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.

Wasnt seeing a tactics page on the dark eldar was wondering what people have thought so far of them. I've only seen one battle report and they made short work of some skittari.

Had a quick game (1000pts) against Gaurd

Vehicles proved resiliant - great to have flickerfield back and they were still effective even as they took wounds. Even on 2 W the Ravager was firing 3 Dark lances on 5+ to hit.

Quite enjoyed having T4 (drugs) Wych squad. Power from pain worked well as the game progressed.

Incubi are still deadily, and can trash vehicles as well as infantry.

 thatssoeffingcool wrote:
Wasnt seeing a tactics page on the dark eldar was wondering what people have thought so far of them. I've only seen one battle report and they made short work of some skittari.

Voidravens are brutal. Cleared off main tank and scout sentinel on turn 1, voidbombed about 14 infantry wounds total across 2 ravens.

Venoms+5cab zoomers still hurt infantry pretty well. 20 shots between the venom and crew

Triple DL ravagers still punch tanks in the nuts. Only got to take one in the low points game, but it contributed 6 wounds on turn 1 before it was overrun by deepstriking tyranids


Up to test:

Wyches
Tantalus
Mandrakes
Scourge deepstrikes

Does anyone have experience of how Reavers are?

Tested a standard 1000 point 8th edition list plus a Ravenwing Jetfighter. Was fighting a Blood Angel army that had Dante, Sanguinary Guard, sniper scouts and a Stormraven.

Basically I had three squad of Warriors with blaster each in Splinter Cannon Venoms. Then one Splinter Cannon Venom with two archons(wanted to get the battalion detachment). I also had a Lance Ravager.

My poor Kabal got wiped out and the only thing I managed to kill was a Scout and the Stormraven. The Stormraven deals a nasty amount of dakka that got my Jetfighter down to 2 wounds first round, and my Ravager to 6 wounds. Dante managed a charge, but the sanguinary failed. Dante got a single Venom to 2 wounds.

Then it just became hide and seek while the Stormraven just mowed things down.

On Turn three I did manage to take the Stormraven down, but I had so little left that it was futile.

My Take from this is:

Blasterborn and everything that gets you good AP is going to be a must against armies like these. Going for 3 troop slots and 2 archons just to get more command points was a bad choice, and I should have gone for more pure blasterborns and more darklight weaponry.

The Ravager performed amazingly well and the ability to shoot all weapon in every direction makes it a force to be feared. The Razorwing Jetfighter didn't get much use(killed one scout using a Splinter Cannon) so I can't really comment on its efficacy.

Venoms are still good, but their lack of AP hurts a lot. I am also wondering if it might not be worth it to upgrade the Twin Splinter Rifle, but the extra range is really nice if you need to kite.

Kabalite Warriors were decent, but again, the lack of AP hurts them a lot.

In the end I think I'll forfeit going for command points and instead go for more elite units. Better to have some better weapons/units instead of a few extra CP.

There's already a thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727149.page

Now that everything can split fire, aren't single blasters in unit of kabalites better than a taking a squad of blasterborn?

A squad of 5 trueborn with 4 blasters and 3 units of kabalites cost more than 4 units of kabalites with 1 blaster each and they have all the eggs in the same basket. I'd also take ravagers over trueborn.

 Blackie wrote:
Now that everything can split fire, aren't single blasters in unit of kabalites better than a taking a squad of blasterborn?

A squad of 5 trueborn with 4 blasters and 3 units of kabalites cost more than 4 units of kabalites with 1 blaster each and they have all the eggs in the same basket.

This seems like a really odd comparison. Why would you take naked Kabalites in the first place? Might as well at least give them the Blaster.

With that in mind:
5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters plus 2 units of Kabalite Warriors w/ Blaster (6 Blasters) - 215pts
4 Units of Kabalite Warriors w/ Blaster (4 Blasters) - 200pts

So, for less than a 10% increase in cost, you get 50% more Blasters by using the Trueborn squad.


You can't get away from the problem of putting more eggs into one basket (although doing so nets you ~50% more eggs). However, there is another consideration - the cost of transports. All those Warrior squads are going to need transports, and the cost of those transports has increased by 50-100%. Hence, you can't spam them like you used to. not only that, but the firepower of Venoms has been reduced drastically (to the point where the squad isn't just a tax for the Venom anymore). When you also take into account their increased durability, I'd favour putting more expensive squads in them, rather than trying to use cheap squads in expensive transports.

 Blackie wrote:
I'd also take ravagers over trueborn.

I'd take both - Trueborn for Blasters and Ravagers for Disintegrators or Dark Lances.

Basically price of entry for blasters is higher for normal Warriors. You need 4 Warriors for each blaster whereas in a Trueborn squad you only need 1 warrior for access to 4 blasters.

It's also good to keep in mind that the various detachments available make it so you don't have to pay a troop tax. You can go for the big stuff. It's only if you are running for command points that troop detachments become important again.

Ravagers are nice, but they have a large footprint. Blasterborn in a venom have the same invuln save as a Ravager, but are also -1 to hit, do not degenerate as they lose wounds, give you a huge amount of dakka for all occasions(splinter cannons on infantry, blasters on elite and vehicle). Also, if the Venom dies most(if not all) of your blasterborn will survive to wreak havoc once more. Venoms also have a bit more movement which is nice.

In the end I'll most likely be running Blaserborn and Ravagers like vipoid suggests. It gives a lot of deadly attacks while also giving you versatility.

Eldarsif wrote:
Basically price of entry for blasters is higher for normal Warriors. You need 4 Warriors for each blaster whereas in a Trueborn squad you only need 1 warrior for access to 4 blasters.

It's also good to keep in mind that the various detachments available make it so you don't have to pay a troop tax. You can go for the big stuff. It's only if you are running for command points that troop detachments become important again.

Ravagers are nice, but they have a large footprint. Blasterborn in a venom have the same invuln save as a Ravager, but are also -1 to hit, do not degenerate as they lose wounds, give you a huge amount of dakka for all occasions(splinter cannons on infantry, blasters on elite and vehicle). Also, if the Venom dies most(if not all) of your blasterborn will survive to wreak havoc once more. Venoms also have a bit more movement which is nice.

In the end I'll most likely be running Blaserborn and Ravagers like vipoid suggests. It gives a lot of deadly attacks while also giving you versatility.

Seems like a weird comparison, that Ravager is far better at killing vehicles than those Blaster Born could ever hope to be, and frankly at T6 with 10 wounds more resiliant as well.

Frankly, Scourge look like a far more promising prospect than Trueborn anyway, the ability to Deep Strike means they can get into range far easier and not having to start on the table means they wont be subject to the more nasty alpha strikes that can happen. And taking 2 squads, one with Blasters and one stock means they come out cheaper but with more firepower than Trueborn in a Venom. You also get the option for Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances with Scourge.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Now that everything can split fire, aren't single blasters in unit of kabalites better than a taking a squad of blasterborn?

A squad of 5 trueborn with 4 blasters and 3 units of kabalites cost more than 4 units of kabalites with 1 blaster each and they have all the eggs in the same basket.

This seems like a really odd comparison. Why would you take naked Kabalites in the first place? Might as well at least give them the Blaster.

With that in mind:
5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters plus 2 units of Kabalite Warriors w/ Blaster (6 Blasters) - 215pts
4 Units of Kabalite Warriors w/ Blaster (4 Blasters) - 200pts

So, for less than a 10% increase in cost, you get 50% more Blasters by using the Trueborn squad.


You can't get away from the problem of putting more eggs into one basket (although doing so nets you ~50% more eggs). However, there is another consideration - the cost of transports. All those Warrior squads are going to need transports, and the cost of those transports has increased by 50-100%. Hence, you can't spam them like you used to. not only that, but the firepower of Venoms has been reduced drastically (to the point where the squad isn't just a tax for the Venom anymore). When you also take into account their increased durability, I'd favour putting more expensive squads in them, rather than trying to use cheap squads in expensive transports.

Uhm.. but the way you did you only get 15 bodies instead of 20. With paper transports and paper armors. I think going MSU is still a key with dark eldar, it's not only a matter of CP but also of scoring points and resist serious shooting as all dark eldar units are not resilient, no matter how you upgrade them. And in a game in which hordes are now a thing venoms and basic kabalites may be helpful, even with the nerf of splinter cannons. The real comparison was between:

5 trueborn in a venom and 3x5 kabalites in a venom

and

4x5 kabalites with a blaster in each squad, all in venoms. This solution is cheaper, has the same number of blasters and the anti tank weapons are also spread across the field.

I fear that a unit of blasterborn is dead turn 1 as venoms can't jink anymore, but maybe it's only me as I didn't love the trueborn even in the previous edition.

The list that I'm trying has 4 units of kabalites in venoms with a blaster in each squad and 2 ravagers with lances. I can't add the third one because in this list there's a unit of 3 talos, that I really want. I don't know about our flyers because I don't have the models and I'm not sure about their qualities (they seem great), but in my meta I absolutely need more anti infantries weapons than anti tank. I also need to try the liq guns, to determine if they're able to clear infantries properly. 8 lances (there are also 2 raiders) and 4 blasters are enough IMHO.

 Blackie wrote:

Uhm.. but the way you did you only get 15 bodies instead of 20.

Yeah. But at least those 15 are actually useful. With your method, you had 5 useful bodies and 15 useless ones.

 Blackie wrote:
With paper transports and paper armors.

Our transports aren't really paper anymore.

With regard to paper armour, I'm not seeing how 5 extra bodies will really help in that regard.

 Blackie wrote:
I think going MSU is still a key with dark eldar, it's not only a matter of CP but also of scoring points and resist serious shooting as all dark eldar units are not resilient, no matter how you upgrade them.

I agree that MSU is still important. However, I don't think we can rely on Warriors in Venoms anymore - the transports are just too expensive to make it worthwhile. You need something in them that can hit hard.

 Blackie wrote:
And in a game in which hordes are now a thing venoms and basic kabalites may be helpful, even with the nerf of splinter cannons.

They might be passable, but I'd rather stock up on units with meaningful shooting first (Ravagers, Trueborn, Scourges etc.) and then take a Warrior squad or two if I run low on points.

 Blackie wrote:
The real comparison was between:

5 trueborn in a venom and 3x5 kabalites in a venom

and

4x5 kabalites with a blaster in each squad, all in venoms. This solution is cheaper, has the same number of blasters and the anti tank weapons are also spread across the field.

If you're having to use comparisons this ridiculous and one-sided, it's a strong indicator that you don't have a good argument.

Again, who in their right mind would use the first option? And why? The Warrior squads are completely pointless.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Uhm.. but the way you did you only get 15 bodies instead of 20.

Yeah. But at least those 15 are actually useful. With your method, you had 5 useful bodies and 15 useless ones.

Kabalite Warriors are perfectly fine and by no means useless.

BertBert wrote:
Kabalite Warriors are perfectly fine and by no means useless.

They are fine with a Blaster. Without one they're a waste of points.

pm713 wrote:
Does anyone have experience of how Reavers are?

I've tried 'em a few times. I've been struggling to fit more than 3 in a list at their new price, but 2/3 of the games I've tried them they at least did something. I've given them the T drugs each time, which definitely helps. I've been going Grav Talon, Blaster, agonizer on the champion.

First game I played against a list that was almost entirely leman russ tanks, they were the closest target and they got blown away first turn. Second game, they did a lot better when I kept them to the flanks, moved up the side and killed a squad of Heavy Bolter Retributors which had been double-tapping my army for two turns and killed them in a single round. Game 3 I ran five (super suboptimal I know but I didn't have the points for the 6th one) but they did great hopping over a CWE battle line and wasting an autarch who was giving +1 to hit to basically the whole army.

More situational than before, but a very solid skirmishing unit.

the_scotsman wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Does anyone have experience of how Reavers are?

I've tried 'em a few times. I've been struggling to fit more than 3 in a list at their new price, but 2/3 of the games I've tried them they at least did something. I've given them the T drugs each time, which definitely helps. I've been going Grav Talon, Blaster, agonizer on the champion.

First game I played against a list that was almost entirely leman russ tanks, they were the closest target and they got blown away first turn. Second game, they did a lot better when I kept them to the flanks, moved up the side and killed a squad of Heavy Bolter Retributors which had been double-tapping my army for two turns and killed them in a single round. Game 3 I ran five (super suboptimal I know but I didn't have the points for the 6th one) but they did great hopping over a CWE battle line and wasting an autarch who was giving +1 to hit to basically the whole army.

More situational than before, but a very solid skirmishing unit.

Reavers in 7th were cheap and had crazy HoW.
They lost both theses qualities. They got +1W and we can easily give them +1T, with the 6+ PNP, it makes them a bit more resilient (even with the loss of the 3+ jink).
I think their main problem is the lack of a specific role. 2 attacks S4 AP-1 isn't too bad, but not enough to go after anything serious, especially since you won't have huge numbers. Shooting is okay, but not great. At least they can split fire now.
They're still cool models, and aren't dead weight, but I can't see a way to make them shine.

I think 1 special weapon per 3 is painful, given that they've practically doubled in cost.

e.g. I used to be able to field 3 with a Heat Lance and Cluster Caltrops for 73pts (and 3 of those squads for ~220pts).

Now, that same squad costs me 120pts, and I can't even get 2 of them for 220pts, let alone 3.

What's more, any survivability they gained is counteracted by the loss of 3+ Jink and the nerf to FNP.

 Imateria wrote:

Eldarsif wrote:
Basically price of entry for blasters is higher for normal Warriors. You need 4 Warriors for each blaster whereas in a Trueborn squad you only need 1 warrior for access to 4 blasters.

It's also good to keep in mind that the various detachments available make it so you don't have to pay a troop tax. You can go for the big stuff. It's only if you are running for command points that troop detachments become important again.

Ravagers are nice, but they have a large footprint. Blasterborn in a venom have the same invuln save as a Ravager, but are also -1 to hit, do not degenerate as they lose wounds, give you a huge amount of dakka for all occasions(splinter cannons on infantry, blasters on elite and vehicle). Also, if the Venom dies most(if not all) of your blasterborn will survive to wreak havoc once more. Venoms also have a bit more movement which is nice.

In the end I'll most likely be running Blaserborn and Ravagers like vipoid suggests. It gives a lot of deadly attacks while also giving you versatility.

Seems like a weird comparison, that Ravager is far better at killing vehicles than those Blaster Born could ever hope to be, and frankly at T6 with 10 wounds more resiliant as well.

Frankly, Scourge look like a far more promising prospect than Trueborn anyway, the ability to Deep Strike means they can get into range far easier and not having to start on the table means they wont be subject to the more nasty alpha strikes that can happen. And taking 2 squads, one with Blasters and one stock means they come out cheaper but with more firepower than Trueborn in a Venom. You also get the option for Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances with Scourge.

That's why I think there is a reason to have a mix. Dark Eldar don't do either/or very well in my mind.

Regarding Scourges I find the Splinter Cannon useless. For the same price of one scourge with Splinter Cannon you can get two Scourges with Shard Carbine which gives you the same amount of shots at up to 18 inch range. For me Scourges are Blaster and Dark Lance unit in 8th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People have to remember that even though Splinter Rifles will be decent against hordes and low-armor units you will have problems when you start attempting to kill 2 wound 2+ save units. A good AP is extremely vital if you want to be able to handle some of the nasty elite units.

Regarding Dark Eldar Paper vehicles: They are not paper anymore and actually quite resilient in my experience. People are still stuck on 7th edition Dark Eldar vehicles. Things have changed.

Had a Venom tank Dante for a whole turn, then flying away next turn with 2 wounds left(out of 6). That's considerable more resilience compared to 7th edition. The 5+ save, no more instant kill on a 6 because open-topped, and more means that you are not going to lose your vehicles as quickly. There is a reason why all vehicles in the game got a point increase.

 vipoid wrote:

BertBert wrote:
Kabalite Warriors are perfectly fine and by no means useless.

They are fine with a Blaster. Without one they're a waste of points.

I disagree.

They are cheap, come with a decent save, good LD and a weapon that can wound most things on a 4+.
You can use them to screen more important units and bring bodies for point control for 7 points each - that's a pretty good deal in my book.

Razorwings Flocks are the only thing in our index that can fulfill a similar role for the same points, but they are much less independent. They crumble without a Beastmaster, have no ranged combat capabilities, no save etc.

BertBert wrote:
I disagree.

They are cheap, come with a decent save, good LD and a weapon that can wound most things on a 4+.

5+ is by no means a decent save. I don't give a damn about Leadership - that's what MSU is for. Also, their weapon was good back in 5th. With the new to-wound chart it's drastically worse.

BertBert wrote:
You can use them to screen more important units and bring bodies for point control for 7 points each - that's a pretty good deal in my book.

Except that DE is probably the army least in need of screening units. Our vehicles move about 14" per turn. What exactly is fast enough to catch up with them but which is completely unable to circumnavigate a few T3 models with 5+ saves?

And even if they do get into assault, unless they kill us outright we can just fly away next turn with basically no penalty.

BertBert wrote:
Razorwings Flocks are the only thing in our index that can fulfill a similar role for the same points, but they are much less independent. They crumble without a Beastmaster, have no ranged combat capabilities, no save etc.

Well, first off, I fail to see how Razorwings are any more vulnerable than Warriors.

However, if I was desperate for a screening unit for some reason, I would definitely use the Razorwings over the Warriors. The reason is that they're actually fast enough to keep pace with the transports or whatever that they're screening. In contrast, the Warriors have to be inside the transports to keep up with them (which does rather restrict their ability to screen those units). Now, sure, you can get them out . . . but then you either leave them behind immediately or else basically don't move your transports that turn. It also means that you're not using them to protect the contents of the transport - just the transport itself, which seems rather silly to me.

 vipoid wrote:

How good Splinter Rifles were in past editions has no relevance now. A 50% chance of wounding non-vehicles regardless of their toughness is a great quality for 7-point core troops.

MSU is a way of mitigating LD, but you'll also concede easy killpoints to your enemy. It's not the be-all and end-all, but I'll admit that I do favour this approach most of the time as well.

Kabalite Warriors are 5+/6+ which I consider a decent save for 7-point core troops.

Screening is relevant for us just as much as for other armies. Blocking an important charge, blocking the approach to an objective, protecting characters - there are so many uses for cheap blockers.
Razorwings are pretty good in that role, but they are limited otherwise. Kabalites bring a lot more utility to the table.

I'm not saying they are amazing, but they are ceretainly not useless.

I'm having a hard time justifying paying points to upgrade scourge weapons....

Screening units are also tar pits, an unit of 10 flock bases is 70 pts and has 40 wounds. Yeah they are toughness 2, and no save, but if you babysit them with a beast master with splinter mind they get to use the beast masters LD 9. They also have a 12" move and put out 80 attacks on the charge.. yes they need 5s to hit and 6s to wound toughness 4+ but they get rerolls to hit from the beast masters, and if you like synergy they have the Drukhari keyword so they can reroll 1s to wound if near a cronos too.

Without the cronos they will score 7 wounds on average against T4+ models with the BM nearby. More importantly they can eat up 40 wounds worth of attacks and as morale is based on casualties and they have LD 9 you can tarpit many things for multiple turns. Your opponent needs to score 16 wounds in a turn before morale is even a factor(4 flocks lost at LD 9 means you need to roll a 6 to lose one from morale).

The cronos turns the 7 wounds to 8 wounds, so not that amazing. However if you attacking toughness 3 the 80 attacks does about 15 wounds, if near a cronos it's 17 wounds. Not bad for a 70 pt unit plus beast master. Ideally though their best use is charging tanks or very shooty units without the fly keyword- or pre emptive charging an assault unit to tie it up.

Actually in my example there weren't only 5 more wounds (the warriors) but also another 6 with the fourth venom.

Venoms and raiders are paper things because they can't jink anymore. If you go with an expensive unit on one of those vehicles like a trueborn squads they become number one priority and they are dead turn 1. Spreading the blasters is actually useful. They arent' supposed to be the main anti tank, that's the lances' job. They should be a cheap support for the big guns. A unit of trueborn is not going to kill anything, is going to be a bullet magnet. You may need a bullet magnet but they're nothing more, if you want to strip wounds on high T multiwounds models take more lances.

With dark eldar MSU is the key, but it means having 8-10 units on the table. With raiders and venoms among the weakest ones.

I don't fear tanks or monstrous creatures, I fear armies like orks with 180 boyz which only cost 3/5 of the list.

Razorwing flocks are amazing on paper but a single base costs 10£ and they're not easy to convert (I've converted 8 grotesques and 5 talos and countless orks models/vehicles, so I'm not afraid of converting stuff). I only play WYSIWYG, and no way I'm going to pay 100£ for a few birds that worth only 70 points.

In order to play MSU we need cheap units, and 3-5 units of 5 kabalites in venoms seem a fair choice.

In 7th I used to play 15-18 reavers in units of three bikes, now they are too expensive and die more easily as they cannot jink anymore.

"If you're having to use comparisons this ridiculous and one-sided, it's a strong indicator that you don't have a good argument"

The argument is to have cheap units that actually do something, with kabalites in venoms I can dispose of a decent amount of wounds, considering infantries and vehicles, and some anti-infantry. What other options can we have?

blaktoof wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying paying points to upgrade scourge weapons....

Screening units are also tar pits, an unit of 10 flock bases is 70 pts and has 40 wounds. Yeah they are toughness 2, and no save, but if you babysit them with a beast master with splinter mind they get to use the beast masters LD 9. They also have a 12" move and put out 80 attacks on the charge.. yes they need 5s to hit and 6s to wound toughness 4+ but they get rerolls to hit from the beast masters, and if you like synergy they have the Drukhari keyword so they can reroll 1s to wound if near a cronos too.

Without the cronos they will score 7 wounds on average against T4+ models with the BM nearby. More importantly they can eat up 40 wounds worth of attacks and as morale is based on casualties and they have LD 9 you can tarpit many things for multiple turns. Your opponent needs to score 16 wounds in a turn before morale is even a factor(4 flocks lost at LD 9 means you need to roll a 6 to lose one from morale).

The cronos turns the 7 wounds to 8 wounds, so not that amazing. However if you attacking toughness 3 the 80 attacks does about 15 wounds, if near a cronos it's 17 wounds. Not bad for a 70 pt unit plus beast master. Ideally though their best use is charging tanks or very shooty units without the fly keyword- or pre emptive charging an assault unit to tie it up.

This kind of a screen is great for a big ol static gunline, but the deldar are better served with something small and fast. I think kabites make a good as needed screen

Has anyone tried a talos list yet? im kinda disappointed by their ap but i wonder how they do in practice

 Blackie wrote:


Razorwing flocks are amazing on paper but a single base costs 10£ and they're not easy to convert (I've converted 8 grotesques and 5 talos and countless orks models/vehicles, so I'm not afraid of converting stuff). I only play WYSIWYG, and no way I'm going to pay 100£ for a few birds that worth only 70 points.

That's why you buy the Crowz box from Zombicide. 6 birds per base, 15 per box, 20$ for the box. Cannot beat it.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727149.page

Here you go mate.

Fun fact: Ravager and a team of DL Scourges cost about the same points and their firepower on the move is equal.

Ravager is obviously much more durable while Scourges can use Winged Strike to deploy where you want them, when you want them. Which virtually allows you to DS a Ravager. And when you don't need to move the Scourges their firepower becomes greater than a Ravager's.

Both options are viable. Also, they don't compete for slots in the army. I think it's a good idea to take both instead of committing to either for improved tactical flexibility.

I want to like scourges but I'm not sold, especially their DL loadout. Being able to DS is nice, but in practice I don't think it's much better then the 50'' threat range enjoyed by the ravager. The ravager is also more durable and lances are assault weapons on it meaning it can hop around the map at will, whereas the scourge are hitting on 4's everytime they move. including the turn they DS. Statistically that is equal firepower, but a couple of lasguns can cut a scourge unit in half.

I think the general consensus about scourges is all about if you get the deepstrike opportunity or not. There is something nice about being able to set them up in a building and snipe as essentially emplacements, but I still prefer the ravager overall.

...I am going to stuff 12 blaster scourges in a tantalus, and drive it up into the most expensive armor bit the enemy has turn one. I just want to see what happens