Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon |
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon  Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:17 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
Ilushia, thanks for the initial playtest, even if it was a solo performance. I am actually pleased to see the list losing.  Too many lists start off as too powerful, then end up getting cut back as time goes on. Were there any particular strengths or weaknesses that stood out? Anything that wasn't attributed to rolls or the board?
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:57 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
Mmm... The Incubi strike me as being a bit on the weak side in general. They're very very nice for melee, but with a lack of any ability to Firefight they're VERY vulnerable to enemy assaults. Mandrakes have basically the same problem. if you assault into them and stay at least 6cm away they can't counter-charge you, and with a FF of 6+ they're basically toast against any kind of reasonable enemy you care to throw their way. I like the idea behind them, but as they're established right now it's kindof a crap-shoot if they actually manage to do anything meaningful or not... And I'm not entirely sure how to fix that.
The Tormentor Titan is fairly nice, but I'm wondering why you decided to make it's TK attacks be FF instead of CC? Traditionally melee weapons are stronger then FF weapons when it comes to big things like this. After all they can put a few hundred tons of metal (Or whatever passes as metal) behind them. The Phantom Lances seem to work fairly well. The only issue I really saw with it was a lack of survivability. it only has 2 Shadow Fields, and no Reinforced Armor, along with a horrible 5+ saving throw. This thing got chewed to death on turn 1 by the Warlord with 2 TLDs.
I think the largest issue that the list had was really one of dealing with Void Shields on the Titans. They have very very few things which can seriously strip a lot of void shields off titans right now. The total lack of armor saves on the Warriors really did a lot of harm to them too. During the assault the 8 Warrior+4 Raider formation made against the Reaver they lost four stands of warriors from enemy attacks simply due to lack of armor save (And it would almost certainly have been MUCH worse had they stayed on the vehicles, as all four of the Raiders would almost certainly have been lost).
First Strike weapons make these guys fall over almost instantly. The one assault in the game involving the Knights unit showed that very very well. The Knights came up against the Dracon and retinue, and their first-strike fire-fight weapons nearly wiped the entire formation before the enemy even got to swing on them!
It's a good list over-all, and I suspect it'd fair much better against a more 'normal' enemy like IG. But they really crumpled when facing enemy formations which could put out comperable or better then them both in the assault and shooting. I'd recommend moving some units (Incubi especially) up to FF 5+ from FF 6+. I don't think this would massively impact their battle role, as they'd still be MUCH better in melee, but it'd make them capable of doing damage in firefight as well.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:02 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
The other thing which worries me is the near-total lack of Reinforced Armor even on the War Engines in the list. Eldar can get away with non-RA Titans because they get 3+ saves against enemy shots... But the bonus from the Shadow Fields just isn't sufficient to keep these guys alive. Especially not given that everything which has them only has 2 and once they're gone they're gone. I'd recommend making shadow-fielded units effectively treating them like Void Shields with bonus of the 'always in cover' effect. But very few of them per unit. That'd work better, and would go a LONG way to making them a viable answer to the lack of RA.
I'd probably add RA to the Vessel of Pain and Barge of Pleasure as well. These are both War Engines, tanks to be exact. THe only Super-Heavy Tank I can think of which doesn't have RA is the Ordinatus. And it's a support unit with lots and lots of range. This would go a long way to keeping these units alive as well (The Vessel of Pain died mid-way through Turn 2 to the Quake-Cannon barrage, after it had it's unit broken trying to assault one of the Warlords and failing.) Fearless probably isn't needed, but RA is a must IMHO if you want them to be functional. Especially as an independent unit.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
Dark Eldar 1.0.1 Modified 5-30-06
Above is the new link to Dark Eldar 1.0.1, with all the changes made and mistakes corrected. Hopefully that is it.
I added Xisor's fluff plus a little of my own. As you guys write it, I'll drop it in to the file.
Note that I grudgingly added the Support Craft description, mimicking the rule currently on the Tau 4.4 list. I got some feedback from people who were wondering what a Support Craft is.
My understanding is that the Support Craft rule from Tau 4.4 may change, but in the interests of uniformity, I thought it best to mirror what they have now... Even if what they have now will be different tomorrow.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:14 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
Why do the Heavy Phantom Lances on the Executor have both Lance AND Titan Killer? Titan Killer makes Lance redundent (Lance removes Reinforced Armor, but TK allows no saves for RA anyway).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:22 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
Ilushia, great info! ?Thanks. ?You may be right on your points, but we should hold off on changes till we get some more feedback over a wider range of games and opponents. ?With that in mind, keep the comments coming.
FYI - as written, the Shadowfield does act in cover (see shadowfield description, last line) so your suggestion has been taken ? , just taken a few weeks ago. 
We discussed making the Barge of Pleasure a RA vehicle, but given that it is has the assault deck function, it didn't seem to make sense (open decked and reinforced? ).  ?
The Vessel of Pain may well need a boost - time will tell. ?But it is not without precedence. ?Ork Gunfortresses and Ork Battlefortresses are super-heavies and do not have reinforced armor.
Scarik was the main author of the Tormentor, so I will let him address those points. ?You may want to post over on Specialist Games, however, since I don't think he frequents this board much.
For the troops, try using the assault deck function to its maximum potential. ?Remember these points:
1) Assault deck vehicles allow troops to fire normally from inside the Raider without disembarking, as well as assaulting.
2) If the vehicle is destroyed, the transported units still get a cover save of 5+ or its armor save. ?This works out in assaults or when being fired at normally. ?That gives the Warriors a 5+ save effectively.
3) You cannot use Raiders to take cover by (rule is for armored vehicles, not light vehicles).
BoP will have a similar dynamic, but you may take cover by it since it is a War Engine.
The Lance and TK thing was just a silly goof up. It's been corrected on 1.0.1, so there shouldn't be anymore of that nonsense.
Keep it coming!
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
FYI - as written, the Shadowfield does act in cover (see shadowfield description, last line) so your suggestion has been taken , just taken a few weeks ago. |
Actually I meant this more along the lines of being able to regenerate with marshal actions and even after losing the last one. As-is I found that stripping a unit of all it's shielding was effortless (It'd be harder with an infantry army, no doubt, but even a Russ Company can do it without trying particularly hard) which renders it rather pointless.
We discussed making the Barge of Pleasure a RA vehicle, but given that it is has the assault deck function, it didn't seem to make sense (open decked and reinforced? ). |
This makes perfect sense to me: Back under 2nd edition 40K the Eldar War Walkers were not open-topped despite being clearly open topped because they had force-fields to reinforce their defenses. Same basic deal here: The whole ship is cloaked in a force-field designed to bleed off extra attacks, different in design then the Shadowfield. The Wave Serpent in the Eldar list is basically the same way, in fact.
The Vessel of Pain may well need a boost - time will tell. But it is not without precedence. Ork Gunfortresses and Ork Battlefortresses are super-heavies and do not have reinforced armor.
This is true, and it might be OK. But usually those gunfortresses and battlefortresses exist to transport troops around the field and back them up, not to play main-line tanks (which is essentially what the Ravagers are, and the Vessels by extension).
Scarik was the main author of the Tormentor, so I will let him address those points. You may want to post over on Specialist Games, however, since I don't think he frequents this board much.
I'll have to do that then. I like the concept of this thing, but it's far too fragile IMHO to be all that useful... That may just be an artifact of who they were fighting against.
For the troops, try using the assault deck function to its maximum potential. Remember these points:
1) Assault deck vehicles allow troops to fire normally from inside the Raider without disembarking, as well as assaulting.
2) If the vehicle is destroyed, the transported units still get a cover save of 5+ or its armor save. This works out in assaults or when being fired at normally. That gives the Warriors a 5+ save effectively.
3) You cannot use Raiders to take cover by (rule is for armored vehicles, not light vehicles).
What I found tended to happen when doing this was that the unit would loose 1-2 of it's Raiders, thanks to their low armor-save, and then loose one or both of the units onboard those raiders when they went down. So a unit with 8 Warriors and 4 Raiders engages an enemy, takes 3 hits, loses 2 Raiders and 3 Warriors to those 3 hits. They've now lost 5 units to the enemy! That's a painful loss. I do like the idea of the Assault Deck, but it seems to result in the Dark Eldar taking heavier losses then they should.
BoP will have a similar dynamic, but you may take cover by it since it is a War Engine.
I have no idea how well this functions, I didn't use one in the army at all. I just sortof picked what I felt would be an 'iconic' Dark Eldar army for 2900 points and ran with it.
The Lance and TK thing was just a silly goof up. It's been corrected on 1.0.1, so there shouldn't be anymore of that nonsense.
Actually this was something I saw in the 1.0.1 file. Page 14. Heavy Phantom Lance on the Executor Landing Module.
Keep it coming!
Will do!
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Dark Eldar for Epic Armageddon Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
So i went back and dug up my army list from the self-gaming play...
Kabal Coterie:
6x Incubi
3x Raiders
1x Archon
Total: 525
Cult Formation:
8x Wyches
4x Raiders
Total: 425
Kabal Syndicate:
8x Warriors
4x Raiders
Total: 300
Tormentor:
1x Tormentor Titan
Total: 550
Mob:
6x Mandrakes
Total: 350
Ravager Armada:
6x Ravagers
1x Vessel of Pain
Total: 750 (BTS).
First turn saw the Dark Eldar go first, they chewed up the shielding on one of the Warlords with the Ravager Armada and Tormentor, cutting him down to two. The Warlord responded by marshalling, gaining back all his shields, and firing down range at the Tormentor, stripping it of it's shields and inflicting 2 DC worth of damage (TLDs are PAINFUL for these things!). Retain with the Quake-Cannon carrying Warlord which sustained fire, firing indirectly into the Wyches, wiping out one of the Raiders with all hands. The Kabal Coterie slung forwards to fight with the Knights... ANd got spanked, badly. First-strike shots from the knights cut down two of the Raiders and killed 2 of the Incubi onboard. Normal strikes reduced them to just the Archon, who promptly fled the battlefield, trying to save himself, having inflicted no damage on the Knights. Reaver came around the hill, opening up on the Tormentor and finishing it off, once again 2x TLDs just tore this thing apart with out even trying. Retain with the Knights, who doubled forwards to fire on the Wyches, killing one more Raider, which took all hands down with it when it went, and breaking the unit which fled across the table to cower behind a convenient toothbrush (Me and my horrible terrain!). The Kabal Syndicate assaulted the Reaver, deciding that rather then stay in the flying metal death-traps of the Raiders they'd unload. Cut all of the shields AND one DC off the Reaver, but lost the battle due to how many attacks the shields absorbed. Lost three bases to attacks and another three were frightened off the field by the metal behemoth. All formations managed to rally. Turn 2 saw the Mandrakes teleport in near the AMTL blitz and one of the objectives. The Kabal began by moving up to fire on Warlord #1 (The one who marshalled last turn), placing a blast-marker and peeling away one of it's shields. The Ravager Armada retained and Engaged the Warlord. Only to find four of their own cut down by the god-machine in the ensuing fire fight. The Ravagers lost, fled back across the field into cover, leaving the Warlord with just 1 Void Shield left. Warlord #2 sustained fire on the Ravager Armada with it's Quake Cannons, wiping out the rest of the unit between kills and blast-markers. Retain with Warlord #1 who declared an assault on the Mandrakes, moved up to one side outside counter-charge range and proceeded to wipe out the entire unit to the last man. Wych formation tried a last-ditch effort to take down the Warlord, engaging it in melee... And failing to do any damage at all to it, while loosing all their remaining numbers. At this point the AMTL still had the Reaver and the Knights unactivated, and all the Dark Eldar had left was a badly beaten Syndicate, so I called the game.
Probably as much an effect of my newbieness with the Dark Eldar list as anything else, that and taking lots of War Engines, which REALLY don't seem solid enough to me to warrent their costs. Yes, the Tormentor can do lots of damage, but what's the point of lots of fire-power if you don't have the defenses to survive the fire-magnet it makes you?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Seriously, I see no problems at all with having my Archon sitting safely on an Executor, a Vessel of Pain or a Ravager...and having a Dracon on a Ravager Armada seems perfectly plausible to me. Fluffwise, there is no issue IMO. DE are a prime candidate to have characters wherever they please. I mean: it's the DE thing- Whatever, wherever, however you please!
). 
]