Dark Eldar - Melee Army possible

Genestealers do not need our transports. If they were embarked in a Raider, they couldn't achieve the first turn charges that they can achieve. Being in a transport would be wasted points for them. Being in a tyrannid/GSG army offers them so much more.


But i get your point, there is internal balance to consider. To which I reply : there is external balance to consider. You can't always avoid comparisons saying "different armies, different point costs, seems okay". There is no reason to field wyches when you could field genestealers, ork boyz, or marine Vanguards. They are one of the least interesting melee specialist unit in the game, and that cannot be justified by "oh well, they got access to transports, it's fine".

Mppqlmd wrote:

Genestealers do not need our transports. If they were embarked in a Raider, they couldn't achieve the first turn charges that they can achieve. Being in a transport would be wasted points for them. Being in a tyrannid/GSG army offers them so much more.


But i get your point, there is internal balance to consider. To which I reply : there is external balance to consider. You can't always avoid comparisons saying "different armies, different point costs, seems okay". There is no reason to field wyches when you could field genestealers, ork boyz, or marine Vanguards. They are one of the least interesting melee specialist unit in the game, and that cannot be justified by "oh well, they got access to transports, it's fine".

I wasn't mean to avoid, I was meaning to judge rightful.

And there is reasons in my opinion, because we have them. Anyone has his units, we can't have a game where anyone have any unit.

Tyr sucks in antitank range, where we are amazing. But their shooting is good for them, because their shoot is complementary for their CC.
We are the opposite: our CC works only to support our shooting. Tyr doesn't say "we doesn't have lascannons so we don't play hive guards". They say "we have more CC than a SM, so let them to have lascannons: our shooting is enough for us, CC wil complete the work".
Our CC is the opposite: is a tarpit for shooting positions, is expendable, or is good to kill large R3 mobs. That's all.

So, a fully CC army doesn't work in my opinion. But a fully shooting army doesn't work at the same time. Finding a place for some CC in my lists helped me a lot in these months. OF COURSE we need a Codex, and some units are overpriced. But some onther melee units are pretty good right now for us.

If we shine in shooting, we can't shine in melee. The thing is to understand what our melee is there for.

Why should we settle for the dull "shine" of our antitank shooting? We're clearly meant to have a focus on melee, and GW has made it obvious that an army is allowed to outshine others in both aspects. Besides, our melee is only there for support because it is underpowered. For a comparable cost other, better selling, armies get better melee and shooting.

... I don't know what tyranid you've been looking at but they have plenty of Antitank shooting ... Admittedly they will kill a tank faster in combat but that doesn't mean they can't shoot one off the table ... Especially now that everything can harm a tank ... My brother plays Nids ... Helped him build a heavy shooting list back in 7th and it's only gotten stronger this edition ... His list can punch out a lot of mortal wounds (not from smite ... Even more with smite) ... At least 18 Str8 and str9 ap -2 and better shots doing D3 and D6 damage they also have a much better version of or haywire blaster "Shock cannon str7 AP -1 assault D3 24" range if the target is a vehicle on a 4+ the target suffers 1 mortal wound or on a 6+ D3 mortal wounds in addition to any other damage taken from this weapon" ... So ... Where exactly are they lacking in AT shooting? And correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure GSC has access to lascannon's and basically anything a guardsman can bring ... So once again ... Am I missing something in the department of "tyranid don't have Antitank shooting" ... Cause the way I see it not only do they have the melee power of genestealers they also have the shooting power equivalent to us in terms of AT and the shooting power of the Imperium ... So ... I'm sorry that I don't buy the "Tyranids melee is balanced out by lesser shooting" argument here ...

As always I will point out that all 3 of our HQs are Melee focused, along with 2 out of our 3 subfactions. This means that the majority of our codex is geared towards, if not exclusively focused on, melee. also 1 of our 2 independent units.

So a melee-heavy army "Should" be possible. It's just that our melee options, for the most part, suck.

FuelDrop wrote:

As always I will point out that all 3 of our HQs are Melee focused, along with 2 out of our 3 subfactions. This means that the majority of our codex is geared towards, if not exclusively focused on, melee. also 1 of our 2 independent units.

So a melee-heavy army "Should" be possible. It's just that our melee options, for the most part, suck.

This

We are a mostly melee army (with good anti tank shooting so we can reach our targets). Unfortunately most of our melee is bad enough that it right now can only fullfil a side role since a lot of the more dedicated melee units are not viable enough to build strategies around them.

Shooting Tyr are just too weak. There's a lot of ways to shut down their fire (which is fine but not so terrible). The only great source of fire are 30 Dakkagants with a Prime, that will shoot 180 shots. A great tool for the CC incoming.
Ahooting Tyr is playable, it's fine, but definitely not as any other good shooting army. It's not a shooting army. (Yes I know Tyr).

And no, we are not a melee army. We have melee tools, but we never had powerful units as a DeathCompany, Genestealers, Wolfriders, Melee Centurions, big MCs etc. Our close combat was always seen as an harras CC. A lot of armies have HQ for the combat, heck, even the Ethereal is a melee unit. But since 5th, poison shots and moving fast are our major tools. In 3th edition yes, we were a melee unit. But we never had a real battering ram unit, always fast little harrass melee units.

Which is precisely how a raider should work. DE are not battlefield army, they are a raid army. The strike weaken points, they'll never be able to take down big guys in melee imho. I think that if someone want a fully brute CC army should try Khorne, not DE. DE are smart, not physics. Their CC were and will be alway an harras type of melee.

Cerve wrote:

And no, we are not a melee army. We have melee tools, but we never had powerful units as a DeathCompany, Genestealers, Wolfriders, Melee Centurions, big MCs etc.

Beaststar begs to differ. God I miss the Baron!!

Cerve wrote:

And no, we are not a melee army. We have melee tools, but we never had powerful units as a DeathCompany, Genestealers, Wolfriders, Melee Centurions, big MCs etc.

And why do you think this is? We have units that are supposed to be that but aren't because GW's writers are incompetent. In no edition were a majority of our melee units considered viable, even on a casual level. We always have fifty underpowered, "harass" melee units and one or two (random) decent to great melee units, along with the same few good shooting units.

The fact is, we have a massive number of melee options.

If they all did what they were supposed to do in a competent fashion, we would be a glass cannon melee-focused army with solid ranged support and excellent mobility.

Due to the poorly constructed rules we are stuck with, we are a middling speed ranged army with a few passable melee choices.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at. I can only hope that the codex will help fix this. Also, since I didn't play all that much during 5th, was a melee (specifically covens) army viable back then? The old webway portals were always much cooler and more interesting to me.

Cerve wrote:

And no, we are not a melee army. We have melee tools, but we never had powerful units as a DeathCompany, Genestealers, Wolfriders, Melee Centurions, big MCs etc. Our close combat was always seen as an harras CC. A lot of armies have HQ for the combat, heck, even the Ethereal is a melee unit. But since 5th, poison shots and moving fast are our major tools. In 3th edition yes, we were a melee unit. But we never had a real battering ram unit, always fast little harrass melee units.

Which is precisely how a raider should work. DE are not battlefield army, they are a raid army. The strike weaken points, they'll never be able to take down big guys in melee imho. I think that if someone want a fully brute CC army should try Khorne, not DE. DE are smart, not physics. Their CC were and will be alway an harras type of melee.

I agree we are a raid army not a brawler. So yes we should not be able to stand in front of a khorne beserker and let him charge and kill him.
We are supposed to be more physical then our craftworld kin, but when initially our melee specialist (wyches) are worse than their milita in melee without resorting to drugs (even then only in some cases) that annoys me. Sure after turn 3 we become slightly better (having 5 hits to their 4) but that also means the battle is usually already nearly over.
Succubi who in the lore fight big and large monsters should be able to take down big guys in melee. Yes they might get flattened themselves if they fail since as you mentioned we are a raid army and we either kill something or get out. But we should be able to kill most stuff in melee (and do it fast). What we should not be is an army that does well in brawling for multiple turns in melee (hello special rule wyches).
I think that we should be able to kill most things in melee, not by brute force but by overwelming attacks. Now we do not need the str 6 that khorne can have, nor do we need the 3+ armour save of deathcompany, but we should be fast and precize and be able to kill our enemies that way, so I think  wyches with more attacks than khorne beserkers but with a lower str and worse defenses is no problem. Mandrakes who have always been a melee option with a small amount of shooting have turned into a shooting unit.
I think the main issue is that our wych cult should be more in line with harlequins. They did this quite well for the harlequin troops and characters, who hit very hard, but need some skills to make sure they do not die to the first bolters that are pointed their way. Do you realise a normal harlequin trooper fights pretty much as well as our succubus? Our succubus who is in the lore the one to take on the big beasts actually fights worse than an average khorne beserker.
Talos do have (for our army) high str and deal multiple wounds to deal with though opponents, but most of his weapons are like a lasgun when trying to go trough armour.

We have 3 HQ none start with a gun and 2 have the options for a non pistol gun
We have 10 Elites 3 with a gun (and 1 other with the option for a flamer) and even those with guns all have multiple attacks.
We have 3 troops 1 with a gun (and one where the champion can have a sniper rifle....)
We have 6 nonvehicle fast attack half with a gun (and of those again 2 have multiple attacks)
We have 2 nonvehicle heavy support both with a gun but multiple attacks
We have 5 vehicles all with guns (but 3 still with reasonable melee skills)

So of our nonvehicles we have 24 units, 11 pure melee units, 11 mixed units, 2 pure shooting units and 5 vehicles geared to shooting
We are build as an melee army with some shooting, not the other way around. We might not be the pure melee like orks, but even orks have more shooting units than we do (yes that means any ork with 2 attacks I called a mixed unit so if you ad their loota's, burna boys, flash gits, tankbusta's they add another 4 easy and we get to add our trueborn).

It is true, some of our melee units are overpriced, or just not so good.

We never have had strong melee choices? Excuse me while I weep at the memory of my reavers destroying entire tac squads by their HOW alone.
Both coven and cult are almost exclusively cc armies.. But they suck so much they are nearly unplayable. Dark Eldar are a 66% cc army, and 33% shooting army, but for now only the shooting part is viable.

Sent from Topic'it App

And I'd like to make a point for the Grotesquerie as well.

There was nothing more satisfying than rolling a "+1 Toughness" on the Latest Experiments table at the beginning of a game. I do miss my rampaging Grotesques...

Reavers where good by flying over units two Codex ago.
Those D3/D6 dmg in impact never maked them as a "strong mele unit".
Even Incubi are strong against those units. Does they make strong melee units?


The only one, really STRONG unit that we had were 20 Hellions+Baron+2 pain tokens in turn 1.

Cerve wrote:

The only one, really STRONG unit that we had were 20 Hellions+Baron+2 pain tokens in turn 1.

Again, Beaststar begs to differ. Hellions had better shooting but beasts were waaaaay better in combat back in 5e.

No way. Hellions hit harder, were faster, were able to shoot, they were tpught, and they had H&R.
Beast pack was usefull only because was the best way to pack in Vect.

With the trick of double token (ie. Haemi with Hellions, Wracks with Baron. First turn, split and put the Baron into Hellions..both with 1 token), you were going to hit with 3 attacks in charge, at str minimum 5.
They were way strongest than beast, in all front.

Cerve wrote:

No way. Hellions  hit harder, were faster, were able to shoot, they were tpught, and they had H&R.
Beast pack was usefull only because was the best way to pack in Vect.

With the trick of double token (ie. Haemi with Hellions, Wracks with Baron. First turn, split and put the Baron into Hellions..both with 1 token), you were going to hit with 3 attacks in charge, at str minimum 5.
They were way strongest than beast, in all front.

For the same points as 20 Hellions I was getting 5 Beastmasters (1 with Agoniser), 15 Khymerae and 4 Razorwing Flocks. They moved the same distance as the Hellions, had more than twice as many wounds, same toughness, better saves (4++ vs 5+), waaaaay more attacks (60 S4, 10 S3, 24 S3 Rending). Only thing they lost out on was +1S (only on the charge) and hit and run.

Ehm...you forgot the 2 tokens. Hellions got save 5+ and fnp 4+. their saves were way better than Beastmasters.
And they were TROOPS.
And they got Hit&Run, the strongest special rule of the edition. What you were able to do with Hellions, you weren't be able to do with any other unit.
You were able to tarpit those Beasts. You weren't able to block the Hellions: you HAD to kill all of them (and in shooting it was painful, cover save+old FnP).

Oh I forgot: they were able to strip an HQ from his unit with thei H&R, the only unit able to do that. This and H&R makes them one of the most tactical (and strongest) unit in the game.

No way, Hellions were better in all, hands down. That's the problem of few players, they just think about firepower or meleepower, without considering the real effect of rules, moving and size. That's why I say that this game is not only math.

The fact this is a legit debate makes me miss 5th edition. There were multiple builds back then...

Eheh that's true the nostalgic path of a DE.

Next ones are Tau, then Necron...then, finally, us. Let's wait April in our struggles

Cerve wrote:

Ehm...you forgot the 2 tokens. Hellions got save 5+ and fnp 4+. their saves were way better than Beastmasters.

You're forgetting that 5+ saves were all but worthless as pretty much every weapon had AP5 or better. Also FNP was negated by a lot of weapons (anything S6+ or AP1 or 2). I'm rolling 4++ against everything.

Quote :

And they were TROOPS.

And they got Hit&Run, the strongest special rule of the edition. What you were able to do with Hellions, you weren't be able to do with any other unit.

You were able to tarpit those Beasts. You weren't able to block the Hellions: you HAD to kill all of them (and in shooting it was painful, cover save+old FnP).

Oh I forgot: they were able to strip an HQ from his unit with thei H&R, the only unit able to do that. This and H&R makes them one of the most tactical (and strongest) unit in the game.

Those are all good points but you have to offset them against the better resilience and offensive output of the beasts.

You started off saying we never had powerful melee units and now you're arguing over which was the most powerful. Make your mind up!

I'm not argue between two units: I still belive that Hellions were the only one. But it's ok we are OP.

PS: ts5+/4+ was for melee. For shooting you had always a 4+ in cover. I still belive Hellions were far better than Beasts, who suffered a lot of things (first of it, their absurd size).

I remember playing hellions in 5th edition ...and they sucked for me mostly because of flamers and large blasts ... and I'm fairly certain that 5 beast masters 15 khymaeras and 4 flocks had roughly the same footprint as 20 hellions + Sathonyx ... It might be slightly bigger on the beast size by 4 models but still pretty close to the same size.