Improved Druchii and calls of overpowered

[Cananatra]

I don’t know about everyone else here but I don’t actually like having unbalanced units in my army. In 6th edition our book was somewhat underpowered, but balanced at its power level. All units were a relatively viable choice to fulfil some role in our army. The new army is no doubt stronger then the old, as indeed was needed but I feel GW went too far. In 6th edition this site helped modify the book to a more true reflection of the units ability, both in point cost and in some respects units themselves. If GW hasn’t the time to fully balance a book I think players should balance it for them and submit the changes. That is what I hope to get started here. Now I realise nothing in the army is seriously bad, for us but that isn’t to say its good in regards to the game. I would ask anyone posting to post honestly, we aren’t trying to empower our army, make it easier for us to win, instead we want to balance the army.

To start I’m going to list some of the differences between the old and new book.(Hopefully listing changes is allowed as I haven’t listed the rules themselves, not sure about that.) Many you will no doubt know, some you may not. Either way it will stimulate thought. I’ll follow that with some suggestions. I’d like input.

Major change: Eternal Hatred

Highborn/Dreadlord:
Equal stats as in sixth edition but a 15 point cost increase.
New handbows and pair of handbows alongside a 5 pt cheaper repeater crossbow.
Cheaper sea dragon cloak (3pts)
Cheaper cold one (9pts)
Cheaper Pegasus (5pts)
Dearer Manticore (10pts)
=Overall more or less equal to the 6th edition.

High sorceress/ Supreme sorceress:
Equal stats as in sixth edition but a 10 point cost increase.
5pt cheaper level upgrade.
2 new lores to choose from.
Black dragon mount introduced along with cheapened other mounts, same as dreadlord.
Change in casting, no more +1 to cast but no limit to casting dice.
=Overall improvement over 6th edition.

Noble/Master:
Equal stats as in sixth edition but a 10 point cost increase.
New beast masters scourge. New handbow and pair of handbows.
Cheaper sea dragon cloak (2pts)
New manticore choice, along with similar or cheaper other mounts.
=Overall more or less equal to 6th edition.

Sorceress:
Equal stats as in sixth edition but a 10 point cost increase.
Change in casting, no more +1 to cast but no limit to casting dice.
2 new lores to choose from.
5pt cheaper level upgrade.
New dark Pegasus mount.
=Overall improvement over 6th edition.

Death hag:
New not going to explain it all.

Warriors:
Equal stats as in sixth edition but a 1 point decrese.
Cheaper command
Gains ability to use a 25pt magic banner.
=Improvement on 6th edition

Crossbow warriors.
Equal stats as in sixth edition but 1 point cheaper
Cheaper command.
Repeater crossbows gain armour piercing.
=Overall improvement on 6th edition.

Corsairs:
Equal stats as 6th edition, no point cost change.
Command equal cost.
Magic standard dropped from a 50pt allowance to a 25pt.
Gained slaver rule
Gained option of handbows.
=Overall increase in power and versatility with the exception of lower magic banner.

Dark Riders:
Same stats as sixth edition, one point cheaper.
Crossbows cheaper (1pt)
Same command cost.
Additional option of taking shields which stop fast cav rule.
=Overall increase over 6th edition.

Harpies:
1 higher movement, 3 lower BS, 1 higher I, 1 higher attack. 2 points cheaper.
Max unit sized halved.
Lost extra hand weapon.
Moved to core, does not count to minimum core choice.
No longer 0-1 choice.
=Overall large increase over 6th edition.

Assassin:
1 lower movement, 35 pts cheaper.
25pt increase in item allowance.
Gained always strike first.
Additional hand weapon 2pts dearer
New option of repeater handbow.
May now only use temple of Khaine.
=Overall large improvement over 6th edition.

Witch Elves:
1 less WS, 3pts cheaper.
Smaller minimum unit size. 5pt cheaper command.
Magic standard limit dropped from 50pts to 25pts.
=Overall increase over 6th edition.

Cold One Chariot:
Increase in leadership of 1 point. Increase in AS by 1. 5pts cheaper.
Repeater crossbows now free. Spears now free.
No longer a 2 for one choice
=Overall increase over 6th edition.

Shades:
1 increase in WS+BS., 2pt cost increase.
Dearer champion (6pts)
Choice of great weapon and additional hand weapon added.
=Overall increase in power over 6th edition.

Executioners:
Increase in strength 1, 1pt dearer.
Smaller minimum unit strength.
Magic banner allowance dropped from 50 to 25 points.
=Overall slight increase in power over 6th edition.

Cold Ones Knights
+1S,+1I, point cost reduced by 2pts.
Cheaper command unit.
Champion gained ability to take 25pt magic item.
=Overall increase over 6th edition

Black guard:
Changed from rare to special.
Extra attack gained, 3points cheaper.
Gained immune to psychology.
Gained warrior elite.
Lost 0-1
Magic banner allowance dropped from 75 to 50.
Tower master can carry 25pts of magic items.
=Overall massive increase over 6th edition.

War Hydra:
-1W,+2A, -45pts.
Gained improved breath
Gained regenerate
Handlers gain 1A and beast masters scourge
=Overall massive increase over 6th edition

Reaper bolt thrower:
Identical

If this thread kicks off we can move onto other areas of the book but I’ll give a few basic suggestions so far.

Increase point cost of War hydra to 210. I simply can not honestly justify the unit at its current cost. It is well under priced for what it can do and how resilient it is.

Black guard. No doubt this will be unpopular, move them back to rare. They have become something of a no brainer as a special. As has the war hydra in rare without any real competition. Currently we have only two rare choices, meaning there is no choice needed in 2000pts, you can field both rares.

Anyway, I want to hear what everyone else on D.net has to say.

[Calisson]

In 6th edition, all units were a relatively viable choice to fulfil some role in our army.

Black guard have become something of a no brainer as a special. As has the war hydra in rare without any real competition.

I'd say the contrary:
In 7th edition, all units are a relatively viable choice to fulfil some role in our army, with the single exception of the sorceress on a CO.
In 6th edition, COB and BG were hardly ever chosen, were they?

As for what you call no brainer, I've never seen any army list fielding 4 BG and 2 hydras. On the contrary, I've seen army lists fielding no BG and no hydra (fluffy khainite, corsair, all-cavalry, which are more viable now than what they used to be).

About your suggestion, I would still play BG as rare and hydra costing 210pts, but I don't see why we should implore GW to implement that.
In my opinion, DE are not that easy to play, they remain fragile (except hydra & COC), they remain difficult to handle for beginners (except hydra at 500pts).

I'm convinced that if people consider DE cheesy, it is mostly the "fault" of old DE generals who developped their skills with the previous AB and now benefit a lot from their harsh training. It's not so much the AB which became cheesy and unbalanced, it's some DE generals who suddenly found themselves much more powerful.

Easy training, hard war. Hard training, easy war. (Sun Zu).

[The skaerkrow]

With respect to your initiative, the 6th Edition Dark Elf book was absolutely laughable by the end of that development cycle, and I have no interest at all in seeing Dark Elves go back to being a non-competitive army. The new book is completely in-line with the power level of most other books released during the current army book cycle (if not weaker than Daemons and Vampire Counts), and while it could use a few tweaks, it's far from overpowered.

[Cananatra]

I'm not saying we ourselves are massivly overpowered, nor do I want to pull the whole book back to 6th edition. However some parts of the book are overpowered. Simply because other books (Demons, Vampire counts) are more powerful then average does not mean we should be, indeed all books in a perfect word would be equally powered. Rather then power everything up to the level of the so called top teir armies I feel the top tier armies shoudl be brought back in line with the rest of the range.

True in 6th edition we were laughably underpowered. The power upgrade was needed, but in a few respects (hydra) GW went too far.

I'm not asking anyone to make the army harder to play as such, I'm asking to make it balanced.

[Colonel]

Balance is in the hands of each individual.

I personally think that much of what works well for us now might get whooped by new skaven, making more balance.

Who know what new beastmen may bring?

I can see you put a lot of effort into this, but maybe you just need to police yourself, and take more spearmen.

[Cananatra]

I do police myself.
I never run double hydras.
I build soft armies in most cases.
However, once again, units that are inherently overpowered should not be included. The point system is there to ensure that both armies have equal power, ensureing a good game for both players. Undercosted units means the army that has them has an unfair advantage, essentially breaking the point system.
As for skaven/beastmen, they are not out yet. They could end up like orcs and goblins did. We dont know and as such speculation on it is pointless.
I realised this wouldnt be well recieved. People like using powerful armies, its only natural. However as I said in a previous post, in a perfect world all armies would be equal. D.net cant talk about demons or vampires, they have their own forums. D.net can only ensure our own armylist is balanced. I'm beginning to wonder why nobody wants to entertain this idea?

[Rork]

D.net can only ensure our own armylist is balanced. I'm beginning to wonder why nobody wants to entertain this idea?

Players never do. In my opinion, most (maybe not quite all) players operate to a double standard.

Players of any race are quick to attack the faults of other armies while remaining ambivalent towards their own army's (even if they acknowledge its existence). It's true of anything, really - if you've got it you don't really want to lose it.

But ultimately, all abuses lie with the player(s), either because they've come up with it or simply downloaded it (Tau players were particular criminals in that regard).

If you 'power down' army lists, cheese still exists within these new parameters. It can't be eliminated, since it evolves according to experience and the use of core rules. You can only encourage players to take more risks rather than placing their army construction in the hands of others (which isn't always possible given the short term expense of buying an army).

[Rabidnid]

PoK is the only item in our list that we can really point the "what were you thinking" finger at. If it was limited to sorceresses I would have no problem with it. As it is, it is one of our only 2 ward saves so it gets used in every game.

Hydras are good, but their attacks don't ignore armour, so they they aren't that good. They should be 190 points maybe.

Everything else is fine compared to the current army books that are out. If GW withdraw the VC and DoC books then feel free to change a few things with DE, but otherwise they are dine as they are.

[Minsc]

I don’t know about everyone else here but I don’t actually like having unbalanced units in my army

This actually made me giggle. I'm afraid that if thats what you think, then you're probably playing the wrong game.
(Although Ogres seems to be overall overpriced...no, wait - Gnoblars.)

but balanced at its power level. All units were a relatively viable choice to fulfil some role in our army.

6th Ed. Dark Elves where the worst army there was, even compared to other 6th Ed. armies. (High Elves would've been a close runner up if it weren't for their seer councils.)
I also can't recall ever see anyone using Cauldrons of Blood or Black Guard, and Hydras, CoK's and Shades were a rare sight.

Most of us who played in 6th Ed. still won games though, then 7th Ed. came and most units got upgraded, ofcourse old DE players started to win more. (Myself included.)

Dark Elves may score 3:d in the unofficial list of "most powerful army", but nr 4, 5 and 6 (HE, Lizzies, WoC) are very very close behind us.

The Dark Elf AB (7th Ed.) is extremely balanced (Hydra beeing slightly underpriced though), with lots of choices.
It's the actual players that choose to make unbalanced lists:
Noone forces you to take 2 hydras, ASFing Black Guard, Pendant of K, Ring of Hotek/15 Powerdices...basicly, all the no-brainer choices, in the same army.
Myself I've never used Double Hydras or a unkillable Dragonlord (well, once in my first 7th Ed. game, and needless to say, I found him so riddicoulus I haven't used him since.)
I always try to have at least one Warrior and 1 Khainite block in my armies (usually I run 14x Exec's /w Full Command) in my armies, but usually my list contains 4 block of footslogging infantry. (2x25 Warriors, 1x14 Execs, 1x14 Black Guard, usually with Banner of Murder), etc.

Cananatra: Try build a DE list, with "nice" badly kitted characters, without Warriors(RxB), Harpies, Darkriders, Shades, BG, Knights, Chariots and Hydras, and see where that takes you in todays GW-climate where every new army becomes, if not better, than about as good as the previous one.

[Cananatra]

The only real problem I have with the warhydra is the volume of attacks it can dish out (includeing handlers) for the cost it has. In itself it is a bit underpriced. For what it can do I cant think its fair to have it any cheaper then 200pts. When it charges, combined with hatred, it can break too many units on its own to be only 175. Then again thats just me.

Rork, I dont think changing points will effect cheese at all if i'm honest. 2 warhydra, be they 175 a piece or 200, will always been considered cheese. I'd just prefer for their point cost to reflect their ability.

EDIT: Minsc
10 xbows
No harpies, no DR, no shades, seldom kinghts,no chariots, only ever one hydra.
Dragon once in a blue moon.Almost never the PoK.
I'll admit I fall into the ASF blackguard often.
I started playing 8 years ago.So I have played through 6th edition. I intentionaly play soft lists theyre more fun.
That isnt the problem, me winning to easily isnt a problem. If I think thats happening I'll limit myself relative to opponents.
However the army does have units that are underpriced, and personaly I would like all armies to be balanced.

[Animatronicdemonskwerral]

That isnt the problem, me winning to easily isnt a problem. If I think thats happening I'll limit myself relative to opponents.
However the army does have units that are underpriced, and personaly I would like all armies to be balanced.

Yeah except you're not the center of the universe, and other people enjoy playing hard lists against other hard lists for the challenge. Don't assume that because you play one way everyone should want that.

7th edition Dark Elf book = Perfect. It's as cheesey as you want to make it.

I'm glad i play warhammer rarely and took up Warmachine. I never get this type of moralizing from my group, like I did with all the groups I played Warhammer with.

[Cananatra]

No, other peopel in this thread brought up that I make my lists too hard and that i shoudl ease up. I never claimed to be the centre of the universe. If I make a decent list, without trying to overpower it and play a tomb kings player of equal skill, for arguements sake, who also built a decent list the dark elf one would paste him.

If a book HAS to be taken it easy with by players so they dont paste their opponents with balanced army books due to underpriced units then that book is broken!

And since people here (few exceptions granted) only want a book that can slap around opponents without an even, balanced fight, I'm just going to let this thread die now.

[Minsc]

If a book HAS to be taken it easy with by players so they dont paste their opponents with balanced army books due to underpriced units then that book is broken!

Sadly, thats not how GW writes books anymore.

Not a single book since HE is easy to win against by default, unless the armylist writer makes the list exeptionally weak.

Currently, they(GW) write books to be good by default, and with options of making the list either weaker or more powerful (and DE is no exeption), and I kinda like it this way.

Books should be able to produce both weak, balanced and insanely hard lists - in the end, its the players themselves that decide what kind of game they will play.

[Dalamar]

We have some underpriced units and some overpriced ones, and thus the perfect balance is achieved.

Maybe I'm lucky enough to play against experienced opponents who can win with Tomb Kings or Ogres even against the overpowered Dark Elves?

[Ebonyphoenix]

Maybe I'm lucky enough to play against experienced opponents who can win with Tomb Kings or Ogres even against the overpowered Dark Elves?

You're not the only one. One of the few people who regularly paste me does it with his TK list. The ogre players don't, but they're still learning how to run the armies and are getting closer to victory each time.

The books should be balance within themselves rather than trying to rock, paper, scissors one another by design. As it is I like the new druchii book. I was holding my own, if not winning under 6th edition, and the skills developed transferred perfectly to the new book.

The only change to the book I will concede is that the hydra should probably be upped to 200pts and make it an equal exchange with a pair of RBTs to represent the power it possesses.

I think Calisson said it best with his Sun Zu quote. The practice fighting with an underpowered army has let those who stuck it out with dark elves triumph, while beginners can build fun, interesting lists as they learn their own style without having the warhammer beat out of them.

Any list can be made cheesy, it lies in the hands of the player to work out exactly what his goal in the game is. If you want a challenging game you can tailor your list to do so, or you can build the nastiest list you can come across and wreck you opponents mercilessly.

[Animatronicdemonskwerral]

And since people here (few exceptions granted) only want a book that can slap around opponents without an even, balanced fight, I'm just going to let this thread die now

/facepalm
Why is there guilt for having good things in your army?

I think Calisson said it best with his Sun Zu quote. The practice fighting with an underpowered army has let those who stuck it out with dark elves triumph, while beginners can build fun, interesting lists as they learn their own style without having the warhammer beat out of them.

That's just us, tooting our own horn. Calisson forgot to mention Sun Tsu also said that all dark elf players are handsome cunning rogues and women flock to them like moths to a flame.

The fact is that the book is strong, very strong even for a new player to pick up, because new players also have this site for a resource (Sun Tsu also cites D.net as a source for much of his works also) so they can build up theoryhammer and virtual experience very quickly.

you shouldn't feel bad for playing a good solid list.

Remember the objective of the game is to win. Both players should be playing to achieve this goal. The point is to have fun. The two can go hand and hand together.

[Elven prince]

Why is there guilt for having good things in your army?

Good people on Warseer would also like to know it.

As for the DE book, I wish more books would be written in such fashion. With exception of Hydra, Ring of Hotek and lack of unit cap on Shades the book is gamers dreams come true.

[Sulla]

We have some underpriced units and some overpriced ones, and thus the perfect balance is achieved.

Maybe I'm lucky enough to play against experienced opponents who can win with Tomb Kings or Ogres even against the overpowered Dark Elves?

You're not the only one. My opponents give me hard games whatever list they choose. We fight hard in every game.

Honestly, as good as the best items in the DE list are, none of them are universally good. Even the mighty hydra is a liability vs WoC (tzeench spam) and dwarves (with their flaming everything). Same with ASF BG; guess what HE bows, maneater handgun braces and Khalida's poisoned archers will be blasting?

To the OP; I can't see how you could depower the strongest parts of the DE list without doing the same to all the other lists out there. And if you just depower the most powerful elements without improving the underpowered bits (in the DE list, I would place witches and executioners here), what's the point? You just make the army poorer but leave every other army where they are. Surely you would be better off simply upskilling your opponents? We always discuss outcomes after the battle. "What were you thinking fighting unit x with unit y? Why didn't you just blast them/divert them? Why did you move that character there? You must have known that assassin would charge him, etc.

[Lordmonkey]

I really like the 7th ed book. It rewards you playing an aggressive and controlling game, which is what DElves are all about. The previous one was just a collection of units with little interaction and no synergy.

Even BG + ASF is not overpowered, which is the only real reason that anyone are scared of them. Flank it, shoot it, ignore it, it's only one (extremely fragile) unit. I never hear complaints about HE Sword Masters but they are similarly effective...

Hell, get a tough hero in there backed up by a regiment and he will carve them up good

It's a plain truth that powercreep improves books as time goes by. DE have simply kept up with the power level.

[Demetrius]

Sulla- WEs and executioners are great units, and I personally include WEs in every list. Executioners however are just outshined by BG.

To the OP- I dont want to go back to being the underdogs. In 6th I lost just about every game. Now in 7th I can always match the opponent in an even game no matter what list I take. I definitely prefer 7th. BTW, we need those more powerful things like ASF Black Guard and Hydras to deal with VCs and DOC.

[Cananatra]

As for the DE book, I wish more books would be written in such fashion. With exception of Hydra, Ring of Hotek and lack of unit cap on Shades the book is gamers dreams come true.

The only change to the book I will concede is that the hydra should probably be upped to 200pts and make it an equal exchange with a pair of RBTs to represent the power it possesses.

You see thats whats so irritating. Players know some units are underpriced for what they can do. I never once said to depower a unit, I never went and said lets take off the warhydra's Regeneration. What I said was that the ability of some units we have is not reflected in their points cost. I dont want to rewrite the whole book. I just want people to admit that some tweaking of values is needed. I hadnt even caught the unit cap on shades. Most people if they answer truthfully will say the war hydra should go up to at least 200. Similarly the web of shadows cost should be halved to make it a viable choice. These are the type of things I want to hear. Not empower/depower. I'm trying to keep the power of each unit the same, just make the points reflect said power.

[Crawd]

You forgot to talk about the Cauldron which, in my opinion, is as good as the last edition.

I like most of the change they did to the army, there's 1 unit that I don't like and it's the Executionners, I kinda find them useless now. Sure they are still awesome can openers but if you have a Cauldron, you can easily replace them without trouble.

The fact they are Khainite makes me sad because I can only have an assassin or a death hag in them and the lack of surprise when you have a BSB Death Hag in them is kinda sad too.

Kouran and Tullaris aren't bad but I would have prefer them as special characters at special champions.

But as I said, in overall, it's fun to have an army that is fun to play with. Now I have to test a second list of 2500 points for an upcoming tournament.

[Thanatoz]

As for the DE book, I wish more books would be written in such fashion. With exception of Hydra, Ring of Hotek and lack of unit cap on Shades the book is gamers dreams come true.

The only change to the book I will concede is that the hydra should probably be upped to 200pts and make it an equal exchange with a pair of RBTs to represent the power it possesses.

You see thats whats so irritating. Players know some units are underpriced for what they can do. I never once said to depower a unit, I never went and said lets take off the warhydra's Regeneration. What I said was that the ability of some units we have is not reflected in their points cost. I dont want to rewrite the whole book. I just want people to admit that some tweaking of values is needed. I hadn't even caught the unit cap on shades. Most people if they answer truthfully will say the war hydra should go up to at least 200. Similarly the web of shadows cost should be halved to make it a viable choice. These are the type of things I want to hear. Not empower/depower. I'm trying to keep the power of each unit the same, just make the points reflect said power.

Changing points value IS empowering/depowering. Make your hydra 300 points, and suddenly it's not good any more. You have a point, but every book has these kinds of items/units which are almost always used. People (also opponents) come to expect them over time, so what's the deal?

If you build a soft list and your opponent a hard list, you know he's going to walk all over you. The more outdated books will get updated and at some point overpower/be at equal value or slightly less than the current DE book, so agreed that if you play one of these older lists you may have a harder time against a competitive DE army.

But take note: lots of the strengths of the 7th edition DE book are already diminished by the books that came after it. Like our magic for instance. Player's don't balance the game, GW does. 6th edition DE weren't competitive at all: those that stuck with it now know they can enter a tournament and have a shot at good results with their favourite army. As time goes, the power balance between armies will shift accordingly. One day, we might be begging GW for an update again. That's because GW doesn't use a measured system for calculating points cost, but playtesting, which will always be rather subjective.

[The skaerkrow]

Players never do. In my opinion, most (maybe not quite all) players operate to a double standard.

I would posit that most players have no desire to brandish I-Win buttons in their army. They do not take great pleasure in having a list populated by overpowered units. If nearly everyone was at peace with using "crutches" we'd stop calling them crutches and start calling them legs.

No, the larger issue is that Warhammer Armies: Dark Elves has a bad word of mouth reputation, perpetuated largely by individuals who have no idea what they're talking about. Words like "Ring of Hotek" and "Black Guard" have taken on a life of their own, in the minds of some gamers becoming far more than what they truly are. I have had people tell me that both elements of the Dark Elf army are completely broken, without having any idea as to their actual effects. And when they were shown the book entries for both? They couldn't figure out what the big deal was. Therein lies one of the big problems, most people who try to "correct" Dark Elves go way too far, or diminish elements of the book unfairly and unnecessarily.

The other issue is maintaining balance with regards to the other books in the current army book cycle. There are elements in each and every one of them that could stand to be streamlined or weakened, why should Dark Elves be alone in being "corrected?" Fix everyone (the most desirable option) or fix no-one (less desirable, but still wholly acceptable). No partial measures.

[Dalamar]

Remember that despite everything, since 6th ed book, Dark Elves were supposed to be the army fielding the most monsters.

Underpriced Hydra fills that purpose making even those who don't like it actually put it down on the table.

(and I'm still waiting for unit type monsters but meh)

Oh, and make the bolt throwers cheaper while you're at it, they're entirely not worth 100 points per.