Best of both worlds - Max out our best units in a 1.5k list.

Agahnim wrote:

Also why are you taking 27 Reavers? Mush is a great guy but you all need to stop worshiping him.

You dare offend the Messiah! MINIONS SEIZE THIS HERETIC!

On a serious note I don't advocate 27 reavers it's just been fun trying to make it work, in my latest game I was only using 18 (BLASPHEMY!). I know 27 at 1500 points leaves far to little left to spend on the rest of your army (as Shadows Revenge has told me repeatedly ).

Agahnim wrote:

Is that third heat lance in each squad really worth taking 3 more reavers for it? Think about whether or not you're really losing all that much running 3 squads of 6, because if you think about it, you'd be paying for one less squad. Those points could go into more shooting, or making sure your Troops live, or something.

I do however advocate squads of 9 as they are just more reliable against vehicles, increase survivability, are more pain token efficient, open up assault as an option, increase bladevane damage and make the unit into a better objective contester. I think two squads of 9 has more uses than three squads of 6 (which I used to run in 5th). It also frees up a slot for beasts or scourges. This of course doesn't mean squads of six don't have their place.

Agahnim wrote:

Reavers are a harassment/distraction unit. They are good for being annoying. But they have diminishing returns on their damage, and your opponent will ignore the bladevane swooping and block their LoS to Troops (this is why Mech is good, cheap mobile terrain) and kill your Troops that much sooner.

This is where the bigger units are more useful, as the bladevane attacks are more effective, and blocking line of sight won't stop you bladevaning, of course a canny opponent will probably set up flamers accordingly.

Agahnim wrote:

Besides, Heat Lances? Really? Why not Blasters, which are better in every way due to changes to AP2?

I used blasters all the way through 5th. The heatlance is more reliable but needs an aggressive list to force saturation so the reavers can close. The Blaster is more versatile, and makes it easy to keep the reavers alive and is well suited for a shooty/more passive list. Again my latest list is using blasters because they synergies better with it. I firmly believe both weapons have their place.

On another note I find the larger squads help make the blasters more usable as three blasters is a lot more reliable than two, especially with the introduction of hull points.

Agahnim wrote:

and Shardcarbines aren't the worst substitute for Bladevanes.

Fun fact 6-9 reavers on average inflict as many wounds rapid firing their target as they do bladevaning it (assuming MEQ).

On another note why reavers don't have shardcarbines instead of splinter rifles is beyond me, the weapon ties in so much more with the unit. To be honest it would be awesome if warriors came with shard-carbines.

Agahnim wrote:

it's impossible to make a "maxed out," competitive, or optimized DE list.

Improbable yes, impossible no. The internet has had a peculiar effect on 40k. Although wonderful for sharing knowledge and information, in some ways has stifled creativity of the masses by people just copying each others lists and set view developing on how certain armies should be played. We need to take off the shutters, this is a new edition, we might not have the best codex, but we have one with a lot of viable options, anything is fair game. The new edition is uncharted territory, who knows what wonders we might find?

All I'm saying, is rather than assuming things as fact, people should experiment and try things out to discern for themselves what works and what doesn't. Different people, different shoes.

Mushkilla wrote:

[The internet has had a peculiar effect on 40k. Although wonderful for sharing knowledge and information, in some ways has stifled creativity of the masses by people just copying each others lists and set view developing on how certain armies should be played. We need to take off the shutters, this is a new edition, we might not have the best codex, but we have one with a lot of viable options, anything is fair game. The new edition is uncharted territory, who knows what wonders we might find?

All I'm saying, is rather than assuming things as fact, people should experiment and try things out to discern for themselves what works and what doesn't. Different people, different shoes.

Totally agree. I spend a lot of time reading various 40k blogs, yes even the bile-infused, vitriolic ones, and constantly see people saying "X is useless", "Y is worthless", "IIf you don't take 6 of Z you're a retard" etc. This ignores one vital thing - context. What works in one meta might be easily countered in another. We can't even universally agree on what the rules of the game are or which parts of the rules are included in our games so how on earth can we definitively say what is good or bad?

I dare say that if most of the lists I use or play against were subjected to the scrutiny of one of the (in)famous bloggers or a tournament winning player like Tony Kopach, they would be laughed out of town. But these same lists work well against each other. They are challenging to play with in the environment that we play in. Outside of that, who knows?

I'm not annoyed byt the title, I'm just trying to get across why the whole "it's no longer Dark Eldar/whatever army if I take allies point" seems as ridiculous to me as trying to create optimized lists with one codex. It's not limited to Dark Eldar, I think they're certainly not the best codex but this is OK, because in 6th edition codices are no longer judged against each other in a vacuum, what allies they have and what they contribute to an alliance are also factors.

I think the title is a worthy goal, I just want to illustrate that it's no longer something any one codex can possibly do alone, no matter how overpowered or tyranids it is. Not improbable. Impossible.

The way you define metagame isn't exactly a metagame. A balanced list handles all lists, and requires a skilled player. So much goes into victory, but most of it is much more simple. The point is, hypothetically, I could conceive of many powerful lists that are only able to be beaten by unfair and prejudicial terrain or being netlisted by someone who doesn't understand why or how they work. They may not be present at your local store, but if nobody within 50 miles of your local M:tG Legacy scene uses Lion's Eye Diamond, that doesn't mean the decks that use it aren't better than anything at your local tournaments and PTQs. If we turn the clock back to 2006, and there are no good Fox or Falco players at your local tournaments, it doesn't make them worse characters, or other characters better, it means nobody near you plays Fox or Falco.

This is the good side of internet 40k - it lets us understand that the game is something deeper and more complex than we ever imagined. The bad side is that this is squandered because we have to filter out all of the stubborn insistence that someone else's tiny, homogeneous data pool is more objective than ours. I don't judge based on what works locally. I judge based on what I could possibly beat everyone else's best with.

And so there's this issue: Most books can bring some kind of 35-50 Marines and 20-35 Guardsmen depending on where they fall on the hybrid-mech spectrum. If they ran full foot, you are easily looking at 60 Marines and 50 Guardsmen, some flyers, and any 2 of dreadnoughts/devastators/gun-only tanks. They have 8 scoring troops. You won't shoot their Troops off of every objective if they're of equal skill. Maybe if you are both really, really good, you'll kill most of their Troops. But they can kill all of yours, and you can only kill 5-6 of theirs at most, assuming you go for their throat and make no mistakes.

But this is the point I'm making - unless you have some modelling or fanfiction obligation, there is no reason not to use the allies system. There are ways, and 6th edition can be so much better for Dark Eldar and Allies/an army with Dark Eldar allies than 5th ever was, but that's another wall of text.

---
The issue with Heat Lances and Blasters is... Blasters are just better. Sorry. I'm only so harsh on the Heat Lances because I prefer Reavers > Scourges myself (I was just making it clear Scourges are an option), and Blasters have double the effective range because they don't need Melta, they're S8. They pen other DE vehicles and Chimerae on a 3+, Space Marine vehicles on a 4+, and in the event you MUST shoot front armor on a Chimera or Predator, or are fighting Necrons, you need a 5+ to pen. If you successfully score a penetrating hit with a blaster you outright wreck the vehicle half the time. These are really good odds.

Meanwhile, S6 Melta means you either aren't doing much to vehicles at all, or you're within 9" and you're kind of fixed at a 13 to break armor no higher than 12, and you wreck the vehicle on a 3+. So yeah, those are better odds, but keep your calculator out, the game's not over.

See, if that was a transport, which are really the best kind of vehicles in 6th, guess what's inside/right behind it. You guessed it - things that will kill 9 Reavers in shooting or assault easily, and you didn't move flat-out, did you? Now what? Well, it's the shooting phase, so you can't bladevane those guys.

If you try to focus fire them with your other units, fine, but then you're interrupting normal target priority so save 240-something points of Reavers. Which means the things you were supposed to be shooting just got a free pass, or you lose 1/8 of your army to a single enemy unit.

Will you try to escape by moving 6" straight backward in the assault phase? Unfortunately, your (Dark) Eldar jetbike assault move is countered by the fact that disembarks are now 6". So if there was something inside that vehicle, you haven't actually escaped from them, they're still 9" away from your Heat Lance Reavers.

I needn't explain what happens when Reavers are rapid-fired at by pulse/bolt/splinter/gauss weapons and don't have cover. Nor is it necessary to explain why 9" away is easily within charge range. Blasters, on the other hand, can use the full 18" range, and if there's nothing disembarking towards you, it's effectively 24" range, not 15". Which is a big difference, 15" is average charge distance WITH fleet. 24" is Jump Infantry/Cavalry rolling Double 6s. How safe are your Reavers?

Actually 6'' is just for emergency disembark (if you can't place the models for some reason, like the enemy blocks all access points, you get to place them 6'' of the wreck. If it blow up you still place the models inside in the crater). Blasters do have better effective range, but heatlances are far more likely to penetrate, and also more likely to destroy a vehicle (or deal a more damaging result in general) due to ap1.

While I have personally switched to blasters like I said I feel they are a less risky option, and now that I use my reavers for harass and late game contesting, I think they are better suited (Where as the I personally think heatlances are great in an aggressive list). There are a few rule clarifications that I need to point out that make things less bleak as you suggest.

Agahnim wrote:

Unfortunately, your (Dark) Eldar jetbike assault move is countered by the fact that disembarks are now 6". So if there was something inside that vehicle, you haven't actually escaped from them, they're still 9" away from your Heat Lance Reavers.

The Eldar Jetbike move is 2d6" now (for better or worse).

When you destroy a transport the units must be placed in the crater ("surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be" - BRB page 80).

When you wreck a transport the unit may only emergency disembark 3" ("save they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"" - BRB page 80).

Agahnim wrote:

I needn't explain what happens when Reavers are rapid-fired at by pulse/bolt/splinter/gauss weapons and don't have cover.

The reavers always have a 4+ cover save as long as they move (rapid fire bolters will still eat them).

Agahnim wrote:

codices are no longer judged against each other in a vacuum, what allies they have and what they contribute to an alliance are also factors.

While that is a valid point, you have to rememeber at 1.5k its useless to take allies unless they are battle brothers, to which our only one is Eldar, who dont bring much that we cant bring ourselves.

Farseer + Doom can shut down enemy psychers and greatly amplify the effectiveness of poisoned shooting attacks makes hit a 75% chance to wound rather than 50%.

Factoring hit ratio and armor saves thats 17% chance for every shot to cause an unsaved wound against MEQ rather than 11%. Causing a unit of 10 marines to be reliably killed with 58 shots rather than 90