With the new Tau and Eldar release, it's hard to notice that DE seems to be outgunned, out manoeuvred, out numbered, out strengthed etc...
I'm just trying to analyze what exactly can DE even do nowadays...and what tier they are in.

In terms of fire power, we lack amount of shots, the range capability and versatility.
Splinter weapons are still boss against majority of the stuff, but honestly shooting at a WraithKnight/Riptide still takes half the army to shoot at it before dropping it.
Lances on the other hand are sort of expensive depending on the model.
On Ravagers with the mobility I think it's worth it, on trueborn? no so much.

People keep saying use haywire grenades, first of all the delivery system is weak as heck.
Very unlikely you will even be able to get them close enough to dish out the damage need.
MSU, ok so you can now reliably take out 1 tank with a lot of points.
AND what if your opponent is mechless? there goes however many points you spend.

Mobility was and used to be something that we were good at, but it seems that with the vehicle rule change we aren't as fast as we used to be anymore.
The thing is getting close to gunline heavy armies nowadays might not be the best idea, as we lack the range that most people have too.

Which brings us to range, I know we have a 48" range for our ravagers, and 30 - 42" ish for Raiders and stuff, but do we actually want to get in range? 36" is a huge downside to our guns.
With the abundance of 36"+ guns and moving + shooting I think we are in a huge disadvantage.

Cover was our big friend and so were flicker fields, but with jink and 5+ saves everywhere it seems that our advantage for cover has sort of disappeared as well.

And last but not least fliers, at almost the cost of a storm raven assuming you buy some missles flickerfield etc, we don't seem to bring equal firepower to the table.
Our air is pretty versatile though, Lances for Anti Tank and Missles for Anti Infantry, the problem is Lances are pretty bad against AV12 in general...
So anti-air is kinda lack luster.

Overall, I just don't see anything that DE can bring to the table that others cannot beat easily.
On top of that I just don't see a TAC list that DE can bring. Hence a bottom tier army.
What do you guys think?

Don't speak of bottom tier when Black Templars still exist, be glad your codex got an update and has a few answers to things in 6th.

Well, to be fair, DE was always a tricky army to use. They never had durable vehicles (HP or no - the fact that they're open-topped AV10-11 means that I've had a tendency to wreck them, rather than strip HP), and they've never had all that great of range on their guns. If anything has caused DE to be worse off, though, it's that a huge chunk of their codex is built around CC, and then 6th came by with its no-moving-quickly-and-assault-from-transports thing, and the no-assault-from-reserves single-handedly killed WWP armies.

I'd hesitate to call them bottom tier, though. A few splinterborne in a venom is still absurdly cheap, and allows you to basically wipe out whole squads of stuff that comes on round bases, whether it's weight of fire against gribblies, or poison against the bigger stuff. Vehicles can still be handled with blasters and lances. They have the firepower still.

If anything, what you're seeing is the general shift in 6th ed away from big pile of flimsy units and towards tough, expensive, elite units. Since DE sort of don't HAVE those kinds of units, it's naturally going to be tough.

With a cavalier attitude towards casualties and making the most of force concentration boosts caused by mobility, I hardly think it's a hopeless case, though.

 Makutsu wrote:

In terms of fire power, we lack amount of shots, the range capability and versatility.

Wait, Dark Eldar lack amount of shots?

Well, I also think its not hopeless. In our RTTs we are playing objective based missions, no pure killpoint mission. In such missions, DE should be able to shine.

They are not bottom tier in the slightest.

I'm a total novice DE player and I came second in a tournament using a borrowed DE army.

They have solid answers to everything, but have great difficulty vs Tau, some IG lists and Necrons.

I think they were, now they are better. Why = because of all the MC armies out there (Tau Riptide x 3, 5 x MC CSM/Daemon, Nids and Wraith Knight x 3 eldar), 6-9 Venoms w/ duel Splinter Cannons can cause alot of hurt. Yes you still get Rocked by Scissors armies, but you crunch rock armies.
Poison does not care about toughness.

ITs not just the MC's which they are a perfect counter to, its the shift from AV to infantry 6th ed has seen they can now spend more pts on splinter cannons. A friend runs a 1850 list with 9 lances and over 140 posion shots at 36" range, everything is meched up in venoms etc, so nightshields help with the - 6 inch range. Up close they kick out over 200 posined shots iirc.

I would not say that Dark Eldar are bad now by any stretch of the imagination. I am still doing fine in standard games of 40k.

However, 6th Edition has done a lot to gut our number of viable builds by hurting our close combat units immensely. For example wych and webway based lists are laughable. Heck, when people do take wyches now it is for anti-tank duty as a suicide unit of all things.

6e requires you to slaughter piles upon piles of infantry and monstrous creatures, and the Dark Eldar's shooting can do that very, very well.

The key thing with DE is while they have a lot of CC units, their anti toughness shooting is second to none.

With a DE army, you can ignore the CC units and just go all out shooty and still hold out against a huge amount of top tier lists. Especially so when you play low level games.

Well lets see; BA are better, Daemons are better, CSM are better, Dark Angels are better, Eldar are better, GK are better, IG are better, Necrons are better, SW are better, Tau are better and Nids are better. That just leaves them above/around the same level as Templars, Nilla Marines and pure Sisters and pure Orks (those two armies have some milage when used with Allies, but DE can only ally with Eldar who would far rather ally with someone better), but that's about it, so yes they are most definitely bottom tier.

That isn't to say that they have nothing going for them, the massed poisoned shooting is still nice. However the fact the entire army is made of paper lets it down big time. If you are playing Dark Eldar you HAVE to go first, otherwise you lose a big chunk of your skimmer fleet turn 1 and will be well on the way to losing if you are playing a half decent player. Obviously you can take the Baron to help get around this, but you are still going to be in a terrible position in slightly less than half your games. To me what ends the argument about whether they are bad or not is the fact that you can give them a really good matchup (Nids for example), and can still very very easily lose those games if you don't go first (i.e Flyrants take out 2 vehicles turn 1, you struggle to ground them while huge numbers of Gaunts are running at you and giving the Nid player complete board control, turn 2 Ymagals show up and combi charge a couple more vehicles and things do downhill even with all that Poison shooting). No army can rely on going first just to break even, its a recipe for disaster.

Sad to say, I just stopped my Dark Eldar project because of the poor performance. Even the most boring Venom heavy build can't compete with today's common foes.

I'm truly eager to break out the old mandrakes against my brother in laws tau, and get them tied in with his Riptide. I'd love to see that thing fall from the "safety" of the back field like that

I think they can compete, I really regret selling my venom spam army at the end of 5th now as I'd love to give it a run out. As ever in 6th DE are terrain dependent, if they use blos terrain to reduce/nullify a first turn alpha strike and use manoeuvrability to get the angles on opponents they can be absolutely devastating. They have a good range too especially when night shields can reduce the return fire, plus high strength low AP weapons are anathema to most Tau builds and lance weapons are effective vs Necrons AV13.

Powerguy wrote:
Well lets see; BA are better, Daemons are better, CSM are better, Dark Angels are better, Eldar are better, GK are better, IG are better, Necrons are better, SW are better, Tau are better and Nids are better. That just leaves them above/around the same level as Templars, Nilla Marines and pure Sisters and pure Orks (those two armies have some milage when used with Allies, but DE can only ally with Eldar who would far rather ally with someone better), but that's about it, so yes they are most definitely bottom tier.

So much of this must come down to local area opinion. IMO DE are better than BA, Wolves, Dark Angels unless you are including using IG allies. Probably on par with CSM in many cases (they meta great against Nurgle heavy builds as they negate the T bonus) They also Meta Well against most common GK builds these days (they were terrible in 5th when it was all Psybacks and Dreads, but Strike squads on foot get hosed, as can paladins). They meta great against Nids and Daemons (not that hard to ground units when you have 100+ poisoned shots, Tervigons die hard core.)

They certainly are not an easy win army or an easy army to play but especially with Eldar Allies (Re-rolling hits on poisoned shots etc.) they are a strong army. IF we are doing Tiers at all currently IMO they would be something like (in No particular order)

Top Tier
Necrons
IG
Tau

Most others
DE
All Marine and CSM dexes
Orks
Nids
Daemons
Sisters

Bottom
Templars - as there is little they do at this point that other Marine Books don't do better. THough they are still not bad.

When you start to include allies things get shaken up quite a bit more as there is really no differentiation at that point between dexes.

BA are not better than DE. BA are arguably even worse than BT at this point because of atrocious HQs and overcosted theme units that litter the codex.

Mass jumpers doesn't cut it, not does mech BA. Whenever people try to defend the BA, they always cherrypick units from the codex they fear, not explain how they intend to make a coherent TAC list that doesn't doesn't loose big to Necron air, Vendettas, or Helldrakes.

If you want to drag allies into, the DE are battle brothers with everything in the new Eldar codex.

Yeah, DE are tricky, but their scheme of heavy doses of poison weapons keeps getting better as GW puts out more units like the riptide and wraithknight.

I think DE only function with Eldar and if they are built around Deathstars.

Foot DE isn't too good because the troops are pricey and fragile, they are also susceptible to Drakes, Tau and any other ignore cover template weapons.

Mech DE is even worse off. They can put out a lot of hurt and will often times get good alpha strikes, however they cannot take return fire at all. This is quite bad.

In 6th, even my Nid army has had success vs DE. I think that is quite telling.

The lack of shots is really referring to Anti-Tank shots, I know we have way more than enough poison but to be quite frank Splinterlight weapons are kinda lacking in the DE army, if we had 1.5 more of them then maybe we'd do better.

Blasterborn is the most odd one out there, can move only 6" with the venom if you want the full shooting capacity of them. And has to be within 18"...not sure if that's the best range that you want to be in....


I know we're amazing against MCs, but with 5W-6W at 2+ armor it actually takes a lot of shots to get it down.
5W = 30 wounds, 60 hits, 90 shots
6W = 36 wounds, 76 hits, 114 shots
As it seems taking down a riptide or Wraithknight basically requires an entire army to shoot at it to take it down.
Now running Riptides stock and Wraithknight stock seems to be a trend, so you're pumping a lot of stuff into them to take them down, and leaving them alone will cause a lot of trouble too.

On the other hand, since most of their infantry are T3, poison isn't the most point effective gun against them.

For me currently, I think the bottom tier lists are.
BA
BT
DE
SoB<-maybe

Nids are still winning tournaments with the flyrant list, and Orks seems to be getting an update soon enough, and still is middle tier for sure.
Considering how long it took for DE to get an update and to be bottom tier so soon it's just really sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
funny thing is, Dark Lances cost about the same as a Lascannon, but only function better against AV14 which doesn't exist in the current meta.
But lose in range as well.

What MCs do you commonly see with a 2+ armor save?

Common MCs

Tervigon (3+)
Flyrant (3+)
Daemon Prince (3+)
Greater Daemon (3+)
Wraithknight (3+)

Riptide (2+)
Dreadknight (2+)

So sure their are a couple but assuming a 3+ is a far better assumption than 2+, and no 6 wound MC has a 2+.


Against a MC with a 3+ you need 54 Poisoned shots to kill, assuming you don't hit it with any other weapons.

Futhermore against Tau you just target their Markerlights first, so you can get your cover.


Also DE troops are expensive? 9 or 10 points? Expensive compared to Kroot or Orks, but hardly expensive.

I showed in a different thread that given the point costs of most units Poisoned shooting is just as point efficient against T3 as most other basic guns on troops (They get beat by Kroot, Orks, and IG, but not much else.).

Just saying DE has won at least one 50+ person GT (with Eldar Allies) and placed well at Adepticon (obviously both prior to Tau and Eldar).

SO hardly seem bottom Tier to me (how have marines without IG allies placed? )

Dark Eldar in general are a very Win Big/Lose Big type of army in general.

DE are very good at engaging MC's, AV14 tanks, and the like, but tend to have issues with confronted with sheer numbers of mediocre/piddly stuff. A Dark Eldar list won't have an issue facing 4 Land Raiders, they will very much have an issue facing 10 Chimeras, likewise they won't have much issue with T5 Terminators but will generally actually have more of an issue with lots T3 dudes.

On top of that, 6E has done a lot to reduce the viability of many of their units. Somehow DE vehicles were made even easier to kill (in terms of average number of shots required) than they used to be, and due to the nature of 6th edition CC units, of which DE have many, aren't as useful. On top of that, 9+pts for 5+sv infantry isn't cheap.


TL;DR DE are very, very good at facing some armies, and very very bad at facing others.

Dark Eldar Night Shields can take a lot of the bite out of Tau, especially some of the more popular units such as HYMP XV88s.

Splinter Cannons have 36" range and a venom with Night Shields means that a Tau pulse rifle has a range of 24" when shooting at it. So if you hug that 36" range, the Tau Pulse Rifle cannot hit you, even if they move forwards.

Next up is Missilesides. HYMP has 36" range so that becomes 30". If that Broadside wants to shoot you with its main weapon it has to move and so fire snap shots. Smart Missiles suffer the same problem as Pulse Rifles.

Markerlights can alleviate this, so they should be target priority number one. If you can keep at 36" range from Pathfinders then that's snap shot markerlights, with makes it a lot harder to strip cover and boost ballistic skill as they aren't getting the number of hits they need.

High range stuff like Hammerheads, Railsides, MP Crisis and Riptides are still a problem, though.

I have five flgs that I frequent. All of them are far from the other and each of them has a DE Player that no one can beat.

This guy Ryan from my local Stoke store, is our top player. With his DE he never finishes below top 8. His army is fantastic and his skills with it are something to behold.

Ryan regularly wins local tournaments and enters the GTs.

If you asked him and anyone in our group, we'd say DE are far from bottom tier.

Mid to high mid possibly, but I think that it might have something to do with the pilot too.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Dark Eldar Night Shields can take a lot of the bite out of Tau, especially some of the more popular units such as HYMP XV88s.

Splinter Cannons have 36" range and a venom with Night Shields means that a Tau pulse rifle has a range of 24" when shooting at it. So if you hug that 36" range, the Tau Pulse Rifle cannot hit you, even if they move forwards.

Next up is Missilesides. HYMP has 36" range so that becomes 30". If that Broadside wants to shoot you with its main weapon it has to move and so fire snap shots. Smart Missiles suffer the same problem as Pulse Rifles.

Markerlights can alleviate this, so they should be target priority number one. If you can keep at 36" range from Pathfinders then that's snap shot markerlights, with makes it a lot harder to strip cover and boost ballistic skill as they aren't getting thee number of hits they need.

High range stuff like Hammerheads, Railsides, MP Crisis and Riptides are still a problem, though.

Even without markerlights, Broadsides with their twin-linking Str.7 will make short work of DE vehicles. I don't think DE stand much chance, if any against Tau, Eldar, Necrons, GK and IG. Everything else I think they can compete with..

It is my opinion that DE are currently a very strong army. Your issue may be the way you play them.

Range: You have 36" range guns on platforms that move 12". You have the same range as most other heavy weapons platforms. The only people out-ranging you are Tau and IG, both of whom lack your mobility. Add in nightshields and you gain 6" of range advantage on your vehicles. This allows you to take advantage of first strike capability, even when going second (Pre-measure your opponents anti-tank weapon's range).

Firepower: You can spam venoms with 12 poison shots at BS 4 Each for 70ish points. Grab a couple of these guys and you can splat a monsterous creature every turn. I'll give you that your lance weapons are expensive, but they can kill any tank in the game (even the vaunted Land Raider). Ravagers are a good platform for them. Blasterborn may be expensive, but considering how cheap the venoms are you can still crank out some scary firepower.

Durability: Your list has never been top tier for durability, you can gain some with nightshields. Your main survivability has always come from fielding a ton of crazy cheap units. With most of your squads weighing in at less than 100pts, your opponent will be wasting so much firepower every time they shoot.

Your codex is rather brutal vs anything that doesn't use AV or a 2+ and you have lances and disintigrators for those things that do. Use careful deployment and monitor enemy weapons ranges as you move. Prioritize their long range AT and you will be dancing in circles around them as they die of mass splinter and lance fire.

Range: You have 36" range guns on platforms that move 12". You have the same range as most other heavy weapons platforms. The only people out-ranging you are Tau and IG, both of whom lack your mobility. Add in nightshields and you gain 6" of range advantage on your vehicles. This allows you to take advantage of first strike capability, even when going second (Pre-measure your opponents anti-tank weapon's range).

The thing is with a 12" movement you're moving into your enemy's range, which is very undesirable as DE don't want to be shot by anybody at all.
most heavy weapon platforms are generally 36" - 48", even with nightshields 48" weapons will murder you.
And with the abundance of fliers, mobility of DE skimmers mean a lot less.

Firepower: You can spam venoms with 12 poison shots at BS 4 Each for 70ish points. Grab a couple of these guys and you can splat a monsterous creature every turn. I'll give you that your lance weapons are expensive, but they can kill any tank in the game (even the vaunted Land Raider). Ravagers are a good platform for them. Blasterborn may be expensive, but considering how cheap the venoms are you can still crank out some scary firepower.

Venoms are amazing, but they come with tax of whatever you're buying with them and they don't work really well with venoms.
Just because it can kill any tank doesn't mean it's effective, AV14 is the only spot it is good at when compared to the same costed Lascannon.
Blasterborn has a range of 18" which means that whatever you're shooting at if it's not dead by next turn you're toast.

Durability: Your list has never been top tier for durability, you can gain some with nightshields. Your main survivability has always come from fielding a ton of crazy cheap units. With most of your squads weighing in at less than 100pts, your opponent will be wasting so much firepower every time they shoot.

Your codex is rather brutal vs anything that doesn't use AV or a 2+ and you have lances and disintigrators for those things that do. Use careful deployment and monitor enemy weapons ranges as you move. Prioritize their long range AT and you will be dancing in circles around them as they die of mass splinter and lance fire.

Durability is completely fine if it can dish out the amount of damage it's supposed to which it does and sometimes doesn't.
Going 2nd for DE is pretty much game right there.
Even with 4+, 5+ cover saves by turn 2 chances are 1/3 of your army's vehicles are pretty much gone.

You can't prioritize long range as anything else they have in close range will crack you open.
Dancing in circles only happen if you somehow are up against armies that lack completely in range or mobility.
Which has happened before me against Blood Angel Death company, or DE against Tyranids in general.

Dark Eldar is really a match up army, against the right matchup you'll win really heavily, against a bad matchup Venomspam vs Mechspam, you can pretty much just tidy up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LValx wrote:

Even without markerlights, Broadsides with their twin-linking Str.7 will make short work of DE vehicles. I don't think DE stand much chance, if any against Tau, Eldar, Necrons, GK and IG. Everything else I think they can compete with..

Dark Eldar can't really beat Space Wolves either if they go 2nd, and if they do a wall of some sort then you're going to have some trouble getting close to the long fangs too.
Chaos Space Marines with Helturkeys are another bane of Dark Eldar S6 is way more than enough to torch those pesky T3 that rely on cover saves, and ignores FNP.

I think what people don't consider when thinking competitive is Meta. Long Fangs are meh in the current meta, they are not great infantry killers, and Heldrakes eat them, so they don't work well so unless you face them first you never see them. Furhtermore, they kill what at most 3 Venemons, then get Vaped by all the DE shooting the next turn.

I disagree on GKs owning them, was truen in 5th, but the 6th Ed GK list is not a good because it uses lots of expensive infantry.

I think the issue is that it is very easy to make a bad DE list and get owned.

Against Eldar the match-up is Build Dependent, DE are great against Wraith Amies.

I think in this edition, DE players need to start thinking out of the box.

I'm testing vs Nurgle Drakespam tonight and then Tau afterwards. I know the chaos army I'm facing - Plague Marines, Drake x2, Nurgle Obliterators and Zombies. It's 1750, so it should be a game where I can get a good mix of stuff to take.

Not too sure about Tau though.

Puscifer wrote:
I think in this edition, DE players need to start thinking out of the box.

I'm testing vs Nurgle Drakespam tonight and then Tau afterwards. I know the chaos army I'm facing - Plague Marines, Drake x2, Nurgle Obliterators and Zombies. It's 1750, so it should be a game where I can get a good mix of stuff to take.

Not too sure about Tau though.

I just don't see them having too many options to think out of the box, DE weapons are pretty specialized, and besides splinter cannons none of them really do their job really well, maybe haywire wyches and Venoms might make a good combination.

Martel732 wrote:
BA are not better than DE. BA are arguably even worse than BT at this point because of atrocious HQs and overcosted theme units that litter the codex.

Mass jumpers doesn't cut it, not does mech BA.

Still better than BT. BT have no Librarians, expensive Razorbacks and pay 16 ppm for assault troops without grenades.

I think what people don't consider when thinking competitive is Meta.

Meta is pretty much the main concern for competitive players. In fact, meta is the reason you don't see them.

I played Dark Eldar extensively in 5th edition. The army had an incredibly short run of potential dominance, as a well made GK list was a very hard counter to them. 6th edition did them few favors as well. That being said, there are a few things still worthwhile that can be taken from DE:

HQ-Archon, Vect, Baron
Elites-Grotesques
Troops-Warriors, maybe Hellions
FA-maybe Reavers, Beastpacks
HS: Ravager, Voidravens
Transport-Venoms

DE are great when paired with Eldar to create deathstars. Beastpacks and Grotesques can be very effective when buffed with psychic powers. Warriors are still a solid troops choice. The Baron is a great addition to many builds as well. Units like Venoms, Ravagers, and Voidravens still have a place, despite a serve blow to mech.

However, it is easy to overstate some of these units. Venoms put out an average of 4 wounds on anything with a toughness value. 4 wounds can be very solid against a MC, not so much against 50 Guardsmen. In addition, most DE units lack duality. Finally, the only ally that really makes sense is Eldar, which puts a very limiting scope on what DE can do.

With the release of the new Tau and Eldar codices, it will be nigh impossible for an entirely DE list to compete in large events. The ability to play spoiler is still out there, as they do match up very well with some lists. The issue is that there are a number of extremely uphill battles, and these bad matches look to be frequent occurrences. My verdict would be to use them to supplement Eldar lists or not at all.

There is a Dark Eldar player at my store that wrecks alot of us on a regular basis. He brings like 5-7 raiders filled with Cabalites and just shoots you to death. Toughness 5+? Poison 4+. Got armor? TL Dark Lances. His only real weakness is someone with even more shots (Tau mostly, maybe Necrons assuming out Necron player brought lots of warriors) or have a way to get super close (Deep Strike armies).

So no, DE are still fairly good. Definitely far above bottom tier.

I can't think of a single TL darklance in the codex. I think you are overstating how good the Darklance firepower is from anything save ravagers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've also abandoned my DE for some time. I've returned to favouring my SM and Tau. However, I have the itch to try DE again as I had a great deal of success in 5th.

I've got a few changes I'm making which means adding in a unit of reavers and cutting down the number of wychs to put them in venoms with haywire instead of in raiders with an agonizer.

I'm not really clear if this will hold up to Tau or IG, but its either give it a try or wait for a new codex. Considering how long DE went on the same codex prior to this one, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

There is an idea of completely changing directions with DE and going to a foot based shooting list - but that is essentially getting a whole new army. I'd probably just start a whole new army from a different dex first.

I'm actually really excited about Dark Eldar right now, although it's mostly when backed up by Eldar Allies or as Eldar Allies.

In my case, I'm thinking that standard venom/raider/ravager mech DE can be easily complemented by troop Wraithguard in Wave Serpents, and a Nightspinner.

What are Eldar lacking?
Durable troops choices.
Durable Vehicles.
Ignores Cover Weaponry.
Anti-vehicle apart from Dark Lances.
Volume of Non-poison Shots.

All of these are helped by the aforementioned Wraithguard, WS, and Nightspinner.

Wraithguard give you a troops choice that can't easily be shot off an objective, as well as some great anti-tank. You can also take Fire Dragons in another WS for more anti-vehicle if you need to.
Wave Serpents are incredibly durable, more so if there's a bunch of cheap venoms and raiders drawing away more fire from them. When each WS is quite expensive, it's worth it to take Venoms and Raiders to get armor saturation.
The Serpent Shield ignores cover entirely, the Nightspinner's barrage weapon almost always does, and its torrent flamer always does. This gives you several possible outs against cover-hugging cowards.
The Wraithguard act as great anti-vehicle, with S10, and furthermore, the volume of S6 and S7 on WS allows you to destroy lighter vehicles without having to waste precious Dark Lance shots against them.
Lastly, the amount of S6 and S7 that WS and Nightspinners put out is quite amazing.

This is the army I'm starting to build with DE/Eldar:

Baron
Spiritseer (1 or 2 with Iyanden)

2x Wraithguard in WS w/ SL, SC, Holo
Escort unit for Baron (Guardian Jetbikes replacing a Wraithguard unit? Scourges? Reavers? Hellions? Swooping Hawks or Warp Spiders?)
Venom or Raider Spam, with either Wyches, Warriors, or Blasterborn
As many Ravagers fit in the list
Nightspinner


This type of list also works well if Eldar is Main: Add a Jetseer and Guardian Jetbikes, put Baron in the unit, and start going to town.

Right now, DE w/o allies is a bit limited, but with Eldar allies or as Eldar allies, they seem to me to have tremendous potential.

This is a nooby question but what is "meta" and "deathstar".

DE are good and I think any competitive player who has played against high level DE player will agree with that. They also are such a hard counter to some really prominent builds in the Meta that it seems ridiculous to call them bottom tier.

With that said I can understand why this thread exists and some people think they are awful. There is no easy button with DE. Even the most powerful builds of DE require a skilled pilot to work. It's not like wraithwing that will win 2/3rd of their games on autopilot. So bad players can take the maxed out DE lists and lose horribly which won't happen with an army like necrons. That doesn't mean DE are bad.

 Insane Smile wrote:
This is a nooby question but what is "meta" and "deathstar".

The "meta" is the sort of opponents, lists and tactics that people tend to use overall in a community. You can have both local meta's, tournament meta's and you can also consider the overall 40k meta.

Deathstars are single units that take up a large chunk of your points and generally wreck anything they come in contact with. For instance, taking 10 tooled out Terminators in a Land Raider would be considered a Deathstar.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Insane Smile wrote:
This is a nooby question but what is "meta" and "deathstar".

The "meta" is the sort of opponents, lists and tactics that people tend to use overall in a community. You can have both local meta's, tournament meta's and you can also consider the overall 40k meta.

Deathstars are single units that take up a large chunk of your points and generally wreck anything they come in contact with. For instance, taking 10 tooled out Terminators in a Land Raider would be considered a Deathstar.

Thanks a lot. I'm liking the sound of deathstar units.

So, for those of you who are touting the success of DE, how do you deal with TEQ armies? Your poison weapons don't mean diddly against 2+ saves, and there's no way you have enough AP2 weapons to bring down all the TEQs you're going to face before they can wipe you.

Pony_law wrote:
DE are good and I think any competitive player who has played against high level DE player will agree with that. They also are such a hard counter to some really prominent builds in the Meta that it seems ridiculous to call them bottom tier.

With that said I can understand why this thread exists and some people think they are awful. There is no easy button with DE. Even the most powerful builds of DE require a skilled pilot to work. It's not like wraithwing that will win 2/3rd of their games on autopilot. So bad players can take the maxed out DE lists and lose horribly which won't happen with an army like necrons. That doesn't mean DE are bad.

If an army requires the elitist of the elitist to use and still is only on par with a min-maxed out Army then yes it's pretty bad.

DE bottom tier? certainly not! They are just a tricky army to use.

DE ended third on the norwegian championship.

How can an all TEQ army ever catch you given DE vehicles?

CMLs are their only weapon with reach. Certainly, that is going to be your big obstacle, but you can probably dance around them for a few turns before having to make a move on objectives.

A realistic TEQ list would feature a long range option or two, but target those down and then let the dance begin.

 Octopoid wrote:
So, for those of you who are touting the success of DE, how do you deal with TEQ armies? Your poison weapons don't mean diddly against 2+ saves, and there's no way you have enough AP2 weapons to bring down all the TEQs you're going to face before they can wipe you.

DE can spam that much poison shots that we force failed armour saves. I've had my Deathwing tabled in three turns by this.

I'm almost amused by some of the comments in this thread. It does not seem to matter that DE with and without Eldar allies have performed consistently well in 6ed. They are still being maligned because

A) People pick them up and play them like Smurfs.
B) The army takes a lot of skill to run successfully
C) People simply parrot others opinions bout DE without actually having played them or against them

I'm not saying that DE are the best list out there. But they can be competitive, they have done well at tournaments and 6ed actually improved them. If you are playing competitively you are likely using allies anyway regardless of your primary force so DE works well with Eldar allies - both lists improve when meshed. So I don't see the issue here. We discuss this quite a bit at thedarkcity.net - the obvious internet adversity to DE. Despite Mush's batreps illustrating that they can win even against heldrake spam, daemon FMC lists etc., they are still maligned

Yeah, except that the DE lists that perform well are generally of 2 types:

Seer Council deathstar
Beastpack deathstar

Sean Nayden, I think it is, places well frequently in east coast events. But most of his lists seem to revolve around abusing the combos between the two armies. I have yet to see pure DE fare particularly well in any events.

DE eat up my BA just fine. Both mech and jumpers.

 Dracos wrote:
I can't think of a single TL darklance in the codex. I think you are overstating how good the Darklance firepower is from anything save ravagers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've also abandoned my DE for some time. I've returned to favouring my SM and Tau. However, I have the itch to try DE again as I had a great deal of success in 5th.

I've got a few changes I'm making which means adding in a unit of reavers and cutting down the number of wychs to put them in venoms with haywire instead of in raiders with an agonizer.

I'm not really clear if this will hold up to Tau or IG, but its either give it a try or wait for a new codex. Considering how long DE went on the same codex prior to this one, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

There is an idea of completely changing directions with DE and going to a foot based shooting list - but that is essentially getting a whole new army. I'd probably just start a whole new army from a different dex first.

If you decide to give it a try, perhaps you can ally in a seer council to roll with the Baron. Pretty much the dirtiest trick I've seen involving the two varieties of coneheads.

Didn't manage to get the games in, but I did manage to get some theory listing done.

I'll post them up later when I think I've got a tight list.

So far, I'm looking at a really tough Coven list with Wraith allies and a pure DE Sliscus list.

I think the Wraith/Coven will do better IMO.

 LValx wrote:
Yeah, except that the DE lists that perform well are generally of 2 types:

Seer Council deathstar
Beastpack deathstar

Sean Nayden, I think it is, places well frequently in east coast events. But most of his lists seem to revolve around abusing the combos between the two armies. I have yet to see pure DE fare particularly well in any events.

I agree that they are strongest with Eldar, but is that really a knock against them? I mean, outside of Tau and Necrons, is there any codex that is doing very well at the top levels without some sort of ally supplement?



I don't play with my DE nearly enough, but I'm always scoring the internet for good advice on them and tinkering with lists. I'll agree with others who said that DE can do well in 6th, just not the same way they did well in 5th. 20 man Warrior squads behind an Aegis are something that you never use to see in 5th, but a very good DZ scoring contingent in 6th. Another mistake I think a lot of people make are over relying on Homs to get your pain tokens. Use your guns, they are free. Use your vehicle based firepower to whittle troops down, and your footbased to finish them off. Also, speaking of vehicles, mech spam is no longer the most competitive build for any army.

I think another mistake people make in 6th is they think that "the top DE build is Venom Spam, and if that can't compete, they can't compete." That's just not true anymore. Vehicles are still useful mind you, but in a more restrictive and focused format.

And on that note, anti-vehicle is not nearly as important as it use to be. Stop over spending on 21+ Lances. A handful of dedicated anti-vehicle units (Ravagers/VOid Raven/Haywire) should be plenty sufficient for the modern meta.


I would love to see someone start a list with 120 Warriors+Splinter Cannons and move from there. It's so unconventional to most peoples idea of DE that I've never seen it done, but I think it could be surprisingly good.

Something like:

HQ(not sure which one)

Shardcarbineborn in Raiders


Aegis +
120 Warriors +Splinter Cannons, maybe blasters/Accolytes (or whatever the warrior Character is called) JIC.

Haywire or Heat Lance Reavers or Scourges

Ravagers or Void Raven.

Basically the idea is a lot of bases and stuff that kills bases, a modicum of anti-tank.



I'm also working on a Grotstar/Eldar build that I think could be pretty effective.

DE are very ally based. Almost anyone who can ally with DE do well with DE. Eldar-DE is still an incredibly combination with invisi-pack being even cheaper than last edition. Heck, you can even throw eldrad in now due to him gaining fleet.

I would love to see someone start a list with 120 Warriors+Splinter Cannons and move from there. It's so unconventional to most peoples idea of DE that I've never seen it done, but I think it could be surprisingly good.

I like Warrior blobs as well. The issue is the cost. 1320 for 120 Warriors with 2x Cannon per squad. Not alot left to work with at 1850. I think maybe 80 tops if one was to go to that extreme.

Speaking of allies, I'm assuming that psychic powers work on your allied detachment?

 JGrand wrote:

I would love to see someone start a list with 120 Warriors+Splinter Cannons and move from there. It's so unconventional to most peoples idea of DE that I've never seen it done, but I think it could be surprisingly good.

I like Warrior blobs as well. The issue is the cost. 1320 for 120 Warriors with 2x Cannon per squad. Not alot left to work with at 1850. I think maybe 80 tops if one was to go to that extreme.

Yeah, you're probably right. 80 would leave a lot more breathing room for more Dakka, and still give you plenty of scoring. Generally idea would be lots of bodies though. That's why I was thinking of pairing them with either trueborn in raiders, scourges, or bikes.

 LValx wrote:
Yeah, except that the DE lists that perform well are generally of 2 types:

Seer Council deathstar
Beastpack deathstar

Sean Nayden, I think it is, places well frequently in east coast events. But most of his lists seem to revolve around abusing the combos between the two armies. I have yet to see pure DE fare particularly well in any events.

But that is more or. Less true for most armies. I have not seen pure _____place well. Ig, wolves, space marines, blood angels, sisters, csm, Templars, eldar (though we shall see with the new book).

Essentially if you are not crons, nids or Tau (gk do ok but pure gk have not won anything that I'm aware of) then we should say you are bottom tier.

I think it depends on what you consider bottom tier. For many if it is not top tier it is bottom tier. For others because sisters is below it it is not bottom tier.

That being said DE's problem is not that it isn't good, its problem is that it is not reliable. DE more than most any other army relies on going first, getting night fight, having the right mission, having enough terrain, not having too much terrain etc. For DE a turn of bad rolls can be too much to recover from, and one bad play can lose the game for you. So this is the main reason I think DE are not top tier.

That being said, DE make a great pair with Eldar. I don't think DE + Eldar is top tier but it is good and fun to play with. If you are playing in an environment where performance is more important that fun then then stay away from DE but DE has given me some of the best games I can remember.

Maybe I don't notice because I play Dark Eldar with such a large number of tough units and did from the very start of the codex. My Urien build which is heavily melee oriented, still beats some serious you-know-what.

Combined arms is how i balance it. I have enough shooting to keep people scared of it but not enough to steal my melee oomph. Tightrope I know. But it wins way more than it loses so hooray.

 Jancoran wrote:
Maybe I don't notice because I play Dark Eldar with such a large number of tough units and did from the very start of the codex. My Urien build which is heavily melee oriented, still beats some serious you-know-what.

Combined arms is how i balance it. I have enough shooting to keep people scared of it but not enough to steal my melee oomph. Tightrope I know. But it wins way more than it loses so hooray.

This is how I'm planning my army to some extent.

I want a DE army that is different, but effective.

I'm thinking a massive unit of Grotesques, backed up by Blasterborn in venoms, Kabalites in Venoms and some Wraith allies. It will be a case of try and kill my army. They'll either be too fast for you to catch or too tough for you to deal with.

May I ask, how do you make your army that tough?

Breng77 wrote:

So sure their are a couple but assuming a 3+ is a far better assumption than 2+, and no 6 wound MC has a 2+.

*Cough* Tyrannofex.

Puscifer wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Maybe I don't notice because I play Dark Eldar with such a large number of tough units and did from the very start of the codex. My Urien build which is heavily melee oriented, still beats some serious you-know-what.

Combined arms is how i balance it. I have enough shooting to keep people scared of it but not enough to steal my melee oomph. Tightrope I know. But it wins way more than it loses so hooray.

This is how I'm planning my army to some extent.

I want a DE army that is different, but effective.

I'm thinking a massive unit of Grotesques, backed up by Blasterborn in venoms, Kabalites in Venoms and some Wraith allies. It will be a case of try and kill my army. They'll either be too fast for you to catch or too tough for you to deal with.

May I ask, how do you make your army that tough?

Personally, I'd advise against one massive unit of anything, as it helps your opponent to focus his fire. You want to have lots of opportunities so if one fails, you have fall backs. For that reason, multiple small units wherever possible. Perhaps that a little more difficult to do with grots though I'd still advise splitting them between 2 units at least, in a raider with trophies etc.

Well... to some extent I agree with you.

I was thinking however of using a large unit of Grotesques with tge Baron and a Spiritseer, with two units of Wraithguard with Scythes walking up the field. That is a brick no one can ignore as it will tear just about anything apart.

Baktru wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

So sure their are a couple but assuming a 3+ is a far better assumption than 2+, and no 6 wound MC has a 2+.

*Cough* Tyrannofex.

*Cough* I said units you actually see, otherwise I could continue to add to the list of MCs with 3+ or worse
Not including FW (simply because I don't know all the units) MCs breakdown game wide as far as saves go.

2+ save (3 maybe 4)
Riptide
Dreadknight
Tyranofex
Tyrant sometimes

3+ or worse = 23
Carnifex
Tervigon
Tyrant almost always
Swarmlord
Trygon
Mawloc
Harpy
Canoptek spyder
Ctan shard
Avatar
Wraith Knight
Wraith Lord
Talos
Chronos
Bloodthirster
Scarbrand
Lord of Change
Fateweaver
Keeper of Secrets
GUCO
Special nurgle guy (forget his name)
Daemon Prince (Daemons)
Daemon Prince (CSM)


So going with things we actually see makes 2+ Mcs a larger percent of what we see, than what is actually in the game.

Breng77 wrote:

 LValx wrote:
Yeah, except that the DE lists that perform well are generally of 2 types:

Seer Council deathstar
Beastpack deathstar

Sean Nayden, I think it is, places well frequently in east coast events. But most of his lists seem to revolve around abusing the combos between the two armies. I have yet to see pure DE fare particularly well in any events.

But that is more or. Less true for most armies. I have not seen pure _____place well. Ig, wolves, space marines, blood angels, sisters, csm, Templars, eldar (though we shall see with the new book).

Essentially if you are not crons, nids or Tau (gk do ok but pure gk have not won anything that I'm aware of) then we should say you are bottom tier.

Well, let me rephrase. I have yet to see balanced DE lists do well, regardless of allies. The only DE lists I see do well are the ones that are extreme. Invisible Beastpacks, Fortune'd/Invisibility Councils, these are very extreme lists that lots of armies and generals simply can't handle.

I think IG, SW, GK, Eldar, Tau, Nids can all function well on their own, for what thats worth.

I'm just going off tournament results, Other than Tau, Crons, and Nids, I have not seen an army without allies win the event, and othe rthan GK have not even really seen them place well.

SW on their own I don't think are very strong at this point, they just don't put out enough shots to be top Tier on their own.

All Nid lists that are successful are essentially extreme lists (psychoir), so then are they on the same tier as DE? What about Crons, Cron air is an extreme build. There are very few TAC lists these days.

All I'm saying is that being better with allies hardly makes them bottom tier, and their good builds being extreme does not make them bottom tier either.

Nid lists aren't extreme. They are usually well-balanced with a heavy troop presence, average shooting presence and above average combat presence. Completely different in everyway than a near indestructible deathstar.

And I agree, being better with allies isn't what makes them bad. What makes them bad is fragility. Their transports aren't good in 6th. Nerfs to OT hurt wyches and other assault units. Venoms, while impressive, aren't the bees knees these days. Tau, Eldar, Crons can put out similar firepower but with more durable platforms. Foot DE is problematic because a lot of the infantry units are still fairly expensive and with Tau running around expensive Xenos aren't good.

I think that only having 1 type of viable build (a deathstar no less) is telling of what "tier" they belong in. DE may work in a local, smaller community, but I think they'll have difficulty at any GT-level event due to hard counters, whether it be to their mech builds, or to their deathstars.

Except that DE have Won a Gt(Templecon), and Placed Well at another (adepticon), so I don't see how your reasoning holds. I'm not saying they are the best army. But you keep saying things like they have one Build. Essentially so do nids, and most Marine books (IG Blob + Insert Marine Book here).

Again I don't think they are top tier(which is what you get trying to compare them to Crons, Tau, and Eldar) but they are on a level with most other Books in the game.

I think this thread is ridiculous. DE are an amazing army with answers to pretty much everything they can encounter.

A TAC DE list against any other TAC list will usually be a pretty awesome battle....

What list won Templecon? Was it Sean Nayden's? Because he's the one who did well at Adepticon with the Beastpack.

Nids can have a fair bit more variety than you are giving them credit for, it's just that most people gravitate towards the one build (See MVBrandt's, its fairly different from your standard "netlist"). Flyrants, Swarmlord, Parasite, Doom, Ymgarals, Hive Guard, Zoanthropes, Gargs, Tervigons/Gants, Fexes, Trygons, Mawlocs, Biovores are all pretty good these days.

For me, a codex that needs to rely on gimmicks (I find psyker based Deathstars a bit gimmicky) to win, is largely noncompetitive. We agree to disagree on the subject.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd rather play Nids, Orks, Tau, Necrons, Eldar, SW, SM, IG, Daemons or CSM than DE. I think they are all better armies.

Yup, same list. As for the variety, while some of those things are good the Nid lists are all Psychoir builds with a few different side options. Most of the sucessful ones I see area actually much closer to the MvBrandt list. While they use some different units they funciton in a similar way.

As for rather playing them I'd rather Play against

Orks, Crons, Wolves, SM, IG, Daemons or CSM than DE. I think they are easier to deal with for me that a good Player with a good DE list. In fact I have not lost to SM or wolves or any non GK MEQ during 6th Ed. Most of the time I table them fairly easily. I think Wolves have some nice tools, but for the most part they are not scary like they were in 5th, so unless you are using them with IG blob, I really am not worried by them.

Lets put it this way. DE are very strong against lots of CSm builds, against nids, against Daemons, against MEQ builds. Pretty strong against Orks (Beast Pack build rolls orks easy).

I think New Tau and Eldar are bad Matchups and Crons is fairly even.

Puscifer wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
So, for those of you who are touting the success of DE, how do you deal with TEQ armies? Your poison weapons don't mean diddly against 2+ saves, and there's no way you have enough AP2 weapons to bring down all the TEQs you're going to face before they can wipe you.

DE can spam that much poison shots that we force failed armour saves. I've had my Deathwing tabled in three turns by this.

True, DE have a lot of problems but TEQ armies have never been one of them.

I think the Beastpack and Seer Council with Baron are both pretty nasty. But I don't think its enough to call the book, or army good. And the basis of the Psychoir Nid lists is really the Tervigon, which happens to be the best troops choice. I see a lot of variance in what people bring in the elites and HS slots.

I play Taudar, so DE might be my favorite matchup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And i'm surprised you see Nids lists that are more like Mikes..

I usually see:
2x Flyrant
2-3x Tervigon
Doom
HG
Biovores

So it then is just a personal way to see things, you play the worst matchup for DE, where as it is one of my worst matchups. I think the book is as good as most other books. Again, not the best book, but on par with most of the books out there. ( I think Only Crons, IG, TAu, Eldar are significantly better.)

Puscifer wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Maybe I don't notice because I play Dark Eldar with such a large number of tough units and did from the very start of the codex. My Urien build which is heavily melee oriented, still beats some serious you-know-what.

Combined arms is how i balance it. I have enough shooting to keep people scared of it but not enough to steal my melee oomph. Tightrope I know. But it wins way more than it loses so hooray.

This is how I'm planning my army to some extent.

I want a DE army that is different, but effective.

I'm thinking a massive unit of Grotesques, backed up by Blasterborn in venoms, Kabalites in Venoms and some Wraith allies. It will be a case of try and kill my army. They'll either be too fast for you to catch or too tough for you to deal with.

May I ask, how do you make your army that tough?

Dont have the list here BUT, roughly:

Bomber
1 wracks in venoms (hexrifle, gooey gun on wracks)
3 Wracks in Boats with the cannons on em (Hex rifle, gooey gun on wracks)
2 Blasterborn in venoms
Just one 4 Monkey beast unit with with 2 razorwing bases and 5 beast masters
7 grotesques
Urien

Thats roughly it

Personally, I'd advise against one massive unit of anything, as it helps your opponent to focus his fire. You want to have lots of opportunities so if one fails, you have fall backs. For that reason, multiple small units wherever possible. Perhaps that a little more difficult to do with grots though I'd still advise splitting them between 2 units at least, in a raider with trophies etc.

As Puscifer points out, the key to a Deathstar is synergism. You can't give two units of Grots Stealth, Hit and Run, PGL, Shrouded and (pick another Rune of Battle) at the same time. It then makes target priority super easy as your opponent just shoots the one that isn't buffed. However, you can do it to 10 Grots at once. Then you are hiding your HQs behind 30 T5 wounds of 2++ FNP goodness. You actually WANT the enemy to shoot at them. Because, baring ignores cover (which you'll still have T5 and FNP against), it's going to take about 270 wounds to get through all that Grot Meat, never mind the T5 and HQ wounds.

Then, you have a good delivery system for an HQ beat stick (which between Eldar and Dark Eldar you have a plethora of options to choose from). Think of the Grotstar as a big meaty Land Raider for your HQ beat stick, who can peal off and wreck face once you hit the lines. You can also peel off the Baron, and leave the Spiritseer behind to babysit the meat.

You also only take up one Elite slot that way, leaving more room for Trueborn or...MANDRAKES .

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Personally, I'd advise against one massive unit of anything, as it helps your opponent to focus his fire. You want to have lots of opportunities so if one fails, you have fall backs. For that reason, multiple small units wherever possible. Perhaps that a little more difficult to do with grots though I'd still advise splitting them between 2 units at least, in a raider with trophies etc.

As Puscifer points out, the key to a Deathstar is synergism. You can't give two units of Grots Stealth, Hit and Run, PGL, Shrouded and (pick another Rune of Battle) at the same time. It then makes target priority super easy as your opponent just shoots the one that isn't buffed. However, you can do it to 10 Grots at once. Then you are hiding your HQs behind 30 T5 wounds of 2++ FNP goodness. You actually WANT the enemy to shoot at them. Because, baring ignores cover (which you'll still have T5 and FNP against), it's going to take about 270 wounds to get through all that Grot Meat, never mind the T5 and HQ wounds.

Then, you have a good delivery system for an HQ beat stick (which between Eldar and Dark Eldar you have a plethora of options to choose from). Think of the Grotstar as a big meaty Land Raider for your HQ beat stick, who can peal off and wreck face once you hit the lines. You can also peel off the Baron, and leave the Spiritseer behind to babysit the meat.

You also only take up one Elite slot that way, leaving more room for Trueborn or...MANDRAKES .

Have a +1.

This unit is very very scary and players cannot ignore it. If they do, it wrecks your face. If you take it head on, it wrecks your face. Your only option is to run and put roadblocks up every turn.

So far, the list I have is...

Baron.
Spiritseer.
2 Haemonculi with Liquifiers.
8 Grotesques.

I might cut the Haemonculi, but they are adding additional liquifiers to a very strong unit. Might drop them for a beatstick Archon or Sliscus as he too will add tons to the army. I think Haemonculi for the fluff and a beatstick Archon for when you want to win. 8 Grotesques seem to be enough as 10 is somewhat unwieldy. That and I only have enough bits for 8.

As for the ally troops choices, are we all in agreement that it must be Wraiths with Scythes? They'll provide an adequate toughness 6 wall for the Grotstar to hide behind, will keep all but TH/SS Terminators away and will screw with your opponent's target priority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/536216.page

Posted my list up. Any comments and pointers would be welcome.

Powerguy wrote:
No army can rely on going first just to break even, its a recipe for disaster.

You are correct. So why build your DE to rely on going first? Alpha strike is a crutch that is blunted by going second or good terrain yet so many DE players build their army around that crucial first turn dice roll.

I prefer going second with my DE. I don't have to worry about seize the initiative, I get to see my opponents deployment and I have a stronger last turn denial capability.

Here's a bunch of battle reports of games against solid lists and reasonable opponents. Most of the time I go second without night fight. Sure these are not tournament results but what does that matter? Most of the posters complaining in this thread are saying they struggle to win at all with Dark Eldar when they go second in 6th edition! I don't see myself as being particular talented at 40k. So how come I can win consistently with Dark Eldar if they are "bottom tier" (without running a single venom, eldar allies, the baron or a death star)?

BR17: The Black Buzzards VS Space Wolves - 1500
BR18: The Black Buzzards VS Ravenwing - 1500
BR19: The Black Buzzards VS CSM Triple Helldrake - 1500
BR20: The Black Buzzards VS Tyranids - 1500
BR21: The Black Buzzards VS New Tau - 1500
BR22: The Black Buzzards VS Tau (Rematch) - 1500
BR23: The Black Buzzards VS Tau Mech/Riptide - 1500
BR25: The Black Buzzards VS Tau Mass Broadsides - 1500
BR26: The Black Buzzards VS Eldar Mech - 1500

Hope that helps.

Thanks Mush. Was looking for your sagely advice.

It's not so much sagely advice. It is common sense. DE win when played correctly ... that is using their superior mobility. We don't have to attack Teq ... we move away. We don't have to fear flyers ... we get into cc. See what Mush did to heldrakes. DE pick their battles and pull apart opponent's list with fast strikes and quick retreats. I could genuilely refute 90% of what has been critqued here about DE. DE players are well aware theat their transports are paper, that Wyches no longer are used for cc only that poison does not kill eveything. It is the synergy of speed, poison and darllight that works.

Those are entertaining reads, I have to buy me some bikes since those perform the best in your reports.

One thing that I noticed in the tau battle rep is that the tau list is illegal. The stealth suits have 3 members but 2 fusion blasters, can only have one per 3 members.

Still awesome and I don't think with what I have I can perform as well. I have to get some bikes since those are just amazing.

 ashikenshin wrote:
Those are entertaining reads, I have to buy me some bikes since those perform the best in your reports.

Thanks! Reavers are a load of fun this edition.

 ashikenshin wrote:
TOne thing that I noticed in the tau battle rep is that the tau list is illegal. The stealth suits have 3 members but 2 fusion blasters, can only have one per 3 members.

They are squads of 6: 3 with burst cannons, 2 with fusion blasters, 1 shas'vre with burst cannon. It's just the way I wrote it out which is confusing (but I find it easier to do it that way with all the different gear tau suits can have!).

Ah i get it now still amazing battle reps, yours and the skared cast videos have me buying lots of dark eldar stuff (and painting it too)

Just be wary of copying net lists. You cannot pick up Mush's list or Sean's list and think it is auto win time. I like Reavers. I don't use them that often and I still win plenty of games.

When Sean played his beast pack I copied the list. I also had some pretty extensive discussions with Sean to learn how best to play the list. Still took a couple of games for me to realize its full power and then ... along comes a new codex. My first match against an IG gun line did not work well for me, lol. It was a winnable match but I made mistakes. I'm much better with beast packs now but I've moved on anyway.

You should note that any DE list takes a bit of practice to learn all its nuances. You will not just put these winning lists down on the table first time and win every game, lol. I'm a fairly experienced player. It took me three games to figure out how best to use my Reavers and honestly, I think even Mush will tell you, that you learn something new almost every match.

A good example of this is my new list using a seer council Deldar list. Getting the balance correct, understanding the immediate threats to the list, correctly choosing powers, etc. etc. all takes a bit of practice.

Yeah I don't copy net lists, mine includes 9 wyches with archon on a raider (i don't think anybody recomends doing this anymore) 10 warriors in raider, 2 ravagers and a lone talos (again usually netlists contain 2 or 3). A venom with incubi and what I want to buy now is: another raider, maybe a flyer and 6 bikes.

I usually play to lose (I rather my oponents have fun so they keep coming back) but it's nice to win sometimes

One thing I will ask Mush...

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

I'm thinking less guys, more Venom, more shots?

I think they are mid teir. Eldar will decimate them if you a) know what you're doing and b) don't fall into the fire prism trap and c) bring enough str 6

I think they are mid teir. Eldar will decimate them if you a) know what you're doing and b) don't fall into the fire prism trap and c) bring enough str 6

Seriously. Did you read Mush's batrep against the new Eldar? Are we back to generalizing again? It is so easy to make these type of blanket statements not even knowing how Eldar will fare yet with their new codex. Let us see first if a 'pure' Eldar list wins any events. I'm not saying Elar are poor but there is a lot of hype that naturally surrounds the release of any new codex. DE have proved themselves tournament worthy many times already.

I just played a game vs DE.
http://theadventuresofeldar.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/fifth-game-with-new-codex/
There my own battle report.
Just because he won one against a stupid list (yes fire prisms are stupid, as is serpent spam). Eldar has never been able to stack just one type of unit and expect to win. you need to bring all the tools and use them accordingly. The same is true of DE. I'm not saying that DE is bad. I just think the Eldar player read some stuff on THE INTERWEBS and didn't think at all and it cost him getting his teeth kicked in.

I really don't know what I'm supposed to fear in the DE codex tbh. Vehicle Spam! Bring it. I pop av 10-12 Like its my job (b/c it is). Death star? So what? I use guardians as speed bumps and take out everything else or just out run it with Battle focus, while killing the other 1+K points of your army with my whole army (no i'm not dumb enough to take slow as hell wraithguard).

My point was, that DE has some hard, hard counters. Eldar is one. that prevents them from being top teir. However, they are still lethal if you don't know how to play vs them, even with matchups that favor the Non-DE player.

qballony wrote:
I just played a game vs DE.
http://theadventuresofeldar.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/fifth-game-with-new-codex/
There my own battle report.
Just because he won one against a stupid list (yes fire prisms are stupid, as is serpent spam). Eldar has never been able to stack just one type of unit and expect to win. you need to bring all the tools and use them accordingly. The same is true of DE. I'm not saying that DE is bad. I just think the Eldar player read some stuff on THE INTERWEBS and didn't think at all and it cost him getting his teeth kicked in.

My point was, that DE has some hard, hard counters. Eldar is one. that prevents them from being top teir. However, they are still lethal if you don't know how to play vs them, even with matchups that favor the Non-DE player.

This post goes against everything that is being said about both Eldar and Dark Eldar right now. Wave Serpents are very, very good, and so are Fire Prisms.

I use guardians as speed bumps and take out everything else or just out run it with Battle focus, while killing the other 1+K points of your army with my whole army (no i'm not dumb enough to take slow as hell wraithguard).

This is called "playing into your opponents hands." You've clearly never played a competent player with a Death Star before.

Yeah i have. I ran a harliestar. I won a lot, but i also lost too. Wave serpents Are good. But the thing with them is that spamming too much of any one element in an eldar list is dangerous. Running DAVU serpent spam is not wise imo. 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.

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. 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.

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.

congrats 90 point guardians killed more than the ALMIGHTY WS. 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).

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....

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.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

qballony wrote:
I just played a game vs DE.
http://theadventuresofeldar.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/fifth-game-with-new-codex/
There my own battle report.
Just because he won one against a stupid list (yes fire prisms are stupid, as is serpent spam). Eldar has never been able to stack just one type of unit and expect to win. you need to bring all the tools and use them accordingly. The same is true of DE. I'm not saying that DE is bad. I just think the Eldar player read some stuff on THE INTERWEBS and didn't think at all and it cost him getting his teeth kicked in.

My point was, that DE has some hard, hard counters. Eldar is one. that prevents them from being top teir. However, they are still lethal if you don't know how to play vs them, even with matchups that favor the Non-DE player.

This post goes against everything that is being said about both Eldar and Dark Eldar right now. Wave Serpents are very, very good, and so are Fire Prisms.

I'm not sure if that's what he's saying because he took 2 Serpents and no Fire Prisms. But I agree that Serpents and Fire Prisms are some of the most attractive choices in the book.

EDIT: nvm, that was what he was saying

ShadarLogoth wrote:

I use guardians as speed bumps and take out everything else or just out run it with Battle focus, while killing the other 1+K points of your army with my whole army (no i'm not dumb enough to take slow as hell wraithguard).

This is called "playing into your opponents hands." You've clearly never played a competent player with a Death Star before.

Hm, I'm fairly certain that if you are more mobile than the opponent's death star then this is the strongest strategy. Let the Death Star take 1 objective while you kill the rest of their army and take the rest. If you're not more mobile then you have to bubble wrap them with throwaway units to keep them off the rest of your army.



I've been a fan of gunboats since 3rd when gunboat/sniper/ravager was the only viable strategy. I think some things to remember in 6th is that the new rapid fire rules hurt DE transports because even if you plan to move to 24" and unload splinters at max range, then the enemy can just close 6" and fire back at max range. I do like the Raider though, just remember that the boat and the squad can fire at different targets now in order to maximize the efficiency of the unit (warriors at T and Raider at AV). I'd probably favour Raiders, but that has more to do with my preference for them then the efficacy of the units.

When looking at how splinters fare against MCs, remember that the 4+ to wound means that it's not harder to strip wounds off them than equivalent wounds of same-save infantry. So if an MC has 5W at 3+, then it's no harder to kill that than 5 marines. I'm not saying that makes it any easier but some people in this thread seem to make it sound like an impossible task and if that were true then DE wouldn't be able to kill anything with splinter fire. Another thing to remember is that splinter fire relies on RoF from similar weapons so cover and invulnerable saves don't mean much unless you're looking at really squishy models. So try to force the opponent to deploy long with objective placement then stack up on one side to refuse flank then kill the closest unit first. Use your Ravagers to take out their artillery if it's feasible.

EDIT2: Never forget about Night Fighting, you get free Night Vision and that can make a big difference if it comes up the first turn. If not, it might still be useful at the end so just don't forget it because it's free cover to squishy units.

I'm not sure where the DE stack up in a "tier" sense, but even if they're not top tier I don't think they've been completely relegated to the shelf yet.

fuhrmaaj makes good points. That is how you play a glass cannon.

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.

 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. .

Yes it is strange for a codex that got loads of boosts from the change to 6th, benefits greatly from the general shift to foot based infantry lists and is probably one of the most tactically stimulating and thrilling armies to play in all 40k.

I really I don't see what's causing all this gloom? Did I miss something?

 Jancoran wrote:
Its been a shmashing army for tournies for a long time for me.

Agreed despite what the internet says Sisters have quite a decent codex, not to mention one of the most under costed and annoying HQ choices in the game. I absolutely loath St Celestine, she is a celestial nightmare!

Continuing on the off topic-ness: Sisters really aren't that bad, their problem isn't the codex, it's the lack of love from GW.

On topic: I do feel a tad jealous of Eldar, I would love to run and shoot, they sound so much faster than us(I know I know, we're both fast army, but still!)... May be they could give us run and assault when we get our update... Teeheehee

Sisters/IG can be quite devastating actually. I played a game quite recently against a list using Jacobus in an IG blob with 3 autocannons and 3 power axes, St Celestine, 2 Sister squads in Repressors, 3 Exorcists, A CCS with Camo/Autocannon behind an Quad Aegis, a PCS with flamers in a Vendetta, 2x 3 Autocannon Sabre Platforms. This list had all the tools to make me sweat. I didn't want anything in reserve ( too much interceptor) had a tough time with his AGL cover saves, he had a fearless blob, a returning HQ - Celestine is way OP, and AV 13 vehicles .. really now. So anyone thinking that SoB are pushovers should rethink their assessments. Much like DE they are maligned as sub-par but with the right allies do they ever shine. I was playing a list with WKs and a Seer council and it went to turn four when we had to end the game ( time restraints). At the point the outcome was not predictable yet. Either of is could have pulled out a win. Imagine that turn one he can fire off 14 autocannon shots, and his three exorcists. On turn two I'm facing heavy flamers and four meltas. And St. Celestine on her own can handle any footslogging troop in my list easily. Of course I had extremely good cover saves and mansaged to get first turn - thankfully - and I have to say that WKs are so tough it's amazing and seer council has to be among the most annoying units in the game now.

So much for sub-par codexes. Both DE nad SoB in the right builds will compete.

 felixcat wrote:

So much for sub-par codexes. Both DE nad SoB in the right builds will compete.

Yes. yes they will.

Baronyu wrote:
I do feel a tad jealous of Eldar, I would love to run and shoot, they sound so much faster than us(I know I know, we're both fast army, but still!)...

That's a huge misconception, they are not faster than us, and battle focus does not change that.

They have no open topped transports, this reduces their mobility in several ways, they can't assault out of transports, they can't shoot out of transports without disembarking, and they can't embark into a transport 6" away, move 6" with the transport (to get 12" movement) and still be able to shoot out of their transport (tricks like these are what make Dark Eldar shine). They have no units that can do damage while redeploying 48", bladevanes are an incredibly powerful mechanic.

Finally the biggest downside to battle focus, is you have to be on foot to use it and are therefore inherently slower. All battle focus does is give you the illusion of speed. Sure jump shoot jump is cute, a nice mechanic, but in no way does it make eldar faster than their Dark Eldar brethren.

Baronyu wrote:
May be they could give us run and assault when we get our update... Teeheehee

That would be terrible and so boring to play with, one of the great things about 6th is units like wyches and hellions got to shoot their weapons before assaulting (in 6th they would use fleet to charge after running and not be able to shoot). Your suggested rule would just bring us full circle, not to mention we have a lot of shooting based units that would not benefit from it at all. Good army wide special rules should benefit the whole army, not just a few units.

Night vision and power from pain are both very potent, if anything all we need is a slight re-tweak of power from pain (the change from 4+ FNP to 5+ FNP made it less valuable on certain units). Power from pain is a fantastic way of making a glass cannon army more forgiving, as the more damage you do the more resilient your surviving forces get.

We don't need some assault after running gimmick it doesn't do anything for us.

"Good army-wide rules should benefit the entire army" and then you go on to praise Night Vision, which does what for assault units?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Good army-wide rules should benefit the entire army" and then you go on to praise Night Vision, which does what for assault units?

True night vision doesn't do anything for assault units, that being said the rules for night fight already benefit assault units and hinder shooting units (by improving cover). So night vision is a clever way of making both ranged and assault units benefit from the night fight special rules.

A better argument would be why doesn't power from pain affect vehicles? Though traditionally vehicles have rarely benefited from army wide special rules. Another argument would be that furious charge from power from pain doesn't benefit shooting units (preferred enemy would have been better).

At the end of the day special rules of the Dark Eldar benefit every unit in the codex one way or another. Vehicles are shooting platforms and benefit from night vision, shooting units benefit from night vision and power from pain and assault units benefit from power from pain. Flyers being the main exceptions they only benefit from night vision if their is night fight at the end of the game.

My point being that "battle focus" is only beneficial to a small subset of eldar units (infantry shooting units & war walkers), an assault version of "battle focus" would have similar limitations (even more so considering how much stronger shooting is this edition).

I hope that explains more clearly where I was coming from.

When I was thinking of picking up Dark Eldar as a second army a few months back and reading through Battle Reports and the codex, the things that basically prevented me from getting into them was:

- Cover changed game-wide to 5+ : With how fragile the Dark Eldar are, I saw way too many units in their codex that relies on their Cover Save to keep them resilient. The nerf of Cover hurts Dark Eldar more than a lot of other Xenos armies that can fall back on their armor saves.
- Feel no Pain changed to 5+ : While I think it's definitely true that TOO MANY UNITS in 40k have Feel No Pain (I feel it should be a much more rare ability) again, Dark Eldar rely on it to give their units any kind of resiliency. Nerfing it to 5+ seems like it would significantly negatively affect them.

With these two things combined I just thought that Dark Eldar would be more Glass than Cannon, and I just don't think I'd enjoy playing them much, so I didn't get them. I did just purchase the new Eldar though, and I'm really looking forward to buying a Dark Eldar allied detachment because I love the Dark Eldar models so much.

Murrdox wrote:
When I was thinking of picking up Dark Eldar as a second army a few months back and reading through Battle Reports and the codex, the things that basically prevented me from getting into them was:

- Cover changed game-wide to 5+ : With how fragile the Dark Eldar are, I saw way too many units in their codex that relies on their Cover Save to keep them resilient. The nerf of Cover hurts Dark Eldar more than a lot of other Xenos armies that can fall back on their armor saves.
- Feel no Pain changed to 5+ : While I think it's definitely true that TOO MANY UNITS in 40k have Feel No Pain (I feel it should be a much more rare ability) again, Dark Eldar rely on it to give their units any kind of resiliency. Nerfing it to 5+ seems like it would significantly negatively affect them.

With these two things combined I just thought that Dark Eldar would be more Glass than Cannon, and I just don't think I'd enjoy playing them much, so I didn't get them. I did just purchase the new Eldar though, and I'm really looking forward to buying a Dark Eldar allied detachment because I love the Dark Eldar models so much.

Not sure I buy that other Xenos can really fall back on their armor saves, they might be more durable for other reasons, but armor saves is typically not it.

Nids, average save is a 5+
Eldar on troops is usually 4+ or 5+
Orks 6+
Daemons (nothing, but 5++)
Tau 4+ or 6+ on troops


Necrons are really the only ones that can rely on armor saves for durability.

I think the amount of ignores cover in the last two books hurt more than the reduction of cover and FNP to 5+, it was easy enough to get 4+ or 3+ cover still (going to ground, aegis, psychic powers from eldar) but now that gets ignored.

Breng77 wrote:


I think the amount of ignores cover in the last two books hurt more than the reduction of cover and FNP to 5+, it was easy enough to get 4+ or 3+ cover still (going to ground, aegis, psychic powers from eldar) but now that gets ignored.

You're absolutely right about "Ignores Cover". It's like that rule is 6th Edition's over-reliance of Feel no Pain. More and more battle reports that I read nowadays include that silly Skyshield Landing Pad for that exact reason. The Tau book is especially filled with it.

- Cover changed game-wide to 5+ : With how fragile the Dark Eldar are, I saw way too many units in their codex that relies on their Cover Save to keep them resilient. The nerf of Cover hurts Dark Eldar more than a lot of other Xenos armies that can fall back on their armor saves.
- Feel no Pain changed to 5+ : While I think it's definitely true that TOO MANY UNITS in 40k have Feel No Pain (I feel it should be a much more rare ability) again, Dark Eldar rely on it to give their units any kind of resiliency. Nerfing it to 5+ seems like it would significantly negatively affect them.

With these two things combined I just thought that Dark Eldar would be more Glass than Cannon, and I just don't think I'd enjoy playing them much, so I didn't get them. I did just purchase the new Eldar though, and I'm really looking forward to buying a Dark Eldar allied detachment because I love the Dark Eldar models so much.

It is easy enough to look at units that have not improved and ignore those theat are actually better. I've found that DE play better now.

1) A Grot squad with an Archon and a Haemie in a raider will do damage ... new codexes have done nothing to change my Grotstar and I find less armies are prepared to get into cc with them
2) Beastpacks are just changing their build slightly to comform to the new meta. I have a friend at the LGS that runs a large squad with Jain Zar and Vect. Good luch handling them.
3) Mushkilla has proven time again how much reavers excell in 6ed even with the new Tau, Eldar etc.
4) I play a Seer Council with the Baron and the unit is really annoying to play against and does not entirely rely on cover saves ( protect/fortune are still pretty god, hit and run still works, the baron can take some hits for the squad)

So if you pick Wyches as an example of why DE is no longer as good as it once was you do the codex a disservice. We aren't playing any units in a vacuum. Do DE have the tools to field a competitive list? Do I use an AGL, do I use a an aliied detachment? Do I play them pure? There are choices to be made for sure. But there are strong units still in the codex.

 felixcat wrote:

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 ...

Without allies?

 Juicifer wrote:
Without allies?

Yes without allies.

I have yet to field allies in 6th edition and I do just fine against a large variety competitive lists. I linked some battle reports (with pictures) earlier in this thread (middle of page 3).

Though attempting to argue that Dark Eldar need allies to compete and are therefore bad is a flawed argument. All the top armies out there will run allies of some sort (especially in higher point games): Tau with windrider jetbikes and a farseer, space wolves with an imperial guard infantry blob and so on.

Dark Eldar do just fine without allies, but like any other army allies can help you shore up some of the weaknesses in your list and be a strong addition to your force.

Hope that helps.

 Mushkilla wrote:

 Juicifer wrote:
Without allies?

Yes without allies.

I have yet to field allies in 6th edition and I do just fine against a large variety competitive lists. I linked some battle reports (with pictures) earlier in this thread (middle of page 3).

Though attempting to argue that Dark Eldar need allies to compete and are therefore bad is a flawed argument. All the top armies out there will run allies of some sort (especially in higher point games): Tau with windrider jetbikes and a farseer, space wolves with an imperial guard infantry blob and so on.

Dark Eldar do just fine without allies, but like any other army allies can help you shore up some of the weaknesses in your list and be a strong addition to your force.

Hope that helps.

I agree that just about every army will use allies to make it better. However, I think that there are a fair few codices that can survive without allies (GK, Crons, Eldar, Tau, IG) whereas I think DE are mostly sub-par without Eldar allies.

Obviously that is just my experience speaking and some of you folks have had vastly different experiences (not discounting them). I just find that DE have a few more counters than most other armies in the game (namely Tesla Crons with Flyers, Tau, IG and Serpent Spam).

 Mushkilla wrote:

 Juicifer wrote:
Without allies?

Yes without allies.

I have yet to field allies in 6th edition and I do just fine against a large variety competitive lists. I linked some battle reports (with pictures) earlier in this thread (middle of page 3).

Though attempting to argue that Dark Eldar need allies to compete and are therefore bad is a flawed argument. All the top armies out there will run allies of some sort (especially in higher point games): Tau with windrider jetbikes and a farseer, space wolves with an imperial guard infantry blob and so on.

Dark Eldar do just fine without allies, but like any other army allies can help you shore up some of the weaknesses in your list and be a strong addition to your force.

Hope that helps.

Great battle reports, they were very well played I think.

For the record ... yet another report on how DE fare well in 6ed

http://www.thedarkcity.net/t7118-death-or-glory-aldershot-ardboyz-29th-30th-tournament-uk

Now he did not win the event but his observations are quite useful.

 Makutsu wrote:
With the new Tau and Eldar release, it's hard to notice that DE seems to be outgunned, out manoeuvred, out numbered, out strengthed etc...

Dark Eldar bring an absurd amount of firepower to the table. How are they outgunned? Also, Fast Skimmers abound in the Codex coupled with decent range on many of their weapons, so how are they out maneuvered? Consider:

Raiders, Ravagers and Razorwing Fighters come with Dark Lances for free, and you can swap them out (for free!) for Disintegrator Cannons.

Venoms can bring two Splinter Cannons for 65 points, putting out 12 shots and carrying a small unit which can also shoot.

You are looking at 60 points to bring 5 Wyches with Haywire Grenades before you count their Venom (which you should take if not a Raider). These Wyches get Combat Drugs and a 4++ (in close combat) and can assault out of their vehicle after it moves (6" movement + 6" disembark + Charge with Fleet; that's a fairly decent threat range). 125 points is fairly cheap for a scoring unit with that much versatility.

All your Fast Skimmers can move 12" and fire two weapons at full BS (Ravagers all 3); most have 2 some have 3. You get to tack that on to the weapon's range to get your actual threat range. Given the deployment options, you are likely going to be able to shoot at full effect on Turn 1.

These Fast Skimmers can Turbo Boost 18" instead of shooting. They all get 5+ Cover Saves just for moving, 4+ when Turbo Boosting, all without you having to pay for Flicker Shields

Razorwing Fighters are fairly good. AV10 is worrysome, but they can take down enemy Flyers well enough. I'd take one at least, and probably use allied Eldar for a second Flyer.

Scourges aren't that bad (fairly mediocre though); only source of Shardcarbines other than Trueborn IIRC, which put out a lot of shots (hurray Assault 3!). Jump Infantry with a 4+ Save and a comparatively cheap Dark Lance option, though I'd rather bring a Heat Lance probably.

Hellions are still fairly decent, especially if The Baron is along to make them scoring.

And finally you are battle brothers with Eldar who have some solid choices to bring to help you.

 Makutsu wrote:
Overall, I just don't see anything that DE can bring to the table that others cannot beat easily.
On top of that I just don't see a TAC list that DE can bring. Hence a bottom tier army.
What do you guys think?

I think you haven't really thought it through or don't fully understand all the 6E rules and how they affect Dark Eldar units. Dark Eldar are fast and hit hard in the shooting phase, and can really do a number in the assault phase. Their one worry is anti-armor, so if you played in 5E what did you do against all those mech lists? I'd say overall 6E helped Dark Eldar as a Codex. You have to play them a bit differently than you did in 5E, but they aren't bottom tier.

Their a glass cannon. Always have been, always will be. What weaknesses they do have can be shored up with Eldar allies now though.

Honestly, this thread kind of surprises me. I'm not sure how you could possibly qualify Dark Eldar as bottom tier when you have armies like Blood Angels and Black Templar (or Tyranids, some may say; though personally I've seen them doing rather well in 6E).

Edit: I'm curious, what did you do in 5E against all those mech lists if you think Dark Eldar are bad in 6E? The only weakness that glares at me is that consolidated sources of anti-tank, and all of those being Lance weapons (which is a mixed bag; though I like the idea of it).

Not to mention hull points have also made DE AT a lot less likely be ineffective due to poor penetrate rolls. In 5th sometimes it would take forever for lances to destroy things, at least in 6th if you pen something three times it's gone.

I think I'm in the "don't fully know the rules camp", though one thing I've come to hate is my transport being blown up, which wounds the occupants on a 4+, for which they only get a 5+ save. Some remain, who then promptly get curb stomped by that large unit of Fire Warriors...

For me, the armour save across the board is pitiful, though that's the Eldar aesthetic I guess...

Also not not to mention that the beastpack with jar is very good and now we can incorporate the seer council with baron for an amazing deathstar. You might notice I love deathstars ... DE with Eldar have some of the best ...

 kitch102 wrote:
which wounds the occupants on a 4+

S4 explosions wound T3 models on a 3+, so even more of your models should be dying! I still don't know why they got rid of the 5th edition rule that made open top transports only inflict S3 hits when they exploded (only wounding us on a 4+). :(

It did hurt us and overwatch made us rethink our wyche squads. But you cannot expect everything to improve.

 Mushkilla wrote:

 kitch102 wrote:
which wounds the occupants on a 4+

S4 explosions wound T3 models on a 3+, so even more of your models should be dying! I still don't know why they got rid of the 5th edition rule that made open top transports only inflict S3 hits when they exploded (only wounding us on a 4+). :(

Really? My mini rule book says S3 hit, I'm sure of it

 kitch102 wrote:
Really? My mini rule book says S3 hit, I'm sure of it

S3 is if you are caught in the d6" explosion. The passengers take a S4 hit (BRB page 80, Effects of damage on passengers, Explodes!).

Excellent, my gripe is even stronger now! Lol

The obvious solution is not to start your troops embarked. A gunboat still works ...

Not when your tactic is to get a gunboat or 2 loaded with warriors in rapid fire range to take advantage of splinter rack rerolls.

Granted, I could probably change my tactic, though when I'm facing off against static Tau I need to close that gap as quickly as possible, which means getting on a gun boat.

Could possibly run a WWP - not tried that yet - though I've seen a lot of folks talk ill of them. Still, might be something to experiment with...

WWP are just not what they WERE. That doesn't make them bad. But players are OFTEN negative nellies about anything that "gets worse". Its some form of thereapy for them to throw the baby out with the bath water.

It is less useful and you're not wrong to seek another tactic BUT...WWP is still useful.

Cool.

Just to run a theoretical tactic past you then (I've leant my brb out so nothing to check against)

Could I deepstrike a raider, disembark the occupants amd drop a wwp in the same turn? Dsing a unit of grotesques with a haemy or 2 slap in the middle of his units would be lovely, especially if it meant my units could arrive in rapid fire range without needing to cross the board after

You could, but I'm not sure if you even need to disembark to place a WWP. The biggest problem I see though is... What happen if the units that need the WWP entry enter first? And if you're already deepstriking, why not just have your gunboats deepstrike(Duke or retrofire) and not have all the confusion of having to somehow, magically, have the WWP placer units arrive before the WWP entry units? Also, grotesques may be tough, but if you have little on the table to distract, you'd just have placed an unit of 10-ish wounds T5 zero save, except FNP in the middle of double tap range... who also can't do much except placing the WWP and being shot at. Annnd... How many points are you dumping into the reserve force? Grotesques are quite expensive. Remember you need 50% of your force on the table, and you wouldn't want them to be too fragile.

You could, but I'm not sure if you even need to disembark to place a WWP.

Really? I'm pretty sure that's not true, although would love it if it is.

No you do have to be disembarked to drop a wwp, although that would be awesome if you didn't. It might be interesting if you had like 3 or 4 squads of 20 man warrior units coming out the wwp, it would probably at least make your opponent think for a moment haha.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

You could, but I'm not sure if you even need to disembark to place a WWP.

Really? I'm pretty sure that's not true, although would love it if it is.

Oops, I meant he could disembark after deepstrike. Flaming tadpole answered the WWP part.

WWP has to be placed against the base of the model, so you do indeed disembark

So can you disembark after deepstriking, and then drop the WWP in the shooting phase, all in 1 turn?

I'm sure this is a very basic rules question - sorry to any that think me thick!

No disembarking as deep strike moves you at crusing speed (12")and you can't get out if move over combat(6") but DSing a few gun boats is fun though passengers are snap shooting (splinter rack needed) it's just a shame we dont have a homing beacon type item.

According to the rulebook, you can disembark after deepstriking.

I stand corrected. yes you can DS get out and drop the wwp.

you can never disembark after moving anything but Combat speed, ever. The Drop pod.Mycetic Spore is a specific exception. Can you cite a rule that says otherwise, or perhaps an FAQ? I have no book with me.

Page 36, right after the bullet points.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deep striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.

Excellent, thank you very much


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guessing that assaulting is out of the question in the same turn though?

 kitch102 wrote:
Guessing that assaulting is out of the question in the same turn though?

Correct.

DE FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit that has arrived from reserve through a webway portal
launch an assault the turn it arrives? (p62)
A: No.

But I'm still unsure what you're trying to do with the WWP. If it's Tau you're struggling against, read up on Mushkilla's batrep on how he deals with Tau, may be? Beside, don't they have interceptor or something that allow them to shoot at anything coming in from reserve near them? Don't know much about Tau except that they have scary guns.

Baronyu wrote:
Page 36, right after the bullet points.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deep striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.

Thanks.

Baronyu wrote:

 kitch102 wrote:
Guessing that assaulting is out of the question in the same turn though?

Correct.

DE FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit that has arrived from reserve through a webway portal
launch an assault the turn it arrives? (p62)
A: No.

But I'm still unsure what you're trying to do with the WWP. If it's Tau you're struggling against, read up on Mushkilla's batrep on how he deals with Tau, may be? Beside, don't they have interceptor or something that allow them to shoot at anything coming in from reserve near them? Don't know much about Tau except that they have scary guns.

Thanks.

I'm just looking to increase the survivability of my guys - and I'm thinking that instead of leaving them on gunboats which only blow up and cause them damage, I can march 2 squads of 20 warriors out of a wwp, each with a haemy attached, and rapid fire 40 shots per squad in to his little fethers excluding any extra shots from splinter cannons. So to do this I'd DS a raider loaded up with grotesques or wyches and a haemy, disembark on the opposite side of the raider to which his units are and drop a WWP. Next turn onwards my units start marching through completely undamaged. This also means that I can negate his aegis cover save as I'll be firing from the opposite side of it. Also seeing lots 2 razorwings and a chronos in this fantasy list... maybe a small squad of wracks to sit far out field, just so I can say I have something alive on the board so I dont auto lose if my reserve rolls don't go as planned.

No idea about interceptor though, I'm considering getting a copy of their dex at the weekend just to let me read up on them...

I assume you want to deploy the WWP on turn 1, which if you're going first is basically guaranteed. But, then you have a 6" move with the transport, disembark 6", place wwp. I don't think this is going to get your behind an Aegis.

If you wait until turn 2, you'll probably wind up walking on from your board edge.

and, might be tough to run 40 dudes out of a WWP, you only have 6"

jcress410 wrote:
I assume you want to deploy the WWP on turn 1, which if you're going first is basically guaranteed. But, then you have a 6" move with the transport, disembark 6", place wwp. I don't think this is going to get your behind an Aegis.

If you wait until turn 2, you'll probably wind up walking on from your board edge.

and, might be tough to run 40 dudes out of a WWP, you only have 6"

Yes, though as I'd be deep striking I should be able to choose where I'm going to land. Obviously there's a risk of scatter though there's nothing that can be done about that.

Re running 40 dudes out of 1 WWP, I see 2 options

1) only bring on one squad per turn or
2) have 2 - or even 3 if I wanted to be a prat - haemys in the deep striking raider(s), each with a wwp, and drop it at either end of the squad that they're attached to. 1 squad comes out of each WWP to allow a little more clearance room.

You can't just "bring on one squad per turn", they arrive from reserve when they arrive.

And, you couldn't deploy the WWP on the turn you deepstrike, b/c the squad can't disembark.

So, on turn 2 if the wwp isn't already on the board, all the units arriving that turn walk on from your board edge

jcress410 wrote:

And, you couldn't deploy the WWP on the turn you deepstrike, b/c the squad can't disembark.

See above in thread.

right, nevermind that part.

but, still, deepstrike on turn 2, any other units arriving from reserve that turn are walking on from board edge.

WWP would only be available on turn 3

Hmm... ADL gives a 4+ cover save, correct? Most Tau are on 4+ armour save. And DE's AI is large pool of AP5 wounds? So why is ADL a concern? They get a 4+ save anyway?

You'd probably want to have a seperate HQ, warlord, hidden somewhere safe too, that haemy grotesques blob might not last very long when you just smacked them in the middle of double tap(for some Tau, it's triple tap, right?) range.

Problem with option 1 is, I think you need a special rule, warlord trait or some sorta fortification thingy to get the ability to choose whether or not an unit is coming on, you may only wanna bring one squad in per turn, but you have to roll for all reserve units, and any reserve roll passed mean that unit has to come on that turn AFAIK.

And problem with option 2 is, if you want to have grotesque as WWP placer's retinue, you're throwing a lot of points down, but they likely won't survive because of mass of fire, and it's a very very big point sink. I'd probably go with minimal plain wracks on raider to minimise your loss. Though if you're unlucky to roll annihilation game, each of this WWP placer unit are worth 3 points for your opponent...

Lastly, I'm still not sure if you could deepstrike a WWP or 2 down and use them right away for other reserve unit, I'd assume that it works like a locator beacon or something similar, as in it has to be on the board at the start of the turn for unit to use it, but I can't seem to find that written anywhere for WWP, so if you can use them, then good, but if you cant, then refer to my post on previous page or what I said above, you could run into a situation where you rolled your WWP entry unit to come on, but not your WWP reserve unit, then you've wasted so many points.

Baronyu wrote:
Page 36, right after the bullet points.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deep striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.

Codex: Dark Eldar, page 63

Retrofire Jets: The vehicle is fitted with jet engines that can suddenly slow its descent, allowing it to drop from the skies straight into the enemy ranks. A vehicle fitted with retrofire jets can Deep Strike. However, troops on board may not disembark that turn.

Codex beats rulebook, so you can't disembark.

 Code wrote:

Retrofire Jets: The vehicle is fitted with jet engines that can suddenly slow its descent, allowing it to drop from the skies straight into the enemy ranks. A vehicle fitted with retrofire jets can Deep Strike. However, troops on board may not disembark that turn.

Codex beats rulebook, so you can't disembark.

Ah! Forgotten about that! Show you how much I know about wargears I rarely ever used...

EDIT: Does that mean Duke's deepstrike buff is actually better?

Yes the duke's deepstrike has always been better for this reason.

I'd like to point out a bit of an oddity. Notice how it says (according to the quote) that "troops" may not disembark.

Troops, afaik is only defined as the FOC and is not synonymous with units. Does this mean that an elite unit can disembark but a troop unit can't?

Makes sense, though I'd expect A LOT of arguments by using that

 Dracos wrote:
Yes the duke's deepstrike has always been better for this reason.

I'd like to point out a bit of an oddity. Notice how it says (according to the quote) that "troops" may not disembark.

Troops, afaik is only defined as the FOC and is not synonymous with units. Does this mean that an elite unit can disembark but a troop unit can't?

That's Troops with an uppercase T though.