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.

Also re:fireprisms...have you run any? for the same points you can get 2 walkers with 4 lances. What? a Fire prism will do better against Tanks? NO. TEQ? assume on a good day 3 hits with small blast (if you're opponent isn't brain dead) which is comporable to what you get with bs4 4 lances. Plus the lances instagib T4 multi wounds (Pallies/wraiths) MEQ? you mean the easiest thing in the eldar codex to deal with? okay yeah you got me there...Fire prisms are better vs MEQ but who cares? if you aren't able to wipe out MEQ with out them then you are doing something wrong.

2 Warwalkers are significantly easier to kill then one Fire Prism, and the Fire Prism is significantly more versatile. Why stop at MEQ? Fire Prism is a superior weapon the BL WW against every single infantry unit in the game, short of TEq, and that one is basically a tossup. I like WW too, don't get me wrong, but you are intentionally ignoring many of the Fire Prism's strong points.

The same reason Wave Serpents aren't the be all end all is that they are expensive for the REDUNDANCY of str 6/7 shooting.

I don't know about that. One Hull can carry what, 6+D6 shots, most of them twinklinked? Pretty efficient.

Which while nice to have gets diminishing returns after a while especially with armor saves. 10 guardians (delivered by said serpent) cost 90 points vs 135 serpents Guardians get 20 shots 13-14 hit, 2 "rend", and 4-5 wound = about 3 dead marines even with cover.

I like Guardians to. I agree the combination of both really is what makes the unit sing.

Now WS shoots TL SL bs 4 about 3-4 hits on average (3.5 mathwise) TLing the shield which averages 4.5 shots so we'll say 4-5. thats another 3-4 hits on average. AP what? yeah...so even ignoring cover/etc 6 (on the low end) averaging about 7-8 and on the high end 10 shots. 2's to wound so thats anywhere from 5-8 wounds on average. 3+ armor = 2 maybe 3 dead marines.

Pretty sure the WS can have another weapon there for pretty cheap.

congrats 90 point guardians killed more than the ALMIGHTY WS.

Against MEq? There are other things in the game to shoot at.

Not saying you shouldn't take WS, just saying there is a place and use for everything and so spamming one thing is not as effective for eldar as it is for other armies (if it is for them either is another debate, but i only speak from my experience).

I've seen some pretty effective lists with 4 to 6 of them.

And yeah deathstars can be nasty. agreed. But most of the time they are on foot. with battle focus on eldar now. you should never be caught by one at full strength.
Thats how I always lost with the Harliestar. People would run and kite. Even with fleet/run/etc. It still takes on average 3-4 turns to get into combat which means your deathstar can only kill 2-3 units before game over. Because I mean really why Charge the death star and sacrafice yourself that way? so yeah....

Board presence. Their combat abilities are important, but their board presence is what really makes them work. You use them to control mid field. That don't need to be super fast for this job, all though speed never hurts, to be sure.

Also, effective Death Stars can be used as delivery systems for efficient CC beat sticks. Now, when you hit the enemy lines, you are killing at least 2 units per turn, etc.

Unless there is something I am missing I would love to hear your opinion other than BAD PLAYERS ARE BAD! and BUT THE INTERWEBS SAID THIS IS GOOD. so yeah play and analyze...do math...or just tell me I'm dumb with no facts...your choice.

No, you clearly aren't dumb, just some of your blanket statements I felt needed to be questioned. Playing Death Stars is a bit of an art, its all about finding the combination of synergism to stick with them to really make them sing, and combining them with resilient other options to complicate your opponents target priority. A Death Star surrounded by Glass Cannons is generally a bad idea, unless they are long range Glass Cannons (or Flyers).

qballony wrote:
Yeah i have. I ran a harliestar. I won a lot, but i also lost too. Wave serpents Are good. But ...do math...or just tell me I'm dumb with no facts...your choice.

I see what you're saying, but the main difference is that the Fire Prism and WS are more likely to survive than the WW and Guardians without transport. I don't think anybody is disputing that Guardians are pretty awesome for their points, but the return fire is always going to be nasty. If you don't want to transport them then you're going to either want to keep them on backfield objectives (maybe on a quad gun?) or stick a Warlock in the unit to increase their survivability. I have always been a fan of Wave Serpents so I prefer to transport mine (max 2 for Guardians and 1-2 Fire Dragons, I've been experimenting to see what works), but you do what works for you. To me the real strength is that WS threaten air units and never die so I can dump Guardians out for clean up or objective scoring.

As far as Fire Prism vs WW: I use both. The thing with WW is that they must be within 36", need to deploy in a position to be able to shoot on turn 1 (but can JSJ) and have AV 10 with a 5+ save. Fire Prisms have 60" range and can tuck further away because they can move 12" before shooting which can also be use for kiting after the first turn; they also have AV 12 with a 4+ save if you took holo fields and it could be worth spirit stones (I've been using them, I like them but with the range it doesn't always come up). Lastly, the WW are only good against AV and TEQ if you take bright lances, which means they stop being as effective after the first few turns in most games. I still prefer scatter lasers for low AV and long-range support fire, but Fire Prism can shoot either pie plates or switch to lance if the opponent happens to field AV 14 or I otherwise deem I need more AT.

I think the versatility of the AV 12 Eldar vehicles is where they really shine, but I don't think I'd go exclusively mechdar. Right now I just use 2 WS (Guardians and Fire Dragons) and 1 Fire Prism.

Edit: Ninja'd by ShadarLogoth, just wanted to add that I'm not sure what everyone else runs but TL Scatter Laser, Shuri Cannon and Holo-fields is pretty beast. I'm still debating the Vectored Engines. I think it's good on expensive units like Fire Dragons but I don't always deploy my Guardians/DA early enough that I have to worry about proximity to the enemy. Maybe mandatory, maybe not.

got a little off topic. Point is that guy who ran the DAVU serpent list shouldn't be taken as "this is how eldar should be played ROFL" because a lot of what people think are good isn't necessarily the best way to get the job done. yes the blast helps on Fire Prism. But it was mainly being brought as an anti tank option, or anti TEQ given he had 6 other serpents DAVU style with not too much else. He should have had a different list, that could deal with more threats effectively.
and yes 4-6 WS lists can be good, but you shouldn't be bringing any other str6 weapons otherwise whats the point. You bring lances and troops after that and its gg.
everyone needs to find a style that works for them. Some army lists are more effective in the hands of some one who may be a lesser player but it suits their style more.

And I am aware of the board presence of Deathstars I ran one for a year or so after 6th dropped. It can work but against highly mobile eldar I wouldn't risk it was my point.

And really if you can't wipe a board of infantry without fireprisms...yeah consider another army other than eldar/DE. because thats like...basic...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh on another note...serpents should be used to kill most stuff 4-6+ armor saves because they probably have better than that for cover saves. thats why i don't think prisms are worth it. You bring the right tools and you shouldn't need the prisms for dealing with MEQ, GEQ, or anything worse than that. You make room for other tools in your box that excel at that task better. you might take 2 tools 1 for meq-geq and one for teq-tanks but you are far more efficient at both of those and don't have to choose between them now.

qballony wrote:
Oh on another note...serpents should be used to kill most stuff 4-6+ armor saves because they probably have better than that for cover saves. thats why i don't think prisms are worth it. You bring the right tools and you shouldn't need the prisms for dealing with MEQ, GEQ, or anything worse than that. You make room for other tools in your box that excel at that task better. you might take 2 tools 1 for meq-geq and one for teq-tanks but you are far more efficient at both of those and don't have to choose between them now.

Hm, maybe. But looking at the list you posted in that battle report, I think that swapping a WW squadron for a Fire Prism would do your list wonders. I'm wondering what you do against a bunch of MEQ or Tau. I'm still using an RoF list with Warp Spiders and Scatter Laser WW and the new WS helps too. I don't see more than 3 SM (well CSM) squads, but my tactic is to dump a pie plate and clean up with minimum fire and then target the next unit with the rest. This is nice against Tau too with their 4+ (cover sucks, but they have to come for objectives eventually). I'm just wondering what your strategy is.

I think it's funny that we're debating AV 12 Eldar hulls in a DE thread though. Getting back on topic, the reason I'm interested in this thread is I'm wondering how people are playing DE these days because I had a few in 3rd but retired them when the models got old. I don't really like deathstar lists, but I usually run MSU type armies. Are gunboats ally-worthy? I really want to pick these guys back up and if they're not completely useless then I'm interested in expanding to own a full list eventually.

This thread is interesting reading, but I have to say, the argument that "DE win when played correctly" isn't very compelling. If you have to play in a certain way with a small set of usable lists, that's actually compelling argument *against* the army being top tier. If they were a top tier army, one would think they wouldn't need their general to be completely on the ball and playing "mobile" or "shooty"; they'd have more options and flexibility and allow for some room to fail.

You can't say something is top tier just because a small subset of players are able to do super well with them. That's like arguing that swords are just as effective as guns because a super trained swordsman can pick his battles and get the jump on someone with a gun. That's an argument for certain people being good players, not to the relative merits of the army.

My 2¢, at least.

I'm a terrible (or new, I prefer new) player and win frequently with Dark Eldar. I would say they're at least mid-tier. My son has lost roughly 50% of his Dark Angels games and he tabled me with my own Dark Eldar when we played a couple of days ago (he's 9).

I could pick up Orks right now and lose 90% of my battles, I'm almost certain of that.

Something to add to the discussion, I hope.

I still think that DE are topish tier. They can beat anybody, but then again, loose to anybody as well.

I think that the phrase "when played correctly" is being misinterpreted. Every list of every faction needs to be played correctly to win. Choosing all the wrong match-ups is never going to work. However, I think in DEs case, its not that they have to be played correctly, but they need to be played exclusively.

Let me explain.

You can make many different lists out of the DE codex., you really can, however, each player should only have one DE list and to do well with it needs to play the same list over and over so that you can learn how the units work together and what they can be expected to do.

I have 3500 points of orks, of which I can take a total mishmash of units to make any number of different 1850 point lists, plop them down on the table, and do fairly well with whatever I brought.

You cant do that with DE. You need to learn how your units interact and that takes repetition. If you keep changing up your army every other outing you never will get a DE army that will win time and time again. That is all part of the DE learning curve. Ask any DE player who is winning how long they have been playing that exact same army, and I bet it will be a fairly high number. More so than most other armies.

If I was going to swap out Walkers to take care of cover save mass units, I would probably take a warp hunter or nightspinner (i forget what its called the tank with the torrent flamer thingy with monofiliment).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for the Hijacking of the thread. DE are Mid Tier. They have the right point allocations, but severly limited by FOC and also lack of Mid Str shooting, so make sure to pack enough vehicle popping but also enough anti infantry. If you can bring enough redundancy of those, and you learn how to best utilize the mobility you will excel and push them into higher tier (not top tier, but prob Tier 2)

I'm going out on a limb and saying DE are not top, but they can really cause an upset vs a top tier list. I'd say they are the top end of mid tier, but they either need that one thing in their codex to be top tier or they need a very good pilot.

More often than not though, a good pilot with a DE army will beat a poor pilot with a powerful list.

The codex has answers to just about everything and isn't a bad codex, it's one of the better ones with only one unit and one hq being useless. Mandrakes and Decapitator.

Back to other stuff...

Beasts... what configuration are people using? Lots of Razorwings?

 Jayden63 wrote:
You can make many different lists out of the DE codex, you really can, however, each player should only have one DE list and to do well with it needs to play the same list over and over so that you can learn how the units work together and what they can be expected to do.

You need to learn how your units interact and that takes repetition. If you keep changing up your army every other outing you never will get a DE army that will win time and time again. That is all part of the DE learning curve. Ask any DE player who is winning how long they have been playing that exact same army, and I bet it will be a fairly high number. More so than most other armies.

This has to be the best piece of advice I have ever read on a 40k forum!

Puscifer wrote:
Would your army list benefit from MSU of Kabalites or Wychs on Venoms instead of Raiders?

This sort of goes back to Jayden63 comment about playing a list exclusively and learning how it meshes together.

It's general Dark Eldar knowledge that Venoms are amazing. So adding venoms to my list would make it better? A logical train of thought.

My warriors squads in raiders are currently 160pts each (10 warriors, splinter cannon, raider). A warrior squad in a venom is 125pts (5 warrors, blaster, venom, extra cannon). So replacing my current set up with three venoms would save me 105pts (not enough to get an extra venom). For arguments sake say I save some points somewhere else in the list and get a fourth venom.

I would have four small scoring units as opposed to three large scoring units, making my scoring units significantly more fragile (going from 30 bodies to 20 bodies). In addition consider how the two warrior set ups operate: venom warriors need to get close to use their blasters and tend to stay in their transport (a dangerous place to be), raider warriors stay outside their raiders, sit back in area terrain and fire their splinter weapons form relative safety. Taking the above into account it becomes apparent that raider warriors are more likely to be around to score at the end of the game than venom warriors.

There are a few more things to consider. Running venoms instead of raiders means I would lose three dark lances (effectively a ravager) reducing my tun 1 AT (blasters with their short range are not an adequate substitute). Then there is target priority, a venom is always going to be a priority target because of their impressive splinter fire, an empty raider on the other hand more often than not gets ignored, meaning I'm far more likely to have late game mobility.

Warriors in area terrain with an empty raider near by are deceptively mobile. They can redeploy to an objective that is between 49-59" away in two turns (T4: 2d6 pick the highest + 2" embark range + 12" raider move + 18" flat out + T5: 6" raider move + 6" disembark + 1d6 re-rollable fleet run + 3" objective capture range). Perfect for capturing objectives in the late game.

Finally if you look at my list as a whole. I use grotesques, now if I go second the chances are they will lose their raider and have to foot-slog. With the extra raiders in my list that's not a problem, as long as there is a raider within embarking distance they can just jump aboard that one. As a result if I deploy my four raiders near my grotesques at the beginning of the game my opponent has to make a choice, does he try and take out four empty raiders so my grotesques can't rush his line? Or does he take out my ravagers? It's important that your list asks "questions" like these, as it forces your opponent to make tough choices and as a result mistakes which you can capitalise on.

So back to your original question I don't think my current list would benefit more from running venoms instead of raiders. As the raiders are a key component of the list.

Hope that helps explain my reasoning.

mushkilla that explaination of how certain units in certain configs may appear better but not perform as well in practice is On Point as *%^&. Thank you for the eloquent knowledge you just tried to impart to the community.

Yup, it certainly does explain a lot.

Thanks.

qballony wrote:
mushkilla that explaination of how certain units in certain configs may appear better but not perform as well in practice is On Point as *%^&.

On the contrary I thought it was a good way of illustrating Jayden63's great point about Dark Eldar lists not being plug and play.

The venom on paper looks miles better than the raider, so why would anyone ever take raiders? This is the case for many of the entries in the Dark Eldar codex, they look terrible on paper so people assume they are bad, and as a result that the codex is bad.

However it's very hard to quantify something like mobility, and the Dark Eldar codex is all about mobility. How much is a unit of T5 3W models led by a beat stick character that can be in your opponents deployment zone turn 1 and assault turn 2 worth? How much is the ability to move 48" a turn and to damage at the same time worth? How much is the ability to redeploy to the other side of the table at a moments notice worth?

Mobility opens up options in a way that having a 3+ save could only dream of. It also takes a lot longer to learn what you can come to expect from units with that kind of mobility. One of the reason it takes a long time to learn how to get the most out of a given Dark Eldar list.

EDIT: I think I misunderstood your post I thought you were implying that I was off topic (Woops!). If that's the case I apologies.

It's interesting to see your use of Grotesque, Mush.

Small unit with beatstick in a raider.

I was thinking bigger unit and making them into a deathstar, but seeing how you them makes me want to take two units each with an Haemonculus handler.

 Mushkilla wrote:



raider warriors stay outside their raiders, sit back in area terrain and fire their splinter weapons form relative safety.

Polecat wrote:
How about taking 10-man warrior squads, give them venoms but obviously not embarking them, and runing the venoms empty? It would also make them more likely to be around until the end of the game.

Just a thought.

An interesting idea. Unfortunately Dark Eldar are not allowed to select a dedicated transport if the number of models in the unit is higher than the transport capacity of the vehicle (Dark Eldar codex page 91 under dedicated transports).

But even if they were what if for some reason your warriors were not down to 5 men by the time it comes to capture objectives? What if they need to relocate to get away from some deepstriking terminators early on? Just because a unit spends a lot of time outside of it's transport doesn't mean there are not situations where embarking on said transport are advantageous. The other thing to consider is an empty venom is a lot more intimidating than an empty raider, a single lance shot is quite underwhelming compared to 12 splinter cannon shots. At least that's how I see it.

One thing I've just read about is a coven list that uses multiple squads of Grotesques in Raiders, small Wrack squads in Venoms, Kabalite Raider squads, Scourges that DS with Haywire Rifles and Ravagers led by an Archon and Haemonculi.

The scourges worked quite well as DS suicide Tank Killers and the Grotesques were units that had to be dealt with on T1 or they would tie up the opposing army in cc.

You can't say something is top tier just because a small subset of players are able to do super well with them. That's like arguing that swords are just as effective as guns because a super trained swordsman can pick his battles and get the jump on someone with a gun. That's an argument for certain people being good players, not to the relative merits of the army.

That argument is full of flaws. I don't care what army you are playing. You need to be a decent general to win at a large tournament. A better assessment is that fewer DE players are at larger venues then say CSM/Necrons/Daemons/Tau. And yet they have still placed well against the numbers.

You can make many different lists out of the DE codex, you really can, however, each player should only have one DE list and to do well with it needs to play the same list over and over so that you can learn how the units work together and what they can be expected to do.

The same point I made a page ago. Ther notion that you can just paste and copy a list and win with it does not hold true for DE. For this reason playwers have given up on DE prematurely after a brief play test of a list. This is not only a DE truth. It also applies to units. I tested Fire Prisms and they did nothing in the game I played them. I tested a Crimson Hunter and it was the weakest unit in my list. Mushkilla knows I am a fan of the Grotstar. I hyped it and provided small batreps as to its effectiveness on TheDarkCity.net more than once. Mush now uses grots. On the other hand after reading all his reports on Reavers I felt compelled to try them. By the third game I was doing quite well with them ( it did take two games to understand when to bladestrom, when to use blasters, when to come in from reserve or start on the table). So you need to familiarize yourself with all the units in the DE codex before passing judgements based on non-existent evidence or limited testing.

Personally I think open-topped AV 10 Walkers just die to easily. So I prefer Fire Prisms even though they can scatter and in some games seem to underperform. But even in those games a pair of prisms will draw fire from my other skimmers. I also see to many War Walkers giving up first blood - 2 War Walkers vs 1 Prism - I want the prism. Okay ... see how easy it is to make a blanket statement. Obviously both War Walkers and Prisms have their place in lists. They serve two different functions as well. I can quote a fact and make a case for either if I choose to. Apply this reasonong to DE nad you see why DE are rfelegated to mid to lower tier. It is easy to list a fact about DE and then correlate that one fact into a broader assessment. Doesn't make it triue though does it.

I found a list that works rather well at 1500 in my meta.
Baron
5 trueborn with carbines and haywire in venom x3
5 wyches with haywire in venom x4
Triple lance ravager x3
Exactly 1500.
Just reserve baron and hide him out of los. If they bother shooting at him then that's an inordinate amount of firepower to kill one model with a 2 plus inv. Flyers? Just table their army. Vehicles? 35 haywire models in open topped transports with fleet. Broadsides? Use lances.
Edited: forget to mention all vehicles have nightshields.

Deldar got a few buffs in 6e, but aren't super competitive.

"bottom tier"? I don't know.

The new eldar book is certainly a buff to deldar.

Deldar probably won't be my main, but brining 2 warrior squads and 1 blasterborn unit, all in venoms (add on a haemy) is a pretty cheap allied detachment, and it compliments the eldar pretty well.
(anti infantry at 36" is something the eldar book needs, ranged ap2 is also something the book needs, so the 18" blasters are nice)


can anyone comment on the invisible beasts deathstar, and its viability given the new eldar book? I don't know the mechanics, but now that eldrad's powers aren't predetermined, is it worth the points?

 Jayden63 wrote:
I still think that DE are topish tier. They can beat anybody, but then again, loose to anybody as well.

I think that the phrase "when played correctly" is being misinterpreted. Every list of every faction needs to be played correctly to win. Choosing all the wrong match-ups is never going to work. However, I think in DEs case, its not that they have to be played correctly, but they need to be played exclusively.

Let me explain.

You can make many different lists out of the DE codex., you really can, however, each player should only have one DE list and to do well with it needs to play the same list over and over so that you can learn how the units work together and what they can be expected to do.

I have 3500 points of orks, of which I can take a total mishmash of units to make any number of different 1850 point lists, plop them down on the table, and do fairly well with whatever I brought.

You cant do that with DE. You need to learn how your units interact and that takes repetition. If you keep changing up your army every other outing you never will get a DE army that will win time and time again. That is all part of the DE learning curve. Ask any DE player who is winning how long they have been playing that exact same army, and I bet it will be a fairly high number. More so than most other armies.

I really like this, and Mushkilla seems to second it as well. Ive felt for years that dark eldar take some major tinkering on the table top. Where as some armies like tau and IG seem really straightforward from book to profit. Dark eldar seem to take some tinkering and adjusting to personal tastes and needs.

People bring up my beast master lists a few pages ago. And while it is a list based around a deathstar type unit... its not all its about. I found through testing that to get the most benefit out of things like psychic powers and special characters with universal special rules that I needed large units. So I have a maxed out beast unit, a 20 man warrior unit, and at adepticon and templecon a 15 woman wych unit or 2. But on the reverse side of that coin plenty of people make use of massed venoms and MSU style dark eldar to great effect.

There is a large difference between table experience and arm chair generaling. Which is something that goes to both Jayden and Mushkilla's points. For example Mush has adapted his playstyle to handle going second and still being ok. I on the other hand want to go first in order to close with my beasts and get my psychic powers up. In order to help with this I rely on Vect... not just because he can seize on a 4+, but because the threat of him seizing on a 4+ tends to force my opponents to give me first turn rather then deal with his ability. But that reality comes to effect more because of experience with Vect, choosing him for different reasons then the seize(fearless beasts), rather then a clinical inspection of the fact that he seizes on a 4+. Plus he is a super cool awesome bamf, and I get to spend half my games talking in a deep tone and addressing him as lord vect master of awesomeness, or singing vect.... ahaaa.... master of the universe.

Another note on experience and fine tuning. I found that while the baron is generally accepted as being the most cost efficient Hq we possess. And having a list of skills and equipment that greatly benefit the beast unit. He was largely not necessary for me to use. Wasnt even in my adepticon list. Vect is my only dark eldar hq at the moment.

And as far as Lvax assement that pure dark eldar armies dont compete. That may be true. Not necessarily because they cant compete. But when you consider the benefit of eldar allies it becomes hard to see why you wouldnt take the allies. Now I personally have waxed from a small eldar allied contingent(my templecon list) to eldar base dark eldar ally with still the majority of my points spent on dark eldar(adepticon) to about a even split now with eldar primary. But its still style choices and coolness choices for some of that(2 wraithknights yes please).

i love my Dark Eldar. It's always been the case that they will lose fast if you make a mistake, but things have definitely gotten much worse for them. There's only so much a careful deployment can do, especially when a competent opponent has things like the skullcannon, wave serpents or broadsides. Though I still feel guilty when I play against low model count armies, especially when they're on foot. =)

It is strange to hear such doom and gloom. Dark Eldar are pretty slick in my opinion. But maybe it's a meta thing. Maybe there's just some places where the armies have Dark Eldar "figured out" or something wierd like that, but that just seems unlikely to me.

I never liiked wych's and a lot of people have those kinds of armies. If thats why they're stuglling, I say adapt. But if its soem other cause then i am lost as to what is causing this sadness in the Dark eldar soul.

Dark eldar soul.

From Software teaming up with GW?

Please, gaming gods, make this happen. That game would be AWESOME.

 Jancoran wrote:
It is strange to hear such doom and gloom. Dark Eldar are pretty slick in my opinion. But maybe it's a meta thing. Maybe there's just some places where the armies have Dark Eldar "figured out" or something wierd like that, but that just seems unlikely to me.

I never liiked wych's and a lot of people have those kinds of armies. If thats why they're stuglling, I say adapt. But if its soem other cause then i am lost as to what is causing this sadness in the Dark eldar soul.

#1 Dark Eldar have no soul

#2 Dark Eldar are OK, IMHO. There are some issues with them relative to new codexes.

Are they a strong book? No.
Are they fun to play? Yes.
Can they win in a uber competitive national tourney? Maybe.

Could be worse, ask a BT or Sisters player.

i love my Dark Eldar. It's always been the case that they will lose fast if you make a mistake, but things have definitely gotten much worse for them.

Respectfully, there is a large contingent of platers, myself included and no Mush included that feel DE have gotten better with the introduction of 6ed. Which leads me to this ...

I never liiked wych's and a lot of people have those kinds of armies. If thats why they're stuglling, I say adapt.

Well, some people win with wyches too but the the last part of your statement should be closely studied. DE players need to adapt their tactics to the new top lists.

I found that while the baron is generally accepted as being the most cost efficient Hq we possess

Now Sean refutes this and uses Vect because he is fearless and although he does not have the speed of the beast pack Sean is adept at keeping him in coherency. He has played the pack with Eltard for awhile now. He knows how its done. So he has tweaked his beast pack list to include VEct and WRAITHKNIGHTS. Surprise surprise. I genuinely respect Sean as a person - he is always helpful on sites and ready to advise and he brought DE to forefront on numerous occasions. As an addendum, those on thedarkcity.net know I'm also playing my DE with a pair of WKs now. I do use the Baron though, lol. But I have my reasons for his inclusion. And i personally dropped the beast pack from my list for a squad of nine reavers, which IMHO, is a unit that has significantly improved in today's meta. And yes I'm well aware that 'meta' is a catch phrase that is generally misused onn the net.

Last I would like to reiterate what has been already discussed many times - just because many DE players ally with Eldar does not mean the codex is bad. Ninety percent of tournament lists that win consistently use allies. Does this make both Tau and Necrons bad. Does it make Chaos Marines bad? Does it make GK bad? Surely not.

 A Musketeer wrote:


#1 Dark Eldar have no soul

#2 Dark Eldar are OK, IMHO. There are some issues with them relative to new codexes.

Are they a strong book? No.
Are they fun to play? Yes.
Can they win in a uber competitive national tourney? Maybe.

Could be worse, ask a BT or Sisters player.

Lol. Sisters player? I am one. Its the army i have won the most tournies with. Irony!

A bit off topic, but, really? You run your Sisters straight or with allies? Got a plan to get an SoB once they make 'em plastic (ya, I know day before armageddon).

I love DE. Difficult army to play, but can be quite effective. I destroyed a blood angels army yesterday.... Lances blasted open some tanks and my wracks minced up some marines after pummeling them with liquifier love. Finally, I LOVE warriors on raiders.... If my barges survive a few rounds, my warriors gain feel no pain and respect.

 A Musketeer wrote:
A bit off topic, but, really? You run your Sisters straight or with allies? Got a plan to get an SoB once they make 'em plastic (ya, I know day before armageddon).

Yup. I play straight Sisters usually. I did try them with allies recently but its not the default for sure. Some goood IG synergies though. Its been a shmashing army for tournies for a long time for me. Certainly the one that my normal local opponents groan about more than most.