More Strategy - Less Crying

I dont think it matters what the tournament is called. 30 people is a bigger event. that some are graced with this regularly IS cool but not a reason to diss it.

I personally see about 24-30 as a normal number so a bit smaller. Same thing is true everywhere: Gotta beat 3-5 opponents to take thwe crown and none of them is in a hurry to roll over for you.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Painjunky wrote:

Yes that is true. But in my exp 95% of the time msu kabbies deploy in cover, have disembarked into cover by the end of turn 1, or are chillin in reserves.
 

In my experience, your experience is very unusual.

I did not explain myself very well i guess. What i meant is that in all my games they are deployed in my zone, behind LOSB terrain, holding an obj or they move into that position turn 1 or from reserves.

They rarely move or even shoot and riding in a skimmer is suicide.

Unorthodoxy wrote:

30 people is a bigger event.

Bigger than you and 5 buddies playing around in your basement, certainly. Bigger than some of the more smallish game stores, sure. But definitely not "bigger" when compared to any real GT, and it takes less to win a 30 man tournament than a 300 man tournament, even if you DO play the same number of games. Telling yourself otherwise is living in denial.

I say what I've said, not to take anything away from an individual's accomplishment. This is a good accomplishment for the individual that won. If they're a member here, or read this, they have my congratulations. My comments are meant to highlight that this result is not reflective of the state of the army/faction, and that it would be unlikely to do so well in a more populated field, even in expert hands.

Painjunky wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Painjunky wrote:

Yes that is true. But in my exp 95% of the time msu kabbies deploy in cover, have disembarked into cover by the end of turn 1, or are chillin in reserves.

In my experience, your experience is very unusual.

I did not explain myself very well i guess. What i meant is that in all my games they are deployed in my zone, behind LOSB terrain, holding an obj or they move into that position turn 1 or from reserves.

They rarely move or even shoot and riding in a skimmer is suicide.

No, you explained yourself fine. I said your experience was unusual, and it is. Most people who played dark eldar don't run only 2 warrior squads. That's a relatively unusual build, since they've been our only decent obsec troops for about 2 years. What you said makes sense ONLY if you just barely meet the troop requirements for your faction. If you run more than the minimum troops, having all your troops sitting in your deployment zone out of LoS, sitting on objectives doesn't make sense, so it was easy to tell what sort of build you were talking about.

I mean, I've maintained that warriors are rubbish since 7th dropped so I think it's equally over broad to suggest that normative Dark Eldar play uses more than 2 units of Warriors in some sort of boat. Generally I've agreed with you here, and in the other threads like this, but overly broad generalizations aren't doing you favors.

I disagree that warriors or rubbish, thay happen to be a very good unit.

Sure. This is no less contentious a topic then it was a year and a half ago. I'd rather spend the points on Reavers, grotesques, or scourges. I'm not saying your wrong in what you do, just that it would be wrong for you to assume everyone plays like you do.

amorrowlyday wrote:

I mean, I've maintained that warriors are rubbish since 7th dropped so I think it's equally over broad to suggest that normative Dark Eldar play uses more than 2 units of Warriors in some sort of boat.

This isn't really something that is an opinion-based argument. You can simply look up the statistics based on army lists in both major tournament play, and posted here in the army list thread.

It's exceedingly rare to see a non-covens list that doesn't use more than 2 units of warriors in the last 2 years.

Except you posted this to TACTICS so I don't particularly care about that, only raw statline and usrs. Furthermore you'd need to follow up with why that is: namely that their being taken only for their dedicated transports and our other obsec unit being unacceptably hobbled.

amorrowlyday wrote:

1 Except you posted this to TACTICS so I don't particularly care about that, only raw statline and usrs. 2 Furthermore you'd need to follow up with why that is: namely that their being taken only for their dedicated transports and our other obsec unit being unacceptably hobbled.

1 It's material to the discussion at hand because it means that the vast majority of DE players disagreed with your assertion that warriors were garbage in their tactical estimation, as proven by their excessive inclusion in their army lists.

2 I'm not interested in debating whether or not warriors were the optimum DE unit or not pre-FAQ. Regardless of whether they were Good, Decent, or Bad before, they're certainly Bad now if that FAQ becomes official. And since they're our only potential obsec unit outside of wyches(which I assume we agree are bad), that put's DE in the position of undeniably not having any decent obsec options.

I think that's a fairly significant change that you should expect to effect more people than it doesn't. Obsec and playing to objectives was one of our strongest strategies among very few strong strategies.

Outside of obsec strategies, I legitimately don't believe DE are offensively equipped enough to win against decent opponents wielding strong lists. It takes something absurd, like 2000 points worth of splinter fire to kill a wraithknight or stormsurge in 4+ cover. Alternatively, it takes something to the tune of 55 dark lance shots to kill the same, on average. These things would cost us more than what our entire lists are worth in points, typically.

As a comparison, pretty much any of the D-weapon options available to other armies can kill a wraithknight in 1 turn for 300 points or less. Same with grav weapons. We just don't have the offensive juice to ALSO not have any decent options for obsec spam.

At least with warriors who can shoot from jinking transports, we were able to slowly whittle down our opponent's ability to destroy our vehicles and infantry as quickly while we continued to capture/contest objectives.

This is a change that cuts into our already meager offense, and any change that does so is an indirect buff to ALL of our opponent's lists on every round after round 1, where previously BS4 shooting attacks would have presumably done -something-.

That better?

Much! I disagree with paragraph 3 but that's nitpicking. ;p

I have not used more than minimum troops choice in a long time. Just my 2 cents.

Painjunky wrote:

Really? You think wyches are now better than warriors? And can think of no valid tactics for using warriors? Really?

In no way did I say that. I said Wyches would be a viable TACTIC visa vie jinking transports, as wyches are not depended on for shooting, so they would be much less affected.  Wyches are crap, pure and simple. Warriors are being drug down to their level via FAQ it appears.

Quote :

Things have not changed THAT much.

Perhaps you saw a different first draft than I did, because simply put, the way I play tournaments with my army has been KILLED. It is unplayable to its core at this point.  MSU vehicle spam with maxed out 5 man warrior units, mixing and matching to spread objective secure across the board. I Jink at the first sign of heavy fire coming my way, knowing the warriors would be unaffected and able to lay down some serious hurt.  The only thing this has NOT changed is embarked jinking passengers firing at flying monstrous creatures and invisible units.

Quote :

95% of the time msu kabbies deploy in cover, have disembarked into cover by the end of turn 1, or are chillin in reserves.  

Then 95% of the time, people are playing kabalite warriors wrong. They should never, and I mean NEVER get out of their protective vehicles until forced to by mission rule or their ride turned into a fiery wreck. The name of the game is objective control. you are not walking across the field of battle with 5 toughness 3 models with a 5+ save.
This is not a "way I play versus way you play" statement. If you deploy 5 man squads in cover at games start, you may want to try them in vehicles. just to see how much easier it is for them to get to the other side of the board for objectives. Just once. I promise it will go better for you if you do.

Quote :

Even worst case, 1 or 2 kabby units have to snapfire 5 rifles or 4 + 1 blaster, who cares?

I do.
I wonder, since they took vector strike away from FMC's if they jink, will they take hammer of wrath from our jetbikes if they jink as well? Would you be ok with that?  It could very well happen, as the "no special auto hit attack" was taken away from one type already...

They took our negative LD bubble... fine.
They took our multiple grenades in combat, making our wyches USELESS against even armor 10 vehicles.. 1 grenade only, the rest of you just sit there... Fine
They took our ability to transport battle brothers.... fine
they took our Jink rule. OUR jink rule. OURS. Anyone else affected by this as much as we are? even 1/10th the amount we are? Nope... fine I guess.


Who cares indeed.

But our vehicles aren't so easily killed by Krak anymore and our flyers kill most anything else in Dogfight and also double turn ok in Movement. And, Imperium also lost the ability to transport anything and everything in Drop Pods.

Personally, I felt passengers shooting after Jink was weird anyway.

I know, I know, it's not much but the Faq hits everyone.

Lol, bag of dicks.

Anyway, the Razorwing looks slightly better. We now get to snap shoot with our Dissies and SC when we come on the board and drop our 4 blasts. We even get to target other fliers with our S6 blasts.

I am mourning the loss of our raider "pivot" move gaining us an extra 1.5" of movement.

But the nerf to Libby conclave casting multiple psychic shrieks, etc is kinda nice...

Maybe with ICs no longer being able to join BBs in transports, we will try to return to our transport-less mini-stars? (Im thinking beastpacks)

There's no need to footslog those Kabalite across the board. He said that he (and I do the same) drops them off in the backfield and sends their ride forward. Rarely do my kabs even get targeted unless my enemy has just put something way out of position because threat saturation forces your opponent to make choices and "should I shoot those 5 tough 3 guys going to ground back there on an objective that he has yet to draw instead of the 2 raiders full of grots or the CtC or what not that is going to charge me next turn" rarely results in a yes. If so theno yay. Some of them might even survive and if not he probably spent more to kill them then the 40 points you spent to put them on the table and your other threats are fine. If your army is so severely out gunned that he kills all of your other threats and still has enough left over to kill some worthless objective campers then you have a much more serious issue than the merits of warriors. Anonymity is its own defense and leaving them inside the vehicle (especially with a blaster) is a great way to give your opponent easy target priority and easy kills.

Many DE players often run only 2 units of warriors.

Skari does it all the time... love your vids Skari if your out there!

But that is not important.

I totally understand the rage over the new jink/passngers nerf, and all the other nerfs too. This thread is about developing strategies/tactics/ideas that will work with the new FAQs and that's what i am trying to do.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Quote :

Things have not changed THAT much.

Perhaps you saw a different first draft than I did, because simply put, the way I play tournaments with my army has been KILLED. It is unplayable to its core at this point. MSU vehicle spam with maxed out 5 man warrior units, mixing and matching to spread objective secure across the board.

And you were the one who got best DE performance at adepticon, or some other nationally recognised tournament this year, weren't you?

Painjunky wrote:

Many DE players often run only 2 units of warriors.

Skari does it all the time... love your vids Skari if your out there!

I specified "non-coven army", and skari generally uses coven/freakshow lists. The freakshow was 1 of the 2-3 legitimate ways I said DE could still be used. But it requires allies.

The majority of DE players that aren't running Covens lists use more than 2 kabalite warrior squads. Period. This isn't an opinion. It's a statistic, and as such, can't really be debated. An anecdotal hand raise saying "I dunnit" doesn't change the statistics. I could say both my DE-playing friend and I slept with Anna Kournikova, but that doesn't change the fact that most DE players have NOT claimed to have slept with Anna Kournikova.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at DE lists from major tournaments for the last 2 years. Look at DE lists in our very own lists section. You will find that 2 warrior squads is in the severe minority for non-coven lists that have more than a token DE presence.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Perhaps you saw a different first draft than I did, because simply put, the way I play tournaments with my army has been KILLED. It is unplayable to its core at this point.  MSU vehicle spam with maxed out 5 man warrior units, mixing and matching to spread objective secure across the board.

An anecdotal hand raise saying "I dunnit" doesn't change the statistics. [/quote]

I'm anecdotally raising my hands here to say that I tend to run 4+ warrior squads in my pure DE non-coven lists.

Betray, if you would like to make a thread about winning that thing please link it to me so I can offer you profuse and sincere congratulations, however, injecting it into every other thread as your argument, counter argument, rebuttal, supporting argument, intermission and conclusion is not doing you any favors. Be proud, but have some class too. Winning something is great but it doesn't invalidate every other persons thoughts on Dark Eldar. You're strangling communication here.

The Red King wrote:

Betray, if you would like to make a thread about winning that thing please link it to me so I can offer you profuse and sincere congratulations, however, injecting it into every other thread as your argument, counter argument, rebuttal, supporting argument, intermission and conclusion is not doing you any favors.  Be proud, but have some class too. Winning something is great but it doesn't invalidate every other persons thoughts on Dark Eldar. You're strangling communication here.

You better re-read my post. I was pointing out someone ELSE who won best DE at adepticon. I was highlighting someone else's accomplishment. Were this in person, I'd expect a sincere apology from any civilized person, but this is the internet, so I won't hold my breath.

I think Skulnbonz was the one who said he got best DE recently at a major GT.(Congrats again!)

Kabs in Venoms get hit by 1 less Save relying on 5++ instead. Raiders with Night can still stick to Cover. I think MSU Kabs in Transports are still viable because you're relying on distributing targets anyway. I'm not saying it's as good as it was, but we can still run MSU.

I can't quote the section. But above where you quoted a reply and said "and you were the one who won..." I took that as a sarcastic and mean spirited jab. I was incorrect.

However I will not offer a sincere apology as I never made any real attack against you and there is nothing more painful than watching two people apologize back and forth about how they misunderstood one another.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Skulnbonz wrote:

Quote :

Things have not changed THAT much.

Perhaps you saw a different first draft than I did, because simply put, the way I play tournaments with my army has been KILLED. It is unplayable to its core at this point.  MSU vehicle spam with maxed out 5 man warrior units, mixing and matching to spread objective secure across the board.

And you were the one who got best DE performance at adepticon, or some other nationally recognised tournament this year, weren't you?

Sounded like he was addressing Skulnbonz to me with the weren't you at the end.

Anecdote time, I ran more than two units of kabalites in my list (fell in love with my gunboats in 5th edition, what an imbicile I am for trying to make them work in 7th edition, right?), I also own zero Coven units and really don't want to play a coven list.

MSU does still look viable with only a small hit to it with the first draft of the FAQ. We will just have to wait and see what new surprises we are going to have with our Codex FAQ when they get around to it.

The Red King wrote:

 I will not offer a sincere apology as I never made any real attack against you

The Red King wrote:

however, injecting it into every other thread as your argument, counter argument, rebuttal, supporting argument, intermission and conclusion is not doing you any favors.  Be proud, but have some class too.

This certainly sounds like an attack to me. You're saying that none of my arguments have substance, and that I simply quote my own experience as the sole source of my correctness, based entirely off of you misunderstanding me when I pointed out someone ELSE's accomplishment. You further encourage me to have some class, insinuating that I did not.

If those aren't considered attacks, you and I live in very different worlds, etiquette-wise.

Aside from that, if you don't think the people continuously winning tournaments have more valuable insight into the competitiveness of various tactics, then you and I would have difficulty communicating effectively because it would seem you don't believe in personal merit.

Either way, if you don't think you've said anything inflamatory, fine. Drop it, and have a nice day. You're not going to convince me that your comments were made in good spirits. You assumed I was using a sarcastic and rude tone even though there was no reason to think I was doing so, and responded in kind.

I have ONCE been overtly inflammatory on this website, to a guy who's entire thread name accused the population of this website of being a bunch of crybabies. You shouldn't use that comment to paint all my future posts. Assume I speak in monotone like data from star trek, and you'll understand me perfectly.

The guy who started this thread, it was obvious by the thread title that he was the type of person who would basically say "Agree with me or GTFO", and he later proved it. I responded as he deserved. I generally don't think most of the people on this site are that way, so you should assume most of the time, I am typing in an even "tone".

I agree that msu still looks viable. I mean the jink change certainly hits our damage output, but who was winning with pure dark eldar based solely on the merits of our excessive firepower lol.