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.

Am tinkering with an eldar list, and wanted people's opinions on rangers as troops choices? They are only 3 points more than a guardian, and basically the same as a dire avenger, but with infiltrate, stealth and their sniper rifles, they seem too good to be true?

Not an Eldar player, and I have yet to see them on the other side of the table, but my friend is looking into them as allies to his Dark Eldar, and is raving about Pathfinders. He keeps saying how for a nominal points increase over a vanilla Ranger, you get so much more.

Not sure on all this, but thought I'd throw it out there.

Yeah, I'm looking into that too. But that requires a 145 point HQ and more than doubles their cost. They go from 12 to 25 points!

While i don't think they are too good to be true, i think they have their place in some armies. I have a unit of 5-8 rangers made from Guardians with Wood elf cloaks and they preform well for me because i play D/Eldar and Dark Eldar don't have any sniper units or any good back field troops. They work for me when i infiltrate them to an objective I don't see having much fighting over, like one in my DZ or right off in the side. They take pot shots, but I think of them as extra and I hold no hesitation to go to ground for a 2+ cover. While the sniper damage itself is fancy, don't rely on it to do anything. Guardians can be relied upon that in numbers you can expect so many Psudo-Rends, snipers don't have the wait of fire for that. While there is always the time that you precision shot the bolter banner bearer in a deathwing bike squad holding his army together many other times they will do nothing.

The way i see it they are out of the way objective holders, guardians make better ones behind an ADL and Avengers make better last turn ones in units of 5 in a Wave Serpent. And Lord knows that jetbikes are the best full stop. They have there place, but it really depends on the army list.

Rangers are taken for their utility and not much else.

Their damage output is minuscule, and those shots that do connect have a 50% chance of doing nothing. On the other hand, you pit a 6 man ranger squad against a MC, you're gonna get some wounds out of it. The issue comes from knowing how to use them.

They're objective holders. Place them somewhere where they have a vantage point, have cover, and don't need to do much but aim and fire. Typically, they would be taken in a footdar list as you cannot take a wave serpent with them.

Additionally, I would suggest knowing exactly what you plan on having them fire at, meaning you're going to want to go second usually (although I've seen this being a trend with Eldar anyways because of jetbikes and boosting to objectives). Give them 3 targets with an order of importance for each, and give them cover from which to fire. If you take a larger squad and give them guide it can really make a huge difference against MC's.

I use them a lot and they have come through for me before especially in Turns 4-6 after there has been a lot of attrition for both armies (typically)

Opponents don't normally prioritize shooting at them early in the game and next thing he knows, it's late in the game and he has a depleted troops unit advancing on an objective and I break their morale or pin them with my full strength Ranger squad

Also gotten lucky a few times and sniped a character before they get into assault range of my guardian blob or dark reapers (who are very important, especially against my buddy who uses the relentless necron warrior blob)

Anyway, just my thoughts, they have had a unique niche in the Eldar army for a long time and are still pretty cheap overall

Precision shots can really do the trick, either hurting or removing a character model or picking off the heavy weapon(s) in a unit.

Also I like rangers against those pesky MCs, especially with Tyranids.

I usually use them as nuisance unit, put them somewhere backfield but still viable as a target and with good LoS (preferably in 4/5 cover).
Let them snipe away, if they get focused, GtG and have a 2++ save. If hey dont shoot next turn, well no big deal, with a squad of 5 as stated above its not a huge damage output loss but your opponent has spent 2-3 units trying to focus them down. Multiple 2++s arent to be sniffed at.

Personally if you have a few points spare take a unit or two assuming it fits with your overall build.

Leaving them totally isolated backfield for example is asking to be drop podded or outflanked for easy points.

I run Dark Eldar, and I like allying in a unit of Rangers to claim objectives in my deployment zone behind my Aegis. Dark Eldar really don't have very good holding Troops choices.

hmm surprised... alot of people have been harping on rangers, and saying to instaed use 3 man Jet bike squads.

personally, i disagree. i think rangers are good objective grabbers. heck, thats the only thing i use them for. never for there damage output... just for the nice hard to kill objective grabbers. its perty hard to kill 5 dudes with 2++ cover.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
hmm surprised... alot of people have been harping on rangers, and saying to instaed use 3 man Jet bike squads.

personally, i disagree. i think rangers are good objective grabbers. heck, thats the only thing i use them for. never for there damage output... just for the nice hard to kill objective grabbers. its perty hard to kill 5 dudes with 2++ cover.

3++ behind my defense line, how are you getting 2++?

Respectably cheap snipers that can camp objectives? I'll take a few, thanks.

Although mine were a way to add sniper fire to my DE army when 6th ed came out. I ran a Reaper Launcher Exarch and 5 Pathfinders, back when Pathfinders were EPIC. Now they pitch tent on an objective and hope the enemy forget they're there...

3++ behind my defense line, how are you getting 2++?

ADL is 4++.
GtG is +1
Stealth +1

2++ overall, albeit snap shot next turn.

They might have lost -some- punch but, it doesn't matter. They will rarely make back their points in kills.

Now that regular Rangers are a little less than 1/2 the price, they are good if you need 60 points to go-to-ground on some backfield objective. Best way to do this is to split them across mulitple floors of a building and said objective is not on the ground floor. It's a decent use of exactly 60 points.

I've used them against a lot of armies at a lot of different skill levels. Rangers are excellent if someone's dumb enough to waste time shooting at them. Rangers are excellent if they are not on a ground floor, or behind a lot of line of sight.

They have Move Through Cover, don't forget that for late game objective steals, that has won me a match or 3.

I got a few golden BBs with them but, don't ever take Rangers expecting to kill a lot. Keep that mind set and you'll be pleased

 Ratius wrote:

3++ behind my defense line, how are you getting 2++?

ADL is 4++.
GtG is +1
Stealth +1

2++ overall, albeit snap shot next turn.

Mostly. I was talking generally about other 4+ cover.... Like ruins and the like.

Behind the adl you get +2 for going to ground. Without stealth.

I was contemplating using them as objective holders in my DZ or on an opposite flank to the enemy army. Not even that fussed about them killing stuff, though the precision could be nice!

Am I assuming the 145 Pts for Illic plus an extra 13 Pts per ranger is not worth the bonuses?!

Oh its worth it if you make your list around it. Plenty of rangers with some pathfinders with serpents and hemlock wraithfighters cause pinning tests like there is no tomorrow! But just to add in a isngle unit of pathfinders, no its not worth it because of the Illic tax. But if you have a specific use for Illic such as helping other things deepstrike on target (Anyone mention a deep striking wraithknight???) then by all means buy it. So in conclusion, its worth it when you make a list around it or your taking Illic anyway.

@Alexis; A FEAR list would be cool. Keep in mind, Hemlocks don't get to use their Terrify until turn 3 at least, but the Mindshock pods are still effective. 18in AP2 flamers are nice. Also Spider weapons are pinning (in addition Spiders are pretty much good at everything except melee).

My only difference opinion is you don't Illic or Pathfinders. For Pinning, 12 pt flavor Rangers do it just as well. Save those points, throw in some Warlocks and hope for the -3 Ld power.

I thought the hemlocks were blast not flamer? And I thought only rangers and pathfinders could deep strike on Illic?

Khaine's Wrath wrote:
I thought the hemlocks were blast not flamer? And I thought only rangers and pathfinders could deep strike on Illic?

Hemlock Heavy D-Sythes are blast. Eldar Rangers or pathfinders choosing to outflank may deploy within 6 inches of Nightspear as though they were deep striking, but without any scatter.

Handy to have a codex close by

Has anyone tried building a list with only ranger troops?

I was thinking the rangers would not be used as pure-backfield.
-Some backfield for general supporting fire maybe
-Others infiltrate and snipe from vantage points
-Striking Scorpions/Leman Russes/ General Allies divert attention as they are fighting their way through the enemy at the same time. Rangers pin down weakened units and take out ranged support, MCs, and weakened units that would be a waste to attack with your advancing forces.

Use them to hold your backfield objective. They have little use other than that, though if you face lots of MCs you'll be glad about the Snipers. Even so, a Guardian Squad with a Warlock is still far better in my opinion. They may be double the points basic, but, provided you get Conceal off, are more durable and they can put out better damage at range with heavy weapon upgrades and are far, far more deadly than Rangers once the enemy is within 12".

Now, Pathfinders, on the other hand, are much better and have a far superior damage output. But what's not good is that you have to buy a mediocre HQ to just unlock the ability to take them. Even then though, they are arguably overcosted.

I think pathfinders are certainly overcosted. Severely so. They have additional protection against conventional shooting - well I would rather have 2 models with a 3+ cover save, than 1 with a 2+! In offensive output (admittedly not the main reason to take the unit) I would rather have twice the shots, with a small chance of being precision shots, than all precision shots. To cap it off the pathfinders are just as vulnerable to flamers, assault etc - ie the real weaknesses of the unit. Did I happen to mention they're twice the bloody price? 'Cause that's the key thing to take away here.

Un-upgraded rangers are pretty worthwhile for holding objectives, just don't expect them to hold against all comers.

So a single squad of 5 to hold a backfield objective at merely 60 Pts is probably quite a wise investment?

Yes. Bear in mind that eldar can also take jetbikes, which are 51pts (61 with a shuriken cannon) and fulfill a similar role for distant objectives.