good units in this codex even better, as they are not good enough in my eyes for some reason." :confused:

This is not how a revision works.


My conclusions were based on experience and math.



All the units you want to buff to "5th edition standards" (whatever they are, as there is only 1 5th ed. codex out.) are good enough both in internal (very much so) and external balance already as multiple posters have shown in this thread.


Actually no one has shown anything that you claim they have. All that I read were claims with no supporting evidence. If someone wants to convince me that DE are winning tournaments, they should provide a link to some evidence.



If this is just a thinly veiled attempt to make "my DE army harder" as you cannot win with them in 5th edition then I point you to the Tactics forum.

This is simply an insult disguised as advice.

x-esiv-4c
22-10-2008, 18:33
Tournament play and regular play are two very different things. It looks like you are just focusing on tournament play, hence the disregard for mandrakes, grotesques etc.

If that were the case, then I would ask for my daemon princes and obliterators to be buffed to bring them up to SM standards.

The problem with mathhammer is that it's only good for looking at that particular unit and not how that unit functions in the bigger picture. Using mathhammer has the key reason as to why they need to be buffed up doesn't take into account the way the unit works within the army.

Grimtuff
22-10-2008, 18:38
Actually no one has shown anything that you claim they have. All that I read were claims with no supporting evidence. If someone wants to convince me that DE are winning tournaments, they should provide a link to some evidence.


Really? The internal balance (this is the key word, look it up) of the list is quite skewed. As you can see, all the units you wish to improve upon need no improvement as it would make the list even more internally imbalanced and no-one would take the others units even more.

They are externally balanced as they don't win Tournaments all the time. If they did then they would not be balanced against other armies would they?

Also, please tell us all what "5th Ed. standards" are? As the only 5th ed. codex is the Space Marine one, so there's not much to go on is there?

volair
22-10-2008, 19:12
To me a well balanced army has a reasonable level of internal balance as well as having a niche in competition, a set of units that are difficult for some armies to deal with, but with weaknesses that certain other armies can exploit. I never intended to work on the internal balance of Dark Eldar, which is a much bigger task than I set out to do, and will likely involve reinventing most of the entrees in the codex. What I am trying to do, is make adjustments to the units which are salvageable and don't need to be completely reworked. That is my intent, believe it or not. You can twist my words around and start propaganda, but I don't think it's far fetched to believe that my intentions are good, even if you disagree with my initial draft. Why make assumptions about my character and my intentions; what is your purpose?

x-esiv-4c
22-10-2008, 19:20
You don't want to work on internal balance because you say that would require too much effort. I can understand that. You also mention that a well-balanced army requires internal balance and a competative niche.

You take out the internal balance and all you have is a competative niche.

Therefore: Well balanced = competative niche.

Not quite sure about it. To me it sounds like you want to build a list that forgoes internal balance in favor for tournament edge. If this is the case then every codex should have "balanced" lists and "tourney lists" with independant rules for each.

Ironhand
22-10-2008, 19:24
No, absolutely not. Play the Codex as you have it until the new DE Codex comes out, whenever that is.

volair
22-10-2008, 19:24
Trail Version 2:

Warriors

The point cost per warrior is reduced to 7 (down by 1).
The point cost per Dark lance is increased to 15 points (up by 5).

Archon and Drachon

Archons and Shadowfields are no longer restricted to one per army. Neither Archons nor Drachons may have a retinue.

Incubi

Do not take up a FOC slot. May take one unit of 5-10 Incubi for each Archon or Drachon included in the army. These units are not retinues.

Wyches

Combat drugs are removed, WS is increased to 5.

volair
22-10-2008, 19:30
You don't want to work on internal balance because you say that would require too much effort. I can understand that. You also mention that a well-balanced army requires internal balance and a competative niche.

You take out the internal balance and all you have is a competative niche.

Therefore: Well balanced = competative niche.

Not quite sure about it. To me it sounds like you want to build a list that forgoes internal balance in favor for tournament edge. If this is the case then every codex should have "balanced" lists and "tourney lists" with independant rules for each.

You are drawing incorrect conclusions about my intentions based on faulty assumptions, just like everyone else has in this thread so far.

It is possible to take an army with horrendous internal balance, and give it a competitive niche. That is precisely what this entire thread is about. The most common argument I am reading here, well actually the only argument that has been made that is at all relevent to this thread, is that the DE already do have a competitive niche, and that my changes just put them over the top.

t-tauri
22-10-2008, 19:36
This is off to Rules Development.

Znail
22-10-2008, 19:48
The majority isnt always right, but you should atleast consider why everyone seems to disagree with you. I think a must for this type of project is listening to others oppinion.

The_Outsider
22-10-2008, 20:01
Incubi

Do not take up a FOC slot. May take one unit of 5-10 Incubi for each Archon or Drachon included in the army. These units are not retinues.


Erm, why? Incubi exist solely as a bodyguard for whoever they are with (be it a dracon or archon) - both in fluff terms and currently in game terms.

They are NOT command squads, taking them away as retinues A) removes one of the last remaining retinues in the game and B) is just completely against their fluff.

If you want to fix incubi, give them plasma grenades as standard - job done.

volair
22-10-2008, 20:23
You have to consider more than fluff. Game balance is important too in the interest of fun and competition. It seems unreasonable to expect DE players to have a 10 armor transport carrying 10 toughness 3 models, costing 361-411 points altogether.

Sekhmet
22-10-2008, 21:12
You have to consider more than fluff. Game balance is important too in the interest of fun and competition. It seems unreasonable to expect DE players to have a 10 armor transport carrying 10 toughness 3 models, costing 361-411 points altogether.

It seems unreasonable that DE transports are cheap, fast, and allow any unit inside to jump out 2", fleet d6" (if they have fleet), then charge 6".

Raiders are balanced. More than that, they're probably one of the best transports in the game.

The_Outsider
22-10-2008, 21:14
You have to consider more than fluff. Game balance is important too in the interest of fun and competition. It seems unreasonable to expect DE players to have a 10 armor transport carrying 10 toughness 3 models, costing 361-411 points altogether.

Why is it unreasonable? Infact even having 9 incubi in one squad is a silly idea - 9 incubi and an archon will annhilate just about anything man sized in the game in a single turn.

Not to mention things like the webway portal cutdown the risk of it getting shot down.

Incubi retinues are not unbalanced (for good or for ill), they are actually one of the few balanced retinues in the game. Not to mention making them a squad in their own right is pretty heavy nerfing.


---

Also: i'd give incubi 2A base and plasma grenades and keep them at their current base cost.

FashaTheDog
22-10-2008, 21:22
I direct you to post 33 on page 2 of this thread where I gave a good number of ways in which the units you labeled as useless can be improved with only minimal effort. Are my suggestions out of place because you feel that they are best abandoned and no effort should be made to attempt to improve them, even if others offer suggestions on how to do so?

And what of your claims that they are useless in the first place. I have used some of them to great effect when properly supported by other units. I gave the example of Reaver Jetbikes receiving a nice bonus with the jump shoot jump rule in the BRB, making them worth it. Mandrakes are admittably a one trick gimmick but a small squad can be used to contest an objective and draw firepower away from something else. Take for instance a situation where a Devastator Squad is sitting on an objective with no flamers nearby in ruins and at the end of turn 3, the Mandrakes choose to appear around the objective near those Marines. Now the Mandrakes have a 2+ cover save and your foe can leave the objective contested or forgo shooting at something you care about for 75 points of annoyingly resilant Mandrakes. The other alternative is to redirect flamers at them which can take a turn or two and once more free up your more valuable units from enemy firepower. Yes it is a gimmick that must rely on the rest of your army but it does work. Grotesques are another unit that require special handling to use properly since they can force an opponent to fall back without a Ld test ever being taken and can be used to screen units for a quick 4+ cover save when they need it most. Pair with Wyches and Gortesques are quite usuable with a lot of care. And I do use them in my list and win against skilled opponents simply because I use them to their maximum potential in conjunction with the rest of my army. I'll admit using them is tricky and rather difficult, but no one ever said the Dark Eldar were an easy army to play.

Bunnahabhain
22-10-2008, 21:25
Right, volair, lets see if this get through to you....

IG don't win many tournaments, so need fixing. ( we'll ignore the incoming codex for the purposes of this example)

How about facing an updated list? yes/no?

Hellhounds are common, but it's a flamethrower, so we'll make it a fast vehicle, as it's easy to aim and fire at speed.

Veterans are a popular unit, but they're basically just an upgraded line infantry squad, so we'll make them troops now.

Leman russes look a bit expensive nowadays, so we'll just make them a bit cheaper.

Now, how do you want to face my 3 russ, 3 hell hound, 6 troop units infilitariting/DSing BS 4 special weapon t toting 1500pt IG army?

All I've done is just what you've done, upgrade the already decent and popular units, and ignore the ones that need fixing. Ogryns and advisors don't see the light of day very often, so people don't have the models, lets not bother fixing them.

volair
22-10-2008, 22:33
I direct you to post 33 on page 2 of this thread where I gave a good number of ways in which the units you labeled as useless can be improved with only minimal effort. Are my suggestions out of place because you feel that they are best abandoned and no effort should be made to attempt to improve them, even if others offer suggestions on how to do so?

And what of your claims that they are useless in the first place. I have used some of them to great effect when properly supported by other units. I gave the example of Reaver Jetbikes receiving a nice bonus with the jump shoot jump rule in the BRB, making them worth it. Mandrakes are admittably a one trick gimmick but a small squad can be used to contest an objective and draw firepower away from something else. Take for instance a situation where a Devastator Squad is sitting on an objective with no flamers nearby in ruins and at the end of turn 3, the Mandrakes choose to appear around the objective near those Marines. Now the Mandrakes have a 2+ cover save and your foe can leave the objective contested or forgo shooting at something you care about for 75 points of annoyingly resilant Mandrakes. The other alternative is to redirect flamers at them which can take a turn or two and once more free up your more valuable units from enemy firepower. Yes it is a gimmick that must rely on the rest of your army but it does work. Grotesques are another unit that require special handling to use properly since they can force an opponent to fall back without a Ld test ever being taken and can be used to screen units for a quick 4+ cover save when they need it most. Pair with Wyches and Gortesques are quite usuable with a lot of care. And I do use them in my list and win against skilled opponents simply because I use them to their maximum potential in conjunction with the rest of my army. I'll admit using them is tricky and rather difficult, but no one ever said the Dark Eldar were an easy army to play.

The fact that you are supporting those units suggests that you are incapable of perceiving a unit to be bad. I feel sorry for you, it must be hard for you to make armies that have even a remote chance of winning.

BaronDG
22-10-2008, 22:43
Would you have one list for "5th ed standards" and another for the rest of the un-updated codices?

Can I also do an update?

Do I have to drop repentia? I'd really like to make them work...

FashaTheDog
22-10-2008, 23:33
I do not suggest that they are game winning units by a long shot or that they should be taken to the exclusion of other units, but they are not useless is my point. There is a difference between being a bad unit that can be made to work well for you in the right list with the right tactics and a unit that is beyond hope. Scourges and Hellions are fairly useless (outside of Apocalpyse where it doesn't matter), but Mandrakes have their one niche use and Grotesques can tip that assault where my Wyches win by 1 into a sweeping advance only to turn around and provide the now exposed Wyches with a much needed cover save. Reaver Jetbikes have been fantasic as they've often blown away key vehicles only to jump behind a big solid building and be safe from return fire. Are these units over priced and generally bad, of course, but they can still be used to great effect with proper care and planning

Winning with my Dark Eldar is something I have become accustom to (except that one game where over 80% of my rolls were 1s, I tracked it). My foes vary from players who are below average in skill to very good players, and a variety of fluffy or pure competative lists. Armies with plenty of 3+ saves, vehicle heavy Orks, and Guard are all fairly easy, while swarm Orks and Nids are my army's bane (Guard hordes don't come rushing at me so I control when and where I fight).

Here's the list I used Monday in a 4th turn wipe against Guard:

Vect
2 Haemonculi - one with a Stinger, one with a Destructor

5 Mandrakes
9 Wyches - Succubus with Agoniser, Wych Weapons
Raider - Scaling Nets, Disintegrator
3 Warp Beasts

7 Raiders - Splinter Cannon, Blaster
Raider
7 Raiders - Splinter Cannon, Blaster
Raider
7 Raiders - Dark Lance, Blaster
Raider
8 Raiders - Dark Lance, Blaster
Raider
10 Warriors - 2 Dark Lances

3 Reavers - 2 Blasters
3 Reavers - 2 Blasters
3 Reavers - 2 Blasters

Ravager - 3 Disintegrators, Night Shield
Ravager - 3 Disintegrators, Night Shield
Ravager - 3 Disintegrators, Night Shield

I could have switched the Mandrakes for Grotesques and had them commandeer a Raider from one of the Dark Lance squads on turn 1 but since I did not know my foe or mission, I went for the Mandrakes for the contesting gimmick. As you see my list heavily features those elements you correctly claim are good in the Dark Eldar list but I also add in a few units that make the list better when properly supported as they help me dictate the flow of the game better through their unique gimmicks and abilities.

Victomorga
23-10-2008, 02:01
The fact that you are supporting those units suggests that you are incapable of perceiving a unit to be bad. I feel sorry for you, it must be hard for you to make armies that have even a remote chance of winning.

there's no call for getting nasty; you were just chastising others a little while ago for what you felt were unjustified attacks on YOUR character.

getting back to the issue at hand: the general consensus seems to be against your take on the existing DE rules as well as your proposed revisions. I think the lesson here is that people are not going to be receptive to your improving the units you already use and doing nothing else with the codex.

I understand what you are saying about revising the entire book being too much, and I understand you feel you have made all your adjustments with fair mathematical formulae, but you need to understand how this looks to a prospective opponent.

furthermore, everyone, DE players included, disagrees that the DE are non-competitive. in the quote above, you sarcastically and derisively sniped at a fellow DE player for using a more diverse selection of units than you do. seeing as how this person feels the army you both field is still competitive, maybe you should be heeding his/her advice (and seeking out more advice from similar sources) about how to get more out of your existing army list. if other people are making it work, and with enough regularity that everyone seems to be in agreement that they are still decent, maybe there are strategies you have overlooking that you could be taking better advantage of.

no one is arguing that the DE aren't due for an overhaul, but throwing your hands in the air and giving up on the list as it currently stands isn't necessarily the best approach, and won't be very well received by opponents.

x-esiv-4c
23-10-2008, 11:31
At this point I think it's safe to say that if Volair was to play against someone with his "niche" list and lose, then he would just "up" the units he uses some more as clearly it's the quality of the army and not his generalship.

However, after seeing your arguments to counter people's points, I wouldn't play against this list.

volair
23-10-2008, 13:42
I just wish people would stop pretending that the substandard Dark Eldar units are EVER worth fielding, in any situation. They clearly are not. Scourges would be a decent unit if every single one of them had a splinter cannon for free. Yes I am not kidding, it would require a change that drastic to make them playable according to statistics, keeping in mind the fact that they can fly around hugging cover shooting 2 feet out.

x-esiv-4c
23-10-2008, 13:57
Did it ever cross your mind that someone might field scourges/mandrakes etc for fun? fluff reasons?

FashaTheDog
23-10-2008, 15:48
I agree with you on the Scourges volair, giving them splinter cannons as part of the unit cost is actually a good idea if the cost is left alone as my idea of just making them relentless would make it so they only ever carried dark lances. The only time I ever dust off my 10 strong unit is for games of Apocalypse where everything's made up and the points don't matter.

I do disagree with you on Mandrakes, Grotesques, and Reavers being not worth fielding as they do have uses, albeit specialized one, but that is their point. Since you have decided upon a contridictory opinion and I have expressed, in detail, the reasons for mine I will leave the matter be unless someone else makes a point that makes it appropriate for me to bring them back up. I am, however, respectful of your opinion and will not force you to see things my way, as that is counter productive to any thread.

ShadowDeth
23-10-2008, 21:30
I just wish people would stop pretending that the substandard Dark Eldar units are EVER worth fielding, in any situation. They clearly are not. Scourges would be a decent unit if every single one of them had a splinter cannon for free. Yes I am not kidding, it would require a change that drastic to make them playable according to statistics, keeping in mind the fact that they can fly around hugging cover shooting 2 feet out.

5 Scourges, deep striking or coming out of a webway portal with 4 splinter cannons and a terrorfex on their Sybarite could cause massive havoc against a very carefully selected target, applied at the correct time. Is this strategy you could do first turn, or anytime you feel like it? Obviously not, but how about when you're ready to engage their entire army in close combat with wyches in raiders, your archon and his incubi buddies, jetbikes and maybe a few talos? No survivability doesn't matter if you can keep them from being retaliated against.

That's the DE motto anyways. I've never once had an issue with my armor saves. Keep yourself from being shot and engage on your own terms, or if you have to engage in a firefight - fleet yourself into cover and bunker down. 8 point models that can claim cover and have an armor save from that are very efficient, and it's ridiculous to even believe you need to drop their points.

And as a DE player, I take offense to how you're treating other fellow DE players in this thread who have at times tried to give you constructive advice. It's quite obvious you're a tool, and something of a power gamer that wouldn't be pleasant to play against.

Good luck re balancing your home-brew list.

AdmiralDick
24-10-2008, 11:19
No, absolutely not. Play the Codex as you have it until the new DE Codex comes out, whenever that is.

whilst i don't agree with Volair's particular translation of the C: DE, i don't think we need to become prescriptive and say that players are not entitled to attempt to develop rules for themselves.

there is really no problem with people trying to do that. its possible for fan work to be perfectly acceptable (just take a look at Bell of Lost Souls or the Tempus Fugitives work), in fact it is not unheard of for fan work to be better than the equivalent GW rules.

Victomorga
25-10-2008, 16:28
I just wish people would stop pretending that the substandard Dark Eldar units are EVER worth fielding, in any situation. They clearly are not. Scourges would be a decent unit if every single one of them had a splinter cannon for free. Yes I am not kidding, it would require a change that drastic to make them playable according to statistics, keeping in mind the fact that they can fly around hugging cover shooting 2 feet out.

but that's just the point. other people obviously ARE using these units you've deemed worthless, and using them to great effect. I tried to be polite about it before, but the longer this discussion continues the more it becomes apparent that your problem is with your tactics. you insist that no one could use the units you don't use because they are a complete waste of time and points, and when other DE players try to help you out by telling you how to make use of them, you just ignore them. being stubborn and refusing to diversify or try new things won't help your situation.


5 Scourges, deep striking or coming out of a webway portal with 4 splinter cannons and a terrorfex on their Sybarite could cause massive havoc against a very carefully selected target, applied at the correct time. Is this strategy you could do first turn, or anytime you feel like it? Obviously not, but how about when you're ready to engage their entire army in close combat with wyches in raiders, your archon and his incubi buddies, jetbikes and maybe a few talos? No survivability doesn't matter if you can keep them from being retaliated against.

That's the DE motto anyways. I've never once had an issue with my armor saves. Keep yourself from being shot and engage on your own terms, or if you have to engage in a firefight - fleet yourself into cover and bunker down. 8 point models that can claim cover and have an armor save from that are very efficient, and it's ridiculous to even believe you need to drop their points.

And as a DE player, I take offense to how you're treating other fellow DE players in this thread who have at times tried to give you constructive advice. It's quite obvious you're a tool, and something of a power gamer that wouldn't be pleasant to play against.

Good luck re balancing your home-brew list.

the post above ended on a harsh note, but after taking such an aggressive stance and refusing to listen to any dissenting voices, you made that sort of shift in tone inevitable. I don't know if the accusation of "power gamer" is justified, as power gamers are usually trying to max-out their army list, as opposed to steadfastly refusing to diversify beyond a few "pet" unit types.