Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Dark Eldar(7E)

• Eldar

The new Eldar codex came out, and I changed some of the allies information. Would be splendid if someone were to add on to their entry.

Wish someone would do this, it would be so awesome.

Needs moar shit. The 5e codex is out and this has nothing. Fa/tg/uys and Neckbeards are to busy fapping at Macha tourter shit. We need some old bastard who knows Dark Eldar like he knows A list hookers to write up the tactics and awesome that is the Dark Eldar. Or I will and it wont be as funny as it could be.

I did the 4e version a bit ago and GW fucked my shit up. If you wanna update it I'll help out. --Petro 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work neckbeards. Now maybe we can do something about that godawful excuse for a dark angels tactica. --Petro 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we please drop the 'Dark Eldar: Making Dreadnoughts Look Awesome' etc. picture? It's kind of negative for a tactica and it's not really accurate anymore. --Jemas42

Just move it to the main DE article as an example of prior edition shenanigans.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lhamaean

Silver, could you please reread the "Mistress of Poisons" rule before reposting the (illegal) tactic of giving an Archon a special weapon (Huskblade, Agonizer, you name it) which wounds on a 2+? There's also an entry for it in the official FAQ. If it worked the way you think it does, Lhamaeans would cost way more than 1 point more than friggin' Kabalite Warriors.

That's weird, in my Codex the wording says so. I guess it must be a translation error. Also, the only thing my language's FAQ says about Lhamaeans is about choosing the Archon. Well, I must apologize. Nothing to get angry about. -Silver (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In the english codex it clearly states "Agonisers are power weapons that always wound on a 4+..." so could people please stop saying Mistress of Poisons rule works on it!

New editions/codexs

I think whenever a new edition/codex is added, the new text should be highlited on another colour, at least for a couple of months. Whenever you come in here to see what's good in the new edition, you find yourself with almost an entire article just exactly like the old one, but with little anotations.

Maybe it's me, but it happens everytime with every army.

Archonless Courts

Recently got into an argument over this, but not really looking for an answer due to even the internet flaring up at the mere mention of it (along with a roughly 50/50 decision on DakkaDakka). But in the new codex you can apparently take Courts without the Archon. The most obvious use of this is to take a Lhamaean for a dirt cheap HQ so you have more points to focus on other crap, while still retaining Battleforged and ObSec (or whatever you get with your detachment). Should this be mentioned on the main page cuz it was apparently "widespread knowledge" but I've never seen it mentioned here?

It's a bit of a weird technicality, but it can be done. Since the Court can only come without taking a slot when used with an Archon, it's implied to take a slot in any other case. Issue is that now some random sergeant is going to have to be the warlord, and none of them go beyond 1 wound with Eldar toughness. On the other hand, taking this as an allied detachment's probably a good idea if you're trying to squeeze in more stuff but need something specific like Scourges to team with Baharroth or Reavers or something where the Court's not supposed to be useful.