Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I obviously read the entire thing how else I was able to describe what unis what have the ICs attached to them etc. I just described how it will play out against a good opponent in my experience.

I already did mention the Grots and Blasterborn as AT units, and an extra blast pistol on an Archon doesnt really change feth all lol. Maybe the court does, fair enough. But a beastpack of Khymerae would just be straight better at it. If AT is never a problem with this list, you are playing in a very casual/infantry heavy meta. AT is a problem for DE even with 3 blasterborn + 3 Ravagers, let alone relying on 1/3 of that + a couple of CC units. Flyers arent just "annoying" to this list, your army just folds lol you may as well pack up, you have two paperthin close range units doing 1 HP every second turn to a Flyer, assuming they are both in range and still alive. More AT helps cover this. We have no dedicated AA that isn't AT, I don't know what you were expecting me to explicitly state, but I'd suggest Voidravens as your AT here for this reason, I like to take 2-3 Flyers in all my DE they are just so good.

 Jancoran wrote:

You're not reading the tactica I provided in depth (and its pretty lengthy). I already know they will try to kill the Raiders. I already know and concede most of the Raiders will perish after the 4+ and 3+ (Night Fight?) jinks eventually fail and all three Hull Points are gone. You are acting as if this is news to me and/or are acting like i think my opponent is dumb and wont try this. What choice does he have? He has to or its going to be a short game! I explicitly tell you I know this in my blog. So my question is: what was your point, since I already told you it would happen?

Perhaps it's the fact that you seem to think losing your transports is no big deal - as opposed to crippling your assault force. Or, once your vehicles are dead, does your opponent just call it a day and forget all about your CC units?

Also, you seem to assume that your vehicles will die very close to the enemy - when they could easily die in the first turn, before they've even moved. In which case you have the unfortunate task of footslogging across the field with slow CC units that are of dubious survivability.

 Jancoran wrote:

You're DEFINITELY missing the anti tank elements here. Almost every unit has anti-tank ability.

Perhaps because your anti-tank elements are a tad... optimistic.

 Jancoran wrote:
Medusae Flamers,

Really? You consider a Sd6+1 flamer anti-tank?

 Jancoran wrote:
Archon Blaster pistol in the Beastpack (and the Clawed Fiends can tear a vehicle hull apart),

The clawed fiends might work (though see my comments below), but a lone Blast Pistol is just pathetic.

 Jancoran wrote:
Grotesques STR 7

That one I'l give you.

 Jancoran wrote:
Court of the Archons 31 STR 5 atttacks in melee'

Hope you don't come across a dreadnaught - AV12 FTW.

Hell, one of my sentinels could hold up that unit almost indefinitely.

Regardless, do you not feel that you're relying too much on melee for anti-tank? I mean, quite apart from the speed aspect, it means you're attaching units that can't be locked in combat - so the enemy can freely shoot you in his turn. Even worse if you destroy a transport in combat, since the unit inside can just hop out and shoot you in their turn.

 Jancoran wrote:
the Blaster born with Haywire grenades if you pop their transports

Because blasters are amazing anti-tank this edition...

Also, your blasterborn have a really strange loadout. Splinter cannons + blasters just seems like a really bizzare mix - you're virtually guaranteeing that, whatever your target, one of those weapons will be ineffective. The blasters are useless if you're shooting the cannons from the backfield, and the cannons are useless if you're shooting vehicles.

 Jancoran wrote:
Flyers? they are a little more annoying Ill admit. Storm talons in particular are pretty cool. If I was going to talk about a weakness in the list, I'd say anti-air and you didn't even mention it.

But then, unless you take 3 fliers yourself (or some allies) fliers are always going to be a problem. It's a problem with the book and not something we can criticise your list for.

 Jancoran wrote:

New codex is coming out so all of this will be out the window come the 27th or so. We shall see what happens then.

I'll be interested to see what the new book brings.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

You're not reading the tactica I provided in depth (and its pretty lengthy). I already know they will try to kill the Raiders. I already know and concede most of the Raiders will perish after the 4+ and 3+ (Night Fight?) jinks eventually fail and all three Hull Points are gone. You are acting as if this is news to me and/or are acting like i think my opponent is dumb and wont try this. What choice does he have? He has to or its going to be a short game! I explicitly tell you I know this in my blog. So my question is: what was your point, since I already told you it would happen?

Perhaps it's the fact that you seem to think losing your transports is no big deal - as opposed to crippling your assault force. Or, once your vehicles are dead, does your opponent just call it a day and forget all about your CC units?

Also, you seem to assume that your vehicles will die very close to the enemy - when they could easily die in the first turn, before they've even moved. In which case you have the unfortunate task of footslogging across the field with slow CC units that are of dubious survivability.

 Jancoran wrote:

You're DEFINITELY missing the anti tank elements here. Almost every unit has anti-tank ability.

Perhaps because your anti-tank elements are a tad... optimistic.

 Jancoran wrote:
Medusae Flamers,

Really? You consider a Sd6+1 flamer anti-tank?

 Jancoran wrote:
Archon Blaster pistol in the Beastpack (and the Clawed Fiends can tear a vehicle hull apart),

The clawed fiends might work (though see my comments below), but a lone Blast Pistol is just pathetic.

 Jancoran wrote:
Grotesques STR 7

That one I'l give you.

 Jancoran wrote:
Court of the Archons 31 STR 5 atttacks in melee'

Hope you don't come across a dreadnaught - AV12 FTW.

Hell, one of my sentinels could hold up that unit almost indefinitely.

Regardless, do you not feel that you're relying too much on melee for anti-tank? I mean, quite apart from the speed aspect, it means you're attaching units that can't be locked in combat - so the enemy can freely shoot you in his turn. Even worse if you destroy a transport in combat, since the unit inside can just hop out and shoot you in their turn.

 Jancoran wrote:
the Blaster born with Haywire grenades if you pop their transports

Because blasters are amazing anti-tank this edition...

Also, your blasterborn have a really strange loadout. Splinter cannons + blasters just seems like a really bizzare mix - you're virtually guaranteeing that, whatever your target, one of those weapons will be ineffective. The blasters are useless if you're shooting the cannons from the backfield, and the cannons are useless if you're shooting vehicles.

 Jancoran wrote:
Flyers? they are a little more annoying Ill admit. Storm talons in particular are pretty cool. If I was going to talk about a weakness in the list, I'd say anti-air and you didn't even mention it.

But then, unless you take 3 fliers yourself (or some allies) fliers are always going to be a problem. It's a problem with the book and not something we can criticise your list for.

 Jancoran wrote:

New codex is coming out so all of this will be out the window come the 27th or so. We shall see what happens then.

I'll be interested to see what the new book brings.

I just wanted to point out that if he is going for CC AT why not take Wychs? Is that not where they are currently "the Meta".
5 Wychs assautling have a good chance of making their points back no problem by blowing something up! (Then they die of course)

 SHUPPET wrote:

I just described how it will play out against a good opponent in my experience.

I already did mention the Grots and Blasterborn as AT units, and an extra blast pistol on an Archon doesnt really change feth all lol. Maybe the court does, fair enough. But a beastpack of Khymerae would just be straight better at it. If AT is never a problem with this list, you are playing in a very casual/infantry heavy meta. AT is a problem for DE even with 3 blasterborn + 3 Ravagers, let alone relying on 1/3 of that + a couple of CC units. Flyers arent just "annoying" to this list, your army just folds lol you may as well pack up, you have two paperthin close range units doing 1 HP every second turn to a Flyer, assuming they are both in range and still alive. More AT helps cover this. We have no dedicated AA that isn't AT, I don't know what you were expecting me to explicitly state, but I'd suggest Voidravens as your AT here for this reason, I like to take 2-3 Flyers in all my DE they are just so good.

I actually had a plane in the list. One plane proved to be not enough if the enemy had a modicum of anti-air, and committing to more was crippling to the concept so i went the anti-Psyker route with those points. Again, the new Codexark Eldar may change that part of the list again. Dunno.

You will just have to trust me on the point that anti-tank is truly the least of my worries here. in 22 games (thus far) it's 18-2-2 and one of my regular opponents is an iron Hands player, another is the guy that did the kinda-famous Quad Land Raider battle report against my Tau (It's on Youtube somewhere still but it's been a long time). I really feel like its tested in that regard.

 vipoid wrote:

1. Perhaps it's the fact that you seem to think losing your transports is no big deal - as opposed to crippling your assault force. Or, once your vehicles are dead, does your opponent just call it a day and forget all about your CC units?

2. Perhaps because your anti-tank elements are a tad... optimistic.

3. Really? You consider a Sd6+1 flamer anti-tank?

4. The clawed fiends might work (though see my comments below), but a lone Blast Pistol is just pathetic.

5. Hope you don't come across a dreadnaught - AV12 FTW. (In regards to STR 5 attacks from the Court) Hell, one of my sentinels could hold up that unit almost indefinitely.

6. Regardless, do you not feel that you're relying too much on melee for anti-tank? I mean, quite apart from the speed aspect, it means you're attaching units that can't be locked in combat - so the enemy can freely shoot you in his turn. Even worse if you destroy a transport in combat, since the unit inside can just hop out and shoot you in their turn.

7. Also, your blasterborn have a really strange loadout. Splinter cannons + blasters just seems like a really bizzare mix - you're virtually guaranteeing that, whatever your target, one of those weapons will be ineffective. The blasters are useless if you're shooting the cannons from the backfield, and the cannons are useless if you're shooting vehicles.

8. But then, unless you take 3 fliers yourself (or some allies) fliers are always going to be a problem. It's a problem with the book and not something we can criticise your list for.


I'll be interested to see what the new book brings.

I will tackle these in order:
1. Losing my Raiders before they do their thing is unlikely. Possible sure. Who can say otherwise, but then: there are two players and they can both be good no? What you should be considering here is that If deploying second, I know where the enemy is already and my 37" average speed is more than enough when its my turn to go to get where I need to be.

2. My anti-tank is highly effective. in 22 games it has been zero problem. While I understand, again, that you don't want to handle your anti-tank business like i do, I can assure you that its an armored graveyard if the enemy has that much armor to begin with, once I'm done.

3. I consider the flamer and 31 STR 5 attacks as anti-tank. Yes. if it comes to that it can be. Is the flamer alone going to do it? maybe. But ignoring its utility in that way is pretending. It does exist, can be used that way and may yield a glance or something useful to start the party off if it has no better target. and clearly: we're discussing a situation in which there isnt a better target.

4. A lone Blast pistol isnt LONE when its in a unit of Beasts, is it? Yet if the blast pistol works, guess what the beasts get for dinner?

5. Walkers aren't the preferred targets for the Court. So of course I'd kill the Dread with Haywire. Obviously. A Furioso ate the entire beastpack a few games ago. Then I bombed it and everything was fine again. It is wishful thinking to believe that your opponent will fall asleep. So yeah, sometimes you do get eaten. and then you respond. If I COULDN'T respond it would be a problem. But I could. So. No problem.

6. I rely quite a bit on the melee for AT. Yes, you are correct. You have to in the Dark Eldar codex in order to play Melee heavy. That's a reality of playing this way. Transported units are of course, once they make their nerfed LD for both pinning and snap shotting, going to be a potential challenge and of course, we want to do WHAT we can with Blaster Born if possible to gank the transports; or at minimum force an LD check on the occupants before charging the transport. But you can't have everything, can you? If their transport does die, and they are nwo in the open AND able to shoot, game on. No game is going to go without eventual casualties. Well... its highly unlikely.
I think there's a fundamental difference here: I don't go into games trying desperately not to lose ANYTHING. I think that's folly. I think it better By FAR to respect the opponent, EXPECT they will do well and plan according to that. And thats how I go about my games and my list building. If i feel the imminent threat of getting stranded is THAT GREAT I can null deploy and play the long game also.

7. i am particularly proud of the blasterborn loadout. They make me effective against any target: Monsters, people, tanks, whatever. I give up little in return. The rest of army is so fast and on you so much that Blasterbon are not put nearly in the peril they are in other peoples forces. They tend to live to the end of fights quite often and its a rare bird that prioritizes their death over that of the Raiders. Hey Im all for it if they wanna split off shots to drop the venoms though.

8. cheap Hovering flyers specifically are the trouble spot for the list. the Storm Talon really is an ideal weapon for attacking me. I learned a lot from my two losses against them. I now know how to handle them but it caught me quite off guard the first time they hovered. In a Maelstrom mission that is just huge.

 Homeskillet wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the raider got a slight points increase while the venom got a slight points decrease.

make the seldom take one more expensive and the constantly spammed one less expensive?
sounds like GW

 krodarklorr wrote:

I dunno what, but do something to Mandrakes. I don't play DE, but the models are so awesome that I feel they need to do something awesome as well.

We were expecting it in 5th because they sucked in 3rd edition too.
It is possible they get buffed or changed into something useful. About as likely as they get buffed or changed into an awesome OP god unit.
My bet is either no change or modest change that still leaves them being useless.

Because GW wants to sell more models, my guess is that Mandrakes will get a serious buff in the upcoming codex. Maybe not making them great, but enough to make people buy them.

Now that it has been confirmed we are getting plastic wracks, with an additional weapon option. I expect Wracks to kind of suck. At $33 for 5, they might be good, but perhaps because their point cost will drop significantly

Crapcast mandrakes will still be expensive. Perhaps they will become awesome

 CShaffer wrote:

I just wanted to point out that if he is going for CC AT why not take Wychs? Is that not where they are currently "the Meta".
5 Wychs assautling have a good chance of making their points back no problem by blowing something up! (Then they die of course)

...or Blaster born can do it. diff is, Blaster born can try from their venom in safety(3 blasters and a thrown Haywire grenade) or outside it. Wyches cant. so the blasterborn are more adaptable threats. I thin people like Wyches as tripping blocks for WraithKnights and such, and thats legit. However, I have two instand death weapons for WraithKnights, a lotof AP 2 and if it came to it, I'd just deal with it that way rather than trying to trip it and holding it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Exergy wrote:

Now that it has been confirmed we are getting plastic wracks, with an additional weapon option. I expect Wracks to kind of suck. At $33 for 5, they might be good, but perhaps because their point cost will drop significantly

Crapcast mandrakes will still be expensive. Perhaps they will become awesome

I own 30 Mandrakes, so i hope so. Wracks i own 25 of and use. I know their weapons options are cool now. a birdie tells me they added a couple.

 Jancoran wrote:

I will tackle these in order:
1. Losing my Raiders before they do their thing is unlikely. Possible sure. Who can say otherwise, but then: there are two players and they can both be good no? What you should be considering here is that If deploying second, I know where the enemy is already and my 37" average speed is more than enough when its my turn to go to get where I need to be.

You might know where your enemy is, but that doesn't always mean you can avoid his weapons.

Regardless, where do you normally put your raiders with your 37" move?

 Jancoran wrote:

2. My anti-tank is highly effective. in 22 games it has been zero problem. While I understand, again, that you don't want to handle your anti-tank business like i do, I can assure you that its an armored graveyard if the enemy has that much armor to begin with, once I'm done.

Do you have any battle reports? Because, you've made some quite extraordinary claims with regard to your anti-tank capabilities, and it might help if we could see them in action.

 Jancoran wrote:

3. I consider the flamer and 31 STR 5 attacks as anti-tank. Yes. if it comes to that it can be. Is the flamer alone going to do it? maybe. But ignoring its utility in that way is pretending. It does exist, can be used that way and may yield a glance or something useful to start the party off if it has no better target. and clearly: we're discussing a situation in which there isnt a better target.

I get your point, but I guess by anti-tank I look for something a bit more reliable - rather than something that might conceivably strip a hull point off a vehicle if it's a Tuesday and the vehicle is feeling generous.

 Jancoran wrote:

4. A lone Blast pistol isnt LONE when its in a unit of Beasts, is it? Yet if the blast pistol works, guess what the beasts get for dinner?

It is lone when it's your only ranged anti-tank weapon in the unit.

 Jancoran wrote:

5. Walkers aren't the preferred targets for the Court.

But your court *is* a preferred target for my walkers.

 Jancoran wrote:
So of course I'd kill the Dread with Haywire.

Assuming your haywire can reach it, but whatever.

 Jancoran wrote:

A Furioso ate the entire beastpack a few games ago. Then I bombed it and everything was fine again. It is wishful thinking to believe that your opponent will fall asleep. So yeah, sometimes you do get eaten. and then you respond. If I COULDN'T respond it would be a problem. But I could. So. No problem.

See, this is the problem with not seeing the whole game. You just pull out-of-context events out of the air. I mean, you talk about it being wishful thinking to think your opponent will fall asleep... but what was yours doing when you advanced with haywire grenades? Maybe there was a reason why he didn't/couldn't target them, but without seeing said game we can't know.

 Jancoran wrote:

6. I rely quite a bit on the melee for AT. Yes, you are correct. You have to in the Dark Eldar codex in order to play Melee heavy. That's a reality of playing this way. Transported units are of course, once they make their nerfed LD for both pinning and snap shotting, going to be a potential challenge and of course, we want to do WHAT we can with Blaster Born if possible to gank the transports; or at minimum force an LD check on the occupants before charging the transport. But you can't have everything, can you? If their transport does die, and they are nwo in the open AND able to shoot, game on. No game is going to go without eventual casualties. Well... its highly unlikely.
I think there's a fundamental difference here: I don't go into games trying desperately not to lose ANYTHING. I think that's folly. I think it better By FAR to respect the opponent, EXPECT they will do well and plan according to that. And thats how I go about my games and my list building. If i feel the imminent threat of getting stranded is THAT GREAT I can null deploy and play the long game also.

Again, it would be nice to see some battle reports so that we can see your strategy in action.

As others have said

Removal of all Special Characters that do not have a model.

I expect Raiders to be moved to the Fast Attack choice as just a transport you can take and then Eldar w/ Rejoice.

 vipoid wrote:

1. You might know where your enemy is, but that doesn't always mean you can avoid his weapons. Regardless, where do you normally put your raiders with your 37" move?

2. Do you have any battle reports? Because, you've made some quite extraordinary claims with regard to your anti-tank capabilities, and it might help if we could see them in action.

3. I get your point, but I guess by anti-tank I look for something a bit more reliable - rather than something that might conceivably strip a hull point off a vehicle if it's a Tuesday and the vehicle is feeling generous.

4. It is lone when it's your only ranged anti-tank weapon in the unit.

5. But your court *is* a preferred target for my walkers.

6. Assuming your haywire can reach it, [it would kill the Dreadnough] but whatever.

7. See, this is the problem with not seeing the whole game. You just pull out-of-context events out of the air. I mean, you talk about it being wishful thinking to think your opponent will fall asleep... but what was yours doing when you advanced with haywire grenades? Maybe there was a reason why he didn't/couldn't target them, but without seeing said game we can't know.

8. Again, it would be nice to see some battle reports so that we can see your strategy in action.

Okay. Well.

1. Knowing where the enemy is actually DOES mean you can ignore his weapons. His choices are these (again in the context of me deploying second): Deploy widely or dont. If widely deployed, I can hide from MOST of the problematic weapons and Jinking will likely save me. Terrain is the key consideration. FGail to account for it and bad things will happen. We cant really assume that in the duiscussion so no point really going into thay. if they dont deploy widely, its very easy for me to avoid there weapons when going second and easy to box them in.

2. Yes. and i beleive my second most recently heavily armored opponent might have done his own batrep on it. I'll try to track him down for it if he did one. i know he took pics of the game, lots of them. I don't know where he publishes. Shoulda asked. also my blog does have several battle reports, using different armies. I cannot rightly recall if I've done one with these guys or not? Scope it out and see. that was the game where I missed like 3 EASY charges in round 2 and lived to tell the tale.

3. You might BE looking for something more reliable but really, the point to be made here is that it doesnt matter if the flamer works or not on a vehicle. It just is there to try and theres two of them. STR 7 AP 1 or 2, auto hit? Hooray! but if it doesnt turn out as rosey well... what can ya do but charge in? Minimizing what IS there is not an argument though.

4. The blast pistol has been pivotal in some of the games and the dude carries a haywire grenade too. So just depends on how many Hull points i'm trying to strip. Again, ignoring it as a fact, like the Flamer isn't good sport. It is there, it CAN matter and when it doesnt, again, i just smash the vehicle in half with my bare hands and haywire grenade and call it good.

5. I'm faster. In the game in question though, the Furioso was suppoooooosed to be blocked from exiting the Storm Raven but my charge was too far and i neded up killing two predators but leaving th back door open for it to get out and eat me. I played it well, but just got too lucky on my charge distance and couldnt clog it up like i wanted to. Still: alls well that ends with wreckage in a steaming crater right?

6. My haywire are either in the venom or charging. so the dread would USUALLY have little to say in the matter. But sure. In an ideal situation like the BeastPack you might well kill the court... and then the Haywires still kill the dread! Either way. In the game in question it would hardly have mattered which unit the Furioso got ahold of. the ending would be the same.

7. You are correct. You cant see the games in question. As in most every case on forums. At some point you just have to decide whether I'm lying or not. If I'm not lying, which you have no way of knowing, then you should definitely think on what I've said right? But if I am lying then you're wasting your time responding or listening to me and should put me on ignore. =) I'm going to assume you haven't decided quite yet. So I'll answer the questions. As for batreps, again, I'll actually ask him for it. People tend not to do Batreps when they lose so... But maybe the pics would be good enough? it would maybe give you the rough idea of what was going on.

 Jancoran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

1. Perhaps it's the fact that you seem to think losing your transports is no big deal - as opposed to crippling your assault force. Or, once your vehicles are dead, does your opponent just call it a day and forget all about your CC units?

1. Losing my Raiders before they do their thing is unlikely. Possible sure. Who can say otherwise, but then: there are two players and they can both be good no? What you should be considering here is that If deploying second, I know where the enemy is already and my 37" average speed is more than enough when its my turn to go to get where I need to be.

I think what you are missing here is that if both players are good, the DE will have lost transports by the second turn. It's the nature of the army. If they go first this can be crippling. You seem to think that jink will keep your stuff alive. It will not. The nature of Dark Eldar is needing to bring enough to win the war of attrition. We have the flimsiest vehicles and models in the game.

 Jancoran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
2. Perhaps because your anti-tank elements are a tad... optimistic.

2. My anti-tank is highly effective. in 22 games it has been zero problem. While I understand, again, that you don't want to handle your anti-tank business like i do, I can assure you that its an armored graveyard if the enemy has that much armor to begin with, once I'm done.

Why is it that for every other player I know, 3 Blasterborn + 3 Ravagers in a Beastpack list feels like you are a light on AT, but for you 2 Blasterborn and a Court is enough? Do you think you are a better at using your AT units than everybody else to play Dark Eldar ever, and so significantly so that you get better results than them out of 1/3 the AT firepower/attacks? Or is it just possible that you have a more casual light vehicle meta. I don't know, which one genuinely seems more likely to you? lol. The fact is, with AT like this I would find myself relying on the Court and the beastpack for AT every single game, in which case I'd ask myself why the feth I spent the points cost of 2 Ravagers on a Court when I have 3 open Heavy Support slots. Especially since you are relying on 15 wounds as easy to kill as Termgants once the Raider is down. Or the price of almost 3 Ravagers on a Beastpack of Clawed Fiends, who while slightly better than the court has no ablative wounds.

 Jancoran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
3. Really? You consider a Sd6+1 flamer anti-tank?

3. I consider the flamer and 31 STR 5 attacks as anti-tank. Yes. if it comes to that it can be. Is the flamer alone going to do it? maybe. But ignoring its utility in that way is pretending. It does exist, can be used that way and may yield a glance or something useful to start the party off if it has no better target. and clearly: we're discussing a situation in which there isnt a better target.

So in it''s original context, how much AT do you think the flamer adds to your list, as this was where you brought it up as an option. You understand it needs to roll 11 on a combined roll of two dice just to glance AV12 right? At point blank range? On a tank that you will now be assaulting in the ensuing combat phase? If this comes into play as relevant AT more than once in every 1000 games I would be extremely surprised. Extremely. No, I don't want some anecdotal report that it happens every second game for you, describing this as AT is just ridiculous.

 Jancoran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
4. The clawed fiends might work (though see my comments below), but a lone Blast Pistol is just pathetic.

4. A lone Blast pistol isnt LONE when its in a unit of Beasts, is it? Yet if the blast pistol works, guess what the beasts get for dinner?

Once again, in it's original context the beasts were mentioned seperately. That Blast Pistol is doing 1 HP every 3 turns. Assuming it doesn't die. Also assuming it isn't where it should, in combat. Listing this as something you count as your anti-tank coverage is slightly less ridiculous than listing the medusa flamer, but nonetheless, ridiculous.

 Jancoran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
7. Also, your blasterborn have a really strange loadout. Splinter cannons + blasters just seems like a really bizzare mix - you're virtually guaranteeing that, whatever your target, one of those weapons will be ineffective. The blasters are useless if you're shooting the cannons from the backfield, and the cannons are useless if you're shooting vehicles.

7. i am particularly proud of the blasterborn loadout. They make me effective against any target: Monsters, people, tanks, whatever. I give up little in return. The rest of army is so fast and on you so much that Blasterbon are not put nearly in the peril they are in other peoples forces. They tend to live to the end of fights quite often and its a rare bird that prioritizes their death over that of the Raiders. Hey Im all for it if they wanna split off shots to drop the venoms though.

Yet the price of that unnecessary versatility is that every single game, you will always have a smaller army than an opponent who similarly choose to mix weapons, as you ensured that every single game, you have a bunch of points wasted on this squad.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh just saw your latest post and realised you beat me to that anecdotal report of blast pistol / flamer being "pivotal in some games". That's nice, you can achieve with one blast pistol what the rest of us struggle with when we have 3 Ravagers. Which is exactly what you should have, with the points you spent on that silly Court. But whatever. I wish I lived close enough to take you up on that game. My Iron Warriors would have a field day.

 Jancoran wrote:

1. Knowing where the enemy is actually DOES mean you can ignore his weapons. His choices are these (again in the context of me deploying second): Deploy widely or dont. If widely deployed, I can hide from MOST of the problematic weapons and Jinking will likely save me.

I'm dubious about that. I mean, surely your opponent's will deploy to give their heavy weapons the best possible sweep of the field? It seems like you'd have difficulty hiding from them - especially when they only need to see a fraction of your vehicle to shoot you.

Jinking seems like a dubious thing to rely on - with there being a lot of weapons and abilities that ignore cover outright.

 Jancoran wrote:

2. Yes. and i beleive my second most recently heavily armored opponent might have done his own batrep on it. I'll try to track him down for it if he did one. i know he took pics of the game, lots of them. I don't know where he publishes. Shoulda asked. also my blog does have several battle reports, using different armies. I cannot rightly recall if I've done one with these guys or not? Scope it out and see. that was the game where I missed like 3 EASY charges in round 2 and lived to tell the tale.

I'll have a look - but obviously I'm mainly interested in battle reports for the army in question.

 Jancoran wrote:

3. You might BE looking for something more reliable but really, the point to be made here is that it doesnt matter if the flamer works or not on a vehicle. It just is there to try and theres two of them. STR 7 AP 1 or 2, auto hit? Hooray! but if it doesnt turn out as rosey well... what can ya do but charge in? Minimizing what IS there is not an argument though.

It's more the fact that you seem to be listing last-resort weapons as anti-tank.

I mean, bolters are technically anti-tank in that they can glance your vehicles to death, yet I doubt anyone would consider them anti-tank when discussing their list.

 Jancoran wrote:

4. The blast pistol has been pivotal in some of the games and the dude carries a haywire grenade too. So just depends on how many Hull points i'm trying to strip. Again, ignoring it as a fact, like the Flamer isn't good sport. It is there, it CAN matter and when it doesnt, again, i just smash the vehicle in half with my bare hands and haywire grenade and call it good.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just dubious as to the effectiveness of a single blast pistol - especially when most others need to fire about 9 dark lances at a vehicle to kill it.

 Jancoran wrote:

5. I'm faster. In the game in question though, the Furioso was suppoooooosed to be blocked from exiting the Storm Raven but my charge was too far and i neded up killing two predators but leaving th back door open for it to get out and eat me. I played it well, but just got too lucky on my charge distance and couldnt clog it up like i wanted to.

I'll be honest - that raises far more questions than it answers.

 Jancoran wrote:

6. My haywire are either in the venom or charging.

Well now I'm totally confused. Do you just have their venom sitting ~12" from the enemy line, in case they need to charge? If so... does your opponent just leave them there? I get that they have other targets, but that's a lot to buy.

 Jancoran wrote:
so the dread would USUALLY have little to say in the matter.

The dread might not... but the rest of my army might.

 Jancoran wrote:
But sure. In an ideal situation like the BeastPack you might well kill the court... and then the Haywires still kill the dread!

In the situation I was referring to, I'd be amazed if my sentinel killed your court with it's wopping 1 WS3 attack per turn. I'm more talking about just pinning them in combat for the rest of the game.#

 Jancoran wrote:

7. You are correct. You cant see the games in question. As in most every case on forums. At some point you just have to decide whether I'm lying or not. If I'm not lying, which you have no way of knowing, then you should definitely think on what I've said right? But if I am lying then you're wasting your time responding or listening to me and should put me on ignore. =) I'm going to assume you haven't decided quite yet. So I'll answer the questions. As for batreps, again, I'll actually ask him for it. People tend not to do Batreps when they lose so... But maybe the pics would be good enough? it would maybe give you the rough idea of what was going on.

Pictures might help.

Honestly, I don't think you're lying, but I do find myself questioning the skill and lists of your opponents (hence why I'm interested to see some battle reports).

In fact, I found myself remembering this article: http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/08/protip-dont-play-noobs-and-youll-figure-out-why-your-army-sucks-much-faster/

Now, this might well be an unfair comparison, but without seeing any battle reports I can't know either way. And, being a cynical bastard, my first instinct is to always assume the worst until I have proof otherwise.

Moving on from the topic of why everybody thinks this guys list is bad (lol)

Whats going on with the White Dwarf Release? Does that confirm that DE are next? I think the supliments idea is getting tossed around more as well.

 CShaffer wrote:
Moving on from the topic of why everybody thinks this guys list is bad (lol)

Whats going on with the White Dwarf Release? Does that confirm that DE are next? I think the supliments idea is getting tossed around more as well.

Yes, please. The point of this thread is to talk about the new codex, not to watch to Jancoran and friends argue. Please move it somewhere else.

 CShaffer wrote:
Moving on from the topic of why everybody thinks this guys list is bad (lol)

Whats going on with the White Dwarf Release? Does that confirm that DE are next? I think the supliments idea is getting tossed around more as well.

the leaked photos of plastic wracks confirm that DE are next

I don't see why people would think the tantalus would be in the codex. I have one and its a huge model. I doubt that GW is going to take such a sweet kit from forgeworld.

 Icelord wrote:
I don't see why people would think the tantalus would be in the codex. I have one and its a huge model. I doubt that GW is going to take such a sweet kit from forgeworld.

What does it do exactly? lol

It's a 5hp armor 12 skimmer transport. Carries 16 models and does damage when flying over units.

Its also got some pretty good guns on it if I remember correctly. It is pretty cool looking.

However, given GWs more than willingness to retcon stuff, the Dias of Destruction could easily be turned into something entirely new. Like a Chariot for example. There is no reason at all to keep it a Ravager with transport capacity if they want to go in a different direction. The Dias could become pretty much anything.

Also as for people arguing about what lists work and dont work, Its all determined by local Meta. Maybe local user list paper wont work particularly well against enemy (half a world away) list scissors, but there is so much of local list rock around because the community as a whole seems to irrationally fear scissors that hey, now paper list has a pretty darn impressive win streak on the local circuit.

This is why when someone says they win with a particular list I never doubt them because even though that list wont win where I'm at, my list may not do well in their area.

 Jayden63 wrote:
However, given GWs more than willingness to retcon stuff, the Dias of Destruction could easily be turned into something entirely new. Like a Chariot for example.

Indeed.

Perhaps we can look forward to something even more idiotic than Logan's Santa-Sleigh.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
However, given GWs more than willingness to retcon stuff, the Dias of Destruction could easily be turned into something entirely new. Like a Chariot for example.

Indeed.
Perhaps we can look forward to something even more idiotic than Logan's Santa-Sleigh.

it use to be a skimming dreadnaught so who knows, perhaps in 7th it will be artillery.

 vipoid wrote:


Pictures might help.

Honestly, I don't think you're lying, but I do find myself questioning the skill and lists of your opponents (hence why I'm interested to see some battle reports).

In fact, I found myself remembering this article: http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/08/protip-dont-play-noobs-and-youll-figure-out-why-your-army-sucks-much-faster/

Now, this might well be an unfair comparison, but without seeing any battle reports I can't know either way. And, being a cynical bastard, my first instinct is to always assume the worst until I have proof otherwise.

Woo hoo. He actually did do the batrep, with pics. His batrep has the wrong ending (he says we tied, but he's forgetting the Obsec Wracks and their Obsec Raider, which made it a 5-2 win for me). We called the game at this point because the ending was inevitable but it looks like he didnt have a pic of the Raider sitting there to remind him. EDIT: Correction, he DOES have a pic of it!

Anywho, regardless, this batrep is kinda representative of what the list does to people. As you'll read, this was indeed the game in which I was like four inches away and missed like 3 or four charges. The Dice Gawds truly hated me that day. But no worries! We survived the colossal breakdown in the time space continuum and forged forth to victory. =)
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/295613-flesh-tearers-wips-and-batreps-updated-batrep-9-11-14/

The Generals name is Black Marshall. Middle of the page or so.

BTW, this is here mostly just to illustrate the WAY the army fights. I think it does a really good job of it. Conveniently, other batreps of the General are there also.

 SHUPPET wrote:

1. I think what you are missing here is that if both players are good, the DE will have lost transports by the second turn. It's the nature of the army. If they go first this can be crippling. You seem to think that jink will keep your stuff alive. It will not. The nature of Dark Eldar is needing to bring enough to win the war of attrition. We have the flimsiest vehicles and models in the game.

2. Why is it that for every other player I know, 3 Blasterborn + 3 Ravagers in a Beastpack list feels like you are a light on AT, but for you 2 Blasterborn and a Court is enough? Do you think you are a better at using your AT units than everybody else to play Dark Eldar ever, and so significantly so that you get better results than them out of 1/3 the AT firepower/attacks? Or is it just possible that you have a more casual light vehicle meta. I don't know, which one genuinely seems more likely to you? lol. The fact is, with AT like this I would find myself relying on the Court and the beastpack for AT every single game, in which case I'd ask myself why the feth I spent the points cost of 2 Ravagers on a Court when I have 3 open Heavy Support slots. Especially since you are relying on 15 wounds as easy to kill as Termgants once the Raider is down. Or the price of almost 3 Ravagers on a Beastpack of Clawed Fiends, who while slightly better than the court has no ablative wounds.

3. So in it''s original context, how much AT do you think the flamer adds to your list, as this was where you brought it up as an option. You understand it needs to roll 11 on a combined roll of two dice just to glance AV12 right? At point blank range? On a tank that you will now be assaulting in the ensuing combat phase? If this comes into play as relevant AT more than once in every 1000 games I would be extremely surprised. Extremely. No, I don't want some anecdotal report that it happens every second game for you, describing this as AT is just ridiculous.

4. Once again, in it's original context the beasts were mentioned seperately. That Blast Pistol is doing 1 HP every 3 turns. Assuming it doesn't die. Also assuming it isn't where it should, in combat. Listing this as something you count as your anti-tank coverage is slightly less ridiculous than listing the medusa flamer, but nonetheless, ridiculous.

5. Yet the price of that unnecessary versatility is that every single game, you will always have a smaller army than an opponent who similarly choose to mix weapons, as you ensured that every single game, you have a bunch of points wasted on this squad.

6. Oh just saw your latest post and realised you beat me to that anecdotal report of blast pistol / flamer being "pivotal in some games". That's nice, you can achieve with one blast pistol what the rest of us struggle with when we have 3 Ravagers. Which is exactly what you should have, with the points you spent on that silly Court. But whatever. I wish I lived close enough to take you up on that game. My Iron Warriors would have a field day.

Well well well. So much to say!

1. See the Batrep. I lost Raiders...As predicted, by both of us. so I repeat: whats your point? I know that's going to happen. I've conceded the point, before we ever discussed this. You're still harping on something we both agree will happen. Lol. It happens in the Batreport (though not in the spectacularly horrifying fashion you seem to suggest it will) And Jink WILL not KEEP them alive, it will ABLATE and DELAY. Which is its only job. Your comment that it is the "nature" to win in games of Attrition is a side note i guess. It does not explain very well why I am not having to win that way... perhaps re-examining the "nature" of Dark Eldar would help.

2. I dont know why every other unimaginative netlister have that load out. Oh ... I imagine I just answered the question. =) I don't think you hear me saying that my way is the only way, do you? I think not. Unlike most forum goers, i don't feel a need to say that they are wrong in order that I be right and even if it is unimaginative (or maybe its just genius) it does work. I agree. What I am doing works. You can't disagree because...it's..happening. I'm facing the armoured corps (my last game was against Iron Hands Ironically) like you, and no, he did not do poorly, but he lost anyways. One other thing to think about: you need not kill every tank to win. True story. So having a Blasterborn unit that doesn't CONFORM to the norm is fine by me. When I REALLY need to kill people, I can. The net-lister build doesn't do that. But maybe hes got other means to handle those things and thats why he does it; and that's okay too. He's not wrong. He's just doing it differently and leaving himself slightly less able to handle the other threats too.

3. The flamer doesn't add a "lot" of AT to the list. It adds to the list. But its not there for that job. It just happens to be (potentially) very capable of it. I don't care what level of incredulity you wish to express about it. The reality is, it can strip a hull point and sometimes two. Will it always? Nope. Just like every other weapon EVER. Except maybe the Eye of Night. Because wow, what an awesome item. Go Chaos!

4. Again, your level of incredulity over the Blast Pistol is your right. I did a fun youtube video that kinda of hi-lited how nice it was to have one, and again... I don't care if it KILLS the target. You get wrapped in that way too much. It starts the process, might force the innards to snap fire only if they even get out, makes it that much easier for Clawed Fiends to finish it. And not that rarely does AP 2 cause a little mushroom cloud. These things happen... one in 6 tries? But really, this is only after the Trueborn have a go at it so... the Pistol can be the nail in the coffin as well as the opening volley. Just depends on whats going on in the game. Battle is chaotic and the best laid plans of mice and men dont always work. look at my colossal failure at charging in that batrep I posted. Stuff happens. Had i not, his game would have been over round 2, pretty much. As it was, the game was much more fun thanks to my failure so it didn't cost me in the end.

5. Wasted? I'm not really sure how wasted it is, but there are ALWAYS going to be times when you are forced to turn the firehoses on a target you wish you didn't have to. So I am sure there will be a day when ONE MORE Blaster woulda' been nice. Luckily, the BlasterBorn are useful against infantry all the time and EXTREMELY effective against armor. I see no waste in that statement. I kill everything, basically, with that unit. It's pretty cool,.

6. I dont really LIKE Ravagers. So if you're struggling to get production out of them as you state, perhaps a NEW approach might yield you good results? I'll humbly suggest my own methods as ones you can adopt. If you don't find that exciting, as you clearly don't, my personal suggestion to you is to take Birdmen. For one, you can play the theme music for Flash Gordon when they move or do something cool. the other advantage here is that they actually kill vehicles pretty well, can't be killed with one shot, are as mobile as two Ravagers, about the same points as two Ravagers and they are QUITE useful when the enemy is NOT armor heavy. But mostly the Flash Gordon thing. =)

 Jancoran wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

1. I think what you are missing here is that if both players are good, the DE will have lost transports by the second turn. It's the nature of the army. If they go first this can be crippling. You seem to think that jink will keep your stuff alive. It will not. The nature of Dark Eldar is needing to bring enough to win the war of attrition. We have the flimsiest vehicles and models in the game.

2. Why is it that for every other player I know, 3 Blasterborn + 3 Ravagers in a Beastpack list feels like you are a light on AT, but for you 2 Blasterborn and a Court is enough? Do you think you are a better at using your AT units than everybody else to play Dark Eldar ever, and so significantly so that you get better results than them out of 1/3 the AT firepower/attacks? Or is it just possible that you have a more casual light vehicle meta. I don't know, which one genuinely seems more likely to you? lol. The fact is, with AT like this I would find myself relying on the Court and the beastpack for AT every single game, in which case I'd ask myself why the feth I spent the points cost of 2 Ravagers on a Court when I have 3 open Heavy Support slots. Especially since you are relying on 15 wounds as easy to kill as Termgants once the Raider is down. Or the price of almost 3 Ravagers on a Beastpack of Clawed Fiends, who while slightly better than the court has no ablative wounds.

3. So in it''s original context, how much AT do you think the flamer adds to your list, as this was where you brought it up as an option. You understand it needs to roll 11 on a combined roll of two dice just to glance AV12 right? At point blank range? On a tank that you will now be assaulting in the ensuing combat phase? If this comes into play as relevant AT more than once in every 1000 games I would be extremely surprised. Extremely. No, I don't want some anecdotal report that it happens every second game for you, describing this as AT is just ridiculous.

4. Once again, in it's original context the beasts were mentioned seperately. That Blast Pistol is doing 1 HP every 3 turns. Assuming it doesn't die. Also assuming it isn't where it should, in combat. Listing this as something you count as your anti-tank coverage is slightly less ridiculous than listing the medusa flamer, but nonetheless, ridiculous.

5. Yet the price of that unnecessary versatility is that every single game, you will always have a smaller army than an opponent who similarly choose to mix weapons, as you ensured that every single game, you have a bunch of points wasted on this squad.

6. Oh just saw your latest post and realised you beat me to that anecdotal report of blast pistol / flamer being "pivotal in some games". That's nice, you can achieve with one blast pistol what the rest of us struggle with when we have 3 Ravagers. Which is exactly what you should have, with the points you spent on that silly Court. But whatever. I wish I lived close enough to take you up on that game. My Iron Warriors would have a field day.

Well well well. So much to say!

1. See the Batrep. I lost Raiders...As predicted, by both of us. so I repeat: whats your point? I know that's going to happen. I've conceded the point, before we ever discussed this. You're still harping on something we both agree will happen. Lol. It happens in the Batreport (though not in the spectacularly horrifying fashion you seem to suggest it will) And Jink WILL not KEEP them alive, it will ABLATE and DELAY. Which is its only job. Your comment that it is the "nature" to win in games of Attrition is a side note i guess. It does not explain very well why I am not having to win that way... perhaps re-examining the "nature" of Dark Eldar would help.

2. I dont know why every other unimaginative netlister have that load out. Oh ... I imagine I just answered the question. =) I don't think you hear me saying that my way is the only way, do you? I think not. Unlike most forum goers, i don't feel a need to say that they are wrong in order that I be right and even if it is unimaginative (or maybe its just genius) it does work. I agree. What I am doing works. You can't disagree because...it's..happening. I'm facing the armoured corps (my last game was against Iron Hands Ironically) like you, and no, he did not do poorly, but he lost anyways. One other thing to think about: you need not kill every tank to win. True story. So having a Blasterborn unit that doesn't CONFORM to the norm is fine by me. When I REALLY need to kill people, I can. The net-lister build doesn't do that. But maybe hes got other means to handle those things and thats why he does it; and that's okay too. He's not wrong. He's just doing it differently and leaving himself slightly less able to handle the other threats too.

3. The flamer doesn't add a "lot" of AT to the list. It adds to the list. But its not there for that job. It just happens to be (potentially) very capable of it. I don't care what level of incredulity you wish to express about it. The reality is, it can strip a hull point and sometimes two. Will it always? Nope. Just like every other weapon EVER. Except maybe the Eye of Night. Because wow, what an awesome item. Go Chaos!

4. Again, your level of incredulity over the Blast Pistol is your right. I did a fun youtube video that kinda of hi-lited how nice it was to have one, and again... I don't care if it KILLS the target. You get wrapped in that way too much. It starts the process, might force the innards to snap fire only if they even get out, makes it that much easier for Clawed Fiends to finish it. And not that rarely does AP 2 cause a little mushroom cloud. These things happen... one in 6 tries? But really, this is only after the Trueborn have a go at it so... the Pistol can be the nail in the coffin as well as the opening volley. Just depends on whats going on in the game. Battle is chaotic and the best laid plans of mice and men dont always work. look at my colossal failure at charging in that batrep I posted. Stuff happens. Had i not, his game would have been over round 2, pretty much. As it was, the game was much more fun thanks to my failure so it didn't cost me in the end.

5. Wasted? I'm not really sure how wasted it is, but there are ALWAYS going to be times when you are forced to turn the firehoses on a target you wish you didn't have to. So I am sure there will be a day when ONE MORE Blaster woulda' been nice. Luckily, the BlasterBorn are useful against infantry all the time and EXTREMELY effective against armor. I see no waste in that statement. I kill everything, basically, with that unit. It's pretty cool,.

6. I dont really LIKE Ravagers. So if you're struggling to get production out of them as you state, perhaps a NEW approach might yield you good results? I'll humbly suggest my own methods as ones you can adopt. If you don't find that exciting, as you clearly don't, my personal suggestion to you is to take Birdmen. For one, you can play the theme music for Flash Gordon when they move or do something cool. the other advantage here is that they actually kill vehicles pretty well, can't be killed with one shot, are as mobile as two Ravagers, about the same points as two Ravagers and they are QUITE useful when the enemy is NOT armor heavy. But mostly the Flash Gordon thing. =)

The point is that you have a dual CAD with wrack spam , and then you have an Archon in a Raider ... you are going to lose at least one transport turn 1, so against 50% of games the archon is slowly marching across the field, completing wasting his points, while also slowing down any unit you decide you want to attach him to... anyone who primarys thye Wracks is braindead... I said this in earlier post. Archon just does not work without giving his Raider deepstrike or putting him in a Dais for some deathstar unit with Vect.

The question was not, at any point, "why don't you have this load out", you know that as well as I do. You are changing the statement behind my argument to suit what you can argue against, while completely ignoring the actual point that was being made. This is something I've noticed you do all the time. Anyway, so after all your blathering about being different to the pack, a proper special snowflake with your unorthodox builds, while every other DE player uses unimaginative loadouts, how about answering the question, how is it that we struggle with tanks with more than triple as much AT as you? What is your secret? Continuing on from this, I never said Ravagers are bad, I like the returns I get from them for 100 points. But these combined with Blasterborn can still leave me struggling with hostile tank aggression. In no conceivable way would dropping 3 Ravagers and 1 squad of Blasterborn for a Court and and Archon with a Blast Pistol (lol) increase my AT capabilities. The logic that "my way has worked for me so it must be better" is extremely low-level. There is so much more obviously at play, not least of which being the level of the players involved. Do some theorycraft here and explain even to yourself how this change would help your AT issues. Because I can guarantee it won't. You are retardedly light on AT. If I run that in my meta the 2 "all purpose" Blasterborn would be the first then down then I'd be left relying on using a bunch of of assault units to HOPEFULLY kill an AV10 rear armour vehicle a turn, although unlikely.

Speaking of the all-purpose Blasterborn, and how they are a waste - EVERY SINGLE TIME you fire the Blasters at a vehicle you waste every point you put into Splinter weaponry. Terrible returns for the Blaster weaponry when vice versa, although at least they can wound something, it's still wasted points. Every single game. There is a reason nobody but you thinks dual loadouts are a good idea anywhere, and its not due to lack of imagination. It's because it's pure, low level, terrible. Have you ever seen anyone say anything otherwise? Other than your bro's who also take part in your local and questionable meta?

Both of you are flirting with that rule #1. Please stop

Once again, back to the topic at hand.
Is that a new haemoculis model or a hero or what?

 SHUPPET wrote:

Archon just does not work without giving his Raider deepstrike or putting him in a Dais for some deathstar unit with Vect.

...how is it that we struggle with tanks with more than triple as much AT as you? What is your secret? Continuing on from this, I never said Ravagers are bad, I like the returns I get from them for 100 points. But these combined with Blasterborn can still leave me struggling with hostile tank aggression. In no conceivable way would dropping 3 Ravagers and 1 squad of Blasterborn for a Court and and Archon with a Blast Pistol (lol) increase my AT capabilities. The logic that "my way has worked for me so it must be better" is extremely low-level. There is so much more obviously at play, not least of which being the level of the players involved. Do some theorycraft here and explain even to yourself how this change would help your AT issues. Because I can guarantee it won't. You are retardedly light on AT. If I run that in my meta the 2 "all purpose" Blasterborn would be the first then down then I'd be left relying on using a bunch of of assault units to HOPEFULLY kill an AV10 rear armour vehicle a turn, although unlikely.

Speaking of the all-purpose Blasterborn, and how they are a waste - EVERY SINGLE TIME you fire the Blasters at a vehicle you waste every point you put into Splinter weaponry. Terrible returns for the Blaster weaponry when vice versa, although at least they can wound something, it's still wasted points. Every single game. There is a reason nobody but you thinks dual loadouts are a good idea anywhere, and its not due to lack of imagination. It's because it's pure, low level, terrible. Have you ever seen anyone say anything otherwise? Other than your bro's who also take part in your local and questionable meta?

You suppose here that they can kill the Raiders in my backfield. I tell you they will try... but only with 48" range weapons and only if they can see me and then only if they hit, pen and of course wreck me. So yeah. Maybe. Again... We agree... What we don't agree on is that I'm going to make that easy to do. Are we assuming the enemy has an unlimited supply of 48" OR MORE range weapons that meet that criterion or what?

And I didnt ignore your point. I quoted it exactly. I answered its essential point. If you want me to explain why YOU struggle against AT, while I do not, I cant answer that. Why try? Its rhetorical. There is no secret. I run up to the armor and then I explode it. That's the plan. Im too close for the enemy to avoid it but if I fail all my charges (Might never see THAT again but hey, I proved it can happen) well...game on. Otherwise the armor is going away. If they want to get out of it on THEIR terms, best to start outside of it to start with. It means I might not be assaulting armor next turn but thats a choice they get to make right?

No one said my way was better. If you observe...I said quite the opposite. Have gone to great lengths to say the opposite. My way isn't better. And it doesn't have to be. And uh, you DID actually say that even with three Ravagers you struggled so... that was exactly what you said. Try something else was my advice.

As for Blasterborn: if you dont want to do what I did, then don't? I've explained why I do it. You don't like it. I'm okay with that.










Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icelord wrote:
I don't see why people would think the tantalus would be in the codex. I have one and its a huge model. I doubt that GW is going to take such a sweet kit from forgeworld.

Well I thik we'd be better off if they'd just PUT Forgeworld stuff in the codex and end the debates on that. My thought on the Tantalus is that they need something better than the Dais current form to make it attractive. The Tantalus seemed an obvious possibility. We'll find out extremely soon though.

 Jancoran wrote:

Woo hoo. He actually did do the batrep, with pics. His batrep has the wrong ending (he says we tied, but he's forgetting the Obsec Wracks and their Obsec Raider, which made it a 5-2 win for me). We called the game at this point because the ending was inevitable but it looks like he didnt have a pic of the Raider sitting there to remind him. EDIT: Correction, he DOES have a pic of it!

Anywho, regardless, this batrep is kinda representative of what the list does to people. As you'll read, this was indeed the game in which I was like four inches away and missed like 3 or four charges. The Dice Gawds truly hated me that day. But no worries! We survived the colossal breakdown in the time space continuum and forged forth to victory. =)
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/295613-flesh-tearers-wips-and-batreps-updated-batrep-9-11-14/

The Generals name is Black Marshall. Middle of the page or so.

BTW, this is here mostly just to illustrate the WAY the army fights. I think it does a really good job of it. Conveniently, other batreps of the General are there also.

Having read that batrep, I'm confused as to why your opponent chose to deep-strike his assault marines. It seems like the least reliable way to get an assault unit (especially one with jump packs) into combat. Oh well.

Anyway, if that's anything like a typical match, then I can definitely understand your list doing well. So, thanks for providing that battle report.

 CShaffer wrote:
Once again, back to the topic at hand.
Is that a new haemoculis model or a hero or what?

I think it's a new Haemonculus model.

One thing I've heard is that there's supposed to be a big focus on Coven units in the new book. So, I'll be interested to see how that's handled.

Perhaps, among other things, Urien and Master Haemonculi might end up with either more reasonable costs or more reason to take them.

Trying to get a feel for some of the models at my disposal, I understand the purpose of Wychs and our transports, but are any of the elites viable besides Trueborn and "Wracks"?

We get two troop options and from what I have read the elites are terrabad. But I'm pretty new so if you guys have any explination to the purpose of scourges/grotesque/ect ect

Wracks are only viable as troops.

I'd say Grots are the other two most viable Elites, with Incubi, Hekatrix Bloodbrides, and Harlequins being PLAYABLE but extremely niche.