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.
I won both matchups with this and another matchup with something very very similar (autarch skyrunner in for wave serpent) which was broadcast on a stream (anyone can PM me for a link for that if they like)
Here is the thing with infantry/model count/flesh.
What I find is that when I add it to achieve some "balance" what ends up happening is that it works against me. Why? Well it gives the opponent a viable target for their mortars, stubbers, bolters, wyverns etc.
Now if I saturate it with vehicles it usually renders a lot of the opponents guns relatively useless.
Also with the reasonable amount of total units I am able to screen out my backfield pretty effectively and minimize opponents secondaries while being able to achieve recon rather easily myself.
At NOVA I made the mistake of trying to take a more balanced list with some dire avengers, guardians etc. They just provided easy targets for the opposition for their weapons that would not be effective against my vehicles.
This is my experience regarding Infantry heavy lists as well. Why give my opponent such easy targets, especially if those targets are in the list for such an important purpose (objectives) and my opponent knows it/is prepare to remove them?
Pretty much why 3x 5 Rangers are my competitive go-to Battalion fillers. I've also used a min unit of Stormies to decent effect. They died turn 1, but prevented 20 Death Company marines getting to my Prisms/Spears. Worth every point.
It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to intentionally sacrifice precious Eldar lives.
Galef wrote: This is my experience regarding Infantry heavy lists as well. Why give my opponent such easy targets, especially if those targets are in the list for such an important purpose (objectives) and my opponent knows it/is prepare to remove them?
Pretty much why 3x 5 Rangers are my competitive go-to Battalion fillers. I've also used a min unit of Stormies to decent effect. They died turn 1, but prevented 20 Death Company marines getting to my Prisms/Spears. Worth every point.
It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to intentionally sacrifice precious Eldar lives.
-
I agree with all of this.
However that is not to say an infantry based eldar army can't do well! It totally can!! Just don't mix both infantry and vehicles in such an equal measure to give your opponent perfect targets for each of their attacks!
For example if going a foot heavy list I will make sure not give give an easy "big game hunter" by limiting vehicles/monsters (units with 7 or more wounds) to 2 or 3 so even if they are shooting those units they are not collecting valuable secondary mission points.
Again all this will vary based on the nature of the missions and the secondary/primary objectives you have to work with.
For me? I prefer mech lists as my back hates moving massive amounts of infantry around all day while on my feet and perhaps for the next day and day after that!!
What I find is that when I add it to achieve some "balance" what ends up happening is that it works against me. Why? Well it gives the opponent a viable target for their mortars, stubbers, bolters, wyverns etc.
Now if I saturate it with vehicles it usually renders a lot of the opponents guns relatively useless.
This is a direct consequence of the Lanchester square law.
If you double say the tanks, the enemy has to four-fold the anti-tank weapons.
The law was heavily used in WWII.
Lots of flyers in the list.
How about Ravagers as they have decent damage output?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 08:15:57
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
What I find is that when I add it to achieve some "balance" what ends up happening is that it works against me. Why? Well it gives the opponent a viable target for their mortars, stubbers, bolters, wyverns etc.
Now if I saturate it with vehicles it usually renders a lot of the opponents guns relatively useless.
This is a direct consequence of the Lanchester square law.
If you double say the tanks, the enemy has to four-fold the anti-tank weapons.
The law was heavily used in WWII.
Lots of flyers in the list.
How about Ravagers as they have decent damage output?
That’s a sweet nugget of historical info! Props.
You know I do actually have the 3 ravagers archon thing and think I’ll try it out in my list this weekend. I used it once at a tourney last year with mixed results.
The offense is outstanding with the reroll 1s with the writ. The reason why I shied away is that if you notice the list everything is at least -1 to hit. If I go 2nd that is huge. The ravagers become a juicy target and I become dependent on terrain and or going first. Screaming Jets is too many CP and losing that volume of firepower for a turn is not in my system of beliefs!
But I will totally give it a shot. I do like that it’s a good roaming firebase that can sit on or grab objectives unlike flyers
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
