Dark Eldar Dark Lances

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.

**koooaei**

vipoid wrote:
koooaei wrote:
I think you should focus on blasters. Now those are nuts. Taking into consideration that half an army can take them.

Do you think so?

They're basically metlas with +6" of range but only do d3 damage and don't get a reroll in half-range.

There's a huge context difference here. You can have a bunch of blasters for quite cheap zooming across the battlefield in an open-topped vehicle. You usually can't have this with meltas. +6 range is huge. It's a difference between getting charged or not. From my experience, squads of blasterborn in raiders/venoms or scorges are (can easilly mix and match but don't go overboard with scourges - they're not plasma scion level of effectiveness). There are other sources of blasters and blast pistols like archons, witches, etc.
As for dark lances - in vacuum they are better cheaper lazcannons but the platforms themselves are not that durable.

**vipoid**

koooaei wrote:

There's a huge context difference here. You can have a bunch of blasters for quite cheap zooming across the battlefield in an open-topped vehicle. You usually can't have this with meltas.

No, that is good. But I'd argue that that's a function of open-topped vehicles, rather than Blasters.

koooaei wrote:
+6 range is huge. It's a difference between getting charged or not.

Sure. But d6 damage is also huge. You're basically averaging almost twice the damage per shot (more in half-range).

koooaei wrote:
From my experience, squads of blasterborn in raiders/venoms or scorges are (can easilly mix and match but don't go overboard with scourges - they're not plasma scion level of effectiveness).

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Regardless, I agree that Blasters are good. However, do bear in mind that they're basically all DE infantry have. They don't have a plasma-equivalent or a Grav-equivalent or even a basic Flamer-equivalent on most of their units. So, that Blaster has to serve quite a lot of roles. And, frankly, this is the first edition I can remember when it hasn't just been overpriced garbage.

koooaei wrote:

As for dark lances - in vacuum they are better cheaper lazcannons but the platforms themselves are not that durable.

I assume by 'better' you're referring to the fact that they're Assault weapons? Otherwise, I'm not seeing how they're better - if anything the S9 on the lascannon seems more useful than the extra AP on the Dark Lance (since many heavy vehicles are T8, meaning the Lascannon only needs 3s to wound them, compared to 4s for the Dark Lance).

**the_scotsman**

Pancakey wrote:
broxus wrote:
Does anyone else think that GW made dark lances and dark eldar vehicles in general way to cheap? What really makes them broken for only 20 points is that they are assault weapons on vehicles. This means they are hitting on 3's against everything even if they move. They have a similar stat line to meltaguns with a 36" range. It just seems they made these things way to cheap and now I am seeing lists with 18-20 dark lances plus blaster guns in lists. Needless to say how can you possibly survive that when they get first turn?? If they made them heavy I think it would resolve most of these issues. Similar to the way multimeltas are.

This isn't an issue with the lance, dark eldar, or you.

Right now 8th edition is built around the idea that one of the players will remove all of the other players models by turn 3. The only way to accomplish this goal from a design point is to raise the damage potential so high that players start removing massive parts of thier opponents army turn 1.

Welcome to the new reality. Adjust accordingly.

While I have seen three turn tablings (especially with/against my Dark Eldar) that's not exactly different from how they performed in 7th. I have felt like things definitely move and die faster, but looking back at my games after I've kept track of them, that's because the game itself plays faster - my games have been going the same number of turns, but those turns have been taking less time. And the second I tried building a higher-durability list (this last week, I played an all wraith/pain engine list for the 2nd week Konor mission) boom, I was back to only losing 5-6 models per turn and the game could easily go 7 turns before anyone got tabled.

**Talamare**

Just saying, does anyone think they should change the name from Dark Lance to Void Lance or Druk Lance

**vipoid**

Talamare wrote:
Just saying, does anyone think they should change the name from Dark Lance to Void Lance or Druk Lance

Obviously it needs to be something that GW can copyright, so perhaps Druakri Lance. Hmm, but then they can't copyright 'Lance' So how about Rak'nai'tui Lair'kan'trikis?

**MechaEmperor7000**

Talamare wrote:
Just saying, does anyone think they should change the name from Dark Lance to Void Lance or Druk Lance

I actually like Void Lance.

**jade_angel**

There actually already is a Void Lance - it's the main weapon on the Voidraven Bomber, which is probably why nobody's ever seen one before

**Talamare**

jade_angel wrote:
There actually already is a Void Lance - it's the main weapon on the Voidraven Bomber, which is probably why nobody's ever seen one before

So what you're saying is...

We don't even need to rename it?
We just delete Dark Lance, and give everyone Void Lances?

**MechaEmperor7000**

There's a "Lost in the void" joke here somewhere. Must be buried along with everyone else's voidravens.

DOHOHO

*badpun*

**ncshooter426**

jade_angel wrote:
There actually already is a Void Lance - it's the main weapon on the Voidraven Bomber, which is probably why nobody's ever seen one before

It's only slightly better than a std darklance, which is why no one runs them in 8th now. Dscythe does way better overall against both tanks and infantry. The voidraven itself is a brutal war machine - I run 3.

**Insectum7**

I mean, I can get 20 Lascannons into a list and the OP would be in pretty much the same spot.

Dark Lance is fine.

**Leatherjacket9**

What you are concerned about is not actually anything new. What you're struggling with has been around for awhile and other players have dealt with it just fine. In 7th edition vehicles were relentless and could move and still fire weapons at their full bs. Eldar especially DE had fast vehicles in 7th which allowed them to move 12" and fire all their weapons at full bs. This is not necessarily new, the change in movement from 12” to 14" isn't a big deal when looking at a 36" range anyway.

Also take into consideration that these vehicles aren't getting a jink save anymore of a 4+, adding to a 3+ with the shield upgrade. But yes there are pros and cons on how things worked in 7th vs 8th now... And DE has always been a glass cannon army. They can give it out but can't take it.

I would suggest seeking out advice from players who have found out strategies on how to deal with DE rather than simply saying they are over powered with what they have pretty much always had.

Also the reasoning behind the the low cost Lance weapons is that they sacrifice armor and toughness for speed and fire power. In this, it doesn't cost as much as it would to mount a Lance weapon on a raider as it would to mount a lascannon on a landraider, stormraven, or predator. From a fluff stand point you can even imagine that the Aeldari have been building & mastering this tech for many millennia and have simply figured out a way to make and mount them on vehicles cheaper. View it how ever you like, which ever allows you to accept what "is" and find a different approach than the one you have been taking. If you can't do that, then that means you entered into a forum with your mind already made up in the form of a question.