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

Too funny but very creative i salute you sir!

Stelek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:IMO, you just proved my point. Are DE Skimmer Assault, SAFH, or Portal Assault? They try to be a lot of things, but aren't very special or distinctive.

What was your point? Seems like you had no point at all.

DE are skimmer assault--like BA are jump pack assault.
DE are SAFH--like BT are SAFH.
DE are portal assault--like DA are deep strike assault.

WOW! One Codex that's 6 years old does what 3 new ones do, and does it better in ALL respects.

So, either I'm a dumbass for not seeing the 'genius' in making 4's (you know, marines) uber in being able to do only ONE thing partially well and calling it both 'very special' and 'distinctive' OR...you're sounding alot like a GW fanboi with nary a hint just how fast the ship is sinking.

Gurgle. Gurgle.

If the essence of your "argument" requires you to call me a "fanboi", it's not much of an argument.

As noted, DE are kind of an unfocused jack-of-all trades army. They don't have compelling Fluff. They don't have even maginally passable models. So the DE add very little to the overall gaming experience in terms of gaming diversity. If someone wants to do any of the things the DE purport to do, there are 3 armies that are better-focused with better models and better Fluff. OTOH, if DE occupied a special, distinctive niche, then suddenly, they add something to the gaming experience.

If you look at what GW did with 40k3 and WFB6, they tried 2 very different approaches to army lists. In 40k, GW expanded options like crazy, and pulled out a lot of the restrictions that were in 2nd Edition, and then piled on a bunch of sublists. In WFB, GW progressively specialized each army list. It appears that GW find the Fantasy approach of having more narrowly-focused army lists with unique benefits and drawbacks works "better", so GW is grafting that onto 40k, hence the massive nerfage and restriction.

But getting back to the whole apologist / fanboi nonsense. Just because I'm OK with change, that doesn't make me a fanboy or apologist. If GW has shown nothing, it's that they're not afraid to shake things up. If you can't deal with that, this isn't the hobby for you.

Warpaint Studio wrote:

adamsouza wrote:
Fifth, Dark Eldar being mail order only isn't the cause of poor sales, it's the effect of poor Dark Eldar sales. If they sold like hot cakes they would be in the stores, but they don't, so GW US made them mail order only.

i posted they have weak sales and arent known by alot based off of the fact they are mail order only thats a fact not an opinion
if they were a mainstream army they would have better usage by players but alas they are not

DE were a fully-supported mainstream army back in 3rd Edition. Heck, they were in the starter box! For a game like 40k, you can't have better support and exposure than being in the starter set.

Despite the prime positioning, the DE never caught on, which is why GW ended up reconcepting the shooty part of the DE army as Tau.

Eventually, Tau (and Necrons) sold more stuff than DE, the DE were moved out of the starter, and in 2004, DE were moved to Mail Order / "Classic" status.

But to blame DE sales weakness on their being mail order is unfair, given the history of the army.

Warpaint Studio, you are apparently a Dark Eldar Fanatic. Debating Dark Eldar with you is like debating religion with a priest.

Replies in concise form:
*BS alone doesn't make a superior shooting army.
*WS alone doesn't make a superior melee army.
*Dark Eldar are mail order only becuase of poor sales BEFORE they were mail order only.
*I asserted that DE fiction was weak from a conceptual standpoint , and illustrated my point, it had nothing to do with tea or china.
*You make an awfull lot of assumptions on what I do
*If you don't want to drag this out, feel free to stop posting. I have more posts in this thread alone than you do on Dakka total. I'm not going to stop posting in this thread because you assert that I should.

I don't think the DE are a jack-of-all-trades army in the slightest.

You can do alot with them, but in the end it goes like this:

Skimmers on the table, or out of the webway portal.

Add units to flavor your soup, and bang it's a DE army.

Sounds like the Necrons to me. Only the Necrons are horrifingly boring, and just to briefly touch on the whole 'nerf' issue--they have nothing to nerf.

I don't really think the fantasy armies are being 'focused' so much as they are being 'empowered to not suck when the next codex comes out in six months because we're hemorrhaging customers like AT&T'.

Warpaint Studio wrote:i posted they have weak sales and arent known by alot based off of the fact they are mail order only thats a fact not an opinion
if they were a mainstream army they would have better usage by players but alas they are not

Yeah, if only GW had given them more mainstream exposure then more players would know about them! If only GW had included them in the starter set or something...

Or put them in a video game or something...

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Warpaint Studio wrote:i posted they have weak sales and arent known by alot based off of the fact they are mail order only thats a fact not an opinion
if they were a mainstream army they would have better usage by players but alas they are not

Yeah, if only GW had given them more mainstream exposure then more players would know about them! If only GW had included them in the starter set or something...

Or made great models for them. Just think if they all looked like Garey Morely sculpted a bunch of evil space elves with giant pointy helmets, oversized shoulder pads, misshapen naked elf butts. and all the while flaring their mancrotchs at everyone. Man that would suck.

adamsouza wrote:Warpaint Studio, you are apparently a Dark Eldar Fanatic. Debating Dark Eldar with you is like debating religion with a priest.

Replies in concise form:
*BS alone doesn't make a superior shooting army.
*WS alone doesn't make a superior melee army.
*Dark Eldar are mail order only becuase of poor sales BEFORE they were mail order only.
*I asserted that DE fiction was weak from a conceptual standpoint , and illustrated my point, it had nothing to do with tea or china.
*You make an awfull lot of assumptions on what I do
*If you don't want to drag this out, feel free to stop posting. I have more posts in this thread alone than you do on Dakka total. I'm not going to stop posting in this thread because you assert that I should.

bs doesnt make a superior shooting army?

no but when you make a less than intelligent comment that they dont shoot as well as tau and what not you show everyone you are ill informed and thats enough to invalidate anything you post

ws alone doesnt make them a superior melee army?.. are you kidding me? i have already proved to you they are superior by stats alone against the vaunted nids you claimed were oh so superior too.. again ignorance of an army isnt an exscuse for you to post opinions without any facts which you did

i suggest you stop posting about things you have no grasp of the concepts of sir. i have proved you incorrect by stats on the key things that you claim made the DE weak you then try to shift that focus away from your misinformation and try to assert some superiority over me by having a larger post count? whos over compensating now?

in your case i guess ignorance is bliss
and there is something to the old addage never argue with an idiot youll just get tired from the effort

"It is better to be silent and be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and confirm it"

Just keep opening your mouth

Wow you got schooled by me with my little post count and i hurt your feelings huh?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the essence of your "argument" requires you to call me a "fanboi", it's not much of an argument.

Sadly, Stelek's tone gets in the way of his very good points. he has a good argument- don't just respond to the cranky bits like accusations of fanboism.

As noted, DE are kind of an unfocused jack-of-all trades army.

Here's where Stelek's right- they are not a jack-of-all trades. They have three possible good configurations. All of them require focus and finesse, and are not easily repurposed. They are not universalists like Marines. It's okay to have multiple approaches available under one list, if they all require unique planning and finesse to execute.

If you look at what GW did with 40k3 and WFB6, they tried 2 very different approaches to army lists. In 40k, GW expanded options like crazy, and pulled out a lot of the restrictions that were in 2nd Edition, and then piled on a bunch of sublists. In WFB, GW progressively specialized each army list. It appears that GW find the Fantasy approach of having more narrowly-focused army lists with unique benefits and drawbacks works "better", so GW is grafting that onto 40k, hence the massive nerfage and restriction.

But getting back to the whole apologist / fanboi nonsense. Just because I'm OK with change, that doesn't make me a fanboy or apologist. If GW has shown nothing, it's that they're not afraid to shake things up. If you can't deal with that, this isn't the hobby for you.

Actually JohnHwang, you've shown yourself to like things very cut-and-dried, with minimal configurability in lists (less options for vet sarges, less possible approaches from a single armylist, etc.). This may seem like focus to you, but it seems restrictive to those of us who like to shift our approaches from game to game. It's a difference of style. If you want "focus", play Necrons or BT or something. That's fine. Others will play the highly configurable lists. We can all get along...

...Until the Vegas GT that is, where we will all kick the holy crap out of each other and demonstrate who has the ability to back up their theoryhammer.

Warpaint Studio wrote:Wow you got schooled by me with my little post count and i hurt your feelings huh?

Based on the way the thread has gone, it would appear that you are the type who uses the word "schooled" when a Toy Poodle yips at a Doberman.

Warpaint Studio wrote:
bs doesnt make a superior shooting army?

never argue with an idiot youll just get tired from the effort

So are you saying that we shouldn't argue with you because we'll get tired of it?

Anyhooo...

BS isn't the be-all, end-all of superior shooting. For example, if IG Conscripts were made BS5 (hit on 2s), they'd still be crappy shooters because they're armed with flashlights.

Oh, I'm sorry Warpaint. You evidently completely missed the point.

adamsouza wrote:Just keep opening your mouth

Not in a Dark Eldar army, to much mancrotch being thrust about. It is why they wear helmets.

Savnock wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the essence of your "argument" requires you to call me a "fanboi", it's not much of an argument.

Sadly, Stelek's tone gets in the way of his very good points. he has a good argument- don't just respond to the cranky bits like accusations of fanboism.

Wot? Dakka debate shouldn't degenerate to "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

It's okay to have multiple approaches available under one list, if they all require unique planning and finesse to execute.

Oh, I agree with that. But I'm not really sure "finesse" is something that really applies in 40k gaming.

Actually JohnHwang, you've shown yourself to like things very cut-and-dried, with minimal configurability in lists (less options for vet sarges, less possible approaches from a single armylist, etc.). This may seem like focus to you, but it seems restrictive to those of us who like to shift our approaches from game to game.

I like cleaner army lists, because they cut down on confusion and arguments. Back when GW had armouries and loads of wargear options, the vast majority of the options were never used. So they were a waste of design effort. When SM, BA, and DA can all field the same identical army then each is necessarily less "special". And I hardly see how a slightly more restrictive list prevents one from shifting approaches.

...Until the Vegas GT that is, where we will all kick the holy crap out of each other and demonstrate who has the ability to back up their theoryhammer.

Back when I was single and without responsiblities, I'd have been happy to do this.

"""BS isn't the be-all, end-all of superior shooting. For example, if IG Conscripts were made BS5 (hit on 2s), they'd still be crappy shooters because they're armed with flashlights. ""'

Thats true but in a good 1750-1850 army list the DE will have 17 dark lances and 16- 18 blasters all hitting on 3's

name me an army that has that much firepower hitting on 3's it doesnt exist. no space marine army has that much lascannon type of firepower no eldar force has that many high power st8 ap weapons like the DE

if that isnt the essence of a strong mobile shooting army then nothing is

i dont bother to mention splinter pistols as they are little more then flashlights but the other 35-36 heavy weapons make up for it

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you look at what GW did with 40k3 and WFB6, they tried 2 very different approaches to army lists. In 40k, GW expanded options like crazy, and pulled out a lot of the restrictions that were in 2nd Edition, and then piled on a bunch of sublists. In WFB, GW progressively specialized each army list. It appears that GW find the Fantasy approach of having more narrowly-focused army lists with unique benefits and drawbacks works "better", so GW is grafting that onto 40k, hence the massive nerfage and restriction.

If you knew anything about how the studio functioned, you wouldn't post such utter nonsense.

Since you don't know all the Army Books and Codex's like the rest of the crowd seems to (or are burying your head in the sand) saying what you did is just laughable.

Fantasy lost it's wargear sections? Really? Since f*cking when? Oh right, those books were worked on by the 40k designers who didn't find fantasy unbalanced.

Ergo, the Dwarf, Empire, Orcs & Goblins and High Elf books weren't laughed at on release. They're all quite balanced in relation to each other.

Ah now we come to 40K, where the fantasy designers tossed their cookies at all of the "little command men" having access to wargear.

Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Chaos--all "fixed" by the fantasy idiots. All laughed at on release.

WOOPS. Time to fire someone, bye bye Gav. Sad too, he finally made another decent book (after Dark Eldar, his first and only one) called Vampire Counts. I guess fething up 40K with his "team" (after he did it in 3rd edition before Andy C got rid of him) got him the axe.

Did you see how the Black Templars came through unscathed? The Orks? Worked on by 40k designers.

Duh.

You think GW is heading towards the 'fantasy' version of 40K?

Sadly, the fantasy version of 40k without the herohammer element is the most boring ass game you can play.

"Your army do anything?"
"Nope, yours?"
"Nope."
".."
"Flames of War then?"

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But getting back to the whole apologist / fanboi nonsense. Just because I'm OK with change, that doesn't make me a fanboy or apologist. If GW has shown nothing, it's that they're not afraid to shake things up. If you can't deal with that, this isn't the hobby for you.

GW has been doing so well shaking things up. The company is in the toilet, circling the drain.

Not the hobby for me? Not the one where my superior skills get reduced to nothing because of people like you, who like the land of Blue, Red, Black, and Yellow armies.

Endless "ranks" of marines for you, and that isn't this hobby. Hopefully with the register ringing NO SALE, loss of market share in every theatre, and fans hoping the next company that takes over isn't run by idiots for people like you...yeah, this hobby isn't for you if all you want is fantasy in 40K--if you even think it's a good thing, you're too far gone to even have a real discussion with.

I do try though, despite the obvious futility of it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:DE were a fully-supported mainstream army back in 3rd Edition. Heck, they were in the starter box! For a game like 40k, you can't have better support and exposure than being in the starter set.

Oh bullsh*t, they were not. They got like 1 battlereport, and their releases took almost a bloody year. They had no fluff added, no variant army lists, no part in summer campaigns. Most horribly supported release ever in the GW modern age.

Necrons got a hell of a lot more play, and they were built for the marine loving idiots who need a I-WIN button clearly labeled on the package before purchase.

Marines always sell. All variants of them. Look at the demonhunters. Pure sh*t. Two models? Idiots with Halberds in terminator armor, and idiots with halberds in power armor? Gee, sign me up. Wait, where's the I-WIN buttton?! DAMN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Despite the prime positioning, the DE never caught on, which is why GW ended up reconcepting the shooty part of the DE army as Tau.

Laughable at best, bullsh*t when looking for the truth. GW had zero market penetration in Asia. Mecha sells in Asia. Not sure what the shooty part of the DE army that got reclassified as Tau is. All the autocannons they don't have? All those long range demolisher shots? All those jump-shoot-jump troops? All those WS2 guys? Please. Don't talk anymore man.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Eventually, Tau (and Necrons) sold more stuff than DE, the DE were moved out of the starter, and in 2004, DE were moved to Mail Order / "Classic" status.

Necrons are barely hanging on. Yeah, they're so good they got less support in Apocalypse than the Dark Eldar did. Everyone gets moved out of the starter. The Orks did, and it took almost a decade for them to be redone. The Orks got more good models out in the redo than the whole Necron range will, if it ever gets redone.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But to blame DE sales weakness on their being mail order is unfair, given the history of the army.

It's actually not considered support to release a new product and then not promote it, mention it, release anything for it with any rapidity, etc.

DE died because of GW's studio politics. Fantasy wanted it, 40k didn't. Corporate overruled 40k. 40k were big babies, and told Gav to go eff himself.

Soon enough, DE were pulled and Gav wasn't allowed near a 40k ruleset for years.

Yeah, you know your history.

adamsouza wrote:"It is better to be silent and be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and confirm it"

Just keep opening your mouth

I usually worry when I see that being said and check if tiggerbaby is around!

fullheadofhair quoted-adamsouza wrote:
"It is better to be silent and be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and confirm it"

Just keep opening your mouth




I usually worry when I see that being said and check if tiggerbaby is around!

FTW.

As and old player of DE, I thought that they were a little lacking in the vehicle department.
I believe they would be done better as a one up army in the same scheme as one of the countless FW IG regiments.
they are really lacking in thier choices for supposedly being so " Evil". they could have at least had a couple of special choices in the same scheme as the special jet bike squadrons of the Eldar, or the hand to hand specific " Aspects".

You guys are losing your points in the personal attacks.