[40k] Dark Eldar, new units needed

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:587631d1.0501180813.2478263b@posting.google.com...
> IG and Tau are non-specialist? What about the shoot-shoot-shoot thing?
> Tau aren't really a T3 army - nothing in their arsenal is less than S5
> outside close combat, where they don't belong in any case.

Besides what's wrong with a shoot-shoot-shoot army in a sci-fi setting??

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

pbowles@aol.com (Philip Bowles) wrote:
>>Any other dark eldar players here think there should be
>>more units added in the new codex?
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>But that doesn't mean the DE army isn't in need of a total
>>revamp, both in rules and in models.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>IMO, the DE army has all of the right pieces, but that they
>> aren't quite concepted and balanced properly. And the
>> non-Warrior models are really, really poor. With a
>> motivated game designer matched with a properly
>>inspired sculptor, the DE could be a *great* army.
>>
>>The basic DE concept of "evil, semi-Slaaneshi Eldar" is OK.
>
>Not sure about 'semi-Slaaneshi',

The EEEVIL thrill-kill thing.

>but the "deal with the devil" idea they currently have
>going is more interesting than yet another Chaos
>army, only with pointy ears. WFB DE Cult of Slaanesh
>isn't a bad army, but would you call it interesting? I wouldn't.

The 40k DE are the WFB DE. A 40k CoS army would be a mix of 40k DE and 40k MoS
CSM.

>> The problem is that they're stuck in the midst of 3 other
>> non-specialist S3 T3 armies: IG, Tau, and Sisters.
>
>IG and Tau are non-specialist?

Recall that I categorize "specialist" armies as things like Eldar and CSM, and
non-specialist armies as things like SM.

By that measure, IG definitely aren't specialist, as IG follow the same
generalist with upgrades "tactical" model that the Space Marines do.

Tau are closer to IG than Eldar in their army concept, but could be fairly
argued as semi-specialist in their design.

>What about the shoot-shoot-shoot thing?

What about it? Tau and IG are generalist / tactical (i.e. non-specialist)
ranged shooty.

>Tau aren't really a T3 army -

Their basic statline begs to differ...

>nothing in their arsenal is less than S5 outside
>close combat, where they don't belong in any case.

My 4 corners remain:

S3 T3 Specialist Eldar.
S4 T4 Specialist CSM.
S4 T4 Generalist SM.
S3 T3 Generalist IG.

But thinking about it, the Tau really fit best as an edge case:

S4 T3 Balanced Tau.
S4 T4 Balanced Necrons
S3 T4 Balanced Orks
S3 T3 Balanced Sisters?

>>IMO, the DE ought to be more inherently "fighty" than they
>> currently are,
>
>I'd say that they should have the assault capability to
>match their WS,

Yes.

>certainly, and to distinguish them from the shooty armies,

Like Sisters, for example, for which differentiation is sorely needed.

>but I'd like to keep the current mobility v. firepower spectrum:
>DE (highly mobile, quite shooty but less so than Tau), Tau
>(quite mobile, quite shooty) and IG (low mobility, very shooty)

And Sisters?

>so I don't want to see them lose out in shootiness.

Why not? IG, Tau, and SoB all out-shoot out because fighting simply isn't an
option.

>I've suggested in the past turning soul-seeker ammo from a
>never-used wargear option to a Warrior squad upgrade
>(where other races buy grenades, DE can buy improved
>ammunition).

This would be in-theme, as would generally expanded weapon upgrade options.

>>something like True Grit might be very helpful.
>
>That just leaves Warriors treading on Wyches' toes, since
>they then have the close combat ability as well as the
>shootiness.

Not really. Warriors are A2 all the time. Wyches would gain +1A on the
charge, and would even be able to shoot before charging, making them
effectively A4 / A2.

>DE are clearly separated into shooty Kabal forces and assaulty
>Cult forces, so I think the Kabal units should be made shootier

Definitely not. That's why we have IG, Tau, and Sisters.

>and the Wych units made fightier.

Actually, I'd tone these down somewhat to a Sv6+ with Sv5+I in HtH.

>> The basic DE Warriors and Wyches both ought to be
>> moved into the 10-12 ppm range, with stats and options
>>to match.
>
>Wyches are already worth more than that following their
> revision,

And would need to be toned down a notch, or upcosted even further. I could
seem them discounted slightly with the balance point set at 12ppm.

>Warriors are worth maybe 9ppm, which seems fair enough.

With a couple of bundled options, 12ppm.

>> Finally, the DE rules arcana ought to be stripped away, so
>> things like the Talos become as simple and sensible as a
>> basic Dread.
>
>Difficult, since most DE units rely on the same statline but with
>different weapons and wargear.

Nonsense. The Wraithlord is almost as rule-simple as they come. The Talos
should be a bog standard MC with a variety of gun options.

>They need their tricks to distinguish them, and in fact I
>wouldn't mind adding a couple more where units need
>them to make them effective.

Totally unnecessary. DE have the right model / unit archetypes. They just
need the templates to be reworked.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny