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.

 Karhedron wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Does anyone happen to know if Dire Avengers are any good at the moment?

Also, regarding the Dire Avenger Exarch, are any of the melee options worth it?

I prefer Dire Avengers to Guardians. If you want small, cheap squads for CP farming, 5 Avengers are cheaper than 10 Guardians. Their improved range means they can shoot without automatically getting charged next turn. They are a bit tougher too.

They are nothing special but we need Troops for CPs and I find a mix of Avengers and Rangers works best for me. I don't think the melee options are worth it really. The Shimmershield has some value but a 5++ only kicks in if the enemy is firing Ap-2 or better weapons at you (or AP-3 if you are in cover). If you opponent is turning his big guns on lowly Avengers then the game is probably not going your way. I prefer the second catapult on the Exarch as it is nice firepower boost and pretty cheap.

I sometimes run 10-man squads in Transports or even in the webway to take Objectives, particularly with the CA2018 missions that use Continuous scoring. Not as efficient as 20 guardians for dropping a Shuriken bomb but if you are playing for objectives rather than tabling, the better range and durability come to the fore.

The key to keeping Avengers alive if you want to score objectives is to present the enemy with a range of more dangerous targets (not hard for Eldar to do). If you are playing a game without continuous scoring, they can work well be screening your more dangerous units from assault.

Against enemies that like to get close, I often run Avengers in Serpents for layered defense. I castle up the army with Reapers, Fire Prisms and other shooty units in the centre, surrounded by a shell of Serpents with a mix of Avengers and Wraithguard inside. When the enemy gets close or charges, They have to get through the Serpents first. Hopefully they won't have the muscle to kill the Serpents on the charge (although some armies can). In your turn the Serpents pull back while still being able to shoot (thanks to FLY) while the units inside disembark and hose the enemy with shurikens and D-scythes.

Used well, these units can normally buy a couple more turns for your shooty units to chew through the enemy and any counter-charge units to hurt them. Target priority is the key to pulling this off but very few armies can withstand several turns of Eldar firepower while they slowly hack their way through the Wraithbone hulls of your Wave Serpents.

Thanks, Karhedron, that's a really useful writeup.

I thought Fire Prisms were a proven and effective tool in the Eldar army? They're reasonably easy to hide and they all don't have to sit beside each other to use linked fire. I've not had very many problems when playing them either.

I also like to use barebones Avengers as a cheap CP generator and backfield objective holder along with a squad of Rangers. They don't do a lot, but they're easier to hide than 10 Guardians and they're cheap too. It lets me spend points on more Wave Serpents.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I thought Fire Prisms were a proven and effective tool in the Eldar army? They're reasonably easy to hide and they all don't have to sit beside each other to use linked fire. I've not had very many problems when playing them either.

Eldar in general are a faction that rely on avoiding a straight up fight in an open field. Use terrain to your advantage and Prisms are rock solid.

I guess they're okay against less powerful lists.

karandrasss wrote:
How do you 3x Prism players deal with Dawn of War/short table side deployments? So many things can cripple the linked fire shooting so easily.

Only 2/6 deployment maps actually let the opponent deploy opposite the prisms along the long table edge ("Dawn of War" and "Dawn of War withapointybit"). Half the time you are deploying second anyway so can avoid being opposite the opponents anti tank, and if you are deploying first Phantasm is always an option. But Prisms are rarely my opponents top priority anyway, at least when taking 3 of them, if you only have 2 then killing one is quite attractive.

However I'd never considered the deployment map to make much difference to the viability of prisms. "Football Pitch" lets you be further away, but limits the LoS advantages you get from deploying prisms far apart, meaning it's actually possible for the opponent to hide an important unit or 2 from them.

What are they shooting turn 1 if not Prisms?

Deploying in the middle lets you cut off the board, easier to reach Prisms that way unless they're on the far end of short table edge deployment.

karandrasss wrote:
I guess they're okay against less powerful lists.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now?

Bring flyers with you and they'll get targeted over the prisms. On turn 1 you'll have them hidden and/or screened.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
I guess they're okay against less powerful lists.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now?

Bring flyers with you and they'll get targeted over the prisms. On turn 1 you'll have them hidden and/or screened.

No.

Flyers are the next thing you shoot, if you don't have better targets, because you will waste a lot of shots especially if they LFR and you're BS4+. You can't hide all three except in short table range deployment where you have range advantage. Screens are good against melee but not Riptides, flyers, Lootas, Ravagers, even Dreadnoughts, any decently ranged AT really.

Dire Avengers

I've started taking 6x5 of these when running 2x Battalions.

Other than 20x Guardians in the Webway, our troops are a tax, which means they need to be cheap. This means it's a choice between:

5x Rangers
8x Storm Guardians
5x Dire Avengers

Other than paying the troops tax, these units have a few jobs:

1)Camping backfield objectives.
2)Scrapping over midfield objectives
3)Screening out deepstrikers
4))Move blocking advancing enemies


Rangers
1) They are the best at camping an objective in your own deployment zone due to having long range guns whilst being the most durable choice, as long as nothing gets close to them.
2)They are not very good at going out and claiming midfield objectives. Their durability drops a lot if they have to break cover and get close to the enemy, they hit on 4s if they move and can't shoot if they advance. The deepstrike ability is actually not much use against opponents who play well. If your opponent has played poorly you might be able to land right on an objective, but if you have to land nearby, survive a turn, then try to wrestle the objective from a grot squad, you're going to struggle.
3) They can screen against deepstrikers, but are the most expensive option to sacrifice in this way, and are not well suited to moving forward to screen the front of your army.
4)Likewise they are not ideally suited to running forward to move block advancing enemies.

Storm Guardians
1) Strictly worse at this than rangers. Both melt if anything gets close, but the Guardians are much more vulnerable to long range shooting, and have 0 damage output at range.
2) They also have practically 0 damage output at shorter ranges, and the higher body count coupled with low leadership is a liability. They do not do well at scrapping for midfield objectives.
3)The lowest cost and biggest footprint makes them the ideal troop for sacrificing to things like teleporting Orks, and for filling up the space in your backfield.
4)Similarly they are fine for rushing forward to move block, and don't have any other utility that is sacrificed in doing so.

Dire Avengers
1) Not as good as Rangers at camping but better than Storm Guardians. 18" range means they can shoot stuff in the middle of the board from your DZ. They're slightly less durable than rangers at close range if both are in cover, but will last longer in hth.
2) Fighting for midfield objectives is where the DAs really stand out vs. the other options. They actually have decent damage output at medium range, and don't sacrifice any of it moving at full speed. An average threat range of 28.5" means a few units of them can converge on a doomed target and be a real threat. They won't be taking on elite units, but can duke it out with other cheap objective grabbers thanks do their anti-infantry shooting, 3+ in cover, -1 to hit if you can dance in 12"-18", and overwatch on 5+.
3) The higher cost and smaller footprint makes them a worse screen than Stormies, but the 5+ Overwatch means they might do a little damage, and punishes units that fail a charge out of deepstrike.
4) I'd put them above Stormies as a move blocker because they can rush out to get in the way of an assault unit whilst still shooting to full effect, then get a bit more damage out of the 5+ to hit overwatch.


TLDR: Avengers are the best all round choice for cheap troops. Take a unit or two of Rangers for camping backfield objectives, then pay the rest of your tax with 5 man Avenger squads.

If 3x Prisms are so good, why aren't they making it to top 10 in Majors?

They do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OGwn4LxzO4

 Shadenuat wrote:
They do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OGwn4LxzO4

Not a major, a GT with Reece and friends. And only one GT this year.

To give you an idea of how competitive that GT is, Reece was the champ.

karandrasss wrote:If 3x Prisms are so good, why aren't they making it to top 10 in Majors?

Shadenuat wrote:They do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OGwn4LxzO4

Beat me to it, one of the lists even features Avengers. I like that list a lot!

karandrasss wrote:
What are they shooting turn 1 if not Prisms?

Whatever they determine to be the biggest/most immediate threat. Wave serpents are usually a priority target as de-meching a unit of Fire Dragons or Wraithguard before they move is like killing two birds with one stone. Shining Spears tend to attract a lot of fire for some reason.


I'm not going to argue that the most competitive lists need 3x Prisms btw, just that they are good and worth considering.

karandrasss wrote:
If 3x Prisms are so good, why aren't they making it to top 10 in Majors?

First, this:

 Shadenuat wrote:
They do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OGwn4LxzO4

Second, I would suspect a major reason they don't show up in many top 10s is because at the end of the day they are just a tank in a Knight meta.
Most players bring firepower to drop Knights, which is the same firepower needed to erase tanks. Flyers get an inherent -1 to hit which can stack with Alaitoc, so they worry much less about this kind of firepower.
But Prisms can potentially stay out of LoS with the help of some CPs

Deploy all 3 in a way that they are behind terrain, yet at least 1 Prism has a spot it can move to within 8" (half its move rate) and be in LoS of the other 2.
Move that Prism up, used Linked Fire. The Fire & Fade to move it back out of LoS. Remember that the first Prism to "trigger" Linked Fire is also the last the fire, meaning it combos well with Fire & Fade.
It's CP heavy to do this every turn, but can be very usefull if needed and the terrain is compatible (which in my experience, it never is)

-

I haven't seen Fire Dragons in a loooooooooooong time. And if you want to use them, they should be deep striking. Shining Spears are easier to hide turn 1 than 3 tanks. It doesn't take much to kill 1 Prism, but a lot to kill a flyer unless you tech for it. So really, only a bad player will not try to kill a Fire Prism to avoid the laser of doom (which is a pretty big, immediate threat).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you guys not fighting things that can move and shoot?

Having extra 5 Dragons in your list is not bad, and I've seen them. But you don't want to DS - it is incredibly easy to screen from them for you opponent even just by accident.

You want to advance from WS, maybe with Matchless Agility, and then try and use FnF to hide somewhere or at least get 2+ save.

 Shadenuat wrote:
Having extra 5 Dragons in your list is not bad, and I've seen them. But you don't want to DS - it is incredibly easy to screen from them for you opponent even just by accident.

You want to advance from WS, maybe with Matchless Agility, and then try and use FnF to hide somewhere or at least get 2+ save.

This sounds like a friendlier meta (Fire Dragons in Wave Serpents) and no doubt 3x Fire Prisms will do well here.

I am not sure I know what is competetive or friendly meta for you americans anymore lol.

But I've seen them in a MSU tournament list which was based around getting points I believe, and I like them myself in friendly meta too.

Well the Fire Dragon just has weaknesses, namely the need for a delivery system and poor survivability. So typically you deep strike it and hope for a good trade off before they die next turn, but other wise you get more consistent output from flyers/War Walkers/even Dark Reapers.

They usually bring back their points from first salvo so it's not that bad. And Reapers also like them a WS.

karandrasss wrote:
I haven't seen Fire Dragons in a loooooooooooong time. And if you want to use them, they should be deep striking. Shining Spears are easier to hide turn 1 than 3 tanks. It doesn't take much to kill 1 Prism, but a lot to kill a flyer unless you tech for it. So really, only a bad player will not try to kill a Fire Prism to avoid the laser of doom (which is a pretty big, immediate threat).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you guys not fighting things that can move and shoot?

I'm not going to argue for the virtues of Fire Dragons! They were just an easy example of something that would rate as a higher threat.

Only a bad player won't shoot the Prisms first? If Prisms are so scary that they will be every opponents first target then surely they are a good unit? It's not like they are a glass hammer whose damage output massively exceeds their durability. They are a good all rounder that puts out reliable damage and requires a fair amount of effort to kill. It's not like Predators where you can kill one (a lot easier than killing a Fire Prism) then ignore the other 2, the third Prism is for redundancy.

If I'm going second I expect to lose a unit. If that unit is a Fire Prism that's an acceptable loss to me, because I (like most of my opponents) don't consider them to be my best units.


Is 3x Prisms as good as 3x Crimson Hunter Exarchs? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean they're not still good.

People just like shooting at Prisms more than at -2 Flyers. Not only they see Prism as easier target but that way they also lower your chances for Linked Fire. Prisms also keep you from losing if rule about Flyers is in effect and Flyers don't score points, right?

Yes, 3 Prisms are scary (unless you have invulns everywhere). My point was always that it's easy to take that to 2 Prisms, which is much less scary. They're not bad, but I suggested it's easy to kill a Prism turn 1 which people seem passionate about disagreeing with.

Well, it's 33% less scary if you kill 33% of the Prisms.

Maybe Prisms will become more common in a less knight heavy meta, along with other tanks. They are more durable than other tanks of a similar stat line, thanks to Alaitoc and LFR, but they have more competition from good flyers than other armies tanks do.

A little more than that, because you will likely have to move a surviving Prism to get LOS, so you have one shooting at 4+.

karandrasss wrote:
Are you guys not fighting things that can move and shoot?

Sure but between the regular -1 to Hit for Alaitoc, LFR and F&F, my Fire Prisms usually last long enough to make a big hole in things. Granted I don't play top-level tournies but my LGC is fairly competitive and I often play people testing out their tourney lists. With a bit of care, I can usually make sure that not enough units can draw LOS to my Prisms to get significant damage through the -2 to-Hit.

As crazy as it sounds I think id rather run 3 night spinners in a list with 3 fliers over 3 prisms. However I would rather run 3 prisms on their own over 3 night spinners.

Caveat: I only have the one tank at the moment so not speaking from any experience rather then vicarious bat reps and "on paper" ideas. Call meh crazy.

I hated Spinners for their random shots and random AP, but I admit the 112 ppm price tag looked very tasty to me lately to add a substantial amount of D2 into army. With that price tag a T7 tank does look quite spammy and sturdy. You're almost getting a third Spinner for free compared to pre-FAQ Spinners, and that makes them more than a third more durable to Prism.

If only they could move and shoot without penalty for some extra lifting on the battlefield like screening things or going for a point, or had a Flamer-like alternative mode...

The Falcon with Starcannon is also pretty cheap. But again, the way penalty from moving can sometimes stack with degradation and -1 to hit (a few armies do have it), you end up overwatching with your heavy weapons if you want to move. Feels bad man.

Well, I already tried 3 Falcons (stop looking at me like that), I had some ideas on running CH Exarches with Starcannons, some Vypers (also with Starcannons, for just 55 ppm, maybe even Saim-Hann) and Spinners together to brutalize gilmarines and some other W2 stuff. Maybe I will one day.

Been mulling Warp Hunters myself, just a couple of them, to form the new backline now that it's not double shooting Dark Reapers in there.