Why the lack of DE/Nid knowledge?

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.

**Ketara**

BuFFo wrote:The correct answer for a question about dark eldar needs to start with "What is your meta game like? Who are your opponent's armies and what do they run usually?" This makes it harder to give advice only for an army that is highly specialized in its role if you are not telling the DE experts what the meta game is.

I think to a large extent, anyone whose advice is actually worth listening to, will be capable of helping a player construct a balanced list that can take all comers regardless of local meta. After all, when constructing competitively, isn't that kind of the point? You don't know what armies you might play against in a tournament after all, and that's where the killer lists tend to come out.

When constructing your list, you formulate it with two things in mind, a) What is my strategy to win, and what units comprise and complement that strategy, and b) How do I ensure I have a good chance of being capable of defeating pretty much any other strategy.

So assume I want to take a Webway Portal list, built around the Sliscus variant. I'll sit down and work out what units I NEED to make that strategy work. Once I've got the core stuff selected for the strategy, I then go about thinking, 'Okay. How do I beat an all mech army? What are my options against an all foot army? What can I add that'll let me defend myself against a fast army? And most importantly, out of all the units that can the above, which can do more than one, and compliment my already existing strategy?' I then playtest that list, and make the necessary modifications for maximum killpower potential, and on table tactical flexibility.

So yes. My point here is that I disagree on that Buffo. A competent General should be capable of helping a new player construct an excellent list that can work as best possible in the selected strategy, without needing to know the local meta, simply because a good list should be capable of taking on anything, local meta included.

**asimo77**

I'm not sure what people are talking about here. There isn't much mystery behind the DE, what's good is pretty evident.

All this not bothering to give advice, and "we're the only good DE players left!" stuff, just seems like ego-stroking. If there aren't any good DE generals out there care to enlighten us on what's bad and what's good, oh wise ones?

I have a good feeling most people will say things like 3 Ravagers, Dual SC Venoms, and so on none; of which are that hard to figure out.

In other words DE aren't all that complicated.

I should probably throw in I'm far from a DE expert, but I don't think it's too difficult to identify what works and what doesn't.

**Galador**

asimo77 wrote:I should probably throw in I'm far from a DE expert, but I don't think it's too difficult to identify what works and what doesn't.

Your still missing the true point, in that just about everything in the codex works, depending on the situation and what you are trying to use it for. I can make Reavers semi-competitive if I try, but they will never fill a complete, solid role in a true competitive army. But at the same time, DE are quite complicated. Build your troops wrong, and you will get hosed, unlike the leafblower lists and mech lists in most other armies.

DE are very unforgiving is the basic point everyone is trying to get across, and if your opponent is a competent one, he will capitalize on your mistakes, and you will pay for it.

Well, that and that noone wants advice, they just want praise.

**Ketara**

asimo77 wrote:All this not bothering to give advice, and "we're the only good DE players left!" stuff, just seems like ego-stroking. If there aren't any good DE generals out there care to enlighten on what's bad and what's good, oh wise ones?

I have a good feeling most people will say things like 3 Ravagers, Dual SC Venoms, and so on none of which are that hard to figure out.

In other words DE aren't all that complicated.

What's good and what's bad?

You might think that things like 3 Ravagers are 'that hard to figure out', yet I don't seem to recall you weighing in on the rather interesting debates when the codex first came out as to whether Void Ravens functioned better on a tactical level than the Ravagers. Nor when people were trying to discover the optimum configurations for taking Trueborn in.

Just because its obvious now, doesn't mean it was initially. The only reason its 'not that hard to figure out' now, is mainly because people who actually aren't that good seized upon a few of the basic things the people who actually did the math said, and spammed them as the 'only' way to play. Like SW missile launchers and Mech Guard. Sure. Anyone can pull a cookie cutter list off the net for any army.

Thing is, Dark Eldar don't actually work very well like that. To actually play Dark Eldar well requires a tactical understanding of the tabletop game beyond 'spam the best units'. Mainly because the lack of the ability to take punishment, and the fact they actually have a relatively balanced codex, meaning the concept of 'spam the best unit' makes it hard to define the 'best' unit.

The fact the first thing you said was 'ravagers and 2nd splinter cannon on the venom' actually shows me what level you're capable of thinking at when playing DE. Because to be honest, it is the most obvious stuff. The stuff that's bandied about the most(and the scary thing is that in tactics threads, half the people don't even grasp those two things when they're giving 'advice'). But does being able to say, 'rabblerabble spam ravagers!' or 'rabblerabble spam Long fangs with missile launchers!' really make one capable of giving good advice or writing tacticas? I think not.

You might consider it ego stroking, but to be frank, the lack of good tactical discussion to be had makes me sad. I genuinely wish there were more people capable of offering serious DE listbuilding debate and discussion, who made quality posts that I could go away and consider. That would pioneer new strategies for me to experiment with. That would make reasoned, well thought out amendments to my competitive lists, rather than telling me I need to 'SPAM MOAR TRUEBORN & RAVAGERS!'.

I miss Thor and clthomps.

**asimo77**

Ok I think I understand what you're saying now, also I didn't realize this thread was more about Codex musings prior to its release.

However, if something is clearly good like the 3 Ravagers, I don't see how that makes it is bad advice, or rather not good advice. Even if it has become an almost automatic response to say "Use 3 Ravagers" that doesn't make it bad advice, does it? I mean what other advice would you give out when list building besides "Take unit X because it's good"? That seems like the purpose of list building.

Are you saying the problem lies in the actual tactics being discussed, i.e. how to use units ,or the list building part, aka what to take?

I hope what I'm trying to say is coming out clearly and articulate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:
asimo77 wrote:I should probably throw in I'm far from a DE expert, but I don't think it's too difficult to identify what works and what doesn't.

Your still missing the true point, in that just about everything in the codex works, depending on the situation and what you are trying to use it for. I can make Reavers semi-competitive if I try, but they will never fill a complete, solid role in a true competitive army. But at the same time, DE are quite complicated. Build your troops wrong, and you will get hosed, unlike the leafblower lists and mech lists in most other armies.

DE are very unforgiving is the basic point everyone is trying to get across, and if your opponent is a competent one, he will capitalize on your mistakes, and you will pay for it.

Well, that and that noone wants advice, they just want praise.

I somehow missed your post, but I more or less agree with what you're saying here. I guess what I was getting at was that building a list is easy, but you guys are saying is actually using it is what's hard.

**Ketara**

asimo77 wrote:Ok I think I understand what you're saying now, also I didn't realize this thread was more about Codex musings prior to its release.

However, if something is clearly good like the 3 Ravagers, I don't see how that makes it is bad advice, or rather not good advice. Even if it has become an almost automatic response to say "Use 3 Ravagers" that doesn't make it bad advice, does it? I mean what other advice would you give out when list building besides "Take unit X because it's good"? That seems like the purpose of list building.

Are you saying the problem lies in the actual tactics being discussed, i.e. how to use units ,or the list building part, aka what to take?

I hope what I'm trying to say is coming out clearly and articulate.

It is, and the civility is appreciated.

How can I put this......advice is contextual on a situation.

Say for example, I intend to run a Webway combat list, based around Sathonyx approach. I put up my army list, and want to finetune it to the best capability I can. Now I've taken a unit of Incubi, 3 Talos, 2 units of wyches, sathonyx, and some grotesques in my Webway list, because that's the angle I'm going for. As a vet DE player, I think that with some finetuning on which units I'm going to take, I can make this kind of combat list not only workable, but highly effective in the tournament scene. So I'm looking for people who can discuss with me the merits of taking Grotesques over more wyches with haywire grenades. Who can help me settle on the ideal weapons loadout for my Talos. Who can help me decide where to strip the points away from in my army, in order to squeeze on that last agoniser, without compromising another units combat effectiveness.

Instead, what I'll get, is four posts telling me I shouldn't run webway, because its bad. One or two them will quantify this by pointing at the lack of dark lances. Another three people will tell me to take out the Talos and Groteques and spam Ravagers and Trueborn (because everyone knows that unit spamming is the way to do things!). A few more will tell me to add jetbikes or a Razorwing, which will make no sense (these people probably don't even play the army). And so on.

The amount of actual useful feedback I will gain from posting such a thread could be written on the back of a newspaper recipt. And so I don't bother.

The only advice I can garner seems to be what me, Dash, Hulk, or one or two other competent players said six months ago, only mashed up and passed on fourth hand. There's no originality, there's no innovation, and there's precious little tactical sense. All there is is a slavish adherence to preconceptions that have been bandied around until they've lost all original flavor, and most of what is bandied around is misunderstood to begin with. The people who spout it fail to understand the tactical ramifications of why that was good advice when given, and in what situation or scenario it ceases to be good advice.

There's nothing wrong with 'Add 3 Ravagers'. If someone is clearly new to the game, trying to build a Kabal shooty army, and hasn't included three, then by all means! It's good advice! But the lack of good advice outside such a narrow viewpoint demonstrates the lack of competent players around.

Like I said, there's been a few I've noted starting to think outside that box. But coming to grips with the multitude of different builds available in this codex, and understanding what all the units are capable of well enough to give decent advice takes time. Me and most of the old school players have had years to do that, and develop the comprehension required to make strategies for the DE playstyle work outside 'SPAM RAVAGERZ!'.

Alas, what little good advice there is is so drowned out by people who don't have that understanding, they simply don't bother anymore. And them's the breaks unfortunately.

I hope I've managed to convey my point without sounding too bigheaded. ^^;

**Janthkin**

Fetterkey wrote:However, I've noticed that this doesn't really hold true for Codex: Tyranids and Codex: Dark Eldar. I know there are good Tyranid and Dark Eldar players out there-- I've played against some, in fact-- but for some reason the general Internet knowledge about what is and isn't good doesn't seem to be there for these Codices. Why is that? Do people just use these armies less out there? Are they just worse in competitive play? I highly doubt the latter is true-- Dark Eldar seem extremely competitive, to the point where probably a strict majority of the new and shiny Grey Knights lists I've seen out there don't have any plausible answer to a correctly-run Dark Eldar army-- but that knowledge still seems to be missing. What do you guys think is behind this?

I can't speak for DE. But as regards Tyranids, we've had some great threads on Dakka, dating from before the actual release of the codex: Mahu's initial musings spawned 23 pages of discussion, as well as a slew of related battle reports from him & Shep; and Hulksmash tried to codify the thoughts of many Tyranid players.

What there isn't is the same VOLUME of threads as the new GK seem to be spawning, much of which appears to be noise.

**Tmonster**

Most DE lists i encounter on dakka are adaptations of Dashofpeppers list. And while the list certainly works you need good tactics for winning, there isn't a parking lot style instantly effective list for DE, also there are no bad units in the codex, units like mandrakes just need a good general.

taking 3 ravagers doesn't mean you insta win. When razorwings fit your overal list better than take 1 or so!.

If you make 1 mistake with this army you lose half your army.

**Dashofpepper**

Tmonster wrote:Most DE lists i encounter on dakka are adaptations of Dashofpeppers list. And while the list certainly works you need good tactics for winning, there isn't a parking lot style instantly effective list for DE, also there are no bad units in the codex, units like mandrakes just need a good general.

taking 3 ravagers doesn't mean you insta win. When razorwings fit your overal list better than take 1 or so!.

If you make 1 mistake with this army you lose half your army.

Someone actually had the nerve to PM me and tell them that I was copying his list and should give him credit.

**asimo77**

@ Ketara

Ok after your last post I completely get what you're saying. There is a dearth of innvation, but that seems to be the case in many tactics discussions, regardless of army. It's always "drop X take Y instead" rather than "ok so you're taking X here's how to use it" I'll even admit I'm guilty of suggesting the easy way out. I think it's just much more straightforward to take 3 Ravagers, spam Darklight and so on, so people adopt it as the default advice. Thinking is hard afterall.

It would be fun to have a discussion on how to synergize Grotesques and Voidravens, or whatever interesting combinations suits your fancy. However, it's a lot more clear why the standard spams/combo are effective so peple kind of forget about the rest of the codex, which is a shame because that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game.

Personally I like to mix things up a bit, and I probably get away with it since at home the meta is somewhat casual. I've been experimenting with WWP, Chronos, and Scourges to name a few. But those Ravagers don't hurt

Unfortunatley I don't think I'm confident enough to give any profound advice or have a good tactical discussion on the subject, though I'm wlling to try. Or maybe it's just modesty, I'd like to imagine I'm somewhat decent at the game...

Also thanks about the civility bit, I try to be polite on the internet and off it (ok maybe not all the time

)

Finally, perhaps you should start a new topic in the vein of your old DE unit ranking topic; get some creative juices flowing, I'd like to hear what the experts have to say. Hopefully it's more than Trueborn in Venoms!

Oh and no you didn't sound "too big-headed"

**Ketara**

asimo77 wrote:@ Ketara

Ok after your last post I completely get what you're saying. There is a dearth of innvation, but that seems to be the case in many tactics discussions, regardless of army. It's always "drop X take Y instead" rather than "ok so you're taking X here's how to use it" I'll even admit I'm guilty of suggesting the easy way out. I think it's just much more straightforward to take 3 Ravagers, spam Darklight and so on, so people adopt it as the default advice. Thinking is hard afterall.

See, it may seem like the easy way out, but what I was trying to say earlier, was that the only reason it seems like the easy way out, is because other people have copied off of already successful templates. If I manage to build a killer webway list with 3 Talos instead, you can bet your boots that within two months of me starting to win tournaments with it, people will copy it. Six months down the line, it will be seen as 'obvious'. Was it obvious? Not really. But once everyone adopts the same strategy, its seen as 'obvious'.

It would be fun to have a discussion on how to synergize Grotesques and Voidravens, or whatever interesting combinations suits your fancy. However, it's a lot more clear why the standard spams/combo are effective so peple kind of forget about the rest of the codex, which is a shame because that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game.

The thing is, there are other combos and spams which are just as effective. They just never see daylight due to people spamming the same ol' units, because that's what everyone online told them to use.

Finally, perhaps you should start a new topic in the vein of your old DE unit ranking topic; get some creative juices flowing, I'd like to hear what the experts have to say. Hopefully it's more than Trueborn in Venoms!

I often attempt to work up the motivation, but then I look at my keyboard, think of all the nonsensical responses I'll get as a result, and any incentive to do so just drains away....

**asimo77**

So I guess the lauded Ravagers and Trueborn list popped up first and so now is accepted as the only working list. I guess it's sort of a case of "why fix what 'aint broken?" The current lists work well enough so that discourages people from experimenting.

However, I don't think being or becoming an obvious list is necessarily a bad thing. But it does speak to the lack of innovation on the player's end, when all people do is copy everything online.

But eventually all list building will be just that, at some point everything will have been tried out and we'd essentially all just be copying each other. If instead of the current meta your Talos, WWP, Baron list became the next hot thing, do you think we'd be lamenting the lack of Ravagers and Trueborn today?

Maybe it just takes some time for new combos to see the light of day, the codex is fairly new afterall.

Also for what it's worth I would think a topic on DE tactics would be cool, but obviously no one is forcing you.

**Ketara**

asimo77 wrote:So I guess the lauded Ravagers and Trueborn list popped up first and so now is accepted as the only working list. I guess it's sort of a case of "why fix what 'aint broken?" The current lists work well enough so that discourages people from experimenting.

However, I don't think being or becoming an obvious list is necessarily a bad thing. But it does speak to the lack of innovation on the player's end, when all people do is copy everything online.

But eventually all list building will be just that, at some point everything will have been tried out and we'd essentially all just be copying each other. If instead of the current meta your Talos, WWP, Baron list became the next hot thing, do you think we'd be lamenting the lack of Ravagers and Trueborn today?

Ah, but that's the joy of meta. It changes with every codex release, and rulebook update.

As to it working well enough, I suppose it does to an extent. Yet you'll note the likes of dash still trying to find a way to play around Mech Guard, due to their general capability of blowing apart DE.

I may get a tactics article up I suppose. Need to get my dissertation out of the way first though. ^^;

**Black Fiend**

There are plenty of good ways to run DE. It doesnt necessarily need Trueborn and Ravagers. People come here for the net lists and that one is as good as any other I guess.

**Mahu**

I also echo some of what others are saying.

Common Internet Wisdom is like Common Sense. Simple answers that can be relevant in the right context but lacks the reasoning and why behind it to be applied appropriate.

Honestly, the only thing that made me a good player was to play games, lots of them. I played Vassal, I have a table in my apartment where roommates and friends play. I live in a pretty competitive scene with a tournament almost every week. Enough practice against good players will make you a good player.

As far as Nid Advice, here is my article from Yes the Truth Hurts:

Let me start off by saying that 2010 was the year I rage quit Tyranids.

A little background, I have been an avid 40k fan since 2003. Mainly playing some sort of Space Marine army, Space Marines are and always have been my love. My playstyle tends to be fairly aggressive in nature as well. I have a fair amount of confidence in my skill as a player, and I decided to branch out into different armies. Leading up to the release of the Tyranid codex, I had been picking up the odd Tyranid model here and there, slowly building my collection, so that when the new codex hit, I could be off and running.

Up to this point I was playing variations of Salamander marines, with a 6 month streak of always placing in the top three of many local RTTs at many different locations. I am not saying I am a national GT winner or anything, but I generally know my stuff, and face stiff competition every time I attend a RTT. There are no fluff bunies, or comp, or anything like that in our local scene, and though we mostly rip of adepticon for missions and score sheets, the area is genuinely competitive.

So Tyranids hit, I was excited by the Trygon model, and read a lot of internet forums and tactical advice to get a good footing on what a competitive Tyranid army will look like. The two places that gave me the best information was here (YTTH) and Dakka, mainly a poster by the name of Shep was testing out lists in a variety of formats with an aim for competitive.

So between those two sources, I came across the multiple Hive Guard, Tervigon, and Tyrannofex list. The one posted here and elsewhere as the supreme competitive list and I started testing it. I get the crap kicked out of me, and I play it again, get the crap kicked out of me and I play it again, and again, and again, and again. (a process that has been dubbed the “Mahu” method by my friends. lol).

I hated that list for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it was a bad match up against the top players in my area, namely, a Mech IG player, a Space Wolves player, and an Ork player.

Mech IG had plenty of shooting, to knock my Hive Guard out in two turns, usually included an =][= for a hood to shut down catalyst, and had plenty of AP 1 or 2 shooting to deny it when it did go off. Of course, I did the whole “everybody is getting a cover save” deployment, but at the end of the day, you are going to fail 4+ saves.

Space Wolves have been discussed by others, but when you are loosing a Tyrannofex and or a Tervigon a turn to Jaws, getting out assaulted by a variety of options they have, and of course loosing your Hive Guard to massed ML fire, and they are shutting down catalysts on the Tervigon they didn’t Jaws, it just doesn’t work well in your favor.

Orks, I felt you had a chance with, but with no real answer to Nobs, they would shoota boy my gaunt screen away, and then combo charge my line with unkillable nobs, my list had nothing that could instakill them before the threw a redicoulous amount of power klaws into my TMCs, picking me off the table.

I can hear the responses now, maybe I should play better. Trust me, I understand the concept of mutual cover saves, Gaunt Screens, and Target priority and there was the occasional game I came close. But close is not a win.

I became desperate, I tried different builds, different units. Every time I took a unit or ability I felt plugged a hole, I would com across another counter. I playstested, and playtested and playtested, multiple games upon games for a solid 3 to 4 months.

At a point, I was done, in that time I believe I may have gotten only a few wins. Blood Angels where coming out, and the idea of an aggressive, codex chapter with shiney new toys convinced me to sell of my Tyranids in disgust. Tyranids had become my biggest gaming failure to date.

I got really into Blood Angels, and they are still the army nearest to my heart now. Blood Lance broke Chimera parking lots, Mephiston became a better MC then any of the Tyranid options, and fast razorbacks made me very happy. They are still my primary army now, and have fastly become the codex I love to play out of the most.

About a month or two ago, I revisited Tyranids. I had moved in with a few roommates, all of which are pretty good players in their own regard. One roommate won 4 RTTs in a row with Space Wolves, for whatever that is worth, and having a realm of battle game board in my living room gave me greater opportunity to try all sorts of different things. Between us all, we almost own every faction, so we can borrow an army off each other any time. One of my roommates just so happened to be the guy I sold my Tyranids too. So not only did I have access to my old collection, but I also had access to a much more expansive collection as well.

So, because I had time and ability, I tested out a few more list variants. Part of this was because I saw a few other local players do some things I hadn’t considered. I saw Stealer shock go to third round of the Aard Boyz, which may not be the truest test of competitive, but it was success, something I rarely tasted with my own bugs. There are 4 units that I became impressed with, once I started playtesting again, and applied some of those techniques to my own game. Gargoyles, Ymgarl Genestealers, Genestealers, and Trygons.

I became a lot more effective with my Tyranid build, and I was able to come to the root of the problem, and finally understand what makes Tyranids an effective army. The long explanation I put before all of this, was to put what I am about to say in context. I tested the Hive Guard, Tervigon, Tyrannofex list. I deployed them like Stelek said to, I played that against the toughest lists and opponents I could find. I adapted and changed my strategies with that list, and I applied good target priority, and ultimately found the list wanting.

It has too many hard counters to be effective in my opinion. I think the units involved in the list are all good options, but I think a single focus on those three units messes with what Tyranids do better then every one, and that is board control.

I found the best Tyranid builds, in my recent playtesting, to be able to box in and surround my opponent with just sheer numbers, where everything in the list can and will destroy tanks. The first time you have a unit of Gargoyles fully surround a transport and glance it to death in a way where all the members inside die, is a very satisfying feeling. Swarmlord giving Ymgarl Genestealers Furious Chage then combo charging a few tanks the turn they arrive, is a satisfying feeling.

Here is the recent list I came up with, and I will discuss how I usually deploy and run it.

-HQ-

Tyranid Prime w/ Pair of Boneswords, Deathspitter, Regeneration = 105

-Elites-

3 Hive Guard = 150
3 Hive Guard = 150
8 Ymgarl Genestealers = 184

-Troops-

12 Termagaunts = 60
Tervigon w/ Adrenal Glands, Toxin Sacs, Catalyst = 195
12 Genestealers w/ Adrenal Glands, Toxin Sacs, Broodlord = 286
12 Genestealers w/ Adrenal Glands, Toxin Sacs, Broodlord = 286

-Fast Attack-

20 Gargoyles w/ Adrenal Glands, Toxin Sacs = 160

-Heavy Support-

Trygon w/ Adrenal Glands = 210
Trygon w/ Adrenal Glands = 210

Total = 1996

At first glance, the list doesn’t seem competitive, but here is how it plays. Every time you deploy, you put your Gargoyles in a straight line across the front on your whole army. Because of their models, and the speed in which they move, they can effectively give a covers ave to the entire force, including the Tervigon.

Depending on your opponent, dictates the rest of the set up. The standards are that the Hive Guard, Tervigon, and at least one of the Genestealer Squads deploy with the Prime attached to them. If you are facing a defensive opponent, you outflank or infiltrate the second squad of stealers, depending on conditions. Ymgarls aslo choose to deploy secretly, more often then not in a centerish piece of terrain, you are sure to get to first, but close enough to the front lines. The Trygons, I almost always deploy on the table at opposite ends of my deployment zone.

So effectively, what I do is try and deploy as wide as possible, while still maintaining the Gargoyle Screen. By turn one, I have the majority of my force in the center of the board. By turn two, I have units assaulting into the deployment zone. Gargoyles are great, not just as mobile cover, but one you hit turn two they are usally assaulting transports with that sweet sweet rear armor ten. With Adrenal Glands, the possibility, to at the very least stun vehicles is a likely hood. You put your opponent (especially guard players) in the position of either they spread out to prevent comb charges, in which case you pull off the surround and trap tactic, or you turtle to maximize your fire power, which allows you to hit more at a time. If a Chimera is moving to avoid the hits, they no heavy weapons are firing from inside. The more you force those types of scenarios on your opponent, the longer your own force lives, and no guarg play wants to see Genestealers in their lines. Ymgarls are great, combine Move through cover and fleet, they are guaranteed to hit something when they get out.With the ability to have str, 5 rending, you are suddenly threatening tougher Russ chases. Genetealers, though I spend a lot pf points on a few models, can be surprisingly survivable. The unit I deploy, with a Prime attached, can always bounce or take the first two wounds tossed on that unit. Combine that with 4+ cover you get with the Gargoyles, and they become even better. Hell, you can even put FNP on them some of the time from the Tervigon, if you are really worried. There are only a few models out there that will deny the cover save, but because you have move through cover, you can hug cover yourself if you really need to. If I face off against an aggressive army, I deploy everything and meet them in the middle. Genestealers with re-rolling to wound, even against Thunderwolves, can put a crap to of rends on targets. Add that to the Prime who can character assassinate fairly easily. The Tyrgons are my only real answer to Land Raiders and the like, but it is a good one. You get 7 str. 7 MC attacks on the charge that re-rolls to hit, even against tanks that moved. I have learned to run them on the table more often then not. With fleet, they have a strong possibility to assault something on turn 2, 3 at the latest. If you deepstrike them, they usually sit out a turn to get shot at anyways, I would rather bring them to bear early.

Part of effective Tyranid strategy, is ruining your opponents target priority. By presenting enough threats that are hard to put down, you make your opponent only concentrate on one thing at a time until it is dead. Truth be told, I only need one Tyrgon to hit a big tank for the two of them to fulfill their role. The Tervigon is not so important to my plan as it is to draw fire. A smart opponent will leave it alone, which means I make more scoring units and sit on an objective. I tend to be very aggressive with it as well sometimes, because it can be another MC on a tank.

With these changes and a different kind of strategy, I have gone form getting my ass kicked to holding my own pretty well against the top dogs with Tyranids. Honestly, Eldar give this army the most fits, but that is a trade off I am willing to take in the current competitive climate. I am not saying what I did will work for you. What I am saying is that maybe the typical net build isn’t the end all, and there are things that Tyranids can do, that few other races can, that should be explore. Massive str. 4 against rear armor, the ability to infiltrate a lot of your army, spore pods, units that arrive and can assault, massive access to Furious Charge combined with poison, all these things are unique to the tyranids, especially the speed in which they can employ them. Tyranids don’t have to be, and IMHO, isn’t a really good shooty army that is too weak to other armies capabilities, and doesn’t know what to be in assault when it get’s there. Just IMHO, again, this is all based on my own experiences.

Wish you luck!

Originally posted here: http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/01/mahus-take-on-nids/

**CaptKaruthors**

I think the lack of tactic discussions stems from a lack of trial and error with other units and going with "what works" vs. "how can I make this work". In other words...why discuss tactics when everyone seems to be essentially taking the same thing?

I played DE all through 3rd edition and sold my army at the end of 3rd, because it was: A. not getting an update, B. The beatings my opponents would take was leaving me with fewer opponents to play (nobody wanted to play me if I was playing my DE) and C. I wanted to try something else.

Once it was confirmed that DE were going to get a definite release and new models I literally waited patiently for the new book to come out and start the army completely fresh with no preconceived notions as to how it will play. I knew the army was going to be similar in play, but I wanted to also take a look at what else is possible with that codex in the context of 5th edition and use units that are personal favorites based on the new models themselves. So it then became a quest to find ways to make those units work. Unfortunately, I'm lazy and would rather wait for the new models that I'd like to use to be released first rather than proxy, or substitute for "meh" conversions to get me by...the exception being my unit of Wracks...which look passible. My tips and tactica...like many others usually go largely ignored. Why? Because everyone assumes that to know what you are talking about has to be based on some sort of record, etc. I've been in plenty of tournaments across 4 states in my years of gaming. Throwing around street cred in this game is silly...and I, and a lot of other good players I know don't feel the need to do so. If someone wants to listen to my advice, that's fine. If they disagree, that's fine. I'm notorious for using lists that a vocal majority claim "can't work" or "isn't competitive" and have done well with them. However, I'm also not interested in proving anything with accolades (trying to enter every hyper competitive tournament) anymore either. I once was, but I simply don't have the time anymore.

That doesn't mean that I'm any less qualified to speak about DE tactics. I play the army again, and it's the only army I've been playing since the codexes release. I've won more games than I lose, but in my experience with the army, you can't win them all. The army does have bad match ups. I've also placed in just about every tournament I've taken them to as well (I missed placing this past weekend by 1pt.).

There are many types of strategies and units to use in that codex and many people like me would like to experiment with them but are waiting for the models..or aren't rushing to try it all out, but would prefer a more methodical approach. There are units in that codex that are really good, that some would say are "auto include". In my experience though, I'd say that no unit in that book is "auto include". Lately, I've had great results with using Harlequins. Some on here would probably call me crazy. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and unless you've actually got some play time with specific units...I don't think anyone can clearly assert that their method of playing DE is the correct one.

Just my $.02

**Galador**

asimo77 wrote:
Galador wrote:Your still missing the true point, in that just about everything in the codex works, depending on the situation and what you are trying to use it for. I can make Reavers semi-competitive if I try, but they will never fill a complete, solid role in a true competitive army. But at the same time, DE are quite complicated. Build your troops wrong, and you will get hosed, unlike the leafblower lists and mech lists in most other armies.

DE are very unforgiving is the basic point everyone is trying to get across, and if your opponent is a competent one, he will capitalize on your mistakes, and you will pay for it.

Well, that and that noone wants advice, they just want praise.

I somehow missed your post, but I more or less agree with what you're saying here. I guess what I was getting at was that building a list is easy, but you guys are saying is actually using it is what's hard.

Would just like to repeat what Ketara said about the civility being appreciated (noone likes a smartass, and I do come off as that sometimes, so if I did here, didn't mean to and hope you understood!

)

And you understood what I was trying to get across perfectly. The bottom line is that a good DE General can take some of the crappiest lists he can think of and make them work. Maybe not make them game breaking "OMG they never lose" good, or ever make them into a "constant draw at a minimum" good, but they can take any list and make it outperform even the best Trueborn/Venom/Ravager list that a new guy that is used to relying on that 3+ SM armor save can do.

Not saying new players are bad, we were all there at one point, and when DE first came out back in 3rd Ed, I had alot to learn when I switched over from SM (Yes, yes, I know, boo hiss, I was a SM player....

Smurfs no less....

), but once I learned that I was made of paper and that a strong gust of wind would kill my troops, I learned a whole new way of playing 40k, that unfortunately, the more forgiving armies don't let a player learn as often or as much, that of the actual tactics of the game. How to make the rules and situations work for you, not to just ignore terrain cause it does me little to no good, not to setup strategically too far back, or all on one flank, or hidden behind that 5 story building so you cant shoot my tanks/transports. It is definitely a different game when you have to worry more about dodging and avoiding fire than when you just have to hope you make that save....

This is not meant as disrespect to SM players, or anyone else with a majority 3+ save or better army, cause there are some SM players out there that don't do the spam lists, and they do really well at it. I have a SW player in my area that has run the Razorback/LW spam lists maybe twice against me, and every other time, he has always come up with something original that constantly challenges me to change my tactics.

ok, after yet another long winded rant, time to get down to the bare bones of it: Bottom line, take every piece of advice that you get on here, and build it into your own lists. Listen to the tried and proven generals, because they are the same ones taking the top ranks at the big tourneys, and they know what they are doing. But at the same time, don't be afraid to try something that noone has thought of! I mean, the worst that happens is that it doesn't work and you get rid of it, but on the opposite end, you may be the one that finds something noone else has found that can work really, really well, at which point in time, feel free to share it!!

And now I'm spent, but at least you reminded me I owe a few people thank you PM's

**Dashofpepper**

Awww...I got a thank you PM. =D

I want to key in on something that keeps coming up here though - the note about everyone parroting to take three ravagers. Because I've been doing that since day one.

Here's the thought process.

1. 40k is generally a mechanized game at this point.
2. My army needs anti-tank.
3. Compare anti-tank options.
4. Blaster trueborn and lance ravagers come to the fore.
5. Can anything outperform blaster trueborn and lance ravagers? No, so I keep them.
6. What can blaster trueborn and lance ravagers not kill? Blessed Hull and Monoliths.
7. Fill up army with wyches with haywire grenades.

There's nothing complex about that thought process. But it is also true.

**Tmonster**

Yeah but there are a lot of occasions where it could pay of to pay 40 points for 4 largeblasts. But not 3 razorwings, then you lose 1 ravager in firepower. But you could always encounter a horde army and then the blasts can be quite nifty

**Brother-Thunder**

Tmonster wrote:Yeah but there are a lot of occasions where it could pay of to pay 40 points for 4 largeblasts. But not 3 razorwings, then you lose 1 ravager in firepower. But you could always encounter a horde army and then the blasts can be quite nifty

But fighting hordes is more circumstancial than fighting mech, which some hordes still have elements of. I have learned in my 25 games with DE that DE do NOT use many templates. Our anti-infantry punch comes from a grotesque amount of attacks in assault, and massed 4+ poison weaponry. I would rather have tons of Wyches with attacks than give up a ravager for a razorwing in many instances.

**BuFFo**

Ketara wrote:So yes. My point here is that I disagree on that Buffo. A competent General should be capable of helping a new player construct an excellent list that can work as best possible in the selected strategy, without needing to know the local meta, simply because a good list should be capable of taking on anything, local meta included.

You disagree with me without understanding my point, which is something I have to deal with on a constant basis when giving advice for DE.

Your assumption is that a person is going into detail about thier situation when the majority of people who talk to me simply say "I wants play betr, make my list strngr so I can has win". I wish ever single person that asks me a question goes into depth as you suggest they all do.

When someone asks "I wants play betr, make my list strngr so I can has win" with any MEQ army, the answers are usually the same because the codices are not well thought out and unbalanced. It is usually the exact same advice for each army, regardless of situation. Not so when it comes to DE. I need ot know all the criteria I brought up in my previous post so I do not give out any disingenuous information.

I don't know why you disagree since my point and yours are basically the same.

Galador wrote: But at the same time, DE are quite complicated. Build your troops wrong, and you will get hosed, unlike the leafblower lists and mech lists in most other armies.

DE are very unforgiving is the basic point everyone is trying to get across, and if your opponent is a competent one, he will capitalize on your mistakes, and you will pay for it.

Well, that and that noone wants advice, they just want praise.

You get it

I am glad someone does. If you constantly play in a tournament meta where all the top armies are the same rigmarole over and over again, that is one thing, but when you play in casual games, where the meta is actually harder to perceive, and your opponent's are more than just IG, SW and BA at the top tables, that is when the true mastery of making a good DE list for certain situations arises. I can run an Ace DE list that can roll IG/MEQ armies with ease. I already have in some of my, uhhum, battle reports, but then that same list comes across my friends foot slogging ork army, and this Ace army just falls apart, whereas IG Mech couldn't care less who is on the other side of the board.

**asimo77**

Ketara wrote:
asimo77 wrote:So I guess the lauded Ravagers and Trueborn list popped up first and so now is accepted as the only working list. I guess it's sort of a case of "why fix what 'aint broken?" The current lists work well enough so that discourages people from experimenting.

However, I don't think being or becoming an obvious list is necessarily a bad thing. But it does speak to the lack of innovation on the player's end, when all people do is copy everything online.

But eventually all list building will be just that, at some point everything will have been tried out and we'd essentially all just be copying each other. If instead of the current meta your Talos, WWP, Baron list became the next hot thing, do you think we'd be lamenting the lack of Ravagers and Trueborn today?

Ah, but that's the joy of meta. It changes with every codex release, and rulebook update.

As to it working well enough, I suppose it does to an extent. Yet you'll note the likes of dash still trying to find a way to play around Mech Guard, due to their general capability of blowing apart DE.

I may get a tactics article up I suppose. Need to get my dissertation out of the way first though. ^^;

Pfft, when has a dissertation helped anybody? Talking about how to effectively use plastic soldiers? Now that's time well spent!

@Galador

"Would just like to repeat what Ketara said about the civility being appreciated (noone likes a smartass, and I do come off as that sometimes, so if I did here, didn't mean to and hope you understood! ) "

Don't worry bout it you came off as quite polite

**WarOne**

Dashofpepper wrote:Awww...I got a thank you PM. =D

That better of not been the PM I sent you.

**Ketara**

BuFFo wrote:
Ketara wrote:So yes. My point here is that I disagree on that Buffo. A competent General should be capable of helping a new player construct an excellent list that can work as best possible in the selected strategy, without needing to know the local meta, simply because a good list should be capable of taking on anything, local meta included.

You disagree with me without understanding my point, which is something I have to deal with on a constant basis when giving advice for DE.

Your assumption is that a person is going into detail about thier situation when the majority of people who talk to me simply say "I wants play betr, make my list strngr so I can has win". I wish ever single person that asks me a question goes into depth as you suggest they all do.

When someone asks "I wants play betr, make my list strngr so I can has win" with any MEQ army, the answers are usually the same because the codices are not well thought out and unbalanced. It is usually the exact same advice for each army, regardless of situation. Not so when it comes to DE. I need ot know all the criteria I brought up in my previous post so I do not give out any disingenuous information.

I don't know why you disagree since my point and yours are basically the same.

No, I understood your point impeccably, and had no quarrel with most of it. Except for this:

BuFFo wrote:The correct answer for a question about dark eldar needs to start with "What is your meta game like? Who are your opponent's armies and what do they run usually?" This makes it harder to give advice only for an army that is highly specialized in its role if you are not telling the DE experts what the meta game is.

I disagree that the first response you should make to a request for a help is to enquire as to the state of their local metagame. I have stated why I disagree with this statement, and backed it up with an example and my reasoning. Telling me I do not understand your point is incorrect. That is of course, unless what you set out was not quite the point you intended to make. Communication is a two way street after all.....

**veritechc**

I am reading this thread and I am just in awe....

Of the incredible egos contained within.

I am one of those "new" Dark Eldar players. I had never before play one game of 40K with the Dark Eldar. Then I read Buffo's battle reports.

Out of all the "advice" from the "experts" here I enjoyed his the most. I think its because he built so may different kinds of lists and made some mistakes.

That to me was far more genuine then everyone "qualifications".

Seriously, get real all of you who are on a ego trip, you are giving advice on toy soldiers. That makes you good at playing with toys. Get over yourselves and have some fun.

Thanks Buffo for being genuine and not tooting your own horn.

**Dashofpepper**

veritechc wrote:I am reading this thread and I am just in awe....

Of the incredible egos contained within.

I am one of those "new" Dark Eldar players. I had never before play one game of 40K with the Dark Eldar. Then I read Buffo's battle reports.

Out of all the "advice" from the "experts" here I enjoyed his the most. I think its because he built so may different kinds of lists and made some mistakes.

That to me was far more genuine then everyone "qualifications".

Seriously, get real all of you who are on a ego trip, you are giving advice on toy soldiers. That makes you good at playing with toys. Get over yourselves and have some fun.

Thanks Buffo for being genuine and not tooting your own horn.

*laughing* On so many levels. There's actually nothing I could say that wouldn't be offensive to someone or another, so I'll just say these three things:

1. Learn the rules of 40k very well. Just because you read something doesn't mean its good advice, or legal advice. Some of BuFFo's ideas (like the line that reavers move in being allowed to zigzag all over multiple units, or curve in a circle kind of things) that feature prominently in his battle reports are extremely contentious.

2. Expand your knowledge of the codex and Dakka's offerings. You actually just showed up here and insulted basically everyone - and you don't know any of us.

3. Learn Dakka's rules, especially #1. If you can't learn very quickly to post politely, the moderators will put you in the DakkaDumpster. By which of course I mean banned. Been there myself a few times, and now I play nice even when I don't want to.

**BuFFo**

Ketara wrote:I disagree that the first response you should make to a request for a help is to enquire as to the state of their local metagame. I have stated why I disagree with this statement, and backed it up with an example and my reasoning. Telling me I do not understand your point is incorrect. That is of course, unless what you set out was not quite the point you intended to make. Communication is a two way street after all.....

I misunderstood you, and I am sorry.

Maybe you are just better at giving advice when a question is general than I can. Maybe I over think things, ya know?

veritechc wrote:I am reading this thread and I am just in awe....

Of the incredible egos contained within.

I am one of those "new" Dark Eldar players. I had never before play one game of 40K with the Dark Eldar. Then I read Buffo's battle reports.

Out of all the "advice" from the "experts" here I enjoyed his the most. I think its because he built so may different kinds of lists and made some mistakes.

That to me was far more genuine then everyone "qualifications".

Seriously, get real all of you who are on a ego trip, you are giving advice on toy soldiers. That makes you good at playing with toys. Get over yourselves and have some fun.

Thanks Buffo for being genuine and not tooting your own horn.

My battle reports, from the get go, were just there to try out all the codex units over 45 games, which I have done, I just haven't put the other 20 up yet. I used to be a tournament player many years ago, but I fell in love with the hobby for a second time, and now I am just about faring around, fielding 10 Grotesques, and having fun in narrative campaigns with role playing elements.

My battle reports were never intended to be a barometer for players to use in the tournament meta game. I have a game that I have not put up where I table half a SW army on turn 1, and in turn he gives up before he even went. And this was from Razorwings. I do NOT like those kinds of games.

Let's make a level of competitiveness here.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being top tourney level and 1 being a new player, I like to give advice for players who hover around 1 - 4. I like to get the hobbyists when they are new, before they are tainted with the lust to win in a game NOT designed to have a winner, but rather have two participants involved in a narrative battle and have fun doing so. This is why I butt heads tournament players. Maybe I am a selfish old prick who thinks he knows better for the newer players, but I have personally seen in my 22 years of playing this game, SO many people who got tooo "win hungry" and eventually leave the hobby because the "rules weren't tight enough" or they weren't winning enough games. This "game" is a hobby first, and a game second. People jsut need to relax and learn to fart round, make house rules, and read a porn mag when it isn't your turn.

I really only care about newer players and their health in their new hobby. I want to make sure these players are painting, converting, and having a good time while pushing plastic men on a table with other adults.

I play Legions of Everblight. If I want to own face with a game designed for tournament play, I know where to go. My IG army has a single Chimera in it and Sentinels as well. I curb my lists so my opponents can enjoy the hobby. I spent time painting figures with players at my store as I do playing the game.

Girls just want to have fun.

**Culler**

As far as Nids go, they're just painfully unequipped to deal with the current metagame. When they got their new codex they had their head up for a while, but having your entire ranged anti-tank options amount to 2 units in the same slot, one of which requires psychic tests and a drop pod to work and the other has 24" range and can't really touch AV 14. They just can't deal well with vehicles which nowadays is a death sentence. When DE were released they had some more nails driven in their coffin from poisoned weaponry and the new GKs with their force weapons everywhere didn't help any. Tyranids were relevant on the tournament scene for a few months but have firmly passed into obscurity in anything but an uncompetitive environment. They can beat up on necrons, tau, and maybe codex marines and that's about it.

**Ketara**

veritechc wrote:I am reading this thread and I am just in awe....

Of the incredible egos contained within.

I am one of those "new" Dark Eldar players. I had never before play one game of 40K with the Dark Eldar. Then I read Buffo's battle reports.

Out of all the "advice" from the "experts" here I enjoyed his the most. I think its because he built so may different kinds of lists and made some mistakes.

That to me was far more genuine then everyone "qualifications".

Seriously, get real all of you who are on a ego trip, you are giving advice on toy soldiers. That makes you good at playing with toys. Get over yourselves and have some fun.

Thanks Buffo for being genuine and not tooting your own horn.

....wut? Who mentioned 'qualifications?

If you, as self professed 'new' player, chipped into a thread in which I was asking for serious discussion over the pros and cons of a specific build, with pointless and frankly bad advice, you fit into the category I give above of the 'crud' that drowns out the good advice.

If you're give good and relevant help discussion where needed, and do what you can to better your own game through that discussion, you clearly aren't in the group of people that stops me bothering to post tactics stuff on Dakka.

Either way, chipping in and just going , 'lawluguysonaegotrip, go take a chill pill' is quite frankly condescending, insulting and offensive. You'll note I don't really toot my own horn. I don't go into every tactics thread talking about amazing I am, or anything like that. Another poster asked about the lack of quality advice for the army, I responded with what me, and most of the other people I know and respect the skills of with this army think.

I presume I am permitted to hold an opinion, sir, on why that is?

Yes I am talking about playing toy soldiers well.

But why do you feel the need to be insulting and offensive over toy soldiers? I mean, are you that rude and crass to everyone at your local shop?

BuFFo wrote:
Ketara wrote:I disagree that the first response you should make to a request for a help is to enquire as to the state of their local metagame. I have stated why I disagree with this statement, and backed it up with an example and my reasoning. Telling me I do not understand your point is incorrect. That is of course, unless what you set out was not quite the point you intended to make. Communication is a two way street after all.....

I misunderstood you, and I am sorry.

Maybe you are just better at giving advice when a question is general than I can. Maybe I over think things, ya know?

Fair enough sir, and apology accepted in all due spirit.

**Griever**

Dashofpepper wrote:
veritechc wrote:I am reading this thread and I am just in awe....

Of the incredible egos contained within.

I am one of those "new" Dark Eldar players. I had never before play one game of 40K with the Dark Eldar. Then I read Buffo's battle reports.

Out of all the "advice" from the "experts" here I enjoyed his the most. I think its because he built so may different kinds of lists and made some mistakes.

That to me was far more genuine then everyone "qualifications".

Seriously, get real all of you who are on a ego trip, you are giving advice on toy soldiers. That makes you good at playing with toys. Get over yourselves and have some fun.

Thanks Buffo for being genuine and not tooting your own horn.

*laughing* On so many levels. There's actually nothing I could say that wouldn't be offensive to someone or another, so I'll just say these three things:

1. Learn the rules of 40k very well. Just because you read something doesn't mean its good advice, or legal advice. Some of BuFFo's ideas (like the line that reavers move in being allowed to zigzag all over multiple units, or curve in a circle kind of things) that feature prominently in his battle reports are extremely contentious.

2. Expand your knowledge of the codex and Dakka's offerings. You actually just showed up here and insulted basically everyone - and you don't know any of us.

3. Learn Dakka's rules, especially #1. If you can't learn very quickly to post politely, the moderators will put you in the DakkaDumpster. By which of course I mean banned. Been there myself a few times, and now I play nice even when I don't want to.

Just to respond to what you said about me in an earlier post, no, I do not play Dark Eldar. I do however, play against Dark Eldar on a regular basis with my Space Wolves. I have never lost a game against a Dark Eldar army, this codex or the last (only played the old one once though). 9 wins, 2 draws in 11 games.

Dark Eldar are not an easy to play army. The codex is relatively knew. You want to throw down the gauntlet that Space Wolves suck, do YOU play Space Wolves? You trash the fact that all Space Wolf armies are the same because they have 15 long fangs with missile launchers. Aren't you a proponent of EVERY Dark Eldar playing taking 3 Dark Lance Ravagers? What's the difference?

Sometimes the best way to understand an armies strength's and weaknesses is to play AGAINST it. I'm just telling you based on what I've played, I don't fear them. My army can outshoot them at range, outshoot them up close, and then beat them in assault, all in the same list. Wyches make me laugh, my Grey Hunters eat them for breakfast. You sweat figuring out how to kill my 35 point Rhinos and killing your 70+ point raiders is a walk in the park. Not to mention, when I blow up your raiders, the squishy wyches inside die in droves.

You sure can zip around the board fast, but after I've blown all the vehicles out of the sky by turn 4 capturing the objectives is easy

You don't think Space Wolves are very good (tournament results severely disagree), I don't think Dark Eldar are very good. The personal attack thing isn't very necessary. I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to Dakka and the hobby in general (your Ice Ice Baby cover is epic), so I'll ask you not be so hostile. I voiced my opinion, you disagree. We have similar posting styles, I'm surprised to see you get so hot and bothered over what I said

I think the issue is this: Dark Eldar are hard to play. You're quite obviously one of the best 40k players in the United States. You can make assault necrons work. Most players cannot. These are the players that are asking for advice. He asked for our opinion, I gave mine. Simple as that.