Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:38:24 -0500, Karyth Teel wrote:
>>
>> "Lattes" <bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:1PydncSnDd34iXHcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
>>> Any other dark eldar players here think there should be more units
added
>>> in the new codex?
>>
>i've given this a lot of thought, and while there are a few things i
think
>could be added, the army needs some various tweaks as much as it
>needs more units.
Agreed. Keith Hann and I worked on a revision to the DE list a while
ago and all we added was a Command Raider (armour 11). Admittedly this
was partly because we were trying to keep within the existing model
range, but we both felt the final army was coherent and didn't need
anything once the mass of useless units was made useable. In fact we
ended up dropping the Grotesques altogether, since they didn't fit
ruleswise or thematically. If the remaining units could all be made
playable there would be a fair amount of variety in the list, and
that's pretty much all that's needed. The only common unit type
missing from the army is the Fast Attack light vehicle (Land
Speeder/Vyper/Warbuggy equivalent), but then they have the Raider
instead, which costs about the same and is as heavily-armed. They
don't have a scout unit either, but they have Mandrakes instead.
To be fair, we have more units than most:
>> Three HQ choices (one of which rearranges the Force Org Chart),
Four
>> Elites, Two Troops, Two Fast, and Three Heavy Support for 14 total
>> choices:
>
>But, the two troop choices are basically the same; they could have
>combined it to a single entry with little trouble.
Warriors have extra options - Raider squads each with two splinter
cannon and two blasters would be rather nasty... They're the same
basic troops statwise and they have access to the same types of
weapon, but you can say that about Tactical and Devastator Space
Marines. You wouldn't say that those are 'basically the same' as each
other, would you? Having more than two Troops units is the exception
rather than the norm - SM, IG, Tau, Inquisition forces and Necrons all
have two or fewer Troops choices (and of those the IG have the option
of either infantry or mechanised infantry with fewer guns), and Orks
only have Grots as their third.
> The fast attack choices
>are both wych choices, which is annoying from a fluff standpoint.
>Modifying unit options could help this without adding a ton of new
units.
>For example, have normal jetbikes but give them the option to be
upgraded
>to whiched for +5 points or so.
Makes sense. If Wyches and Kabals can share Raiders, why not bikes?
Most players seem to paint bikes in Kabal rather than Cult colours
(including GW), suggesting that the bikes are Kabal property (plus
Kabal characters and Haemonculi can ride them). However, you still
don't get an exclusively Kabal-themed FA unit that way.
Philip Bowles
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:38:24 -0500, Karyth Teel wrote:
>>
>> "Lattes" <bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:1PydncSnDd34iXHcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
>>> Any other dark eldar players here think there should be more units
added
>>> in the new codex?
>>
>i've given this a lot of thought, and while there are a few things i
think
>could be added, the army needs some various tweaks as much as it
>needs more units.
Agreed. Keith Hann and I worked on a revision to the DE list a while
ago and all we added was a Command Raider (armour 11). Admittedly this
was partly because we were trying to keep within the existing model
range, but we both felt the final army was coherent and didn't need
anything once the mass of useless units was made useable. In fact we
ended up dropping the Grotesques altogether, since they didn't fit
ruleswise or thematically. If the remaining units could all be made
playable there would be a fair amount of variety in the list, and
that's pretty much all that's needed. The only common unit type
missing from the army is the Fast Attack light vehicle (Land
Speeder/Vyper/Warbuggy equivalent), but then they have the Raider
instead, which costs about the same and is as heavily-armed. They
don't have a scout unit either, but they have Mandrakes instead.
To be fair, we have more units than most:
>> Three HQ choices (one of which rearranges the Force Org Chart),
Four
>> Elites, Two Troops, Two Fast, and Three Heavy Support for 14 total
>> choices:
>
>But, the two troop choices are basically the same; they could have
>combined it to a single entry with little trouble.
Warriors have extra options - Raider squads each with two splinter
cannon and two blasters would be rather nasty... They're the same
basic troops statwise and they have access to the same types of
weapon, but you can say that about Tactical and Devastator Space
Marines. You wouldn't say that those are 'basically the same' as each
other, would you? Having more than two Troops units is the exception
rather than the norm - SM, IG, Tau, Inquisition forces and Necrons all
have two or fewer Troops choices (and of those the IG have the option
of either infantry or mechanised infantry with fewer guns), and Orks
only have Grots as their third.
> The fast attack choices
>are both wych choices, which is annoying from a fluff standpoint.
>Modifying unit options could help this without adding a ton of new
units.
>For example, have normal jetbikes but give them the option to be
upgraded
>to whiched for +5 points or so.
Makes sense. If Wyches and Kabals can share Raiders, why not bikes?
Most players seem to paint bikes in Kabal rather than Cult colours
(including GW), suggesting that the bikes are Kabal property (plus
Kabal characters and Haemonculi can ride them). However, you still
don't get an exclusively Kabal-themed FA unit that way.
Philip Bowles
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram