More Strategy - Less Crying

If we are going to attempt to soldier on post FAQ I think the biggest issue to solve is figuring out where our anti-tank is going to come from.

The kabalite+ transport units were there for that blaster shot, which were 50% of our anti-tank while our transports were jinxing away. With the new rule, almost all of our anti tank is now hamstrung by the jinx rule making these lists very points inefficient and ineffective in dealing with gladius style transport lists. Even if you stick to venoms and don't jinx them, the blaster is only 18" which means you need lose your range advantage to get the shot off (not to mention being more fragile in general).

If you don't take the blaster, then why even bother? The splinter shooting is basically just "5 guys with bolters" and given the number of turns that you and your transport will be snap shooting, it doesn't really seem worth the bother.

We could switch to more melee driven Wych oriented lists which I think have some merit otherwise but this doesn't do anything to ameliorate our anti tank shortage; in fact it makes it worse. So much of our alternate anti tank sits in fast attack that we might as well just throw in the towel on the troops slot and call it Codex Darkwing, Aviary, or Flight Academy.

I think we will just have to sit this one out until we get a FAQ ourselves or a new codex. This one seems riddled with unintentional / thoughtless limitations that hamstrings how it is actually designed to play. I don't disagree with the passenger/jinx ruling; it makes sense that a transport wildly zig-zagging to avoid incoming fire is a less than ideal shooting platform; I just think the play style of this codex wasn't built around the assumptions that typify the current game (remove cover, jinx, etc).

UM

Outside of heavy support a good amount of our anti-tank is in fast attack. Via reavers, scourge and the razorwing (though it's more anti-infantry).

Also, jinking frees us up to move flat out with minimal sacrifice. Or maybe pop of a shot at a flier with the blaster. All in all, I'd say the sky is still in place.

Ultra Magnus wrote:

If you don't take the blaster, then why even bother? The splinter shooting is basically just "5 guys with bolters"

Kabalites aren't "basically just 5 guys with bolters"; they are "5 flimsy guys with bolters that can wound anything, and can gain fearless + FnP for free, and come with Objective Secured in almost all lists." An 8pt Kabalite is actually fairly good. As Dark Eldar players, we tend to see their weaknesses, and gloss over their access to PfP and cheap transports with dakka that other codexes do not have access to

Even before this change in the FAQ, a lot of players forgo Blasters on Kabalites. Blasters double the cost of the Kabalite itself and try to change the unit's role too much. You start asking too much from your T3 5+ objective secured model that wants to be hiding in a transport or ruin for the whole game.

Ultra Magnus wrote:

and given the number of turns that you and your transport will be snap shooting, it doesn't really seem worth the bother.

I'm wondering why you're choosing Jink with a 105 pt unit. Jinking with your Venom unless your desperately need it alive for objective purposes, is usually a really big trap. We live and die (though with recent releases, mainly just die) by our ability to reduce casualties by eliminating their firepower, not by buffing our durability (of which we have none). The 4+ Jink is ass, even before the new FAQs; the 5++ that the Venom naturally possesses is the better option in so many cases.

Ultra Magnus wrote:

We could switch to more melee driven Wych oriented lists which I think have some merit otherwise

Melee is weak in this edition, and Wyches are among the weakest all dedicated melee units in the entire game. Kabalites have been tax for the Venoms that they ride for multiple editions, but they're still better than Wyches in so many ways.

You lads are correct that anti tank is our greatest weakness. Inside our Dark Eldar codex, the only thing vaguely good at it's tank hunting job are haywire scourges, so I usually include them, and only them; everything else in my lists that wants to kill tanks comes from Corsairs or Craftworlds.

hydranixx wrote:

Blasters doubletriple the cost of the Kabalite itself and try to change the unit's role too much.

Fixed. Aside from that minor detail, I 100% agree with the above.

Question: The blaster is clearly expensive, and a sybarite w/ haywire grenade even more so, but I'm thinking on extrapolating on the CTC + MSU idea from the SN list:

On a list including
CTC
4 or so units of warriors in venoms w/ blaster and sybarite/HWG
5 or so units of 3 man reavers w/ HL and CC
a few extra units (maybe HW scourges, maybe dual llhamean CADs, maybe even a DA, etc)

Essentially, is further pushing the 5 man warrior unit away from a camping role a possible advantage?

Adding the blaster alone seems like role confusion. Adding the HWG potentially clarifies that role (at cost).

A minimum squad of warriors with splinter rifles aren't necessarily just campers. They can also be drive-by gunners, as detailed above when he says they want to be securing an objective in a ruin or in a vehicle.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

hydranixx wrote:

Blasters doubletriple the cost of the Kabalite itself and try to change the unit's role too much.

Fixed. Aside from that minor detail, I 100% agree with the above.

Oh yes, of course, as its 8pts + 15pts, rather than simply 15pts replacing 8pts. You're right. It's a real glaring weakness when T3 model costs over 40% of his entire 5 model unit.

Woozl wrote:

Question: The blaster is clearly expensive, and a sybarite w/ haywire grenade even more so, but I'm thinking on extrapolating on the CTC + MSU idea from the SN list:

On a list including
CTC
4 or so units of warriors in venoms w/ blaster and sybarite/HWG
5 or so units of 3 man reavers w/ HL and CC
a few extra units (maybe HW scourges, maybe dual llhamean CADs, maybe even a DA, etc)

Essentially, is further pushing the 5 man warrior unit away from a camping role a possible advantage?

Adding the blaster alone seems like role confusion. Adding the HWG potentially clarifies that role (at cost).

I die inside a little bit when time I see Blasters on Kabalites.

I die inside completely when I see a Blaster and a Syrabite & Haywire on 5 Kabalites.

I think it's woefully inefficient; it's raising the price per model of your squad to 14pts. If you're doing this, now I'm asking why they don't come with Power Armour as standard, or why they don't have Battle Focus.

Furthermore, even if the Blaster and the Haywire grenade combo was a bit cheaper, one is hoping (desperately) to one shot a vehicle and the other literally can't one shot a vehicle. It's a wonky choice of two items that don't really interact very well with each other.

Honestly, I can't help compare Corsair & Dark Eldar Blasters every single time I see Kabalites buying Blasters, and I ask you to do the same. There's really no contest between them; Corsair Blasters (or Fusion Guns for that matter) are 33% cheaper, and I can get 2 of them for every 5 Corsairs. The other 3 guys in the unit have FOUR choices of standard weapon, so their shooting doesn't go to waste as often either.

hydranixx wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

hydranixx wrote:

Blasters doubletriple the cost of the Kabalite itself and try to change the unit's role too much.

Fixed. Aside from that minor detail, I 100% agree with the above.

Oh yes, of course, as its 8pts + 15pts, rather than simply 15pts replacing 8pts. You're right. It's a real glaring weakness when T3 model costs over 40% of his entire 5 model unit.

Woozl wrote:

Question: The blaster is clearly expensive, and a sybarite w/ haywire grenade even more so, but I'm thinking on extrapolating on the CTC + MSU idea from the SN list:

On a list including
CTC
4 or so units of warriors in venoms w/ blaster and sybarite/HWG
5 or so units of 3 man reavers w/ HL and CC
a few extra units (maybe HW scourges, maybe dual llhamean CADs, maybe even a DA, etc)

Essentially, is further pushing the 5 man warrior unit away from a camping role a possible advantage?

Adding the blaster alone seems like role confusion. Adding the HWG potentially clarifies that role (at cost).

I die inside a little bit when time I see Blasters on Kabalites.

I die inside completely when I see a Blaster and a Syrabite & Haywire on 5 Kabalites.

I think it's woefully inefficient; it's raising the price per model of your squad to 14pts. If you're doing this, now I'm asking why they don't come with Power Armour as standard, or why they don't have Battle Focus.

Furthermore, even if the Blaster and the Haywire grenade combo was a bit cheaper, one is hoping (desperately) to one shot a vehicle and the other literally can't one shot a vehicle. It's a wonky choice of two items that don't really interact very well with each other.

Honestly, I can't help compare Corsair & Dark Eldar Blasters every single time I see Kabalites buying Blasters, and I ask you to do the same. There's really no contest between them; Corsair Blasters (or Fusion Guns for that matter) are 33% cheaper, and I can get 2 of them for every 5 Corsairs. The other 3 guys in the unit have FOUR choices of standard weapon, so their shooting doesn't go to waste as often either.

2 things about this really fast

1) Im DE If I wanted to play another armies wargear I would play that army, If blasters is what is available to me then I will use them
2) For a long time I thought the same thing, but after play with Blasters now for years in my 5mans I will NEVER replace them. They had Added SO MUCH more kills, threat, and options that to me the extra 60-90pts throughout my entire army is more than worth it.


If we are going to compare wargear and then NOT take said wargear b.c someone else has it better, then might as well not Play 90% the codex's and we all just play SM and Eldar.

Not saying comparing is bad, it is actually good, thats how we balance thing, seeing the pros/cons/points and talking about it is what "can" lead to change.

Meh. I'd really recommend looking into corsairs. They lack some of our flavor but a space pirate Kabal (primarily ranged) such as the dukes serpents can be perfectly represented by a corsair detachment. I tend to treat every eldar book as a dark eldar supplement.

amishprn86 wrote:

For a long time I thought the same thing, but after play with Blasters now for years in my 5mans I will NEVER replace them. They had Added SO MUCH more kills, threat, and options that to me the extra 60-90pts throughout my entire army is more than worth it.

I have totally the opposite experience. I used to include blasters in every 5-man squad but they literally did nothing in every single game. Seriously, they didn't even kill any infantry, let alone a tank! Now that's partially down to bad luck, of which I have more than my fair share, but you're essentially paying 15 points to reduce the efficiency of the rest of the squad in the vague hope of a short ranged darklight weapon actually doing something against a vehicle. But even assuming a vehicle has no saves of any kind, you're only likely to cause a penetrating hit once per game with each blaster, and that's assuming the Kabalites actually survive to fire in every turn! That's an inherent problem with darklight, as it's overpriced and underpowered. So to spend points on it, to me, seems a waste.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I have totally the opposite experience. I used to include blasters in every 5-man squad but they literally did nothing in every single game. Seriously, they didn't even kill any infantry, let alone a tank! Now that's partially down to bad luck, of which I have more than my fair share, but you're essentially paying 15 points to reduce the efficiency of the rest of the squad in the vague hope of a short ranged darklight weapon actually doing something against a vehicle. But even assuming a vehicle has no saves of any kind, you're only likely to cause a penetrating hit once per game with each blaster, and that's assuming the Kabalites actually survive to fire in every turn! That's an inherent problem with darklight, as it's overpriced and underpowered. So to spend points on it, to me, seems a waste.

Just wanted to say that this has largely been my experience as well. They were something I included because I never felt that I had enough anti-tank. But, bar maybe one game, they were useless against vehicles anyway.

Even against MCs and infantry, my blasters have a poor record. There are so many invulnerable saves, multiple wound infantry (with T5 and/or EW), FNP, stealth/shrouded etc. that the shot rarely matters. There was a time when S8 would at least scare characters, but now every character and his dog can just buy a bike or a thunderwolf or something else that gives them T5, with the rest coming with EW.

There's also the matter that it doesn't tie in well with the rest of the squad's weapons:
- If you fire splinter rifles at maximum range, you can't fire the blaster at all.
- If you fire the blaster at maximum range, you only get 1 shot per splinter rifle and you're 6" closer than you'd otherwise need to be.
- If you fire the splinter rifles in rapid-fire range, then you're wasting 6" of the blaster's range.
- The blaster is Assault, but the rest of the squad's weapons are Rapid Fire. So, if you want to do any late-game assaulting (when the game reluctantly allows our army to have its abilities), then you have to skip firing your other weapons.

But I dont use them for AT, I use them for wounds and as a emergency HP remover.

If it kills a marine it got its points back, if it killed something better then Im more than happy.

I guess it also depends on your meta area, I come from mostly Highly competitive SM players, we also have more Tau than Eldar, and Blaster are AMAZING against SM and Tau, Tho DE vs Eldar, IDK if there is any list (from DE book) that can beat Eldar.

amishprn86 wrote:

But I dont use them for AT, I use them for wounds and as a emergency HP remover.

If it kills a marine it got its points back, if it killed something better then Im more than happy.

But if you're just firing it at marines then you're wasting it's potential anyway and would be better off spending the points on more Kabalites or, if you're running Raiders, on splinter racks. Against Marines, the blaster is only slightly more efficient than the equivalent points of kabalites (ie 2 extra kabalites) and even then, as soon as any cover save is involved the kabalites are better.

amishprn86 wrote:

But I dont use them for AT, I use them for wounds and as a emergency HP remover.

Pretty sure I covered the 'wounds' aspect.

amishprn86 wrote:

If it kills a marine it got its points back, if it killed something better then Im more than happy.

This seems like a rather dubious evaluation. What if the warrior would have killed the marine just with his splinter rifle? What if the units you had to sacrifice for those blasters would have accomplished more? What if that marine was irrelevant to the game? Also, what if moving to fire the blaster gets the squad obliterated by retaliatory fire - was is still worth it?

amishprn86 wrote:

I guess it also depends on your meta area, I come from mostly Highly competitive SM players, we also have more Tau than Eldar, and Blaster are AMAZING against SM and Tau, Tho DE vs Eldar, IDK if there is any list (from DE book) that can beat Eldar.

Eh? I wouldn't consider the blaster particularly good against either of those.

Marines have a ton of middling AV units, which blasters are horrendously awful against (and it only gets worse when you consider the respective costs). In terms of infantry, SMs have a plethora of T5 units, have easy access to T5 and/or EW on their characters, not to mention an abundance of invulnerable saves. I guess it's nice if you only ever face tactical marines, and footslogging characters.

It seems equally poor against Tau. Their crisis suits might be better targets in theory, but with better ranges and JSJ, it seems like you'll struggle to get LoS to them. Plus, one squad is likely to be hiding behind the T5, 4W commander. In terms of MCs, they're well protected with a mix of JSJ, FNP, long range, invulnerable saves etc. I can see dark lances being moderately useful, as they at least have the range to threaten most of the Jump Shoot Jumpers.

Maybe we just face very different builds of marines and tau. In my experience, warriors might as well be throwing hedgehogs at those armies, for all the good blasters do.

Ultra Magnus wrote:

If we are going to attempt to soldier on post FAQ I think the biggest issue to solve is figuring out where our anti-tank is going to come from.

I play against the "free transports for all" SM gladius often.  I take some hay scourges and a lance ravager or 2 but it is my grotesquerie and reavers that really do the heavy AT lifting.

All the wrecked hulls + terrain causes gridlock and provides more LOSB terrain for said grots and reavers. It's win win and my poor trapped, frustrated opponent calls OP on DE.    

Think what you want, but from the 150+ games just between 6th and 7th I feel Blasters in 5mans are worth it.  You do not feel its worth it, fine.  There has been way to many games that 5man in venoms with only poison has done me 0 good, lets leave it at that.

Painjunky wrote:

Ultra Magnus wrote:

If we are going to attempt to soldier on post FAQ I think the biggest issue to solve is figuring out where our anti-tank is going to come from.

I play against the "free transports for all" SM gladius often.  I take some hay scourges and a lance ravager or 2 but it is my grotesquerie and reavers that really do the heavy AT lifting.

All the wrecked hulls + terrain causes gridlock and provides more LOSB terrain for said grots and reavers. It's win win and my poor trapped, frustrated opponent calls OP on DE.    

We need Anti GMC and Super Heavy.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

No. You wont get seperated but you are in a "safe" zone. Because no matter the meta or the house rule, this "average approach" will yield solidaverage results.

Fixed that for you.

Ha! I had the exact same thought.
Mediocrity produces mediocrity.

In practice, in tournaments, I found raiders to be MUCH more survivable than venoms for two reasons. 1- the 4+ jink (at the loss of 1 dissie or dark lance shot) and 2- Three hull points.

Am i saying not to take venoms? Of course not, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the raider as a viable weapon out of hand. Just because it is not the 'Norm" does not mean it is not worth taking. However, if this FAQ sticks, THEN and only then will I say raiders are not worth taking. And that is what has got me all pissed off over this whole thing. Hey, GW- We are weak enough, stop making us weaker!

amishprn86 wrote:

1) Im DE If I wanted to play another armies wargear I would play that army, If blasters is what is available to me then I will use them

If it's theme you're worried about when you say you only play Dark Eldar, you can even create your Corsairs almost entirely on Dark Eldar models. I blend numerous kits and they're perfect together. Corsairs have our Wargear options; you can play your Kabalites as Corsair Reavers if you were so compelled. For cheaper. On better platforms.

amishprn86 wrote:

2) For a long time I thought the same thing, but after play with Blasters now for years in my 5mans I will NEVER replace them.

This seems like a terrible ideology to bring to a forum. Having an idea is one thing, and I applaud you for backing up your idea, but excluding saying you'll NEVER try another idea is counter productive to the idea of a tactics forum.

amishprn86 wrote:

They had Added SO MUCH more kills, threat, and options that to me the extra 60-90pts throughout my entire army is more than worth it.

If you have a hard on for Blasters in 5 man squads of troops, I urge you to try play them as Corsairs, because they get 2 Blasters between 5, and they're cheaper. You can still take your splinter rifles if you want those, though Reavers Corsairs have even better options.

amishprn86 wrote:

If we are going to compare wargear and then NOT take said wargear b.c someone else has it better, then might as well not Play 90% the codex's and we all just play SM and Eldar.

I compared Blasters to Blasters. The base unit can equip the same splinter rifle and has the same 5+ armour save too. Seems like a fair comparison.

amishprn86 wrote:

Think what you want, but from the 150+ games just between 6th and 7th I feel Blasters in 5mans are worth it.  You do not feel its worth it, fine.  There has been way to many games that 5man in venoms with only poison has done me 0 good, lets leave it at that.

See, this is a much better way to word it! As opposed to

amishprn86 wrote:

2) For a long time I thought the same thing, but after play with Blasters now for years in my 5mans I will NEVER replace them.

Now that you've added some justification, I can start to understand why this makes sense for you.

I even recommend converting your eldar into dark eldar.  Use the base kits to avoid confusion.  But there's nothing a dark eldar won't steal. Even if that's 3+ heavy aspect armor and some fusion guns. It's your army.

Can someone merge my double please (I'm on a phone). And I had been doing so well too.

Done - Your friendly neighborhood Count Adhemar

I wanted to add my "wraithknight" is a modified nagash model with altered headdress to look more like a large avatar. In my mind he is a fusion of the talos flesh bits and metal with the semi living wraithbone and the spirit of the avatar. An act of desperation and hatred for the lesser races carried out by il'kaith bone singers. My opponents love it honestly.

@hydranixx, just b.c I firmly believe in a blaster with 5mans, doesnt mean I wont change, Also I dont have a hard on for them, I believe having 4-5 extra blasters in places makes a bigger difference that the alternatives. I mean we are talking a 60-75pts spread between 4-5 units.

IDK why everyone has such hate for that, I mean do you yell at people that take an Archon? Thats how much he costs. When you can have a HQ for 10pts.

amishprn86 wrote:

IDK why everyone has such hate for that, I mean do you yell at people that take an Archon? Thats how much he costs. When you can have a HQ for 10pts.

Not sure why you're being so confrontational. Nobody is telling you you can't take blasters if you want. They're just saying why they feel there are better ways to spend the points. This is a discussion forum so people want to discuss!

As for the Archon, does anyone actually take one for anything other than a WWP?

hydranixx wrote:

If it's theme you're worried about when you say you only play Dark Eldar, you can even create your Corsairs almost entirely on Dark Eldar models. I blend numerous kits and they're perfect together. Corsairs have our Wargear options; you can play your Kabalites as Corsair Reavers if you were so compelled. For cheaper. On better platforms.

Just wanted to say that this is entirely true.

Count Adhemar wrote:

As for the Archon, does anyone actually take one for anything other than a WWP?

I used to, simply because I hated not having a character HQ. Then I'd look at his point cost and cry.

Even as a WWP-caddy, I found him lackluster. Not least because he costs about 100pts, and for that price I'd usually be better off just buying a second squad of whatever I was trying to portal in.

Anyway, now that Corsair Princes exist, I've got no reason whatsoever to field an Archon.

Sometimes I play an overpriced Archon with Sfield, Haywires, Agoniser & Wwp deep striking in with some overpriced Medusae and Sslyth on a Raider.

I admit though, the more I play my Corsair Prince though, the less the above build appeals to me :L

amishprn86 wrote:

@hydranixx, just b.c I firmly believe in a blaster with 5mans, doesnt mean I wont change, Also I dont have a hard on for them, I believe having 4-5 extra blasters in places makes a bigger difference that the alternatives. I mean we are talking a 60-75pts spread between 4-5 units.

What if I told you you could keep 3 of those darklight shots, doubling their range, while getting access to 25-50 splinter shots, and 3 hullpoints on an AV11 platform for only 50 more points?

You can, by buying a ravager instead. Using the blasters for anti-tank makes you lose 25-50 splinter shots, depending on range. And if, as you previously said, you don't use them for anti-tank, but rather for anti-infantry, the ravager is still the answer, except it gives you 9 shots of S5 AP2 for 15 points less.

amishprn86 wrote:

IDK why everyone has such hate for that, I mean do you yell at people that take an Archon? Thats how much he costs. When you can have a HQ for 10pts.

I don't yell at them, but I normally recommend against taking an archon. There is almost always a better option, whether that be a succubus, a haemonculus, or a Lhamean depending on the situation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The reason people have so much hate for Blasters is that they're a short range option(which puts you in range of space marine rapid fire in the following round), that is extremely overpriced. They triple the cost of the model you put it on, while putting that model in more danger by requiring it to get closer to it's target.

The only time I would ever recommend a blaster is if there were 15 points left, and I could find absolutely nothing else to spend the 15 points on that I think would perform equal to or better than the blaster, which is difficult to do because blasters perform so poorly on a per point basis.

OR

If you were limited to a single CAD, and your army list idea limited your AT options outside of the elite slot, though I can't imagine what sort of army composition would do that.

Well my ravagers never do anything but die, I stopped taking them awhile ago and when I do take them I take them as Diss Cannons.