Eldar Triumvirate

If you're using Raiders as a delivery mechanism for clowns you're drinking the kool-aid my friend.

What other fast attack slot choices are precluding that?

Nothing, but Raiders are functionally identical to a WWP which clowns could already take advantage of. You have to spend a turn running them up the board flat-out before they can jump out and charge, meaning the opponent has 1-2 turns of moving and shooting at them before they can get to work. Likewise, a WWP sees them on the board and then the opponent has a turn of moving and shooting at them before they can charge.

Except that the Raider gives them an extra layer of protection that the WWP will not. And if you are going second, it is not uncommon for an opponent to move units close enough that an assault unit in a Raider can get a charge off in the bottom of turn 1.

I'll leave that to your discretion, but I've run man missiles enough to know just how often their legs get shot out from under them. It requires a lot of redundancy to make it work.

I don't disagree with that, but I think that's true of most Aeldari builds.

Well the lack of Mandrakes has me seriously reconsidering the competitive edge of this army so we will see.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

aurynn wrote:

Voting of the "elite" on an issue that should bring balance... what a funny idea... I dont think this ever worked in even a single case in history. :-D

Of course it has. See every balanced game that didn't poll public opinion before releasing rules. Game developers often work in small groups to develop rulesets. I think these types of groups, particularly where each group of factions is equally represented by a player who solely plays those factions is more capable of creating balance than raw public opinion. If you really want to have public opinion be a major factor, have the public register what their main army is, then get to vote for their main faction's representative on the council.

What this does is it allows equal representation of DE, Tyranid, Necron, Ork, and IG perspective to that of the Marine perspective, instead of having half the votes coming from the players of basically 1 faction.

So not "elite" but a group of people with intent and unified purpose of creating balanced rules. Who have interest in the game being successful in general. That I can believe. BUT I seriously do not believe that a group of top players, one for each army would create balanced ruleset. There is an innate competition in that group, as is with every "elitist" group. Its enough to watch the discussions here, where we are not even trying to create balanced rules. VERY few of the top players are either willing or able to overstep their own shadow and ego. Its not meant badly. Its just fact that comes with the competitiveness worthy of the top ranks. So for me... no... definitely no "elite" group. The only area of human endeavour that might be (arguably) somewhat successful with this approach is pure science. I wont even begin to compare science to Wargaming. :-D

Shouldn't we discuss ideas instead of whining "bä, Eldar units are better than dark Eldar ones!"
Because, guess what: we are battle brothers and if they are better, just switch to Craftworld if you want to. If not: then don't.
But this constant telling everyone how much better Craftworld Eldar are, isn't helping. It's annoying. We all know that they got superior units.
And we. Don't. Care.
Otherwise most of us would be in a Craftworld forum and not in that dark city.
So sho sho. Go play at your Craftworld or take it like a man and stop this nonsense.

Nah let them. The fact of the matter is YOUR rhetoric here, whether you intend for it or not, Is the exact sort of rhetoric that lead to the collapse of our competitive community over in the tactica sub. People who made the same sorts of quasi-well intended nonsense as TeenageAngst, albeit with a strictly DE bent as I'm talking about early 2015, were driven out by folks who just wanted to shut their ears and wallow in the notion that we're "Not competitive but totally fine in casual play, just do whatever you wnat!!11!! wuwuwu." picked fights and drowned out comp players as cancer.

I disagree with TeenageAngst on matters of degree, and shortsightedness, but they should not be censured.

You asked before who was censoring me: Jimsolo did, and it was probably warranted, but I specifically was talking about being censured and that's what you are doing here.

As much as I do understand the truly competitive players of Warhammer and what ammorowlyday is saying... I have to see the fact that they are a very small minority of Warhammer players, however the one with very loud and angry voices. I get how angry comp players can get when their favourite army is sub-par, but its really not our fault. So implying that we are behaving like cancer when we do not want to hear the constant and repeated whining and shouting of the same thing over and over again is not OK. As a matter of fact comp play is what many, and dare I say even majority of the players see as something that is... not good for the game. We just dont scream about it constantly. Try to extend the same courtesy.

I'm sorry can you clarify that comment?

I'M saying that in 2015 Comp players were treated like cancer, and in some cases exorcised accordingly, and I do not want to see that repeated. As far as I can tell your picking that same stance with this comment hence the request for a clarification.

amorrowlyday wrote:

I'm sorry can you clarify that comment?

I'M saying that in 2015 Comp players were treated like cancer. As far as I can tell your picking that same stance with this comment hence the request for a clarification.

Then it is my fault in understanding. I understood the "drowned as cancer" as if the non-comp people were the cancer that is drowning the comp. My apologies. But I actually did not aim that comment at you as much as on whining in general. Its simply not helping. Its tiring and... we all know... :-D

Oh totes. The fact of the Matter is as far as I can tell it's non-DE transfers who are bad at the game in general; and TeenageAngst themselves, who are simply overly opinionated on this front, that are causing this cyclical rehash. Until we have physical lists in hand and an opportunity to wreck a scatspam list I don't see the later aspect toning down. The former simply ebbs and flows with newbies who don't understand the army. Hopefully being able to freely mix CWE units in as support will stop that ebb and flow soon though.

Huh it took 23 pages to to devolve to this. Is that a new record?

Scatspam is dead. I have seen it beaten more times than not. Eldar days of power are gone. They may still have some "obviously better" choices over DE or Harlies, but actually they don't. Most obvious lists have very short lifespan. Now we will see multi USF lists, WK abuse of SfD and perhaps some double triumvirate lists when the next book comes out. Not much changes for us, who are stubborn about using DE. It will take a few months before we will be able to tell what is viable and what not since the next book might shift the meta as well. We might find out that while Revenant discipline is nice, abusing rerolls with Soulburst is mighty good way to lose friends. And then 8th will hit. If I start whining now, I wont have any tears left for 8th.

@aurynn pardon my ignorance, but what does USF stand for?

Ulthwe Strike Force. You take multiple of them, Autarch and 2 troops. You get null deploy with brutal T1 Alpha strike without scatter. Between guardians, bikes, War Walkers and Vypers you can get tools to kill practically anything from any angle and Autarch will make stuff come to you at T1 at 2+. Throw in a WK in the Autarch Ynnari detachment and you can soulburst him every turn. Just basis that can be built upon ofc.

It's not that I don't value those opinions but it's the repetition that is annoying.
I'm utterly convinced that a good competitive player is down for solutions not for stating the obvious over and over again.

Anyway @BetrayTheWorld
Your talk about the Craftworld heavy support guns and of the USF makes me remember that I actually wanted to build an Ulthwé force years ago. When I was still playing my iron Warriors. Without any Aspect Warriors.

aurynn wrote:

. I have to see the fact that they(competitive players) are a very small minority of Warhammer players, however the one with very loud and angry voices.

I don't think this is accurate. There are tons of competitive players. The problem is that the non-competitive players have all just sort of silently agreed to shame competitive players to no end, and so many competitive players have to intentionally try to gimp themselves and act LESS competitive just to not be labelled "that guy" and shunned by people who are really just bad at the game(and in many cases don't care to try to improve). This is reinforced by the way GW generally presented their rules in the past, essentially encouraging a "play fluffy! Forge the narrative!" mentality while providing rules that encouraged the exact opposite. So no competitive player could tell fluffbunnies that the game wasn't meant to be played that way because GW said it WAS. But in order for the OPPOSITE argument to be made(that the game is designed in a way that encourages competition), your audience would need to have a thorough understanding of gaming and game design in order to really comprehend. And most people arguing against competitive play DON'T have those thorough understandings of gaming and game design, or they likely wouldn't be arguing against competitive play. It's the paradox of being a competitive player, in a competitive game, where the game designer decided to troll everyone and say, "But forge the narrative!", and half the people who bought the game bought the BS too.

And besides, even many "casual" players often watch batreps and listen to podcasts of competitive players, because plenty of "casuals" are only casual because they don't think their skill level or wallet is sufficient to be competitive.

Are there more casual players than competitive players? Almost assuredlym for the reason mentioned above. But there are more competitive players than it seems like. Some of us have just learned not to talk so much, and not to be openly in favor of competition over fluff. I haven't learned that lesson yet.

aurynn wrote:

Ulthwe Strike Force. You take multiple of them, Autarch and 2 troops.

Be aware that the Ulthwe Strike Force can't be taken in the reborn warhost, despite it being presented in that book.

aurynn wrote:

I wont even begin to compare science to Wargaming. :-D

The exact same personality types are typically the best at both. INTJ's and INTP's are interchangeably the best strategists and innovative thinkers. I'm an INTJ, bordering on ENTJ.

edit: never mind I guess

That's what competitive dark eldar is. When you don't have the right tools for the job you need to weigh the statistical likelyhood of every such endeavor is and build that into the presumptions that impact all of the other list building decisions you make. I appreciate your least common denominator approach to advice, but at the end of the day the puzzle that they are putting up is constrained only by the limitations the OP places. Sometimes those constraints call for that sometimes they don't.

Anyway: I'm still convinced a sacrificial detachment is worth the points. Especially when you consider that 2 lhamaens, 3 Mandrakes, 2 Warriors, and 6 single beast masters is only 288 pts for 13 units that are likely to die if your opponent so much as looks at them. Bringing scapegoats is only a bad idea if it's expensive. At 22 pts per unit that doesn't really feel like a big deal.

I mean, sending DE out to die is what they do best so if you're looking to feed your opponent kill points I can't think of a better way to do it.

Kill points don't matter if I can actually table you, and if I just entitled myself to ~13 or 26 extra actions it's considerably more likely that I can do so.