how much dark light

Lances and blasters can be a major part of ani tank in our army list. We have other means from our scourges, MCs, etc. I'm not a huge fan of the coven side of Dark Eldar, which eliminates some of the good assault units.

How much dark light/anti tank would be sufficiant in a competitive all comers list? These are the numbers I have play tested, and feel like I'm getting close:
1000pts- 16
1500pts- 21
2000pts- 27

Of course their is no "right" number. I guess I'm just curious how much dark light other Archon's are fielding to be competitive

I guess it kind of depends on how much poison you are also able to bring. If at 1500 points you're bringing 100 poison shots and 21 lances then that's pretty nice. If you have more like 40 poison shots I would look at getting more poison or dissies into your list. Obviously at 1000 16 lances is fantastic. But at what cost, you know what I mean?

Yeah, I used to be all about warriors with blasters in venoms to get that max poison shot, for cheap. Lately, my gunboats have done pretty well. Its nice to have that 36 inch range dark lance shot. You pop the tanks first few turns (theoretically) then move in a bit closer to get into rapid fire range with racks. I bring 3 ravagers with DL every game, except 1000pt I bring 2. So far I have not felt like I needed that much more dark light, except at the higher point games. To help with infantry, the razorwing has performed well (sometimes) I also get 2 DL shots from it which is bonus. In my 1000pt list, which I'm having more success with than 1500 points and higher so far, I have 2 gun boats with racks no blasters, a razorwing with DL, blaster born with blaster wwp archon in raider, and 2 ravagers with dl

My last list (1850) had one dark lance in it. It was Coven heavy though. I use Reavers (with Caltrops) as my main tank hunting unit.

I second Vasara I have no Dark Light in my list, but it's pure coven. It's the only way I can be sure I won't suffer the Dark Lance Curse.

So true about the DL curse. The math hammer vs in game function never add up to what its are supposed to be. Reavers with caltrops is another great option.

My 1850 list brings 2 lance ravagers, 3 lance raiders, a lance razorwing and two blasters in venoms.

That is supplemented though by a blast pistol on my archon, 4 scourges with heat lances and another 4 with haywire blasters.

Last night was the first time i've felt like i need a little more, but then I was facing a 2000pt marine army with 3 razorbacks, land raiders redeemer, predator, dreadnought and storm talon. Even then my opponent only had one functioning razorback at the end of the game and the storm talon (dread was alive but immobile).

that list has destroyed a mech imperial guard list too, think there's a report in my battle log.

I've recently started playing a 1k Coven/Harlequin list, also with no darklight. My Dark Artisan Talos has a heat lance, and the three characters in the Cast of Players formation have haywire grenades. I've only played one game with it so far, but it was against a mechanized Iron Hands army with six or seven tanks and Rhinos, and I didn't have any trouble pulling them apart.

Nariaklizhar wrote:

So true about the DL curse. The math hammer vs in game function never add up to what its are supposed to be.

In my experience, the mathhammer is pretty accurate as to what darklight weapons do - nothing.

The Shredder wrote:

Nariaklizhar wrote:

So true about the DL curse. The math hammer vs in game function never add up to what its are supposed to be.

In my experience, the mathhammer is pretty accurate as to what darklight weapons do - nothing.

I'd say that's overly negative (in my view) - sure, each one is not a devastating vehicle killer in its own right, but that's why we can take lots of them - I don't think any archon in their right mind would say that one triple lance ravager is sufficient for all your anti tank needs, but when you chuck 10+ at an opponent in a single turn (or 20+ as is possible if you really max them out) something is going to stick, that how the main army mechanic works in general, lots of darklight, lots of poison, and both weapon types remain equally effective against the full range of targets available to them (ie toughness values are ignored, armour values above 12 are treated as 12, haywire ignores armour values completely). Of all the armies in 40k, I'd say we parhaps have the most mathammerey (is it a word? It is now!) based strategy, as the performance of our weapons is more statistically predictable across a wider variety of targets.

Of course dice throw that all up in the air at times (my first turn last night the first ravager managed to miss all three of its shots at a land raider, but then the fourth not only hit, it penned and stunned it) but that's the game we play.

Call me a nerd but I often just make a mental note of how my guns perform against the statistical averages, I often find my venoms cause the statistical average of wounds, just not in the right way - ie I'll only manage 6 or 7 hits, but still get 4 wounds out of it.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

Nariaklizhar wrote:

So true about the DL curse. The math hammer vs in game function never add up to what its are supposed to be.

In my experience, the mathhammer is pretty accurate as to what darklight weapons do - nothing.

I'd say that's overly negative (in my view) - sure, each one is not a devastating vehicle killer in its own right, but that's why we can take lots of them

That would be more acceptable if they weren't so overpriced and if the ancient technology of the Eldar was able to twin-link them!

Count Adhemar wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

Nariaklizhar wrote:

So true about the DL curse. The math hammer vs in game function never add up to what its are supposed to be.

In my experience, the mathhammer is pretty accurate as to what darklight weapons do - nothing.

I'd say that's overly negative (in my view) - sure, each one is not a devastating vehicle killer in its own right, but that's why we can take lots of them

That would be more acceptable if they weren't so overpriced and if the ancient technology of the Eldar was able to twin-link them!

"Twinlinking weapons is a primitive, monkeigh solution to the lack of their ability to shoot straight in the first place." - Archon Y'los Dalur

I feel your pain - my biggest issue though is not the fact that I can't re-roll the dice, but that it always seems to be that you miss with the one you really really need to hit, whereas the ravager shooting at the 1HP sentinel lands all three shots bang on target, penning with them all and rolling three sixes.

Complete derailment, but talking in relation to dice gods, I had Urien Rakarth in a challenge vs Lias Issodon last night (forgeworld marine captain). 5 attacks. 5 sixes. wish I'd managed to do that for the dark lances snap shooting at the storm talon two turns earlier!

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I'd say that's overly negative (in my view) - sure, each one is not a devastating vehicle killer in its own right, but that's why we can take lots of them

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

Dark Lances are expensive, single-shot weapons which aren't even twin-linked. They are outperformed by weapons that are a fraction of their cost.

So, we have to buy a ton of overpriced crap in order to stand even a remote chance of doing something, and yet you consider that a positive?

Why is it that other races can happily spam devastating single-shot weapons or put out gallons of S6/7 firepower, yet it's only our weapons that need to be restrained?

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I don't think any archon in their right mind would say that one triple lance ravager is sufficient for all your anti tank needs, but when you chuck 10+ at an opponent in a single turn (or 20+ as is possible if you really max them out) something is going to stick

Yeah, that 750 or so points of dark lances can destroy two whole chimeras! This sort of raw firepower is why pure DE armies just dominate every tournament ever.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

that how the main army mechanic works in general, lots of darklight, lots of poison, and both weapon types remain equally effective against the full range of targets available to them (ie toughness values are ignored, armour values above 12 are treated as 12, haywire ignores armour values completely).

Gargantuan creatures say 'hi'.

Furthermore, let's not forget that Dark Lances are absolutely abysmal against AV12. So, getting to count AV13/14 as AV12 is hardly as amazing as people seem to think.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Of all the armies in 40k, I'd say we parhaps have the most mathammerey (is it a word? It is now!) based strategy, as the performance of our weapons is more statistically predictable across a wider variety of targets.

I believe I already covered what dark lances statistically do.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Of course dice throw that all up in the air at times (my first turn last night the first ravager managed to miss all three of its shots at a land raider, but then the fourth not only hit, it penned and stunned it) but that's the game we play.

Well, since one ravager doesn't average a single pen, it's not particularly surprising to me.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Call me a nerd but I often just make a mental note of how my guns perform against the statistical averages, I often find my venoms cause the statistical average of wounds, just not in the right way - ie I'll only manage 6 or 7 hits, but still get 4 wounds out of it.

I too find that my venoms tend to average out on wounds.

I also find that my darklight weapons tend towards the average - i.e. nothing.

Oh, one other thing with regard to spamming - it looks like the new Eldar book will be able to spam D-weapons. Plus, every eldar windrider jetbike can now be upgraded with a Shuriken Cannon or Scatter Laser.

Just let that sink in.

The Shredder wrote:

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

I don't particularly appreciate being told that my view - and I did make it clear that it was my view, not a fact - is nonsense. I play DE a lot, and in my experience, the comment that dark lances do nothing is overly negative and inaccurate. My Dark Lances are effective at neutralising enemy armour over the course of a game and I've almost never come away from a game thinking that i needed more or better AT, despite facing several mech heavy lists since the new codex came out.

The Shredder wrote:

So, we have to buy a ton of overpriced crap in order to stand even a remote chance of doing something, and yet you consider that a positive?

I never said I considered it a positive, sure I'd love to have an awesome tank killing twin linked S10 160" range AP1 melta gun for 10 points, but that doesn't mean that I think the dark lance is worthless, as you seem to be suggesting.

The Shredder wrote:

Yeah, that 750 or so points of dark lances can destroy two whole chimeras! This sort of raw firepower is why pure DE armies just dominate every tournament ever.

Or two whole land raiders, anyone that's ever had their 250pt behemoth blown out from under them by a single lance shot will not be negative about their capabilities I can assure you (and I've seen it happen more than once myself)

The Shredder wrote:

Gargantuan creatures say 'hi'.

And you face how many of those on a regular basis? Sure, it looks like Wraithknights are going that way, but we still don't know how many points they'll be costed at yet, Gargantuan's are hardly going to be flooding the tables at your local FLGS. Incidentally, lances and darklight still provides a pretty decent option against them anyway...

The Shredder wrote:

absolutely abysmal

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Against AV12 I'd say the dark lance has an average performance, at least in my experience.

The Shredder wrote:

I believe I already covered what dark lances statistically do.

In your opinion you did, mathematically you were way off the mark since nothing is infinitely less than something.

The Shredder wrote:

Well, since one ravager doesn't average a single pen, it's not particularly surprising to me.

So presumably then the raider result from one dark lancedoes surprise you?

The Shredder wrote:

I too find that my venoms tend to average out on wounds.

I also find that my darklight weapons tend towards the average - i.e. nothing.

I honestly have nothing to say about this, to argue that darklight does nothing is such a negative and (again I emphasise, in my experience) inaccurate statement that to discuss this any further would be a waste of my time.

Let's try to keep this civil please.

From my own experience I tend to lean more towards The Shredders view of darklight weaponry. Statistically they are very poor and, given their high point cost and total lack of ability to improve on accuracy, I find that to be unacceptable. I have yet to use a Ravager in 7e and rarely used them in 6e. 125 points for a vehicle that will, on average, take 3 turns to destroy an AV12 vehicle? And that's assuming no cover/invulnerable save and that the vehicle moves <6" so as to be able to fire all 3 weapons.

Yes, they have the potential to one shot pretty much any non-superheavy. How often does that happen though? How often do they instead cause virtually no damage against even something as basic as a Rhino or Chimera?

Apologies if I came across as uncivil, I just dislike being told my opinion is nonsense when my own experience and much reading of tacticas tells me otherwise.

As for the performance of darklight, I'd just point people in the direction of some of the notable members of the forum who are very successful by taking lots of it, it's a viable tactic for the army and clearly an intended one due to the presence of it as an option in many of our units. Statistically though against armour 12 three dark lances average one glance (or better) per turn. If I compare that to the option i faced last night, a tri-las predator.
Against AV12 or less, the predator wins, obviously, its 15 pts more expensive but one of the lascannons is twin linked and they're all S9.
Against AV13, the predator has a slight damage output advantage, due to the twin linked main weapon (which will only make use of the twin linked rule once every three turns on average anyway, and has a further 2/3 chance of getting that extra hit) but the extra cost then starts to balance things out.
Against AV14 the Ravager is clearly the better option, the lascannons will hit slightly more often than the ravager but don't do as much damage due to the lack of the lance rule.

Equally, the pred is also a much less mobile option, only able to shoot one weapon normally if it moves at all, and not capable of rapid redeployment if necessary due to a max move per turn of 18". The Pred has an interesting balance to be struck in terms of damage resistance too, it's higher armour is offset by the need to place it where it has cover to protect it from genuine anti-tank, whilst it has no protection from clear shots, whereas the ravager has that option (jink) to resist even a close range melta shot with clear line of sight, albeit at the cost of damage output in the next turn.

As for the one-shot question, against AV12 or higher, the dark lance has a statistical 1 in 27 chance of destroying a vehicle outright through an explosion. Not much I admit (3.7%) but as I said, infinitely better than not having that chance at all (for example and autocannon vs a landraider).

I for one like to take a balance in my army, so i bring lances, blasters, haywire blasters, heat lances and poison, which give me the tools to tackle any opponent so long as I play the game correctly.

If Darklight weaponry were 5 points cheaper across the board and we had some means of twin-linking them, at least on our vehicles, then I'd be happy to take loads of them. I personally find Darklight to under perform on almost every occasion, which makes me a sad panda

Since this got weirdly heated, I feel like I need to add that the lack of darklight in my army is due entirely to its Coven/Harlequin nature, and nothing more. I actually like darklight weaponry, for the same reason I like poisoned weaponry: I don't have to care about the armor of enemy vehicles any more than I have to care about the toughness of enemy troops. I can expect that it will usually take 9 darklight shots to deal with a 3 HP vehicle, and plan accordingly.

I play just 6 Dark Lances>> on Ravagers. I need some long fire at first turn.

Then, I play with Haywire and CC

As many have already pointed out, Dark Eldar are strongest when specialised and spammed. My 1,000 point Kabalite list is Darklight heavy.
It features a blaster WWP Archon, 4x5 man Kabalite blaster raider squads, 2x Venoms, a 5 man trueborn squad with 4 blasters in a raider and a dissie ravager. 15 darklight weapons, 24 ap2 shots.
The numbers seem impressive but this volume of shots is hideously affected by dice variance. It took all of this pumped into an R'varna Riptide for 3 turns to kill it!
My point is, if I am going to go Darklight, everything has got to have it to make it remotely effective. The right ratio is probably 1:60 points.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I don't particularly appreciate being told that my view - and I did make it clear that it was my view, not a fact - is nonsense.

In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that the idea that 'dark lances are crap because they can be spammed' is nonsense.

I feel justified in calling that particular idea nonsense because - opinion or not - it has no basis in reality. Other races can easily spam their own weapons, yet none of them seem to overpay as we do (and that's not even going into stuff like twin-linked and ignores cover).


Also, a lot of points seem to revolve around the idea that Dark Lances are good because they can kill AV14. The thing is, killing AV14 vehicles at range is not remotely essential, and certainly not worth it when it makes the weapon terrible against anything else.

Land Raiders (and similar) are rare and expensive enough that we can justify spending resources to kill them at closer ranges.

In contrast, AV11-12 vehicles are very common with many being cheap enough to be taken en mass, and many more having jink. Given that, I'd happily sacrifice the ability to hurt AV14 if it meant cheap weapons which could reliably take out AV11-12 vehicles, without having to dedicate half my army to take out a single chimera.

Furthermore, many of the things Darklight weapons pay for (Lance, AP) are utterly wasted against most vehicles. We have a weapon that's priced as if it can explode vehicles, but which instead can usually only glance them to death.

Also, some of these points may not be so bad if we had other choices. Which anti-vehicle guns will you put on your Ravager? Dark Lances? I'm guessing Dark Lances because that's our only option.

What about Raiders? Dark Lances again, because they're our only option.

What about Warriors or Trueborn? Well, we can have a dark lance, or a short-range dark lance.

Do you see the problem yet?

Other races can mass S6/7 shots to take out transports, and then back that up with meltaguns on their infantry to take our higher armour. We're stuck using the same overpriced, inefficient weapon at both long and short range, with no alternate options for the vast majority of our infantry and vehicles.

We do have other options:

Heat lances or haywire blasters on Scourges.
Heat lance or haywire blaster on Talos. The Talos itself.
Cluster caltrops and heat lances on Reavers.
Grotesques.
Haywire grenades on Archons, Succubi, Sybarites, and Dracons (and Hekatrixes and Syrens, I suppose).

You may not want to use them, for reasons which may be perfectly valid, but they're still viable alternatives to darklight that we have.

Calyptra wrote:

We do have other options:

Heat lances or haywire blasters on Scourges.
Heat lance or haywire blaster on Talos. The Talos itself.
Cluster caltrops and heat lances on Reavers.
Grotesques.
Haywire grenades on Archons, Succubi, Sybarites, and Dracons (and Hekatrixes and Syrens, I suppose).

You may not want to use them, for reasons which may be perfectly valid, but they're still viable alternatives to darklight that we have.

But those options are on other units. My point was that many of our units simply don't have those options.

Once again, if you want to take a Ravager, you have just one choice for anti-tank. Where are our equivilents for Scatter Lasers? For Shuriken Cannons? For anti-tank weapons with more than one sodding shot?

If you want to take warriors or trueborn, then you're stuck choosing between a dark lance and another dark lance.

If ravagers and raiders could take other weapons, I'd have fewer complaints. If Warriors and Trueborn had the option of haywire blasters and heat lances, I'd have fewer complaints.

Also, calling a single haywire grenade on a sergeant that's a tax to begin with is *really* pushing the limits of what you can call anti-tank.

You're right, many of our units don't have anti-tank options, or anti-tank options other than darklight weapons. I don't see that as being a problem.

I think we should avoid a discussion of whether it's ever worth taking unit leaders or Archons, just because it's off topic.

You can upgrade a Kabalite or Trueborn and give him haywire grenades for the same points as giving a guy a blaster. The blaster will take off a hull point 1 turn out of 3. The haywire grenade will take off a hull point, with the possiblity of taking off 2.

It's arguably trickier to manage because you have to get a lot closer, but for the same points it's a better way to blow up vehicles. If you're running a bunch of 5-man units on Venoms it ought to work.

My Harlequin unit, containing 3 models with haywire grenades (Cast of Players formation), easily destroyed 3 tanks in the last game I played. Dark Eldar can't reasonably get 3 haywire grenades in one unit, but we can easily have lots of units with 1 apiece, and if you've got an Archon hanging out with Trueborn, they can have 2.