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.

So what,Why does it seem`s everybody just hate rangers? I`m a bit of a n00b,but it seems that they go head-over-shoulders over DA.I mean,36 inches range,that's 3/4 of the board most of the time! stats wise,they`re both on-par,same strength,BS,a 1 point lower initiative,but 3 feet!

Rangers are great objective campers. I use them in my Eldar list.

I prefer them to DA's or Guardians in this role because of their increased resilience. The +1 cover save and infiltrate means you deploy them last and plop them onto an objective. Go to ground is anything shoots at them for the 2+.

I prefer them to Pathfinders because they are so much cheaper. As everything has a cover save these days, the added benefits of the pathfinders are really diminished.

These guys won't do much damage, although they are very good against MC's, however don't worry about that. These guys will win you the game by keeping their heads down on sitting on an objective.

Cool models, too!

Different people use different units for different reasons. If rangers compliment your list, then use them - sniper rifles can be good to pin down certain units that could be threatening and the 2+ save stuck on an objective is usually pretty stout. However, people don't use Dire Avengers in the same way that they'd use Rangers - they're not built for the same role. Although Dire Avengers could simply sit on an objective, they are more versatile than rangers and that should be taken advantage of.

For instance, I usually run two squads of rangers in many (if not all) of my lists. Although recently I've considered cutting back to one, but I usually play two lists of Eldar - my Yriel + Warlock list in which a lot of my force is in my opponent's deployment by turn 1 or 2. And I play my own version of Footdar. Rangers have a specific role in both of these lists. In the first list, my rangers are usually the last thing on an opponent's mind. Why waste shots on something 24"-36" away that'll get a 2+ save when there are fire dragons, warlocks, etc., etc. right in your face? Or, in my Footdar list, there are so many other appealing targets that rangers, again, are the last on the list (that and they're usually fearless or in a place on the board that is out of reach of the main force).

So, although comparing units to put into a list is good, you must look at each unit's strengths and weaknesses and how you'd use them in your particular list. You and I may play Rangers or Dire Avengers completely differently. So, my advice may not help you much. But, trying to set them side-by-side and saying, "Why do people not seem to like Rangers? They seem better than DA." is a little too general and sweeping a comparison.

Well said, puma713.

The problems I've always had with rangers are these: against, say, mechanised IG or SM, they don't have many targets available to really shine against - they're useless against vehicles and don't really make their points back unless shooting very elite infantry or MCs. And once your opponent gets flamers or assault troops close, the rangers are swept off the board in one turn. I'm aware that it might be my tactics at fault in this second problem - but it's hard to hold ground and keep things away from rangers with a mobile eldar army. And if your opponent has certain deep striking units (I'm thinking specifically of sternguard or a dreadnought with a heavy flamer) the rangers don't see the second turn.

If you are already paying the 19 for Rangers, why not go all out and use Pathfinders at 24? The additional chance for AP 1 shots, better cover saves and completely ignoring terrain make for an annoyingly good sniper unit... And they can be sent around a flank against armies you'd not want to start out on the table for (leaf blower or the like)... Gives up a turn or two of shooting,, but they'll likely survive better and they tend to be a nasty surprise for people to have to deal with later in the game...

so,DA are better against infantry (vets,firewarriors ,tact squads, etm.)while rangers are built for harassment?

In 5th ed 40K it is often worthwhile to have an objective camping unit whose only purpose is to hold your objective. They are insurance. If they can actually kill anything, then great, but it is only a bonus.

Dire Avengers are good against infantry only. Rangers are good against Infantry too, but also against MC's. The two units are quite different. Rangers are static, DA's are mobile.

Pathfinders are good, too. But as said above, when everyone has a cover save these days, the increased odds for AP1 aren't as good as they used to be. Being able to ignore cover is very useful, but since the unit usually doesn't move, it isn't that amazing. Plus, the ability to go to ground means the Rangers have access to the 2+ cover save as well.

Eldar infantry are over costed right now, so for me at least, the 25 points to upgrade the squad to Pathfinders isn't worth it.

Also, you can run a 10 man guardian squad with a heavy weapon as an objective holding unit. They work well and cost about the same. Their extra wounds offsets their lower cover save.

Try them all out and see what you like. In troops for my Eldar I like a mix of 1 Ranger Squad, 1 to 2 Dire Avengers Squads, 1 to 3 Guardian squads, 1 to 2 Jetbike Squads for fast objective grabbing.

Speaking of which, a fantastic troops unit for Eldar is the following squad:

Jetbikes x 3, S.cannon, Warlock on bike with avenger and singing spear. 134 points.

That unit can grab objectives fast, can shoot with 3 str6, and 1 str 9 bs4 shot, can move in the assault phase, has a heavy flamer and s.catapults for light anti infantry and can take down vehicles in assault with the singing spear.

It is an incredibly versatile unit and one I always include in my lists. I love this unit. You may want to give it a try.

Eldar are an army that takes practice. They are really easy to lose with but once you get the hang of them and use the units in concert with one another, you will find yourself really kicking butt.

Do you have an army list you'd like some feedback on?

One thing that hurts Rangers is outflankers and deepstrikers mainly anything thats CC oriented or is toting around a flamer

I use them in my list but Ive come to realize while playing against my good friend who plays Nids, they will get eaten by genestealers They can be used effectively though its just like any "sniper" or "heavy weapons unit" they live and die based on deployment which takes practice to master