1250 dark eldar

Okay so my local club does 1250 point games (so we can get several games in) and we are also doing a tale of gamers (paint 250 points a month). So this is a list I have been having too much success with, just after opinions on how 'op' it is

HQ
Archon
-Blaster
-Agoniser
-Shadow field
-Haywire grenades

TROOPS
10 warriors
-Blaster
-Raider with dark lance, splinter racks and night shields

10 warriors
-Blaster
-Raider with dark lance, splinter racks and night shields

10 warriors
-Blaster
-Raider with dark lance, splinter racks and night shields

ELITES
5 trueborn
-4 blasters
-Raider with dark lance and night shields

FAST ATTACK
5 scourge
-4 haywire blasters

Venom
-Extra splinter cannon

HEAVY SUPPORT
Void raven
-Night shields

adreal wrote:

So this is a list I have been having too much success with, just after opinions on how 'op' it is

Well, whether or not a list is overpowered has more to do with the quality and composition of the lists it's playing against than a generic scale.

Looking over your list I see multiple options I consider slightly sub-par to flat out poor choices, and you also have a fairly expensive assault-ish Archon running solo, which is certainly not a sign of a streamlined tournament list.

I'd say that probably anyone complaining is newer to the game and/or has limited options in their collection to build a list and that this is causing them more issues than your list being particularly overpowered.

I would suggest offering your opponents' advice or maybe doing something simple to make your list more in line with theirs if the goal is to have more competitive games.

Archon goes with the trueborn, and the agoniser is so I dont get bogged in assault, he isnt ment for combat, but its nice to have should he get in there (or when I charge for glory)

No one is complaining yet, and apart from tale games (limited to what we have painted) most players have several armies to choose from (or sevral thousand points of a single army)

So you think my army isnt op and ive had good luck and there isnt much you wouldchange?

adreal wrote:

So you think my army isnt op and ive had good luck and there isnt much you wouldchange?

That is a number of different things you are asking.

1. No - your army is probably not 'OP' except against players also not playing very polished lists, whereupon, in comparison too their lists it may be 'OP'. In the grand scheme of competitive 40k it is assuredly not 'OP'.

2. I do not know whether you've had good luck or not without getting to know a lot more about the battles you fought. You may have had good luck, or maybe you were playing less skilled opponents, or they may have had low quality lists, or some combination of any of the above, or maybe none of the above. I can't say with accuracy.

3. There is a lot I would change about the list because I consider it an underpowered and not optimally built list - but I didn't think you were asking for improvements upon it. If you'd like those we could do that, I see a number of ways to streamline for tougher play. My quick request would be a brief statement about your meta and also how you feel about allies and multiple detatchments, but, yeah, we could optimize it from where it's at.

I agree with Thor this is a very friendly DE list. Venoms, Grots, WWP bombs, Taloi coven formations, Razor Wing fleets is what tends to define competitive lists. That being said its a good casual list. You have a lot of bodies, a lot of AI via splinterfire, good anti-tank via the Scourge, Blasters, Lances, and the Void Raven, and at 1250 there probably wont be too many AA options to bring down the big bad bird. I think its a fun list that when played right against casual lists should do well but don't let people talk you into thinking this is OP cause its about as friendly as it gets!

Cavalier wrote:

but don't let people talk you into thinking this is OP cause its about as friendly as it gets!

Well, he is fielding a flyer - against some armies (especially at 1250) that's kind of an auto 'OP!' call. Admittedly he is fielding one of the cruddiest flyers in the game, I'll agree. But to my mind any flyer at all automatically is stepping you away from the friendly side of the equation because GW is still failing to incorporate them functionally.

Thor665 wrote:

But to my mind any flyer at all automatically is stepping you away from the friendly side of the equation because GW is still failing to incorporate them functionally.

At the risk of hi-jacking this thread, I was wondering if Thor could expand upon this point.  What should GW do to better integrate flyers into the game?

Not do it?

But the basic answer is this;

All armies in the game have the ability to kill infantry and can do so with multiple models.
All armies in the game have the ability to kill vehicles and can do so with multiple models.
Most armies in the game have 1 model that can oppose flyers, some have many, many models. In fact, some armies can field near total armies of fliers whilst others can field only 1 type and maybe only a handful, and that one type may or may not be good at any particular task.

Also;

Most weapons that can kill infantry can hurt vehicles in certain ways.
Most weapons that can hurt vehicles can kill infantry in certain ways.
Most weapons not built to harm flyers are generally ineffective against flyers, and the reverse is also true - making this a truly unique category.

The flyer situation is currently unbalanced and weird compared to all other unit types in the game. If I bring a lascannon I can kill mech, MEQ, and MCs with it, but it's a bit of a joke versus a flyer.
If I bring a Dissie I can kill mech, MEQ, and MCs with it, but it's a bit of a joke versus a flyer.
So I need to bring specific tools to deal with flyers - they operate outside of normal TAC, yet you are obligated to add them as a consideration - meaning they change the very concept of army building.

Thus, they are unbalanced, and thus are not really part and parcel of a generic fun tabletop experience - because if you bring even one, and your opponent hasn't brought anti-flyer tech, you have basically brought an invincible unit to the table. That is not very conducive to 'fun' gaming.

It's so nice to hear a grown-up give such a clear, concise and fair justification of why Flyers don't fit well with 40K.

I politely ask my opponents not to use them, for the reasons Thor outlined. They, and swooping FMCs, turn the game into a prolonged Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Thank you for the very clear and compelling explanation, Thor. Very eye-opening as the very small gaming group i play with does not use flyers in our games. Sadly, I only see flyers and FMCs in particular becoming more prevalent in most metas as people continue to come up with new Flyrant-based builds with Tyranids (which have quietly become a really good army).