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.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I thought you were trying to avoid spamming transports?

._.

No, you're right. I'm between a bit of a rock and a hard place, because on one hand I'm not confident that a foot-pounding wrack/wyche horde is viable (they have no ranged weapons and are just too slow to make it into melee anytime soon), while for Warriors, well... I echo my concerns from earlier.

If not, blasterborn in venoms would be better antitank- the venom can still ping infantry while the blasters hose a tank. Personally I would try to fi haemonculi in with your Wyches instead of the Hekatrix(personally I prefer liquifier guns over Agonisers). Like the warriors earlier it will help with their survivability quite a bit. Just jump out and let the haemonculi zip around liquifying things if their transport survives.

I've been thinking long and hard about Blasterborn's. Embarked passengers can shoot at a different target from their transport, but I'm wondering if it might just be better to put units of blasterborn inside a disintegrator cannon raider? The extra AP 2 will help alot, considering that blasters are only assault 1.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Erm..hello. I haven't been here in years....looking into the hobby again.

What's with all the chatting about haywire grenades as the new Anti-tank? Did something happen to Dark Lances? Dark Lances are STR8 AP2 right? Against a Rhino (AV11), it was 3+ to glance, 4+ to penetrate. Is it no longer?

Oh. Em. Gee. You're back! Welcome back Dash! I've been waiting for you to write up more tactics for...well...since you left!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I thought you were trying to avoid spamming transports?

._.

No, you're right. I'm between a bit of a rock and a hard place, because on one hand I'm not confident that a foot-pounding wrack/wyche horde is viable (they have no ranged weapons and are just too slow to make it into melee anytime soon), while for Warriors, well... I echo my concerns from earlier.

If not, blasterborn in venoms would be better antitank- the venom can still ping infantry while the blasters hose a tank. Personally I would try to fi haemonculi in with your Wyches instead of the Hekatrix(personally I prefer liquifier guns over Agonisers). Like the warriors earlier it will help with their survivability quite a bit. Just jump out and let the haemonculi zip around liquifying things if their transport survives.

I've been thinking long and hard about Blasterborn's. Embarked passengers can shoot at a different target from their transport, but I'm wondering if it might just be better to put units of blasterborn inside a disintegrator cannon raider? The extra AP 2 will help alot, considering that blasters are only assault 1.

Raiders are also a bit more expensive-
Really your choices are
12 poison shots
1 str 8 ap2 lance
3 str 5 ap 2
If you want pure antitank, I'd go for the lance just for redundancy.

Shingen wrote:
In 7th edition they made it harder to destroy vehicles. You now need a 7 to explode so yeah a roll of 6 and the +1 from AP2.

Haywire on the other hand is basically just glancing it to death.

One other option is the forgeworld Reaper which I am seriously considering buying.

36" beam weapon that's hits everything under it. It's s7 AP3 but causes d3 haywire hits to vehicles and causes an instant death wound to infantry on a 5+, pure nasty!

I haven't purchased a 7th Edition rulebook yet - I intend to get one this weekend when I visit a FLGS - so in the meantime, please pretend I don't know anything, because it's true.

In 5th Edition, a Dark Lance firing at a vehicle needed a 5 to wreck, 6 to explode.

In 7th Edition, a Dark Lance firing at a vehicle needs a ?? to wreck, and a 7 to explode....but AP1 and AP2 give +1 on the penetration table? What are the result tables now? Is Wrecked gone? Does 5 no longer wreck something? If you immobilize a vehicle, destroy all weapons, and get another immobilize/weapon destroy result, does it still kill the vehicle?

I'm trying to figure out if it is harder to kill a vehicle with a dark lance in 7th than it was in 5th. I learned about Hull Points yesterday. I understand that glances are no longer Penetration table -2, and are instead now simple remove an HP. Help me, for I am eager to re-learn how to play.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

Shingen wrote:
In 7th edition they made it harder to destroy vehicles. You now need a 7 to explode so yeah a roll of 6 and the +1 from AP2.

Haywire on the other hand is basically just glancing it to death.

One other option is the forgeworld Reaper which I am seriously considering buying.

36" beam weapon that's hits everything under it. It's s7 AP3 but causes d3 haywire hits to vehicles and causes an instant death wound to infantry on a 5+, pure nasty!

I haven't purchased a 7th Edition rulebook yet - I intend to get one this weekend when I visit a FLGS - so in the meantime, please pretend I don't know anything, because it's true.

In 5th Edition, a Dark Lance firing at a vehicle needed a 5 to wreck, 6 to explode.

In 7th Edition, a Dark Lance firing at a vehicle needs a ?? to wreck, and a 7 to explode....but AP1 and AP2 give +1 on the penetration table? What are the result tables now? Is Wrecked gone? Does 5 no longer wreck something? If you immobilize a vehicle, destroy all weapons, and get another immobilize/weapon destroy result, does it still kill the vehicle?

I'm trying to figure out if it is harder to kill a vehicle with a dark lance in 7th than it was in 5th. I learned about Hull Points yesterday. I understand that glances are no longer Penetration table -2, and are instead now simple remove an HP. Help me, for I am eager to re-learn how to play.

1-3 shaken
4 Stunned
5 Weapon Destroyed
6 Immobolized
7+ Explodes
Stripping all hullpoints is the only way to wreck.
AP 2 adds +1 to the table, AP 1 adds +2.

Ghazhkull's Balls!

They did away with "Wreck."

Do each of the results strip a hullpoint away? How many hullpoints do most vehicles have? Hullpoints came out with 6th Edition? DE codex came out in 5th - how do you tell how many HP DE vehicles have?

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Ghazhkull's Balls!

They did away with "Wreck."

Do each of the results strip a hullpoint away? How many hullpoints do most vehicles have? Hullpoints came out with 6th Edition? DE codex came out in 5th - how do you tell how many HP DE vehicles have?

Any hit strips a hullpoint- I can't remember if a pen still strips two or not. The average is three- Landraiders and monoliths have four, super heavies have twice that or more, small things have two. In our codex everything has three except for venoms at two. The BRB or the FAQ should list everything- although I should mention rumors point to a new codex before the end of the year.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Ghazhkull's Balls!

They did away with "Wreck."

Do each of the results strip a hullpoint away? How many hullpoints do most vehicles have? Hullpoints came out with 6th Edition? DE codex came out in 5th - how do you tell how many HP DE vehicles have?

Hi Dash!

*waves*

Generally, each results does strip a HP. Some rules allows multiple HPs removed with one hit, such as STR D weapons and Grav guns.

Most vehicles have 3 HPs. (speeder/Venom variants are 2, rhinos/Raiders are 3, Landraiders+ are 4, etc...).

I believe the DE's HP listings is in the 7th ed Rule book.
Venoms are 2 HPs
Raiders/Ravagers/Razorwing/VoidRavens are 3 HPs
Vect's Dias / Tantalus are 4 HPs

FYI: Rumour is that DE will get a new codex in a few months... so, great timing!

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Ghazhkull's Balls!

Yeah, that basically sums up the edition changes for Dark Eldar. We're in a pretty rough spot lately, but I'm hoping we'll see a new codex soon. We badly need it.

7th edition is largely a shooting edition, but that means both delivering firepower and sustaining it in turn.

While Dark Eldar always had exceptional anti-infantry firepower, our lists have struggled to bring enough anti-tank. Many options that could have been competitive (disintegrators) had to be ignored entirely because of the opportunity cost in our anti-tank arsenal. 6th and 7th edition made that problem worse. Beyond just being easier to penetrate, low AV vehicles tend to suffer from a lack of hull points. The more forgiving damage chart is largely irrelevant when your opponent only needs two results to wreck your venoms. Meanwhile, our chance to destroy a land raider outright has been cut in half.

Remember that glances no longer roll on the damage table. In 5th, it was sufficient to fire at a unit until you scored a shaken or stunned result. You could trust that that unit wouldn't be doing anything meaningful in the next turn. In 6th, that changed. The vehicle now loses a hull point. If it wasn't the last one, it remains perfectly capable of returning fire in the subsequent turn. Dark Eldar vehicles are too fragile and too expensive to make that a winning proposition.

6th edition introduced some new unit types: Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures. With it came a new USR called "Skyfire". Those without the USR must fire at BS1 when targeting Flyers and FMCs. Those with the USR must fire at BS1 when targeting things other than FMCs, Flyers, or Skimmers. Flyers and FMCs can choose whether to have the USR at the beginning of each shooting phase. Most other units are stuck shooting at one class of units or the other. Our Ravenwing Fighter and Voidraven Bomber units are flyers -- but neither are very effective anti-tank platforms, and both are prohibitively fragile and expensive. This makes them poor dogfighters and leaves our codex without any effective counters.

There is some hope though. In 7th edition, most codices are moving to an "armoury" style upgrade list. There's several sets of weapon upgrades which are made generally available throughout the codex. If Haywire Blasters make the list, we might have enough anti-tank to be competitive. But if GW is expecting Darklight Spam to be effective at current point costs, we're going to have a very rough time.

And in some respects, 7th edition is actually nicer to Dark Eldar than 6th was. In 6th, troops could not score while inside transports. In 7th, nearly everything scores, but both troops and their dedicated transports can score even while non-troop units are there to contest. Mobility was a big factor in 5th edition, and that hasn't changed. It's a relief that we no longer have to choose between scoring and mobility.

P.S.: I know you also play Necrons. They're in exceedingly good position right now, especially if you use Forgeworld.

I play / did play Necrons, but I stopped 40k before the 5th Edition Necron codex dropped, so I have no Necron models. I'm not looking to build a new army and buy thousands of dollars worth of things that I don't want to paint anyway. >< If Dark Eldar are underdogs, I'm happy.

The reason I picked up DE in the first place was because no one played them, they had a 2nd Edition Codex in 5th Edition, and were considered one of the weakest armies. When they got a new Codex, folks started complaining that Necrons were the weakest, so I started playing those.

I'd been juggling whether to start back in with Orks or Dark Eldar. Orks have a new Codex, but it's very disappointing to me. I have a thematic Ork army, and while much of the new codex is disappointing, I simply can't abide not having Ghazzy as the leader of my army. I understand the "Lords of War" but he's not a Titan. He's an IC. My entire Ork army theme "Ghazghkull's Harem" is based around Ghazzy and his friends.

So...I'll be leading in with my newly underpowered Dark Eldar again! Let me get a few games under my belt so I can get an understanding of the rules again. My 5th Edition standard DE 1850 list "Darklight Storm" had a raider full of wyches on it with haywire grenades (since lances lost the ability to reduce AV to 12). I was a big fan of my wyches multi-assaulting vehicles. Thanks for all the comments and insights; this has been a valuable thread. I'll be getting back into the hobby slowly; lots to learn.

FYI: Lances still work like they did in 5th. So, no worries there.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
I play / did play Necrons, but I stopped 40k before the 5th Edition Necron codex dropped, so I have no Necron models. I'm not looking to build a new army and buy thousands of dollars worth of things that I don't want to paint anyway. >< If Dark Eldar are underdogs, I'm happy.

The reason I picked up DE in the first place was because no one played them, they had a 2nd Edition Codex in 5th Edition, and were considered one of the weakest armies. When they got a new Codex, folks started complaining that Necrons were the weakest, so I started playing those.

I'd been juggling whether to start back in with Orks or Dark Eldar. Orks have a new Codex, but it's very disappointing to me. I have a thematic Ork army, and while much of the new codex is disappointing, I simply can't abide not having Ghazzy as the leader of my army. I understand the "Lords of War" but he's not a Titan. He's an IC. My entire Ork army theme "Ghazghkull's Harem" is based around Ghazzy and his friends.

So...I'll be leading in with my newly underpowered Dark Eldar again! Let me get a few games under my belt so I can get an understanding of the rules again. My 5th Edition standard DE 1850 list "Darklight Storm" had a raider full of wyches on it with haywire grenades (since lances lost the ability to reduce AV to 12). I was a big fan of my wyches multi-assaulting vehicles. Thanks for all the comments and insights; this has been a valuable thread. I'll be getting back into the hobby slowly; lots to learn.

Dash, you are back!

So DE in 6th took a huge beating and became a very weak army again(although Jetbikes became awesome).

DE are next to get a new codex in 7th, supposedly it will have some new coven plastic models but no one really knows. Expect some changes to wyches and warriors to change a bit(we hope for the better). Rumor is Baron is going to get the ax, although again, rumor.

Corollax wrote:

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Ghazhkull's Balls!

Yeah, that basically sums up the edition changes for Dark Eldar. We're in a pretty rough spot lately, but I'm hoping we'll see a new codex soon. We badly need it.

I wouldn't say Dark Eldar are weak right now at all. In tournaments, I've won my last 10 consecutive games with Dark Eldar. Maelstrom missions especially are easily abused by our forces since you can field a list with 14 objective secured units without much trouble.

I'd say our biggest weakness is anti-air, but bringing a single crimson hunter exarch and hoping for a skyfire objective anywhere on the table has usually been sufficient to take down armies with up to 3 fliers.

I'm really hoping there won't be too many drastic changes to our codex right now.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
I play / did play Necrons, but I stopped 40k before the 5th Edition Necron codex dropped, so I have no Necron models. I'm not looking to build a new army and buy thousands of dollars worth of things that I don't want to paint anyway. >< If Dark Eldar are underdogs, I'm happy.

I'm even happier to have you back. Welcome back.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
The reason I picked up DE in the first place was because no one played them, they had a 2nd Edition Codex in 5th Edition, and were considered one of the weakest armies. When they got a new Codex, folks started complaining that Necrons were the weakest, so I started playing those.

Fair enough. You should still review their codex so you know what you're up against. That volume of S7 is brutal on Dark Eldar transports.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
I'd been juggling whether to start back in with Orks or Dark Eldar. Orks have a new Codex, but it's very disappointing to me. I have a thematic Ork army, and while much of the new codex is disappointing, I simply can't abide not having Ghazzy as the leader of my army. I understand the "Lords of War" but he's not a Titan. He's an IC. My entire Ork army theme "Ghazghkull's Harem" is based around Ghazzy and his friends.

7th edition lets you nominate any character as your army's Warlord. You don't need to choose an HQ. Unless Super-Heavy vehicles are allowed, the only consequence of Ghazzy's Lord of War status is that he neither occupies your HQ slots nor satisfies the requirement. Basically, Ghazzy needs somfink bigga ta boss around than just da boyz.

But to be honest, I was also disappointed in the new Ork codex. And poison is sexier anyway.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
So...I'll be leading in with my newly underpowered Dark Eldar again! Let me get a few games under my belt so I can get an understanding of the rules again. My 5th Edition standard DE 1850 list "Darklight Storm" had a raider full of wyches on it with haywire grenades (since lances lost the ability to reduce AV to 12). I was a big fan of my wyches multi-assaulting vehicles. Thanks for all the comments and insights; this has been a valuable thread. I'll be getting back into the hobby slowly; lots to learn.

The Lance rule still works, and Black Templars lost access to Blessed Hull when they were absorbed into Codex: Space Marines. Monoliths also lost their lance immunity. Haywire grenades work too, but don't expect the wyches to be able to accomplish much when assaulting anything but vehicles. Their dodge save isn't applicable during overwatch.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Corollax wrote:

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Ghazhkull's Balls!

Yeah, that basically sums up the edition changes for Dark Eldar. We're in a pretty rough spot lately, but I'm hoping we'll see a new codex soon. We badly need it.

I wouldn't say Dark Eldar are weak right now at all. In tournaments, I've won my last 10 consecutive games with Dark Eldar. Maelstrom missions especially are easily abused by our forces since you can field a list with 14 objective secured units without much trouble.

DE have this strange kind of anti deathstar nature. They can run around and kite a lot of death stars out there, it doesnt matter how deadly you are in close combat if you never get into combat, and are constantly being showered by 70 posion shots + some lances a turn.

That said a lot of Tournament lists lean towards death stars. Less models to carry. Less models to paint so you can invest more time into each model. A quicker more decisive game most often. So lots of people take death stars to tournaments, and a mech DE list will be able to win or draw many of these lists without much trouble.

Also beaststar with baron is potent, and a component of a lot of Eldar DE tournament lists

 Exergy wrote:


Also beaststar with baron is potent, and a component of a lot of Eldar DE tournament lists

That caught on?!?

Good lord, I got so much grief for Baron Sathonyx + Beasts, but the +1 is/was so important to Dark Eldar that I couldn't figure out a better way to field him.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Exergy wrote:


Also beaststar with baron is potent, and a component of a lot of Eldar DE tournament lists

That caught on?!?

Good lord, I got so much grief for Baron Sathonyx + Beasts, but the +1 is/was so important to Dark Eldar that I couldn't figure out a better way to field him.

Combining it with the new Eldar codex in sixth made it a nightmare for opponents- 12" movement, rerollable 2+ invulnerable saves, and ferocious CC ability. It's toned down slightly in seventh though.

I don't see many lists posted with the Baron anymore- and I'm not sure why. Have they FAQ'ed away his deployment bonus?

Well when the Dark Eldar drop, I will be somewhat sad since the current codex is so fun to play. I really enjoy the Dark Eldar.

Based on the past few codex releases, I'm not really expecting many changes to come through. I am excited about probably being able to buy venoms as fast attacks slots without a unit inside. I'd like to see a trueborn and scourges weapon cost reduction and razorwings changed to fast attack too. Going to expect ending my last tournament with Duke Sliscus this weekend though.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Exergy wrote:


Also beaststar with baron is potent, and a component of a lot of Eldar DE tournament lists

That caught on?!?

Good lord, I got so much grief for Baron Sathonyx + Beasts, but the +1 is/was so important to Dark Eldar that I couldn't figure out a better way to field him.

In 6th, they made a number of changes that made it much better. Namely:
beasts changed to 12" move so the unit didnt have to conga line.
Allies were introduced, letting you add farseer jetbikes and allied psykic powers(again from farseer)

Sinful Hero wrote:
I don't see many lists posted with the Baron anymore- and I'm not sure why. Have they FAQ'ed away his deployment bonus?

They changed jink from a 5+ to a 4+ so stealth from baron is unneeded for a 2+ cover save.

 lambsandlions wrote:

Sinful Hero wrote:
I don't see many lists posted with the Baron anymore- and I'm not sure why. Have they FAQ'ed away his deployment bonus?

They changed jink from a 5+ to a 4+ so stealth from baron is unneeded for a 2+ cover save.

Baron in a reaver unit gives us a T4 2+ cover save unit, that can both hit with the bladevanes as it moves over something, and if jetbike characters (allies) are attached, hit pretty good in combat too.

I really want my dark eldar characters to get jetbike options. If nothing else changed, I'd be thrilled.

-Matt

I was mostly wondering if his +1 to go first still worked. The cover save bonus is just gravy.



I mean, why are you not paying a paltry 105 points and a mostly useless HQ slotfor a cover save bonus and better odds to go first?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I was mostly wondering if his +1 to go first still worked. The cover save bonus is just gravy.



I mean, why are you not paying a paltry 105 points and a mostly useless HQ slotfor a cover save bonus and better odds to go first?

I read the FAQ. It still works. They specifically changed it to be the roll for who goes first instead of the roll for choosing deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lambsandlions wrote:

Sinful Hero wrote:
I don't see many lists posted with the Baron anymore- and I'm not sure why. Have they FAQ'ed away his deployment bonus?

They changed jink from a 5+ to a 4+ so stealth from baron is unneeded for a 2+ cover save.

How do Reavers get a 2+ Cover save? If I remember correctly, they get a 4+, and Jink would give them a 4+, turbo-boosting (if it still exists) make it a 3+ or something.....how does it get to 2+?

 Dashofpepper wrote:
How do Reavers get a 2+ Cover save? If I remember correctly, they get a 4+, and Jink would give them a 4+, turbo-boosting (if it still exists) make it a 3+ or something.....how does it get to 2+?

Jink is flat 4+, with or without Turbo-boosting, which still very much exists. Reavers have the Skilled Rider USR which grants +1 to their Jink save, so normally they get 3+. Something with Stealth or Shrouding and they get 2+ cover save total.

How does the Phantasm Grenade Launcher work now?

I presume it still grants offensive and defensive grenades, but I keep hearing the phrase "Blind Fire" or something. What's the deal with that? Does it do something other than offensive or defensive grenades?

Also....had my first game of 40k since 2011 today. =D Broke out the DE and spent half the day learning 7th Edition rules.

Will be changing the main page of this thread over the next few days to include new tactica and unit reviews.

Should have just made a new thread. This thread is full of useless old information that will really confuse and drive off people trying to read through this thread for 7th ed tactics.

There already is a new thread-
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/617489.page

I'll do a new thread then. Probably a good idea actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Might as well lock this one mate.