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.

 Art_of_war wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I don't know if this question is in the right spot, but I'll ask anyways.

How exactly would I start DE and how do you play them. I understand the vague basics of movement, and target priority, but what else?

In short: get lucky, go first+ night fight for maximum trolling and do not roll crap either. As you either bounce off and die painfully and you can do sod all about it, or you go 'GG' as your army kills everything in sight.

That does not excuse the incredibly boring game I had with mine last week. I looked forward to it and it was like watching paint dry , yuck no playing 40k for a few more weeks or perhaps give it another month

Dark Eldar is probably one of the more tactical armies in the game i.e. luck in my opinion has way less to do with them. I also find them very engaging and fun to play. Seriously, they're the opposite of boring. Sometimes I can't believe how much shooting I can put out with them... Then again, my main tourney army is daemons so I'm not used to mass firepower.

I find that with my DE, if I lose, its always because I made a mistake rather than because of luck, this is due to the predictability of their fire-power and movement.

This means that if I don't make any mistakes worst that can happen is a draw most of the time. Very satisfying, as the onus is more on your skill than on luck (and there is always something to learn form a defeat).

Drager wrote:
I find that with my DE, if I lose, its always because I made a mistake rather than because of luck, this is due to the predictability of their fire-power and movement.

This means that if I don't make any mistakes worst that can happen is a draw most of the time. Very satisfying, as the onus is more on your skill than on luck (and there is always something to learn form a defeat).

This is encouraging to hear. I play daemons as my primary and just started DE. Granted, with daemons I don't lose very often, and I don't like to lose. But from the way you make it sound, it's not so bad losing with DE as it's almost certainly always a learning experience.

That's to play with DE, though. I sort of agree with the playing against thing, though. I've played many a game against DE with guard, and they basically never seem close. Much more common that either the DE army basically hard-counters mine, or I basically hard-counter theirs.

And of course DE relies more on luck. Otherwise it wouldn't be a difficult army to play.

 Ailaros wrote:
That's to play with DE, though. I sort of agree with the playing against thing, though. I've played many a game against DE with guard, and they basically never seem close. Much more common that either the DE army basically hard-counters mine, or I basically hard-counter theirs.

Well that is the nature of a glass cannon army.

 Ailaros wrote:
And of course DE relies more on luck. Otherwise it wouldn't be a difficult army to play.

This is the opposite of true as far as I can tell.

It is not a trueism that an army being difficult means it requires more luck, that is simply faulty logic.

 Ailaros wrote:
That's to play with DE, though. I sort of agree with the playing against thing, though. I've played many a game against DE with guard, and they basically never seem close. Much more common that either the DE army basically hard-counters mine, or I basically hard-counter theirs.

And of course DE relies more on luck. Otherwise it wouldn't be a difficult army to play.

Ailaros I think their difficulty comes in tactics morso than luck. Granted, I must admit I'm not a DE pro (yet!). But I've faced them before many times and one of my good friends is a DE player that actually shatters several of the RTs in my area. Most of my victories against them have boiled down to my opponent making a tactical error than him having bad dice. Also, a thing with DE (and many could make this argument for most of 40k) is their list building and unit composition choices, that largely dictates in my opinion the way the game will eventually take place and the outcome.

Dark eldar was my first army but i got tired of the evil fluff. Sometimes it seemed like all the info written on them goes out of their way just to make sure you know how evil they are. Also why the models look good they are very flimsy and frustrating to transport. I switched to nids and haven't looked back.

In 40k, player skill is nothing more than playing the odds - same as any game that uses a random mechanic at its core. In this case, armies that have longer odds to play require more player skill to handle the fact that the die rolls have a bigger effect on the outcome of things (given that they have wider probability bands).

Put another way, DE are hard to play because a single die roll or two can suddenly make the game VERY hard for the DE player. It's why DE are considered unforgiving, and it is considered that you have to be a good player to do well with them consistently.

It is because DE are a more luck-based army that you have to have more skill, not the other way around.

Plus, think for a moment about an army where the results of individual die rolls didn't matter as much. This would be an army where you could make dumb decisions or have terrible luck and still be able to pull out of it with relatively minimal effort. That would be considered a noob-friendly army or one that is easy to play. Because luck doesn't matter as much.

And I'd note that glass hammers aren't necessarily the most interesting army to play against. 40k (especially 6th ed) has this nasty tendency to devolve into a game of who did more damage turn 1, and the rest of the game is more or less a formality. Armies that encourage this are enabling the problem.

Ailaros I think their difficulty comes in tactics morso than luck. Granted, I must admit I'm not a DE pro (yet!). But I've faced them before many times and one of my good friends is a DE player that actually shatters several of the RTs in my area. Most of my victories against them have boiled down to my opponent making a tactical error than him having bad dice. Also, a thing with DE (and many could make this argument for most of 40k) is their list building and unit composition choices, that largely dictates in my opinion the way the game will eventually take place and the outcome.

Ailaros once wrote an entire blog entry trying to scientifically qualify/quantify "luck". You're barking up the wrong tree with him. lol

Part of the reason they're so rare is because they don't have quite the same staying power in their fan base as other armies.

IDK about that. Almost all of the DE players I know have been DE players since they were first introduced (myself included). Yes, a lot of us eventually set them aside for a time when the age of the codex started to get unbearable and no new items were coming out, but yeah, the fans of DE seem to be pretty loyal. I think the bigger issue (imo obviously) is that they seem to appeal to a more narrow demographic than something like IG or Orks.

And then there's the more technical reasons. DE has always been a win big or lose big kind of army that's been difficult to play and not terribly user-friendly. More recently, half of their codex (the close combat part) got completely gutted thanks to 6th edition (especially the old WWP). On the other side, some of the fluff for DE is pretty good, but a lot of it isn't very engaging. In a setting of vast, interstellar empires vying for control of the whole galaxy, DE's role is very minor - they're just sort of a spoiler in the grand scheme of things. This is also why eldar hasn't been very popular with the exception of very recently, but that's just because they just got an overpowered codex - we'll see how much of their fan base is sustained over time, or if it will just be another xenos sugar rush/crash.

I think that's the real meat of it. For those reasons alone in my opinion, it's not that DE don't have staying power in their fan base, it's that they generally don't attract nearly as many new players due to the difficulty level. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the poeple I know who play them are fairly experienced. In terms of tactics they require a player who pretty much makes zero mistakes. Even now in 6th edition where some of our previous strengths are now weaknesses and nearly half our book is now next to useless in a competitive game, you can still win big with them. It's just SO very difficult. Plus you have to accept that when you lose, you will likely lose very big as well. I find it fun but it's not everyone's cup of tea.

40k (especially 6th ed) has this nasty tendency to devolve into a game of who did more damage turn 1, and the rest of the game is more or less a formality. Armies that encourage this are enabling the problem.

QFT

Tycho wrote:

Ailaros I think their difficulty comes in tactics morso than luck. Granted, I must admit I'm not a DE pro (yet!). But I've faced them before many times and one of my good friends is a DE player that actually shatters several of the RTs in my area. Most of my victories against them have boiled down to my opponent making a tactical error than him having bad dice. Also, a thing with DE (and many could make this argument for most of 40k) is their list building and unit composition choices, that largely dictates in my opinion the way the game will eventually take place and the outcome.

Ailaros once wrote an entire blog entry trying to scientifically qualify/quantify "luck". You're barking up the wrong tree with him. lol

Part of the reason they're so rare is because they don't have quite the same staying power in their fan base as other armies.

IDK about that. Almost all of the DE players I know have been DE players since they were first introduced (myself included). Yes, a lot of us eventually set them aside for a time when the age of the codex started to get unbearable and no new items were coming out, but yeah, the fans of DE seem to be pretty loyal. I think the bigger issue (imo obviously) is that they seem to appeal to a more narrow demographic than something like IG or Orks.

And then there's the more technical reasons. DE has always been a win big or lose big kind of army that's been difficult to play and not terribly user-friendly. More recently, half of their codex (the close combat part) got completely gutted thanks to 6th edition (especially the old WWP). On the other side, some of the fluff for DE is pretty good, but a lot of it isn't very engaging. In a setting of vast, interstellar empires vying for control of the whole galaxy, DE's role is very minor - they're just sort of a spoiler in the grand scheme of things. This is also why eldar hasn't been very popular with the exception of very recently, but that's just because they just got an overpowered codex - we'll see how much of their fan base is sustained over time, or if it will just be another xenos sugar rush/crash.

I think that's the real meat of it. For those reasons alone in my opinion, it's not that DE don't have staying power in their fan base, it's that they generally don't attract nearly as many new players due to the difficulty level. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the poeple I know who play them are fairly experienced. In terms of tactics they require a player who pretty much makes zero mistakes. Even now in 6th edition where some of our previous strengths are now weaknesses and nearly half our book is now next to useless in a competitive game, you can still win big with them. It's just SO very difficult. Plus you have to accept that when you lose, you will likely lose very big as well. I find it fun but it's not everyone's cup of tea.

40k (especially 6th ed) has this nasty tendency to devolve into a game of who did more damage turn 1, and the rest of the game is more or less a formality. Armies that encourage this are enabling the problem.

QFT

I'm not intentionally barking up any tree. My point was some armies have phases that don't really matter or matter less to an extent. Dark Eldar from my research are a very movement dependent army, as well as a shooting and can be assault dependent army. I feel luck falls into place with every army in this game, dark eldar though, having critical phases where some armies don't require more skill. Combine that with how flimsy we are.

I'm not intentionally barking up any tree ...

I was actually agreeing with you. It was joke. Ailaros actually thinks you can scientifically track, quantify and qualify "luck". He once actually said that it's not the "best" player who will win a tournamnet, but rather the "luckiest" player who always wins. lol My point was you won't sway him from the "luck" position.

 Elgrun wrote:
Arnt Dark Elder due a new codex sometime soon?

Dark Eldar trends say you've got approximately 9 more years.

Tycho wrote:A lot of us eventually set them aside for a time when the age of the codex started to get unbearable and no new items were coming out, but yeah, the fans of DE seem to be pretty loyal

... but that's pretty much the definition of disloyalty - giving up for something else when the going gets tough.

When not even enthusiastic DE players are playing DE (like they weren't for awhile), then what does that say to new people getting into the game, or considering DE for the first time?

Dalymiddleboro wrote:I feel luck falls into place with every army in this game, dark eldar though, having critical phases where some armies don't require more skill.

Right, we're agreeing here. An army where you don't need to take long-shot risks or where individual die rolls don't have as drastic of an impact on your game is sort of the definition of an easy army that requires less skill. You only need more skill in the first place because you DO need to manage long-shot risks and the results of individual die rolls matter more (aka luck plays a bigger part).

Tycho wrote:Ailaros actually thinks you can scientifically track, quantify and qualify "luck".

Of course I do

... but that's pretty much the definition of disloyalty - giving up for something else when the going gets tough.

When not even enthusiastic DE players are playing DE (like they weren't for awhile), then what does that say to new people getting into the game, or considering DE for the first time?

It's not that simple though. First, (and arguably) the going was always "tough" for DE players. I mean yeah, in 3rd ed if you got your Archon and his Incubi body guard into CC they were probably going to mulch a lot of what they were up against, but they have always been a very difficult army to play with. Paper thin armour and troops that crumble at the slightest breeze. So it's not like we started out with a super strong book and then it was just abandoned once it was no longer as strong. In addition to that, the original codex was a little on the limited side and the models (which IMO were not so great to begin with) really started showing their age quickly (you even alluded to some of this in your post). So when you go for as long as we went with a limited codex, no new releases and poorly aged models, people will eventually give them a temporary break.

That's very different from books like SM (who get a new 'dex every edition), or IG/Orks where the books have been updated more consistently and some of the newer renditions have been full of multiple build and unit options. So it's not really even a fair comparison. I garauntee you that if the ORKs were still stuck with, say, their 3rd ed codex and ONLY the models that were available as of third edition, you would probably not see them as much even though there are so many diehard Ork players. That's the exact situation DE were in until their last 'dex dropped. Add to that the fact that have always been more of "niche" army (so there were never really as many DE players to begin with when compared to some of the other armies) AND the fact that they are so difficult to play and there's your answer.


Also RE:LUCK

A WIKIPEDIA link? No thanks. I'm open to being wrong here, but yeah, it's not gonna happen with a WIKIPEDIA link. Link me to something more proper and I'll check it out though.

Tycho wrote:That's very different from books like SM (who get a new 'dex every edition), or IG/Orks where the books have been updated more consistently and some of the newer renditions have been full of multiple build and unit options.

That just makes it easier to stick with the army. Loyalty isn't going with something when it's easy, it's going with something when it's hard or undesirable.

Tycho wrote:A WIKIPEDIA link? No thanks. I'm open to being wrong here, but yeah, it's not gonna happen with a WIKIPEDIA link. Link me to something more proper and I'll check it out though.

lol. Fine.

lol. Fine.

Wow! You actually did it. lol That's fair enough. I will take a look at that this week. Permission to continue (friendly) discussion via PM if it turns out interesting?

I would imagine that its because DE are pretty unforgiving to players picking up the army. Many get discouraged and switch to an army they feel better suits them. I agree though, even though DE are a glass cannon, when run properly that glass cannon can be absolutely devestating.

Dark Eldar are one of the older books granted but they can still dish out a beating to anyone. Whatever army you play luck can save/ruin your day - certain armies and decisions you make can mitigate this somewhat - but no matter what army you play or how 'good' a player you are everyone is susceptible to the odd 'dice rape' of a game.

I have collected Dark Eldar since their latest book and really liked the models, the old ones were awful, truly awful. I would consider myself very competent with them, I probably wouldn't win any form of top tournament but wouldn't get my arse handed to me regularly either. I really like how they play, very different to any other army I have played with or against. Zooming and charging about with reckless abandon can be a real laugh when called for or a systematic, disciplined firing squad to ensure you kill your opponents biggest threats in a single turn is also very satisfying. They can outgun pretty much anyone if that is your style and I think they still have combat viable options in an edition where CC is sometimes put on the back burner.

They are an army that tends to win big or lose big but I myself have had plenty of close games where you dish out the hurt early doors then have to weather the retaliation. Due to the flimsiness of pretty much everything in the entire codex I think only a fool would take a victory for granted and take their foot off the pedal.

I would recommend anyone to try them, particularly a more experienced player as learning to play them efficiently is tough and may be disheartening to a beginner. I also play Vanilla Marines, Guard and played Tau back in the 'good' old days
when they were 'hhmmm'

I found I enjoyed playing Dark Eldar far more than I expected to. Very refreshing style of play and have enjoyed playing them ever since. I took a brief trip back to Marines when the new book landed but am back now playing Dark Eldar and loving it every bit as much as I did before 6th dropped.

My DEs were confined to a shelf after I got tabled by by mate's Imperial Guard army on turn 2 [and also losing every battle against him before that]. Hydras ignoring cover saves combined with the often minimal terrain in this edition meant that I was just picking models up off the table and not providing a challenge which meant no fun for anyone. I knew that I would have to go up against a Guard gunline whenever I played my DEs so couldn't see the point in keeping them and sold them off. This despite loving the fluff and models [Venoms and Razorwings are some of the best models ever made by GW in my opinion].

So yeah maybe a lack of skill but I lost every game I played with them.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
My DEs were confined to a shelf after I got tabled by by mate's Imperial Guard army on turn 2 [and also losing every battle against him before that]. Hydras ignoring cover saves combined with the often minimal terrain in this edition meant that I was just picking models up off the table and not providing a challenge which meant no fun for anyone. I knew that I would have to go up against a Guard gunline whenever I played my DEs so couldn't see the point in keeping them and sold them off. This despite loving the fluff and models [Venoms and Razorwings are some of the best models ever made by GW in my opinion].

So yeah maybe a lack of skill but I lost every game I played with them.

Funny you say that. My first game with DE (Last week) I beat IG. They were running vendettas, leman russ' and veterans with plasma. In the end, between my dark lances and blasters, I had about 20 lance shots. The venoms made quick work of the veterans.

Jimsolo wrote:]Here you go. This is a comprehensive tactical guide updated for 6th edition, followed by a unit guide. I used it when creating my Dark Eldar, and I've been doing remarkably well with them so far.

Just got finished reading this. Thanks for the link. That's a nice surface-level survey for a person who otherwise knows about DE only that which he's learned by facing off against them.

ansacs wrote:Frankie from frontline gaming

Haven't seen the batreps yet, but the introduction has an interesting theory - one of the reasons why mech armies are so popular (other than the massive structural benefits to going mech) is because if a player drew DE at a tournament, they'd just lose.

Having played my fair share of foot armies, I can definitely say that it's a pretty damn uphill battle against DE, especially if you're a CC foot army. Also, the idea that they are more luck-dependent at tournaments, because of the extra layer of the random draw (they either draw foot lists and win, or draw mech gunlines and lose).

Certainly I've used hydras to inflict a massive world of pain on DE as well. Normally I wouldn't take them, but what with all the fliers we recently had...

wildboar wrote:Zooming and charging about with reckless abandon can be a real laugh when called for or a systematic, disciplined firing squad to ensure you kill your opponents biggest threats in a single turn is also very satisfying. They can outgun pretty much anyone if that is your style and I think they still have combat viable options in an edition where CC is sometimes put on the back burner.

That's probably the best sell. Yes, you can run yet another mech gunline and enable yahtzeehammer, and there will be nothing to stop you. Perhaps, though, their abilities allow you to NOT run that better than most other armies. CC may be ultranerfed, but you could run a wyche army and get everything into CC turn 2 with ease, meaning that more than most others, you could still do a CC list, for example.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Dark Eldar is probably one of the more tactical armies in the game i.e. luck in my opinion has way less to do with them. I also find them very engaging and fun to play. Seriously, they're the opposite of boring. Sometimes I can't believe how much shooting I can put out with them... Then again, my main tourney army is daemons so I'm not used to mass firepower.

They're my first 40k army, and I've been told it's going to be uphill all the way.

Wait, people think that 'luck' isn't quantifiable? Good (or bad) luck is synonymous with a random outcome being better (or worse) than a statistical average.

The ways we notice 'luck' are more varied and interesting. For example, if you have in your mind that someone is lucky, then events that reinforce that will preferentially noticed over events that do not.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Funny you say that. My first game with DE (Last week) I beat IG. They were running vendettas, leman russ' and veterans with plasma. In the end, between my dark lances and blasters, I had about 20 lance shots. The venoms made quick work of the veterans.

Nice work I found it impossible to make any ground against 3 hydras, which equates to 3 dead vehicles per round. Took lots of lance but the 4+ save from the Aegis makes it very hard to pop them. Having said that, I wouldn't profess to be the world's best general.

JubbJubbz wrote:
Wait, people think that 'luck' isn't quantifiable? Good (or bad) luck is synonymous with a random outcome being better (or worse) than a statistical average.

The ways we notice 'luck' are more varied and interesting. For example, if you have in your mind that someone is lucky, then events that reinforce that will preferentially noticed over events that do not.

Yep. This is why I say Dark Eldar are less luck based, due to high numbers of dice they have lower variation. Due to homogeneity of effect when being shot at there is lower variation. Lower variation leads to higher predictability, which leads to luck having a lower effect. The principle thing that determines victory with Dark Eldar is positioning, which is a 0 randomness phase of the game and thus entirely skill dependant.

The luck is more accurately describable when talking about large numbers (though DE is far from large number statistics), but it doesn't make it less important.

If DE are in a tournament, who they randomly get drawn against is more important than other armies. This is less true for other armies.

Also, the effects of rolling on or off statistical averages (regardless of how close they are to the average) affects DE more than other armies.

The only place where large numbers really helps DE at all is in their shooting phase, where they rely more on multi-shot weapons, but that's only one part of the game.

Simply put, DE are a finesse army and one that is not as forgiving as others.

It is easy to get discouraged by playing them but very rewarding when you start winning.

Love the models too.

Speaking as an ex DE player....IMO I think Dark Eldar have too much glass for the amount of cannon they have. Pain tokensand flickerfields/nightshields were meant to mitigate this, but they don't really. They have few template weapons and no way to bypass cover. Many units are overcosted for what they bring to the table or outright useless like Mandrakes.

6th edition also punished Close Combat so Wyches, Bloodbrides, Incubi, Wrack, Grotesques, Talos/Cronos etc. etc. all suffer from the new rules which make it more difficult to reach CC. Which then only leaves a limited choice in pew pew. 6th edition also brought many ways to bypass cover and so leaves the DE with nowhere to hide their fragile units.

So, while they are excellent at zooming around the table and shooting things with high toughness their ability to survive return fire makes it very difficult to do many of the take and hold type missions/objectives and instead you are relying on, tabling, wiping out the enemy troops or claiming/contesting at the last possible moment which requires more finesse and patience than most are willing to put in.

They need an update. If they don't get a more punishing Alpha strike then they definitely need an increased durability. I also think they should be THE anti-psyker army as according to the fluff they have managed to completely purge it from their society.

I would say the lack of fluff is a contributing factor. They have some enjoyable material in the codex and some other information sprinkled elsewhere. It is hard to connect with an army that you don't know too many details about.

The major factor for me though is that reavers can't be made troops and that the transports are so bloody difficult to store without breaking.

I play against DE quite a bit with my csm and I don't think the DE are that bad off. Ravagers moving 12" shooting 3 dark lance shots is a nightmare. Similarly the number of poison shots being thrown my make units like plague marines and bikers really hurt. Fast transports with powerful weapons means they are going to be a lot of them flying around. Yes they are paper, but they aren't that bad off with jink and shear numbers. Plus their paperness makes more powerful anti-vehicle stuff like S9-10 and melta more or less a waste of points. Maybe DE don't hold up as well against some of the uber powerful lists/dexes out there but from a casual stand point they seem fine to me.

D6Damager wrote:Speaking as an ex DE player....IMO I think Dark Eldar have too much glass for the amount of cannon they have. Pain tokensand flickerfields/nightshields were meant to mitigate this, but they don't really. They have few template weapons and no way to bypass cover. Many units are overcosted for what they bring to the table or outright useless like Mandrakes.

They already largely bypass toughness and armor value. Giving them ignore cover is just going to make it uninteresting as the ignore an even larger fraction of the mechanics. I actually think DE have a very internally balanced codex. Mandrakes and possibly the two MC's are the only real stinkers that stand out to me. Compare this to other codexes that have a dozen or so units/options that are practically useless.

6th edition also punished Close Combat so Wyches, Bloodbrides, Incubi, Wrack, Grotesques, Talos/Cronos etc. etc. all suffer from the new rules which make it more difficult to reach CC. Which then only leaves a limited choice in pew pew. 6th edition also brought many ways to bypass cover and so leaves the DE with nowhere to hide their fragile units.

So, while they are excellent at zooming around the table and shooting things with high toughness their ability to survive return fire makes it very difficult to do many of the take and hold type missions/objectives and instead you are relying on, tabling, wiping out the enemy troops or claiming/contesting at the last possible moment which requires more finesse and patience than most are willing to put in.

Fragile units are the armies theme though. If you get rid of that you might as well get rid of the army. Their speed and power is supposed to make up for their lack of toughness. Whether its enough to do so or not is debatable. They aren't objective campers, its not their style. They have to be aggressive and make it hard for the enemy to even reach the objective let alone stay on it. DE have the power and moreover the maneuverability to control the board.

They need an update. If they don't get a more punishing Alpha strike then they definitely need an increased durability. I also think they should be THE anti-psyker army as according to the fluff they have managed to completely purge it from their society.