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.

What's been your experience with them in a tourney list?

Not too effective against ML devs obviously, but useful against that stray MM or autocannon shot that gets thru the armour?

Are they worth the cost?

They seem to be pretty useful...even just the chance of stopping those extra shot is well worth the points (10 points?)

I've run the math on them and they basically give your units the same survivability as turbo boosting. At S8, it makes your vehicle almost as resilient as a rhino (a good benchmark for survivability), at S9+ it is actually more resilient.

As with any save, volume of fire is what gets past it more often than not, so weapons that fire multiple shots are more dangerous. Also, against S4-7 even with fields the raider is more fragile than the rhino.

I personally think they are worth it, since you don't need to turbo boost to keep them alive, they can be shooting instead. At 10 points, it is well worth it.

Since raiders a bit expensive, I wouldn't get anymore upgrades except for maybe a 5 point one, maybe shock prows or snares (bringing the total to 75 points, which is reasonable)

notabot187 wrote:I've run the math on them and they basically give your units the same survivability as turbo boosting.

It is only half as good as turbo-boosting, but that's hardly relevant since vehicles can't turbo boost.

Perhaps you meant moving flat out, in which case it's 2/3 as good.

DarknessEternal wrote:

notabot187 wrote:I've run the math on them and they basically give your units the same survivability as turbo boosting.

It is only half as good as turbo-boosting, but that's hardly relevant since vehicles can't turbo boost.

Perhaps you meant moving flat out, in which case it's 2/3 as good.

Yes I mean flat out. Immobile means destroyed when you go flat out. 5+ ignore with FF, 4+ to destroy = .33 destroyed on a pen. With moving flat out: 4+ to save, 3+ to destroy =.33 Same numbers, different order.

They are very useful for Raiders which need to get up close, generally a waste on Ravagers etc which will be hanging back (so should be able to be screened by the Raiders in front). The key thing to remember is that not everything needs them, Raiders won't ever last very long so you never want to make them too expensive. I have seen some people only take half their Raiders with Flickerfields and then just hiding the rest behind them which works pretty well.

From 12" on you don't actually need to move flat out at any point to hit almost the entire board, 2 x 12" move, 5" pivot and disembark, D6" run and 6" assault gets you to the other board edge every time. Moving flat out just increases your survivability, but taking Flickerfields means that you can move forward and get some shots off and still have a decent chance of surviving the return fire. Similarly they are very helpful if you are Deep Striking in (which can be a good move against some armies when goinv second) as there is no way to get a save otherwise.

I would have to agree with PowerGuy about its a waste of points on Ravagers, but I like to use on the Raiders, just the simple fact to have a inv save. It a hit or miss with the Flickerfields.

I'm gonna have to say yes, simply because it has honestly saved my raiders and ravagers more often than not.

Assuming you've got night shields, the only way to take down your vehicles is with medium strength multi-shot weapons, which is exactly what flickerfields are good against. I'm not a DE player myself, but I'm pretty sure I'd always take them on everything unless I had some other specific use for the points.

Interesting, I have been using FF on my ravagers, and only FF on my warrior's raider. The wychs/bloodbrides move flatout to deliver cargo, so FF would only be needed against hydras and after they drop their cargo off. FF is not worth the price for wychs IMO.

Ravagers gain a decent amount of survivability with FF. I don't want to be hiding my ravagers much since they will be giving cover saves to whatever they shoot most of the time when I do. The ravager doesn't have an awesome chance to destroy a vehicle in a single volley as it is, so I need to get a good vantage point so I'm not giving cover saves too. That means the ravager is in the open, so the FF is needed.

I don't think I could justify both FF and NS on the vehicles, and FF seems best on Ravagers.

A couple of points to make.

1. The obligatory "Nightshields are useless crap" statement goes here. See the 845,395 threads about it.

2. Flickerfields literally mean that you have 33% more vehicles on the table than you actually do. I have nine venoms and three ravagers in my DE list. The flickerfield pretty much makes it like having 12 venoms and 4 ravagers.

3. They should *not* be ignored on ravagers. If your raiders are screening your ravagers to give them cover, the ravagers targets have cover too. Not a good plan. Ravagers are point for point the meanest ranged anti-tank option int he DE arsenal, meaning that those ravagers are going to pick up the bulk of anti-tank fire coming your way. Missiles, lascannons, autocannons, etc. There's enough weaponry out there that ignores cover, plenty of ability for maneuvering to deprive cover, and worse - the dreaded IG vendetta as part of the mech IG list that is tall enough that intervening raiders won't actually give the ravager cover. Not to mention the *really* obvious solution - destroying the vehicle *giving* cover to deprive cover. That 10 point flickerfield is phenomenal.

4. Specific to Deadshane1's first note on flickerfields not being effective against ML devs....I would counter that ML devs are no longer effective against DE. Nor longfangs. I've made this argument elsewhere, but 40k seems to have turned into Rock/Paper/Scissor.

Spacewolves = Rock
Dark Eldar = Paper
Mech IG = Scissor

Triple longfang packs that can split fire at multiple targets while shrugging off 3 shots per Chimera multi-laser are great. Combined with some razorback support, Spacewolves have been demonstrating their ability all over the tournament circuit their ability to deal with Mech IG.

On the flip side, Dark Eldar have just as many vehicles on the table as Mech IG, and have the ultimate anti-longfang weapon: The Splinter Cannon. Six shots at BS4 per weapon, two of them per venom. My Dark Eldar statistically kill two full units of Long Fangs per turn. Being the first turn of course. And just in case I don't go first, I can reserve my fleet of paper airplanes, and when I come onto the table, I can *STILL* alpha-strike those long-fangs because my guns are 36" and I can move 12" and still shoot them both, my STR X precious things. TWC are now a joke (along with every other monstrous creature) because I have such ridiculous volume of fire and wound on a 4+.

On the flip flip side, Mech IG could care less about splinter cannons because all their squishy things are residing inside AV12/10/10 chimeras (or vendettas) with other ridiculous fire support options that make however many lances and blasters you fit into your list not enough.

5. The whole point of that was to point out that the only volume of fire seriously threatening to a raider fleet is the kind that comes from vehicles or units inside vehicles. I've started seeing SW players leave their longfangs inside their razorback/rhinos - getting 2 shots per unit per turn is better than no shots.

Ravagers are going to be firing at vehicles (or large MCs) 99% of the time which means its not that hard to avoid giving cover saves when firing through/past Raiders. Put Ravagers on the tall flying base, Raiders on the lower flying base and place the Raider so that the Ravager is firing 1 Dark Lance through/over the Raider and the other two can see clearly = no cover. You won't always be able to completely screen them off and expect to fire without giving cover, but clever positioning should be able to keep you safe from the majority of return fire while still firing effectively.

It obviously depends on your list and how you play it, but I would generally rather run Ravagers with Nightshields or even naked than take the Flickerfield on them. In lists with more Venoms than Raiders the Flickerfield would probably be more helpful as its going to be much harder to screen the Ravagers with them due to their size. Should probably mention that Night Shields are definitely a good buy on the flyers as the missiles are one of the only 48" range weapons DE have so being able to hug the board edge the turn you arrive and squash any infantry squad without much fear of return fire is awesome (go back to being an anti tank unit next turn).

Powerguy wrote:Ravagers are going to be firing at vehicles (or large MCs) 99% of the time which means its not that hard to avoid giving cover saves when firing through/past Raiders. Put Ravagers on the tall flying base, Raiders on the lower flying base and place the Raider so that the Ravager is firing 1 Dark Lance through/over the Raider and the other two can see clearly = no cover. You won't always be able to completely screen them off and expect to fire without giving cover, but clever positioning should be able to keep you safe from the majority of return fire while still firing effectively.

Hrm....

I feel like you've completely ignored everything I've said. At the moment, I'm using raiders to proxy for venoms (since I haven't made my venoms yet).

1. Everything I said above.

2. I'd be uncomfortable using multiple layers of flying bases in a list because of modeling for advantage.

3. Even if you *were* to do so, as I've outlined - there are multiple ways of removing a ravager's benefit of cover - starting with destroying/exploding the transport they're trying to use for cover. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try providing your own vehicles cover because you should. But you shouldn't believe that if you're playing against a competent player with a competent list it will be enough.

In my playing experience, the Flickerfields have been totally worth it. Nightshields work, but require a refused flank approach to get the most mileage out of them. Personally, I use both upgrades on my Raiders and Ravagers. Nightshields cut down on the amount of weapon options the opponent can use to down my raiders (mid range weapons are pretty much worthless), and the Flickerfields essentially have a 33% chance to bounce any shots they take if they need to move to a more exposed location, or simply can't get a decent cover save with terrain, etc. My list only uses 3 raiders and 2 Ravagers though. Most of my army comes out of a portal, thus isn't entirely relying on wet paper bags to do the heavy lifting of my army. In the experience of games I've played with my new DE (compared to how the old codex played)..the armies focus is more on board control. I've found that a WWP allows you to influence/ control a large area of board space which allows the DE to box their opponents into certain areas of the table top. Limiting the movement options of the opponent seems key. At least in the games I've played so far.