Ravagers

Personally, I always thought of the Dark Eldar more of a theme rather than an army. You can give fully into that and make a fluffy DE list that you can play against friends (meaning stuff like Venoms, Grotesques, Reavers and maybe some Ravagers).

Or you just take a Corsair, Craftworld or Ynnari army and give them Dark Eldar aesthetics. We only used to have CWE as such an option, but with the latests Eldar releases I think there is a lot of choice.

Fielding a Corsair army that is ruled by an (ex)-Archon is not far fetched (the Baron is basically one), same goes for a Kabal which fields spiky Windriders and tormented Wraith-units.


I am sure that a big rule-update will come eventually and I don't doubt that it will elevate us to the higher tiers of power again. Probably not top tier, but I wouldn't want that either.

I don't think anyone's arguing you shouldn't run your dudes as your dudes, whatever dudes they may be and whatever codex you run them from. What I'm arguing is half-measures and reskins are for chumps. If you wanna run DE, pick up the codex and beat people with Dark Eldar. Be that crazy fox who saunters up to the top table with a bunch of Raiders. If you wanna run CWE and call them Dark Eldar, enjoy your Kool-aid.

Great! I'll step up and refute that with fluffy blends any day of the week as will others, and I think that is what makes us so different from everywhere else: we bash each other over the head with comp and fluff crowbars while the marines kowtow to a very specific definition of what should be done.

amorrowlyday wrote:

Great! I'll step up and refute that with fluffy blends any day of the week as will others, and I think that is what makes us so different from everywhere else: we bash each other over the head with comp and fluff crowbars while the marines kowtow to a very specific definition of what should be done.

Well. We're dark eldar... We're expected to bash each other over the head.

Ravagers are meh, they aren't really great nor are they terrible.

In my experience the higher vehicle count your army has, the better the ravager is.
Throwing a couple into a list actually works just fine (especially with the dissies), you don't need 6 though again they seem to work better in a vehicle spam list.

If you are going to vehicle spam then I would suggest tripple lances on all of them, I personally have never used more than 4 but I run a very CC heavy Dark Eldar list.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Unless it's the specific Dark Eldar codex people are wedded to, rather than the fluff, in which case that sounds like a textbook case of Stockholm Syndrome...

I think you're on to something here with a lot of people, to be honest, as displayed by how many people talk about how they wouldn't want their codex to be a competitive, or "top tier" codex.

I think almost every codex released since necrons has been fairly competitive. I'd like the DE codex to be similarly competitive. As a competitive, tournament-style player, I want to be able to use the thousands of dollars in DE models that I own in the types of games I choose to participate in.

If other people want their DE to be nerfed...if they want to play with a handicap, I doubt anyone would stop them from inflicting a nerf upon their own codex during play. On the other hand, convincing all your opponents and TOs to let you buff your codex from what it actually says is extremely unlikely. So I sincerely hope that any GW designers that stumble upon these comments don't listen to these crazy masochists.

I would love for DE to be competitive and top tier. Make Night Shields force opponents to snap fire, have darklight weapons force blind checks on hits, etc. But they have to be Dark Eldar. If I'm given a mix and match faction with absolutely atrocious fluff, special characters who are Mary Sues, and no restrictions on what I can bring I'm going to run it at the redline every game because tabling people in a WAAC fashion is the only fun to be had with an army like that. I'm not gonna run DE as Ynnari, pretend they're the same faction, and also pretend it's a good enough upgrade when I have scatbikes and spiders I could use to fill the same darn slots. It's either one or the other, some half-baked middle ground removes the fun of the fluff and also the fun of absolutely destroying someone on the table with a straight up broken list.

I think night shields should do 1 thing: Force it to be considered night fighting/night time so long as at least 1 of them is on the board. Basically like a portable eclipse generator. Fluffy, techy, and effective at improving the entire army while not being OP.

There are many things that could be done to improve darklight weapons. This all would be a different topic though...

...Regarding ravagers, I think they'd need a pretty significant points decrease, along the lines of hornets. Maybe 75-80 points for a base ravager, +5 for each dark lance for a final cost of 90-95 for a 3 lance ravager.

Forget balance, if I wanted balance I'd be playing Bolt Action. I want DE to be OP. I want a good 8 months or so of tournament wins before the next round of expansion books puts someone else at the top of the heap lol something to make up for the past few years of misery.

Well regardless, I think night shields being portable eclipse generators forcing it to be night time would still be cool as hell, and useful for our entire army.

Also it's within the realm of possibility. Night shields causing all units to snapfire against them will never happen unless they make night shields cost 80 points or something.

You're talking about a company that said "Eh, you know what? Let's make a 1 warp charge power that protects an IC's entire unit from shooting. And make it the primaris too."

TeenageAngst wrote:

You're talking about a company that said "Eh, you know what? Let's make a 1 warp charge power that protects an IC's entire unit from shooting. And make it the primaris too."

Hyperbole will help no-one in this instance.

It's a 1 warp charge power...on a 60pt IC (at least) that protects you from shooting over 24" away, and offers reduced protection at closer ranges.

Also, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from taking a Ynnari list and filling it with Dark Eldar. Yes most of their roles would be better placed with Craftworlders. So what? You didn't take Craftworlders when they were allies, why should you take Craftworlders now? There's no-one forcing you to take Warp Spiders and Scatbikes if you choose to use Ynnari rules.

Actually, that would help to alleviate the issue you've been having with tabling people using Ynnari rules. Take less effective units in each slot. Problem fixes itself. If you're wanting Dark Eldar to be a top-tier codex, but simultaneously complaining about the game being boring when playing as a top tier codex, then perhaps I'm missing the point. Ynnari are good, but from what I've heard so far they're not completely OP. Perhaps Dark Eldar tacticians are just that much better trained that when we get a competitive army we jump up in the rankings

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

...Regarding ravagers, I think they'd need a pretty significant points decrease, along the lines of hornets. Maybe 75-80 points for a base ravager, +5 for each dark lance for a final cost of 90-95 for a 3 lance ravager.

I think even that is way overpriced, especially if compared to a Hornet.

At 80 points, a Hornet has 4 shots at strength 8, AP2
It can scout
It can turbo boost and still shoot (a 96" threat range! 12 scout, 12 move, 24 turbo, 48" range weapon)
it has a 48" range weapon
It can be taken in squadrons
It has acute senses
It can outflank
It has armor 11, with 2 hull points.

With your REDUCED cost ravager, it has:
3 shots (only 2 can fire if moved over 6" at full BS)
36" range weapons
Lance special rule
Open topped (detriment)
3 hull points, armor 11
night vision


So you are PAYING an extra 15 points for less shots, less range, easier to destroy, cant scout, outflank, turbo and shoot, turbos LESS than a hornet, and is inferior in almost every single aspect.

Rules staying as they are now, in comparison to Hornets, Ravagers need to be in the 50-60 point range.

Now, that being said, not sure if that is because ravagers are so overcosted, or hornets are undercosted, but if given the choice between a ravager or a hornet at 80 points, i would go hornet almost every time.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Now, that being said, not sure if that is because ravagers are so overcosted, or hornets are undercosted, but if given the choice between a ravager or a hornet at 80 points, i would go hornet almost every time.

It's a little of both in my opinion. The Hornet is indisputably underpriced, especially with the option of Pulse Lasers (without that option, it's open to debate). I'd say you could leave the base cost of the Hornet where it is but up the cost of Pulse Lasers by a significant amount and people would still use them.

Ravagers are also overcosted. With their current rules they're not even close to being worth 125 points.

Essentially if you swapped the point costs for a DL Ravager and PL Hornet you'd probably be closer to reality.

Funny how it's evolving into a thread against multi cultural armies.
I have no problem with integrating Craftworld into true Eldar. I just don't like the "I HAVE TO MAXIMIZE EVERYTHING!" attitude. It's the same with riptide wing armies.

If you're in a tournament: okay
Everyone is on the same page. I want the game to tell a story, that's what I strive for.
A super friends mega list death star isn't particularity inspiring.

But if you actually devote time into converting your Craftworld Eldar to look like the rest of your army: fine. Great! I love it!

Agreed on the 'maximise everything' approach being offputting. I suppose it might be helpful if we categorise units into different levels of competitiveness.

1. Sharp end of competitive (Warp Spiders, Wraithknights, Hornets)
2. Competitive (Grotesquerie, Reavers)
3. Usable (Ravagers)
4. Inadvisable (Voidweavers)
5. Unusable (Wych blobs)

Just because PL Hornets are undercosted, and Ravagers are overcosted, doesn't mean that you can't take Ravagers and still have reasonable success (especially if they're Dissie Ravagers and you already have sufficient anti-tank).

Quote :

Also, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from taking a Ynnari list and filling it with Dark Eldar. Yes most of their roles would be better placed with Craftworlders. So what? You didn't take Craftworlders when they were allies, why should you take Craftworlders now? There's no-one forcing you to take Warp Spiders and Scatbikes if you choose to use Ynnari rules.

I play bad armies to improve myself as a player or as a challenge or for fun. I play good armies to win. I play fluffy lists for fun. The Ynnari fluff is recognized as a carcinogen in the state of California and running a good army badly just makes you look like a rube or worse, one of those self-hating Eldar players. There is every reason to run Warp Spiders and Scatbikes and those units are dull as Dilbert.

Quote :

Actually, that would help to alleviate the issue you've been having with tabling people using Ynnari rules. Take less effective units in each slot. Problem fixes itself. If you're wanting Dark Eldar to be a top-tier codex, but simultaneously complaining about the game being boring when playing as a top tier codex, then perhaps I'm missing the point. Ynnari are good, but from what I've heard so far they're not completely OP. Perhaps Dark Eldar tacticians are just that much better trained that when we get a competitive army we jump up in the rankings

Ynnari are so broken it redefines the premise and anyone who tells you different is mental or has never played CWE. I don't want to gimp a good army, I want my bad army to be good. I also don't think playing top tier lists is boring, I think CWE require as much imagination and skill to play as Wonderwall. They're boring except when they're bending Tau over the table like my ex-wife, and if DE could so that then I'd never need to look at them again.

Since when did I say you use the Ynnari fluff? I said use the Ynnari rules with the Dark Eldar fluff because the Ynnari rules are more fluffy for Dark Eldar than their own rules. Fixed.

'Not taking warp spiders' does not equate to playing a good army badly. Playing badly does. Take sub-par Dark Eldar units (like you're already doing in the Dark Eldar army), and play well with a better ruleset, resulting in a more balanced army. Again, fixed (until they update the DEldar codex and then you can use that).

What does this have to do with Ravagers again?

I play bad armies because I hate myself as a person and think I should always lose... >.> <.< >.> I mean, what?

I think the Ravager should be far more devastating. It's a f*ing Ravager after all, where that thing shoots no grass will grow anymore.

My solution is bringing back Aerial Assault and a new "Rapid Fire Batteries" rule. As the name suggests, Rapid Fire Batteries allows to shoot each weapon twice if it was shot from half the distance or less. Rapid Fire for heavy weapons, basically.

Dark Lances might be lacklustre, but 6 shots are nothing to sneeze at. Not to mention of the 18 S5 AP2 shots.

I think this turns the Ravager into a fitting high risk, high reward unit. Furthermore, it differentiates itself further from the Hornet (which I also added in my codex).

Or an "overcharge" rule. You can fire twice for a turn, but can't fire next turn.

Heck, I'd take AV 12...

Seeing as Dark Lances in general aren't a points-worth pick, would making them Salvo 2/1 work (alongside Aerial Assault). Basically double the firepower of a stationaary Ravager, and also allow Scourges to shoot them on the move. Might justify their price tag then (or would that just be too nasty)

There is no too nasty when things like Riptide Wings exist. Give Ravagers the business.