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.

CaptKaruthors wrote:While pivoting is done by using the center of the vehicle... moving a vehicle and measuring movement is done from the hull. So in effect, yes, you are moving farther than the vehicle's cruising speed move. In all of my travels, I've never seen someone attempt this because of how you measure a vehicles move from the hull. By turning it as such you've essentially exceeded the vehicles maximum move. The last paragraph under Vehicles and Movement even indicates that in the third sentence. :shrugs:

Concur. I believe there have been several YMDC threads about this as well that always end badly.

Also, the picture showing the first Multi-assault against the chimera's isn't quite right, as the second wych that makes it to the second chimera can actually also contact the first, but I understand the intent there. It's a pain using Vassal.

CaptKaruthors wrote:While pivoting is done by using the center of the vehicle... moving a vehicle and measuring movement is done from the hull. So in effect, yes, you are moving farther than the vehicle's cruising speed move. In all of my travels, I've never seen someone attempt this because of how you measure a vehicles move from the hull. By turning it as such you've essentially exceeded the vehicles maximum move. The last paragraph under Vehicles and Movement even indicates that in the third sentence. :shrugs:

Besides that little sticking point with me...the article is great and is a wealth of information for people looking to play DE but may have been intimidated not to. Good job!

I fail to see your issue?

You measure from the hull - yes. You are free to pivot anytime during your movement phase, unlmiited number of times. Pivot the direction you turn, then measure 12" and go. You still only moved 12". Regardless of which way I pivot, I get to move 12" before, after, or during doing so. To be honest, I'd rather have an AV11 or AV12 open-topped vehicle without a narrow front, but I don't. We use the tools given to us.

If you pivot a rhino 45 degrees and move cruising speed, do you only measure 11.3"? No....because pivoting is free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:
Also, the picture showing the first Multi-assault against the chimera's isn't quite right, as the second wych that makes it to the second chimera can actually also contact the first, but I understand the intent there. It's a pain using Vassal.

Not sure I understand. Having declared a secondary target, models can freely move into base with either (unless another target is declared too). In this case, I'm free to move into contact with the second chimera because I've declared a multi-assault, had range to get to it, was moving into base contact, and kept coherency with a previously assaulted model.

There aren't any rules governing assault that those conditions didn't meet.

I agree with Dashofpepper on how vehicle movement works. It is really stupid and almost feels like cheating with certain vehicles, but that is how GW made the game and they are free to fix it if they so choose (which we all know they won't because GW is full of buffoons).

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Belerephon wrote:Dash... so that cruel, malicious mindset you speak of at the beginning of your article. Would you say that should be uniquely DE? Or is that an attitude you'd advocate any 40k player adopting?

I think it was DE specific. Eldar can't do that and tyranids focus on working together as one. DE being so fragile, they have to destroy everything asap.

OTOH, you shouldn't think about focusing on objectives to easily in the game. In an objectives based mission, your opponents scoring units should be on your mind.

I think all armies should be played that way. However the DE due to their cheap and effective offensive firepower and manueverability are uniquely suited to do this. Sadly the DE through their paper airplanes and syphilitic toughness are also uniquely suited to getting the blade turned on them.

Running DE is running a cold calculated surgery on your opponent every turn. Now 4 out of 5 in full fledged match ups. Only problem uncovered is when facing Daemon with a heavy slaanesh theme - too much speed and too many invulnerable saves to take them out quick.

Excellent article, as always DoP.

Too many of you focusing on the rotate/move thing. It's not DoP's invention, nor his duty to have to defend/explain it; it's in the rules and he's smart enough to use the rules to their full advantage.

My only question here is why people have trouble with Daemons with Dark Eldar. I've played Daemons many times with DE, it's practically an auto win and usually a tabling. Even against the fastest, shootiest Slaanesh/Tzeentch list, you have so much more firepower, will only get hit on 6s, have loads of splinter fire for MCs... I don't doubt you all, I just haven't seen it. At all. Force them to go first if you can, reserve, and overwhelm what hits the table in piecemeal.

Skarboy wrote:Excellent article, as always DoP.

Too many of you focusing on the rotate/move thing. It's not DoP's invention, nor his duty to have to defend/explain it; it's in the rules and he's smart enough to use the rules to their full advantage.

My only question here is why people have trouble with Daemons with Dark Eldar. I've played Daemons many times with DE, it's practically an auto win and usually a tabling. Even against the fastest, shootiest Slaanesh/Tzeentch list, you have so much more firepower, will only get hit on 6s, have loads of splinter fire for MCs... I don't doubt you all, I just haven't seen it. At all. Force them to go first if you can, reserve, and overwhelm what hits the table in piecemeal.

It depends on how much shooting is in the daemon army, what kind of DE army you're playing....and if you reserve, you *also* come in piecemeal, with 3/4 of the daemon army on the table ready to engage your 1/2.

This is really great advice. What do you do about drop pod armies though ?, esspecially dreadnought drop pod armies. Any advice would be great. Thanks

moonshine wrote:This is really great advice. What do you do about drop pod armies though ?, esspecially dreadnought drop pod armies. Any advice would be great. Thanks

Dreadnoughts can't assault the turn they come in, they can only shoot. I covered this in my guide - do the same thing you would do against any other army that reserves up on you. Move flat out with everything, so that the dreads drop in on you getting 4+ saves. They'll hit or miss, and die in return. Restrict their ability to deep-strike and where with your vehicles. Personally, if I was playing against a pure drop pod army, I would flat out up the sides (about 6" in) with some of my vehicles so that when they get 1/2 of their pods on the first turn, whatever comes into play is in range of my whole army from the get-go - I close in, kill whatever is there, and wait for the reserve rolls on the rest.

Dashofpepper wrote:You measure from the hull - yes. You are free to pivot anytime during your movement phase, unlmiited number of times. Pivot the direction you turn, then measure 12" and go. You still only moved 12". Regardless of which way I pivot, I get to move 12" before, after, or during doing so. To be honest, I'd rather have an AV11 or AV12 open-topped vehicle without a narrow front, but I don't. We use the tools given to us.

If you pivot a rhino 45 degrees and move cruising speed, do you only measure 11.3"? No....because pivoting is free.

I just had a thought, if you are free to pivot as many times as you like in a movement, would you be able to do this?


1. Start sideways right against the edge of your deployment zone
2. Pivot 90 degrees
3. Move 12" from the front of the vehicle, finishing sideways again
4. Pivot 90 degrees

This would give you twice as much extra distance, basically letting you disembark 5" further forward than if you had just moved straight without pivoting at all. Is it a legal move?

Since you measure from the centre point (for the pivot) I don't think you are gaining any advantage in movement besides the original pivot. If you miss out step 3 you get the same result...I think.

Right, vehicles can't move sideways, as pictured in step 3. Vehicles can only move forward and back, as specified in the movement rules.

For what it's worth, I'm also of the opinion that if any part of the vehicle has moved more than the declared speed, the vehicle has exceeded its maximum move. This is the way I move my vehicles when I play.

You pivot around the center, but the rules don't say anything about measuring movement from the center. Movement is measured from the hull, which has displaced 14.5" in this example.

But before this thread goes OT again into a replication of the many YMDC threads on this question, I think the important thing to know from a *tactical* standpoint is that the rule is controversial, and a large number of players read it the other way. So if you can't persuade your opponent or if you get vetoed by a TO or judge, you may have to do without this tactic. I personally would allow it (and would follow suit myself if my opponent were doing it), but some opponents may always consider this kind of movement as a form of overmeasuring, and might ding you on soft scores or whatever.

Lukus83 wrote:Since you measure from the centre point (for the pivot) I don't think you are gaining any advantage in movement besides the original pivot. If you miss out step 3 you get the same result...I think.

If you didn't do the extra pivot, the tip of the raider would end up where the side is in pic 3, so you would be getting extra distance......if its legal

Dashofpepper wrote:

If I can go ahead and just disagree with Ashenshugar and advise pretty much the opposite of him. =D

#1: The absolute best partner for Dark Eldar in a tournament is no one. Two generals on the field are never going to be as competent in making unified decisions as one general would be.

#2: For a team to be successful, someone needs to swallow their pride and be the subordinate. General and Adjutant. An adjutant plays their army, inputs ideas, but the general has overall command of the battle; and if they have two different ideas, the general has the final say.

#3: If you *must* team with someone, the best teammate is the one that is a better gamer than you, regardless of what army they play.

In terms of which codex pairs best with Dark Eldar for a tournament, it depends on points and how the codexes interact. If it was 1,000 point apiece, imagine the Dark Eldar "team" fielding 6 ravagers with flickerfields, 6 units of trueborn in venoms, 4 wych squads, Baron Sathonyx, and a couple of haemonculi - or another Baron Sathonyx if you could stack the +1 to go first. Or fielding Corbulo to reroll your +1 to go first. I'm hazy on all the codexes influence on rerolls and stuff, so don't flay me if that was wrong.

I had a team tournament a few weeks ago; I wasn't intending to go because I'm not a fan of team events - but my friend's partner fell through and he wasn't going to go anymore, so I conditionally offered to step in and partner up - with the condition that he be my adjutant - I'd value his input and listen to him, but if we disagree about something, my decision overrides. He brought his Orks, I brought my Dark Eldar, and since I play both codexes, this is my favorite pairing.

I brought Baron Sathonyx, two wych squads, 3 units of trueborn in venoms, and 3 ravagers.
He brought a KFF Big Mek, two units of gretchin, 3 units of Lootas (15/8/5 or something) and nine killa-kans with rokkits.

Killa-kans are tall enough to provide a cover save to Dark Eldar vehicles, while the kans themselves are getting cover saves from the KFF Big Mek, my wyches were protecting his Lootas from assault, and his Lootas and my firing support were scything the battlefield clear of everything. With all the Lootas on the field, I didn't have to focus my lances on AV11; he did that while I went after AV12 and 13. When one of our opponents dropped 9 wyches off in front of one of our two scoring gretchin units and a unit of my wyches and I realized that he had FNP and I didn't....well, Loota fire STR7 double toughness, and 4+ cover isn't so much. After a volley from his 15 Lootas, there were two wyches left, which I gladly went and snatched a pain token from.

Killa-kans have a STR10 close combat punch much better than tarpitting units like wyches do.

Game 1: We gave up 400 victory points and tabled our opponents (DE + Sisters of Battle)
Game 2: We gave up 0 victory points and tabled our opponents (DE + Blood Angels)
Game 3: We played against Team Twilight (Blood Angels + Space Wolves). The SW player had triple long fangs, grey hunters in rhinos, while the BA player had a drop-pod dreadnought and several units of jetpack assault infantry. All those assault infantry went after my wyches (and killed them) in exchange for getting counter-assaulted by three units of killa-kans (which in turn wiped out the BA player), after I spent two turns firing all my darklight weapons at his dreadnought and drop pod. Boom, then it was 2v1. And that's why you can't have two generals. The SW player told the BA player not to suicide into us, strongly encouraged him not to, but without the ability to countermand his partner, their strategies differed too wildly.

That's my advice. Its more about your partner than the list they bring.

I love how you said you disagree with me, and then throw an example completely agreeing with my main point, which was a fire base to the DE assault. Team games in my neck of the woods are always two different codex's, so double dark eldar is not an option. Personally I would contend that the ork half of your army, while shooty, will never be as as shooty as some of the examples I gave. So thank you for completely agreeing with me

As to your points on the "better general" in control (which I had not spoke about in the slightest) I agree to a point. I play chess at the master level, so while I might not be a 40k rules lawyer, I can usually point out strategic mistakes some of my friends make during games. Making sure to point them out so I can learn rules I may be fuzzy on, and find better ways to abuse mechanics that they did not see.

I think the only thing you and I actually disagree on, is the use of beastmasters. You see them as a point filler when you can't buy another group of wyches, I see them as the main workhorse of the assault force, and wyches are there only to support them. You have said yourself you don't have enough models to field two units of the beasts, I can only hope one day you try and field them to see what two full units can do. I have a 1250 teams tournament (with rules like wargear doesn't benefit your partner) coming up in a couple weeks, and my partner will be playing IG (with triple maticores, mech vet). I'm playing with points trying to figure out how many wyches vs beastmasters I want.

@Gorechild: Measure from your starting position to your finished position. I'm not sure how far you're trying to move in that situation. If your starting to ending position is whatever your movement speed is, then it is legal.

Flavius: Rotating doesn't cause a vehicle to move more than the declared speed. Any part of it. To be blunt, I have no further interest (since we've gotten a full page out of it so far) in continuing to discuss with people whether they personally choose to follow the rules or not. There *IS* no reading the rulebook the other way on this, it is explicitly clear.

From a tactical standpoint, you feel like it is important for others to be aware that the rule is in contention and that a large number of players read it the other way.

I'll counter with this: From a tactical standpoint, I've never met another player.....in my travels around the entire country....against whom I could not open the the rulebook, point out the rotating and movement paragraphs, and for them to bow to the rulebook.

There *are* people who read the rulebook to mean that rotating costs you movement distance. There *are* people who believe that disembarking within 2" of the access points means that your models must be entirely contained within that 2" and that the picture in the book is a misprint. There *are* people who believe that regardless of the DoW deployment description about 1 HQ "unit" and two troop "units" with further explanation, that they can continue to deploy troops in transports, and that the transports don't count against their deployment allotment.

1. I don't give a fething heretic.
2. These people generally don't show up at tournaments. They generally consider tournament players to be WAAC anyway, and unfun to play against.
3. Everywhere I've been - from California to Pennsylvania, to Florida, NC, LA, GA, D.C., MS, MI....every major event I've been to in the last year....these "house-rule" viewpoints aren't welcome. These aren't even contentious arguments. There are no conflicting codexes to decide between, just a clear illustration and explanation in the rulebook of how to act.
4. While incompetence rears its ugly head locally, amongst players who don't know better - please do NOT advise that there are a "large number of people" who read it the other way. That is not true.
5. This guide is about how to slaughter and maim. Making an army with my advice and using it with my advice to the point of being able to table someone without the loss of a single model is not something you practice regularly amongst your local group - the kind of people who may or may not hold mistaken beliefs about the rules depending on their knowledge of the rulebook. This is for COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT PLAY. And deviant interpretations of the rulebook without substantive ground don't stand up there.

On that note, with a page already lost to this pointless argument, drop it. It has been discussed enough, its starting to piss me off, and is ultimately not relevant to the OP.

@Ashenshugar: ......pulling a quote without contextual basis from another thread to insert into a different thread....so that you can reference my disagreement with you about a separate topic and somehow manage to call it agreement with you, despite the fact that the entire post is a disagreement with you, and then go further to advocate that the sole disagreement is in my belief on something that is absolutely not my belief.....your post is a trainwreck of misunderstanding, uncontextual quoting, and nothing relevant to this thread. How did this conversation even end here?

I don't mean to sound angry; I'm not angry at you - this is a thread about being angry being a good thing, and I just had to read a page full of "I don't follow the rules because they are inconvenient to how I think 40k should be played" which always irritates me. I'm going to have to go find your original quote to put my response (and then your response to mine) into context. I additionally find it offensive that you would say something like "Thank you for completely agreeing with me" when I find the very foundation of your strategic insights into the game unstable and counter-productive. At this point, I'm suspecting that you're not actually a Dark Eldar player, but rather something else trying to post misinformation to "help" DE players when in reality you are trying to confuse us.

Ah, there it is. Your advise on teaming with DE.

Ashenshugar wrote:IG w/ Manticores, SW w/ Long Fangs, any razorback spam, DOA. I wouldn't say orks because you would have too many things trying to rush into CC. You would need things to sit back and shoot with maybe 1 deathstar to linebreak while the wyches cover the frontlines.

Too many things rushing into CC with Orks. Triple units of killa-kans rushing into CC seemed to work pretty good for my team tournament. Half his points tied up in close combat units trying to get up in your grille? It worked pretty good. A bit of Loota support behind a Kan Wall with a mobile DE blasterwing....like I said, I disagreed with pretty much all your advice. IG, SW, and razorback spam are sort of uniquely *not* suited to complementing a DE army.

There's a team tournament discussion thread that I created yesterday at the top of the forums here. Why don't you post your DE/your choice ideas there for discussion? That way we can keep this one about...DE tactics.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:
Also, the picture showing the first Multi-assault against the chimera's isn't quite right, as the second wych that makes it to the second chimera can actually also contact the first, but I understand the intent there. It's a pain using Vassal.

Not sure I understand. Having declared a secondary target, models can freely move into base with either (unless another target is declared too). In this case, I'm free to move into contact with the second chimera because I've declared a multi-assault, had range to get to it, was moving into base contact, and kept coherency with a previously assaulted model.

There aren't any rules governing assault that those conditions didn't meet.

You don't declare multiple assaults. You declare your target, and then follow the assault rules to make sure you get all models in btb or within 2" of models that are btb. There are several bullet points to discuss how to do this on that page, I believe it's 22 but I don't have the rulebook on me.

On that same page, is a header for "Multiple Assaults". It says that sometimes you may find that you are able to contact multiple units as you move your models. You may do so, provided you follow the bullets in the previous paragraph about moving assaulting models.

Ergo, if you are able to move a model into btb with your intended target, you must, which in your diagram, it shows that the right most wych could do that, but goes to the other chimera instead. A better example would be to show one of the other wyches moving in after that wych had moved, or moving the chimera's a little bit in the diagram to better show the charge lanes and such.

As such, I don't believe your diagram is complete correct the way it's shown and per the way the rulebook describes assaults/multiple assaults.

whitedragon wrote:On that same page, is a header for "Multiple Assaults". It says that sometimes you may find that you are able to contact multiple units as you move your models. You may do so, provided you follow the bullets in the previous paragraph about moving assaulting models.

Ergo, if you are able to move a model into btb with your intended target, you must, which in your diagram, it shows that the right most wych could do that, but goes to the other chimera instead. A better example would be to show one of the other wyches moving in after that wych had moved, or moving the chimera's a little bit in the diagram to better show the charge lanes and such.

Actually, it does not state that you have to move into B2B with your intended unit. If you read the assaults part, it states you must move into B2B contact with ANY enemy model that is not in base contact already that is within reach. So, the way Dash did it and his pictures are correct. Only the closest model must make it into B2B with the original target, after that, the rest of th unit can contact any other unit they want, as long as they maintain coherency and move into B2B if possible.

And the moving into assault rules are on pg 34.

Saves me a response.

Whitedragon, might be worth your while to peek at your rulebook again.

As a general request, if anyone wishes to discuss rules, could you go to YMDC? I'm quite familiar with the rules, the tactics I've posted follow accordingly, I can assure everyone that nothing I've posted breaks any of them, but rather follows them to the letter - and I would much rather this thread discuss the tactical value or variations of what I've written, or some Q&A about strategy than be muddled down having to explain rules to people.

That isn't to say that I never make a mistake in a game, or confuse a rule with something else - just that the tactics in this thread are quite cut and dry in the rulebook. Nightmare Dolls, Horrorfexes...PtP prior to the FAQ - those were things not cut and dry. Nothing here is remotely similar.

So, kind of a tactical question then: do you feel a WWP can work in a competitive setting?

That's a simple one. No. WWP is too easy to defend against. Move away from the portal and shoot whatever comes out.

DE WWP army goes first:
Opponent deploys over 24" away from the center of board. Does a little moving for optimal fire lanes etc after the wwp is deployed and makes sure they aren't within 24" of the portal and then shoots "everything" at him turn 1. Turn 2, 1/2 of the army emerges, can't get into cc, opponent then shoots everything that's left stuck out in the open.

....or... moves as fast as possilbe to the wwp, surrounding it, forcing eveything to come in from the board edge that can't fly over it.

DE WWP army goes second: Same as above, except the shooting takes place on turn 3, so the game lasts a little longer. The portal carrier gets shot at by everything for 2 turns, rather than 1, so long as something can hit it turn 1.

Foo wrote:So, kind of a tactical question then: do you feel a WWP can work in a competitive setting?

Yes, but not so much with a single portal. Two would serve much better.

Phish: Not everyone plays an army that can move fast enough to do what you described. Additionally, most WWP armies have at least two of them.

ThePhish wrote:That's a simple one. No. WWP is too easy to defend against. Move away from the portal and shoot whatever comes out.

I think this might be easier said than done considering how much of the DE are Fleet.

Personally, I have a large cadre of Hellions come through the portal. 12" of movement, shooting, and then 6" assault is pretty far. They've been pretty successful, but I've only been playing in friendly games.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Foo wrote:So, kind of a tactical question then: do you feel a WWP can work in a competitive setting?

Yes, but not so much with a single portal. Two would serve much better.

I only recently understood the implications of Haemis being ICs and didn't realize you could split them up before, but I'm experimenting with multiple portals.

Right now, I'm going try out an Archon in a Venom with Incubi and a Haemi in a Raider with Wracks and see how that goes. I'll have Wyches, Hellions and a Talos in reserve.

I don't really ever expect to be competitive, though. I don't think I have the budget for it!


Thanks for the answers.

Dual portals can work well.
Providing you have fast units to come out of those portals.

You cannot deploy them too close as it may get surrounded.

I've had some luck with minimal TB units in venoms with WWP heamys. The TB can alpha strike a vehicle, heamy can detach and get out behind to drop the portal safely where it cant get surrounded, or if in the right area, can drop it out front for the extra range. Meanwhile a second WWP heamy has moved flat-out in a venom (or raider with sails) preferably out of LOS.

TB and heamy most likely die, and enemy moves away from the portal.

Half your reserves show up, while the second WWP heamy drop a portal near/in the enemy deployment zone, ready for your turn 3 reserves to come from behind, or support the initial portal forces.

I'd run ravagers, coupled with TB alpha strike they should cripple some part of the enemies forces and crack open transports.
From the portal preferably use fast units so the enemy cannot get away, wyches with a decent fleet roll, or beasts can do well.
Grenades will be important, haywire and offensive on units that can take them.

An interesting combo could be Baron + Malys.
Baron will help gain the first turn, and he can attach to a BM unit to give them grenades, while malys can shift units around and into/out of deployment. Giving you the perfect deployment in order to get that portal just where it needs to be.

I just included more pictures and an actual advanced tactic. =D

Dashofpepper wrote:I just included more pictures and an actual advanced tactic. =D

Awww....did you just waste your 6000th post on saying that???

I thought you were going to use that benchmark for a truly amazing post.

I'll have to have Frazzled delete a few posts to notch you back down for a

proper

6000th post.

Anywho, just stopping in one last time for the helpful advice. Multi-charge can also work within the confines of ork armies as well.

WWP based lists can definitely competitive, but you need two to give you enough flexibility and like any Dark Eldar list you need to build your list to get the most out of your main strategy. There are a number of ways to build a Portal list, for starters you can do 1-2 suicide units in Raiders to deploy them or use Harlies for a slower but safer option. Then you can either go with an all out fast assault force arriving through the Portal (Beastmasters and Hellions), a slower Horde approach (Talos, Grotesques, footsloging Wracks and Wyches) or a combination of the two. I've been playing around with a Portal based list (mostly proxied atm) which has a single Raider for delivering 1 Portal but no other vehicles. 3 units of Beastmasters, 3 Talos (want to see if I can make them work), 2 units of Blaster Trueborn and a unit of Harlies. If you go first you drop 1 Portal as aggressively as you can (with the Raider) and the second with assault range of it with the Harlies. If you do second you only deploy the Harlies (the Raider if you can find a place to completely hide it), spread to max coherency with the Haemonculi on either end gets you 2 Portals about 24" apart. In DoW you use a troop unit and drop 1 Portal turn 1 and the second (from the Raider moving on) turn 2.

@ ThePhish. How are you deploying over 24" from the center of the board? With a tournament standard 6' x 4' this is impossible. If everything is fast then you might be able to manage to dodge a single Portal by moving into the corners, but to be competitive you need two anyway. 2 Portals deployed on the center line (or just past it if you aren't too worried about being blocked) spaced within assault range of fast units and a bit over 24" from the short edges means that unless your opponent can squeeze his entire army into the back few inches of each corner he is going to get by things T2.

@ dayve110. It sounds great in theory, but the Baron + Malys won't work because then you have no other HQ slots available to take the Portals.

I just wanted to take a second to thank you Dash for taking the considerable time and effort it must have taken to post this guide as well as stick around to explain some of the nuances(sp?) of the rules that can be used to a tactical advantage. I am VERY new to 40k (been plaing about 2 months now) and happened to pick a VERY tough first army. I found that your guide was extremely well written, in that it was easy to follow even for someone as new to the game as I am, and it was enjoyable to read. You have tought me a great way to play an army that I was having a difficult time trying to get a grip on.

I live in a small town, but we have a strong group of about 10 players locally that get togather once to twice a week for some friendly play. Several of us, like myself, are still new and have limited model choices. Therefore, most of the games we are playing atm are 1000 pt games. How does this look for a scaled back version of the Wych Cult army?

HQ
Haemonculus - Liquifier Gun, Cruciable of Malediction - 80
Haemonculus - Liquifier Gun, Shattershard - 75

Troops
Wyches x9 - Hekatrix, Agonizer, Haywire Grenades - 138
Raider w/ Flickerfield - 70
Wyches x8 - Hekatrix, Agonizer, Haywire Grenades - 126
Raider w/ Flickerfield - 70

Elites
Trueborn x4 - Blaster x4 - 108
Venom w/ Splinter Cannon - 65
Trueborn x3 - Blaster x3 - 81
Venom w/ Splinter Cannon - 65

Heavy
Ravager - Flickerfield - 115

Total Army Cost 993

That leaves me 7 points so blow somewhere.

After reading your guide and thinking about what I'm used to seeing in my weekly games, there is one player whose tactics I can see giving me any issue. He playes Tau and like to line the back of his deployment zone with a hammerhead w/ rail gun and several broadsides with rail guns (which negate my FNP ). He will then line kroot and firewarrior teams in front of the big guns to bog down my assult, while the rail cannons and seeker missles blow everything up. What would you suggest I do in this situation? I can't reach the high priority targets for an alpha strike if he lines them at the back of his deployment zone.

dayve110 wrote:You cannot deploy them too close as it may get surrounded.

You actually can - and I think you should.

So far I think the best positioning I used in a match is to drop em on a line perpendicular to the deploying sides, roughly in the middle of the table, and more or less within 15, 16'' each. One of them should be opened by turn 1. With 2 portals you can drop one in the middle of the table, the other in the middle of the enemy's army, and it won't matter where he goes, you'll always be able to assault him. If the opponent does not use an army that is quick to redeploy, you can open the portals more towards one side, and you'll be able to focus on a part of their army, so that he's either forced to move towards you, or to face the assault of all your reserves at once later in the game, with what remains of his own units.

Even if he surrounds the advanced portal, you can still come out with hovering units like hellions, bikes, talos... The others can come out from the portal that is opened in the back, and assault the models that surround your other portal. Flying troops instead (the Talos expecially) can come out of the advanced portal and just assault. In the opponent's turn, the other models will have to move into contact with yours, so the portal will be freed, giving you space to bring in more troops.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Psykers: Dark Eldar have a piece of wargear in their arsenal that can kill every model in the Grey Knight army at once. A single piece of wargear that can table the entire enemy army for 20 points. Now....the chances of the GK player failing all those leadership tests is slim, but it could happen. And it *can* put a dent in the GK numbers. Warm up those suicide haemonculi.

RAW, the Crucible doesn't kill entire GK squads if they fail their test, it kills one guy per squad. It also has no effect on vehicles.

I'm not worried about the arguments. The GK codex is pretty clear on what is and isn't a psyker, and the BA FAQ has set precedence for vehicle psykers.

Just chiming in to point out that the Psychic Pilot rule only makes the vehicle count as a psyker for psychic tests and psychic hoods. GW learned from their mistake in the BA Codex (!).

^ The Talos no longer moves like a skimmer, so it cannot come out of a surrounded portal.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Psykers: Dark Eldar have a piece of wargear in their arsenal that can kill every model in the Grey Knight army at once. A single piece of wargear that can table the entire enemy army for 20 points. Now....the chances of the GK player failing all those leadership tests is slim, but it could happen. And it *can* put a dent in the GK numbers. Warm up those suicide haemonculi.

RAW, the Crucible doesn't kill entire GK squads if they fail their test, it kills one guy per squad. It also has no effect on vehicles.

I'm not worried about the arguments. The GK codex is pretty clear on what is and isn't a psyker, and the BA FAQ has set precedence for vehicle psykers.

Just chiming in to point out that the Psychic Pilot rule only makes the vehicle count as a psyker for psychic tests and psychic hoods. GW learned from their mistake in the BA Codex (!).

*sigh*

Yes, because non-psykers can cast psychic powers. Again, please take this to YMDC.