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.

This is an automated message added by the articles system.

A new article titled Dark Eldar Tactica Part 3 has been added to the dakka articles system.

This message thread is for the discussion of content in the article.

If you have anything to add to the article, then just jump in and edit it by going to the actual article page and clicking 'edit' (the link can be found just above the article). If there is no edit link then the article is locked for now, so just add your comments or content to this thread and if they are appropriate then they should eventually get merged in.

If there is something in the article that you wish to debate or comment on, then this is the place to do it. Just hit the reply button and get chatting! You need to be registered and logged in to post in the forums so if you are an anonymous article editor then now would be a great time to register and join in dakka's great forum discussion!

Thank you for your article, it's really great.
I don't really have much to comment, except, maybe one thing. About keeping everything in reserves: sometimes it can be really used to your advantage in case of getting second turn and not getting enough cover to reliably hide your vehicles. For example, I have 10 vehicles for 1500 pts. I hate spearhead deployment. So sometimes I choose to come from reserves - it gives me the ability to get better placement, cover saves from flat out and occasional ability to shoot first and pop some landraider (and blast passenger termies with dissies). Of course, your army comes in parts, but sometimes it is even better for you - it gives you the ability to utilize cover more efficiently. Much depends on your rolls, really, but when you have second turn and not too much cover, even more depends on them.

I could certainly agree with that. I just don't personally care for the trickle in effect, especially for DE armies since any one unit in our army tends to be quite fragile.

That said, many very good players do use similar reserve tactics as you do. Probably I should contemplate putting together at least some more viable times (like if there isn't much cover a Raider could use) to contemplate using Reserves.

Thank you very much for the thoughts,
Thor.

Thor665 wrote:I just don't personally care for the trickle in effect, especially for DE armies since any one unit in our army tends to be quite fragile.

The trouble is, sometimes they are just too fragile. A few days ago I've played againts autocannon and lascannon happy guard list for 1000 pts. It was spearhead, I got second turn and failed to seize the initiative. All 3 of my raiders and 1 or 2 (don't remember exactly) of my ravagers went down on the first turn - even the ones that had cover saves. We then decided to stop continuing that game and instead try to start it differently. Guard player deployed the same, an I've went all-reserve. The game ended in my victory (it was annihilation, by the way).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and one more thing. It seems that after the latest FAQ for the main rulebook Goblet of Spite only benefits friendly units. Opponent doesn't get "hit on 3+" rule.

Great article. I spotted a few rules errors (listing 'hitting the ground shooting' as an option for deep-striking vehicle passengers, despite deep-striking vehicles count as moving at cruising speed for purposes of shooting), but overall I found your analysis to be very fair, light-hearted and a very smooth read.

I personally would like to second the notion of being more trigger happy with reserving your models, in fact - sometimes your whole army.

The way I see it, let's say you have 10 units in your army - most likely raiders with stuff in them - and you roll up second turn on a terrain light table or assigned quarter. Your options include putting one or two raiders out front with no cover save to block off the rest of your army, or trying to hug terrain to the best of your ability.

Putting the whole army in reserve, in this situation would of course run the risk of putting a unit or two (or three) randomly on the table turn two, but that minor sacrifice would ensure your other units mostly came together on turn 3. And as Myr stated, having a few units show up can be a decent thing - allowing you to only expose models that can take advantage of cover until the cavalry shows up.

I guess my argument bases it's existence on my time playing a webway army, opening the portal on turn two and watching 70% of my army show up on turn 3. Based on that, I trust a 3+ to yield the rest of the army that didn't show up turn 2.

Anyways, great job! I look forward to your next article when our book gets updated! (21XX)

Defiler wrote:Great article. I spotted a few rules errors (listing 'hitting the ground shooting' as an option for deep-striking vehicle passengers, despite deep-striking vehicles count as moving at cruising speed for purposes of shooting),

I'll have to see about fixing that. I probably owe the article some time to recheck it for rules misrepresentations and other potential flubs (I think I have an error or two in the wargear section I noticed as well). Thanks for the heads up.

but overall I found your analysis to be very fair, light-hearted and a very smooth read.

Awesome, thank you. I was hoping the tactica would be easily accessible and not an effort to read.

Putting the whole army in reserve, in this situation would of course run the risk of putting a unit or two (or three) randomly on the table turn two, but that minor sacrifice would ensure your other units mostly came together on turn 3. And as Myr stated, having a few units show up can be a decent thing - allowing you to only expose models that can take advantage of cover until the cavalry shows up.

I guess my argument bases it's existence on my time playing a webway army, opening the portal on turn two and watching 70% of my army show up on turn 3. Based on that, I trust a 3+ to yield the rest of the army that didn't show up turn 2.

The way my experience usually works is I run a Raider Rush style force. On turn one generally speaking a few vehicles are blown up, squads are ejected out to have to footslog and general trials and tribulations occur. Then on my turn I slam full force with everything into one of his flanks and unleash all the DE mayhem I can. By turn three or four usually he's realizing that the couple of vehicles he popped turn one did very little to blunt my assault.

I will explain as the counterpoint thusly - If you are happy holding units in reserve in order to get around 70% of your force out by turn three then conversly you have to accept that by starting your entire army on the board turn 1 your opponent will have to destroy more then 30% of your army in order to give you less offensive power then you would have had via Reserve. Now, there are certain situations (like Dawn of War with the guranteed roll out on turn 1, or versus an opponent with a lot of Drop Pods) where I do see a certain strategic advantage to holding units back. I just don't find it to be that useful very often (also, I am exceedingly serious about my gambler's fallacy when it comes to my bad Reserve rolls).

Anyways, great job! I look forward to your next article when our book gets updated! (21XX)

You think it'll be that early?

Thanks for the feedback and alternate viewpoints on Reserve - I may steal some of your concepts to edit in with some re-writes.

Regards,
Thor.

Thor665 wrote:
I'll have to see about fixing that. I probably owe the article some time to recheck it for rules misrepresentations and other potential flubs (I think I have an error or two in the wargear section I noticed as well). Thanks for the heads up.

Anytime. I don't think any of the errors were anything serious, and don't detract from the pretty comprehensive wealth of knowledge in the Tactica. I think your Tactica is easily within the top 3 I've ever read for Dark Eldar.

The way my experience usually works is I run a Raider Rush style force. On turn one generally speaking a few vehicles are blown up, squads are ejected out to have to footslog and general trials and tribulations occur. Then on my turn I slam full force with everything into one of his flanks and unleash all the DE mayhem I can. By turn three or four usually he's realizing that the couple of vehicles he popped turn one did very little to blunt my assault.

It might just be my paralyzing and irrational fear of my paper airplanes being brought down by bolters, heavy bolters, autocannons, multi-lasers, krak grenades, faint breezes, dirty looks, CREEEEED!!!!!! and the like - but I don't place any faith in 50%+ of my raiders surviving first turn - let alone enough to actually mount an offensive. I've only had a few Raiders brought down after careful turbo-boosting and immaculate utilization of cover - but perhaps our mileage varies.

I will explain as the counterpoint thusly - If you are happy holding units in reserve in order to get around 70% of your force out by turn three then conversly you have to accept that by starting your entire army on the board turn 1 your opponent will have to destroy more then 30% of your army in order to give you less offensive power then you would have had via Reserve. Now, there are certain situations (like Dawn of War with the guranteed roll out on turn 1, or versus an opponent with a lot of Drop Pods) where I do see a certain strategic advantage to holding units back. I just don't find it to be that useful very often (also, I am exceedingly serious about my gambler's fallacy when it comes to my bad Reserve rolls).

I agree entirely, by my own logic I should be ok with 3 Raiders out of the 10 in my example crashing first turn. I guess my paranoia is predicted upon my own belief that exposed Raiders are exploded Raiders. I don't have any faith in trying to obtain cover for Dark Eldar vehicles in this edition, and at least with reserving up 3 or less units on second turn - they should be able to turbo boost gaining some cover or just outright moving straight into the action. In my example - I'm assuming I don't get what I want reserve wise - but there have also been times when 70% of my army showed up on the 4+ second turn - and that is ideal. I avoid the first round of shooting and can pretty much get straight down to the business of picking a vulnerable flank and sending my forces towards it.

So I guess in my mind, reserving your whole army - if all the parts are mobile (Jetbikes, Raiders, Ravagers, Vect) is just like going first. I've just had too many experiences deploying all my units - as best as possible avoiding long range guns and using cover and watching most of my transports brought down.

I will admit that in 5th edition I often end games with 50% of my raiders versus 0% back in 4th, so perhaps I just need time to get over my 4th edition Trauma.

However, a bit of advanced strategy I'm working on is toying around with using two Raider units with 5 men and one dark lance to achieve the dual purpose of giving me a token objective holder/sniper unit and allowing me to have two throw-away raiders to cover the rest of my army. I typically play, in 2000 points, Vect, 4 assault raider units, 3 Ravagers, A few units of Jetbikes and something assorted/miscellaneous. I think upping the raider unit count to 6 with intent of putting them in front of the rest of my ships if necessary is starting to look like a good idea. And if they enemy doesn't have the appropriate firepower to down my ships, I can use the two empty raiders as mobile harassers that have the freedom to move differently due to the fact they aren't transporting.

You think it'll be that early?

Thanks for the feedback and alternate viewpoints on Reserve - I may steal some of your concepts to edit in with some re-writes.

Regards,
Thor.

I think I'm being generous with the release date within the next hundred years.

And absolutely, I hope some of my viewpoints have helped you with your own material.

Defiler wrote:However, a bit of advanced strategy I'm working on is toying around with using two Raider units with 5 men and one dark lance to achieve the dual purpose of giving me a token objective holder/sniper unit and allowing me to have two throw-away raiders to cover the rest of my army. I typically play, in 2000 points, Vect, 4 assault raider units, 3 Ravagers, A few units of Jetbikes and something assorted/miscellaneous. I think upping the raider unit count to 6 with intent of putting them in front of the rest of my ships if necessary is starting to look like a good idea. And if they enemy doesn't have the appropriate firepower to down my ships, I can use the two empty raiders as mobile harassers that have the freedom to move differently due to the fact they aren't transporting.

I'm a big fan of mini sniper boats - and usually field them as you describe. Using empty Raiders to shield Wych Raiders is always useful. They also serve wonders sometimes to pick up stranded squads and to contest objectives.

Also, reading your post again I begin to wonder if perhaps our issues of deployment are simply affected by the terrain spread we usually get on a table. My local area may just provide me with more ruins and the like whose high profiles help me get my Raiders some cover. I know I've seen some tables where, even though they have a lot of terrain, have a low profile terrain table (lots of bushes or sandbag walls). On those tables hiding even one or two Raiders seems darn near impossible.

Sorry for my very late reply, and i don't know if you are active right now but i'll gladly offer you some insight to my findings. Indeed i use Gunline DE although i vary my list because i can never pick between the 2. They are both more of a static list, the first has 8 Raiders/3 Ravagers, the other has 6 Raiders/3 Ravagers all with Nightshields. The following are notes/questions/thoughts on sections of your tactica:

1. Nightmare Doll: Whilst there hasn't been a F&Q to clarify for sure the effects of Nightmare Doll, not everyone agrees the item still has any use in 5th Ed. The reason is that there no longer is a roll for deciding who picks the table edge, instead it is a dice roll for who goes first - resulting in the effect that said player gets to select their table edge. It's all very technical but i have to admit that when i read it alongside the rulebook deployment rules i sided with this view and removed the doll from any thought.

2. HQ Monster/IC hunter: The build you wrote is *only* useful for Wyche armies. You would never want to equip an Archon/Dracon like that. For them the only 2 reasonable options would be what you wrote in the troop hunter and jetbike selections. Simply because those are perfect for troop and monster killing just as well, giving them double use.

3 Incubi: I go with a shock troop HQ but alongside my 5 Incubi i still place in a warrior, he has proved invaluable for taking a 2nd power fist hit and keeping all my Incubi alive at an 8pt cost.

4: Haemonculi protectors of the weak: I used to always try and shove in 3 Haemon w/Destructors in my warrior squads until i realised they were being wasted after i dropped my blasters to play gunline. Since then they have become invaluable (in non-kill point games) as a distraction unit. I now place 1 in each of my Wyche squads and when they shoot off and jump out to charge he does 1 of 2 things. Remains to now create a Raider with additional nasty flamer, or jump him out to hit a different target. This is simply because i know how people react when you kill half a tac squad in 1 go. People end up struggling whether to shoot/charge a warrior squad or the sole hermonculi blocking their path. For 40pts they are an amazing buy!

5. Wyches in gunline: This is where you only need minimal wyche sizes, I never use more than 6 and quite frequently use 5. In my Raider spam 1500pt i don't even take succubus or weapon upgrades for the Wych squads. They can have a different use - to hold things up. 5 wyches come to 70 pts (+55 for the Raider but in my list it turns into a skimming flamer) and against some MC/HQ your 4+ Invun is going to hold them back a good turn or 2... in which time all the Plasma and Lances have done their work elsewhere and can be brought to focus on cleaning up the pieces.

6. Raider Snipers: Usually i keep the 5 man w/ Dark Lance inside the Raider, unless there is a lot of cover along the back edge and it's Killpoints. Whilst inside they still count as seperate units for shooting, so the Dark Lances can still select different targets. The power of these 105pt troop units with potential 24" movement is lethal for objective games. Plus they come much down your opponents target list... he will be much more worried about the Incubi/Wyche/Ravagers. Mobility is one of the key factors of good armies in 5th Ed, and whilst we may be flying paper airplanes, we can make up for it by fielding even more!

7. Nightshields: I've generally brushed past where you have talked about them but whilst reading the Ravager text i just had to point something out. Nightshields are not just about stopping high powered long range weapons. Where they come into their own is Vs. Melta (also in a minor way rapid fire). In well built tourny lists you can expect to come across plenty of Melta due to it's super power against vehicles in 5th Ed. Limiting a huge section of your opponents anti-tank to 18" for multi-melta (6" for 2D6), and 6" for melta guns (never getting 2D6) really forces your opponent to come to you. An if you happen to end unfortunatly 13-18" within some rapid fire squad, your vehicle is not quite as messed up. If they move (forgetting you have NS) then they can't hit you. Or remain static and only get 1 shot off each. The major disadvantage is that for the tactic to work you really need all vehicles armed like this.

8. Combat drugs +1 attack vs reroll: Your mathammer isn't quite right. Usually you will always be charging with the Archon/Dracon. If you can only pick 1 then take the reroll to hit! The Dracon gets 2+1+1 attacks on the charge. If your opponent has lower WS then with +1 attack you hit with 3.33. With the reroll however you hit *slightly more* (2/3 of the 4 + 2/3 of 1.333 = 3.555). If you are hitting on 4's then the reroll becomes statistically even better 2.5 vs. 3.

9. Raider Spam (Gunboat Vs. Gunline):
I am quite surprised you did not go into further details about the 2 huge varied style of Raider spam. I have seen lists made of both that are equally lethal! The difference should be highlighted because they are such massive different playstyles. A gunboat will favour blasters and shredders in the Raider squads, which alongside nasty tooled up wyche squads aid with the HQ/Incubi crunches where needed to fast flow into opponents lines. Usually they will indeed take Reaver Squads to help shore up flanks and provide added extra punch to close range vehicles.
The Gunline works like the tau. This is usually where people whine and moan about stupid tactics, but i swear by this method! Hug your table edge and your opponent has few massive ranged guns (unless they are tau) - and they will mainly be armed on vehicles which Dark Lances will shred to pieces. At 1,500pts I have a spam list of 13 Lances and 9 Disintegrators, or Nightshielded list of 10 Dark Lances and 8 Disintegrators. Wiping out their transports and tanks then laugh as they slowly walk the board.

As a sidenote i will just post something i wrote on a seperate post ages ago:
"An obscured raider isn't *quite* as super weak as you are quite putting out to be either. Against an army with WS4 S8 they have just a 12% chance of wrecking or destroying it - the maths is:
A hit, penetrate then wrecked/destroyed = 2/3 * 4/6 * 3/6 = 24/108
A hit, glance and wrecked/destroyed = 2/3 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 2/108
Added together you have 26/108 which is 24% but add in obscured and it then becomes 12% chance of your vehicles getting wrecked/destroyed!"

If you are Raider spam you can always take 2-3 of those 5 man sniper warrior squads and put them in cover... then use their 2-3 Raiders to obscured all the rest of your force.

Anyways those are my personal findings from many matches... I hope they are of some use in your well put together Tactica

Thank you very much for the reply and PM. I'll be working some of this wonderful work into the tactica.

I have to applaud the depth of knowledge in this article.

I found very few things that I questioned, and very little missing from my own personal book of tricks.

The couple things I'd point out, is you list a Coven list as possibly using Urien and 3 Haemonculi, but Urien HAS to have an Archon fielded(which is another drawback to him)

As far as Grotesques, yes they've gotten worse, but one trick that has worked at times is to use them as a cheap retinue for a Dracon/Archon, especially against non-marines/non-fearless units. The Lord accompanies them onto a raider, then when they prepare to assault, the lord exits one way, the grots the other. They both assault the same unit, and when the opponent auto-breaks, it lets you make an initiative test with the much more desirable Lord. Nothing to make them replace wyches, but can definitely use to save some points over Incubi.

The only thing I'd consider re-visiting is the triple Dissie Ravager. As great as it can be moving and firing two as defensive weapons, because they are fast vehicles, if you only move 6" you can fire all as templates, similar to the triple lance. The way either of these shine is keeping near max range, and dropping support fire. Similar to what you said in other places, with so many other priority targets in combination with creating firing lanes by blocking with forward Raiders, it's infrequent the one long range shot is wasted on the Ravager over the very close Wych or Raider squad.

xzandrate wrote:The couple things I'd point out, is you list a Coven list as possibly using Urien and 3 Haemonculi, but Urien HAS to have an Archon fielded(which is another drawback to him)

Mea culpa - you are absolutely correct sir. I shall edit that part forthwith.

As far as Grotesques, yes they've gotten worse, but one trick that has worked at times is to use them as a cheap retinue for a Dracon/Archon, especially against non-marines/non-fearless units. The Lord accompanies them onto a raider, then when they prepare to assault, the lord exits one way, the grots the other. They both assault the same unit, and when the opponent auto-breaks, it lets you make an initiative test with the much more desirable Lord. Nothing to make them replace wyches, but can definitely use to save some points over Incubi.

An interesting strategy option. The rough part is that it is still slowing the Lord down to Incubi speed due to a lack of fleet on the Grotesques since both he and they need to reach their targets. I'm also leery of putting my Lord in with a strategy that is nerfed by fighting fearless foes or Marines, since that is such a big part of the play enviroment. I might give it a few test runs in some friendly games to see how it treats me. Have you had much success with this tactic on a tourney level?

The only thing I'd consider re-visiting is the triple Dissie Ravager. As great as it can be moving and firing two as defensive weapons, because they are fast vehicles, if you only move 6" you can fire all as templates, similar to the triple lance. The way either of these shine is keeping near max range, and dropping support fire. Similar to what you said in other places, with so many other priority targets in combination with creating firing lanes by blocking with forward Raiders, it's infrequent the one long range shot is wasted on the Ravager over the very close Wych or Raider squad.

I'll admit I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. I gave the triple Dissie Ravager a very positive review in my discussion of it. If I was harsh on any of the three builds it was the triple lance, and I wasn't even against that one. All of the potential Ravager builds (except 2 Lance, 1 Dissie) are, in my opinion, quite viable and serve well the various armies they pair with. The only "challenge" is figuring out what your army needs on its Ravagers to make them serve you best.

Thank you very much for the kind words and the additional thoughts. If anything else comes to mind please toss it my way as I'm always hoping to improve the tactica.

thanks thor that really helped!

Great article!

Thinking of running DE!

You made my mind up!

Thanks!

Ah, a new convert to DE? Best of luck to you, sir.

Yeah!

I figured I'd get the bulk of the army now and get the new models if/when they come out!

Just pointing out a mistake in the heat lance entry for reaver jetbikes. It is a 18 inch range weapons, and 9 for the melta effect. Probably won't effect your analysis of them, but just like to point out the range issue. Popping into 9 inches then eldar jetbike move back to about 18 isn't too bad. Sure, the 18 range then jump back to 24ish on the blaster is a bit safer, but 18 is safe from most assaults (but not rapid fire like blasters are).

Awesome, thanks for the catch!

Just finished reading your tactica, and I'm really impressed. Thanks for the great article!

I really want to make a Sthonyx-Hellion squad work, so despite your advice (which I find no fault in) I want to try and use them anyway. Rather than considering them an assault force, I'm looking at them as basically 2 venom-gunboats that can level 35 attacks on the charge if the opportunity presents itself.

I want to try holding them back out of the fight, and use them for a counter-strike unit against infiltrating/outflanking assault units, or fast infantry. I know the baron really isn't that great, but I just feel like making helions better makes his point cost a little more tolerable.

Great article! One question though, when will part 4 be done?

Eugee wrote:I'm looking at them as basically 2 venom-gunboats that can level 35 attacks on the charge if the opportunity presents itself.

And cost 3x as much as 2 Venoms and have less range...
I certainly wish you luck in the endeavor - I have a bunch of old metal Hellions and some of the new plastic ones and they look awesome and have cool fluff now too - but I haven't found a method that works competitively with them yet. Let me know how it goes.

woodbok wrote:Great article! One question though, when will part 4 be done?

Uh...um...

Probably Part 4 will be worked on sometime before next...year? I dunno - there's really not too much that still needs to be done, and I really could finish it with an odd few hours tossed at it, I just need to force myself to take the time to actually type it up. We'll try to make it happen sooner rather than later.

Great article, really great. Just started playing again after 5 years and got to start over modelwise. So I'm slowly building my army and almost all I find out there on the internet is tactics for larger armies than me and my friends are playing right now. So the article is excellent for me since I now can plan my next unit and what to use it for etc...love it!

One thing I was wondering about though is about Grotesques. You stated them as "Utility: Poor" and I never got what the reason was. I would really like to field a unit of them and my hopings were that you wouldn't have to be a veteran player to make good use for them.

So, what made you state the "Utility: Poor" on the Grotesques?

Glad the article helped.

Grots suffer in competitive play due to limited optimal targets and cost of the unit versus other units who can do the job better.

They are one of my more questionable 'Poors' and I had them as 'Semi-Competitive' in an earlier version. There are some potential nice Grot builds out there, and I've seen them in a Rush list and a WWP list and think they work okay therein. That said, there are just a lot of things out there that are commonly seen that really make one wonder if the Grots will really be worth the cost of the unit.

For the specifics of the 'Poor' let's consider what Grots do;

1. Are hard to hurt and draw enemy fire - so are Beastmasters, and they are cheaper)

2. Eat hordes in assault and are almost immune to being hurt much by them - so do Beastmasters, and they are cheaper

3. Can do a pretty good job vs. vehicles on the assault - so do Beastmasters, cheaper, yadda, yadda.

4. Wound allocation shenanigans ftw! - *cough* Beastmasters.

5. Require an HQ - Beastmasters allow you an excellent vehicle for one of the better HQ add ons, and can perform well without him.

6. Competes with the slots that provide you Trueblasters (pretty much a must competitively) and two other elite assault units (Incubi and Bloodbrides). Bloodbrides are actually better versus a variety of targets (Thunder hammers, Force Weapons, et al) and Incubi are better versus armored units than Grots (like the perennial Blood Angels with FNP)

Beastmasters compete with...RJBs? Scourges? Hellions? Meh.

So it's a series of poor confluences and matchups that drags the Grots down the competitive slot - if they were a FA slot I'd probably have ranked them higher. Heck, if Trueborn went FA and Beasts came to Elite I think there would could some serious discussion about the two options. As stands though? Grots just aren't in a good slot for what they do versus other slot holders.

Can they work? Sure.
Have I seen them in competitive minded lists and thought they could fit in? Yes.
Do I think they're a shoe-in that anyone can use? No. Not at all.

Hope that helps,
Thor.

Wonderful article. Very in depth and thought through, not like some comments you find on the forum about tactical discussion. Reading the other parts now.

Thor665 wrote:
Can they work? Sure.
Have I seen them in competitive minded lists and thought they could fit in? Yes.
Do I think they're a shoe-in that anyone can use? No. Not at all.

Hope that helps,
Thor.

It did, thank you. Im thinking of trying them out later on in my army but now I at least know that they shouldn't be a priority.

nice articles. i play coven style. 3 hemies, 3 units of 4 incubi in dakka venom, and 5 men units of wracks in dakka venoms with 3 jetfighters for anti tank.

but now my point:
in the article about incubi you state if they kill to much sternguard they will flee and you will get shot up. arn't space marines free to choose whether they pass or fail their Ld test?

Certain Marines - yes. You can change Sternguard to any other non-fearless army unit if it will help make the point clear. The goal is to understand the risk of wiping a foe.

I really agree with you on Monoscythe missiles.... gr8 tactica man!

Thank you very much.