How many troop choices do I need?

Hi all, new Dark Eldar player here - just come back into 40k with 6th ed and I've mainly been playing various MEQs, usually Space Wolves, and I've got a question about how many troop choices you guys would recommend. Apologies if there's already a topic on this, had a look but couldn't see one.

I've been drawing up a few 1000 point lists, and so far I've found I tend to end up very troop light - usually a bare 2 choices. As someone used to solid bricks of power armour, its mildly disturbing, but I'm finding the shiny big guns and Reavers (blame Mushkilla) too alluring.

So can I get away with two fairly small troop choices? Do I need to be extra careful with them if I do? And how many troops do you people usually take?

Thanks in advance for all help.

My general guideline (which will most likely get destroyed here ) is:

Up to 1000: 2 troops
1001 to 1500: 3 troops
1501 to 2000: 4 troops

In larger armies, I avoid sticking to just warriors and Wyches; I prefer to use Wracks as objective holders and plan on using Hellion troops as late-game ricochet objective taking/contesting units (once I build a decent Baron model).

Personally I don't consider there a "Minimum" or "guideline" for this, at least not as far as Dark Eldar go. Given how fragile DE are (even Wracks/Hellions die easily/quickly) planning on your troops surviving to hold/contest an objective seems pointless to me. Instead I would focus on buying units to fit offensively with my army. Warriors (fire support) and Wyches (Anti-Tank, Melee Tar Pit, Archon Retinue) both have roles to fill beyond being troops in a DE army so just by filling those roles you get your troop count naturally.

I tend to run max troops most of the time (well obviously a bit less then max at 1k due to point limits), not because I care about them being troops but because I like Warriors/Wyches in Venoms in their own right (alongside Trueborn/Ravagers, I rarely buy much Fast Attack beyond maybe a beastpack) and thus I naturally end up that way.

Murkglow, would you recommend I didn't sweat it if my natural choices for offensive units led to a low troop count? Or should I simply shrug it off and just concentrate on killing enemies?

Really it very much depends on how you're running your army and what you do with your Troops.

I've seen some people field very minimal squads of Wracks and hold them in reserve to wander out late game for objectives. It...somewhat seems to work for them.

Personally i use my Troops as primary attacks, and consequently field a lot of them (also, i think our Troop selection is pretty good). At 1,000 points I would likely be fielding 4+ Troop options.

The real question is to look at your army and ask 'what is this Troop selection for'
Also ask yourself 'will it live till endgame?'

If you only need the Troops for objective claiming *and* you believe they will live to endgame then you're fine where you're at.
I personally suspect any DE list with only 2 Troops slots is in for a rude awakening - but I also think I can be proven wrong and that experience is the best teacher on that point, so I won't claim it as an absolute. There are no absolutes in this game...other than maybe that one

wanderingblade wrote:

Murkglow, would you recommend I didn't sweat it if my natural choices for offensive units led to a low troop count? Or should I simply shrug it off and just concentrate on killing enemies?

Both. I think fielding an army that works for you offensively is more important then hitting some minimum threshold of troop choices and/or trying to ensure you have troops alive at the end of the game. With Dark Eldar being the glass cannons they are, rather then hoping to keep troops on your objectives I like to concentrate on removing my enemies troops from theirs (or even better clearing the board ). Then again I'm with Thor in thinking our troops are quite good so I natural have alot of troops anyway. I'm not buying them because they are troops, that's just a fringe benefit of trying to kill my opponent better/faster and picking units that help me do that.

I've been thinking about this a lot, mainly because I'm still trying to find the balance between Troops and the shiny toys in the rest of the codex. Unfortunately I've done a lot more thinking than playing , only a few games of 6th under my belt so far.

I agree with Thor665 and Murkglow, that out troops are actually pretty cool. So that justifies taking them in and of themselves, to perform a particular function, as well as taking objectives (though with our Toughness and Saves being what they are, rarely holding them).

I think its also the case that in a random rulebook mission environment, the need for lots of Troops choices is a little bit overstated. One mission out of six allows Fast Attack to score, one mission allows Heavy Support to score. So a couple of ravagers and reavers (or beasts and Talos) are suddenly backup scoring units. One mission has only one objective anyway, and one mission has only two objectives; take one, deny the other, win. One more mission doesn't use objectives at all. So only one rulebook mission has more than two objectives that only troops can hold!

Long story short, take what suits your style and strategy. Just remember that all of our dudes are a stiff breeze away from a revivification tank at the local Haemonculus' pleasure.

I tend to run very troop heavy. At 1,000 I tend to run 4 (2 5-man Kabalites with a blaster in a venom, 2 Wyche units in Raiders). I start every list with those 4 units. At 1500 I tend to add a large Wrack unit in a Raider and another troop pick. I'm with Thor in using our Troops as attacking units.

Personally been using 4 troop choice for 1200-1600 + pts. 2 warrior units for objective capping and 2 wyches for head-on threat/suicide squad to keep the enemy pre-occupied with those.

Keeping them in combat giving them their invul save and hopefully a pain token to gain additional survivability seems to work wonders making my opponent spend 2-3 turns on them.

Yup, I noticed a shift towards troop oriented lists myself since 6th. I always try to jam in as many troop choices as possible really now. Plus I also run them offensive. Don't see our army really as objective holders. More as objective getters. But you always have to look at the synergy of your list, as others already pointed out.

I've virtually never run troops as objective holders - even in armies where I could do it, my preference tends to run more towards trying to table my enemy and reluctantly moving surviving troops towards objectives if it becomes apparent the tabling won't be happening. Surviving enemies makes me sad. However, usually I take a lot of resilient troop choices, and could rely on having some left to camp objectives if needed. Obviously, Dark Eldar are as resilient as a politician's promise, so that in itself means I need to change my mindset, and when I came up with a first list that involved very few troop choices I worried a little and wanted to know what others thought - hence the question. Not that I think DEldar troops are bad, just I liked other options more.

I think I should have really phased the question as "How much can I get away with ignoring objectives".

In 6th edition? Not. 5/6 missions are objective based. Basic strategy with DE is to dance around the objectives for a turn or 3 and then grab/deny objectives turn 4/5.

I always go for the tabling. But in turn 4 I see where I'm at and position myself if needed.
But so far in 6th ed I have had 2 games I've won without tabling. And lost 3 matches I think (not sure, but not far from that number).

So tabling is ususaly my answer to everything but then again I bring alot of troops. 5 Warriors with blaster in venom = 125 right? so, not expensive at all

@Darklight: Talking tourneys or casual?

both, well I am abit more on the safe side playing turneys, I dont "go for the tabling" per say there... I watch the movement more so I can win on objectives if needed. But in turneys I only have one loss so far in 6th. But have been quite inactive on turneys so far, just been to a couple. But I have tabled in those aswell, even tho that havnt been my main goal.

Well, maybe you should start on some tactic articles on here then. Would love to read your ideas.

wanderingblade wrote:

I think I should have really phased the question as "How much can I get away with ignoring objectives".

I say go ahead with your low troop army if you want. I think people overstate the importance of troops/objectives (or how much 6th changed things, kinda like the internet being all about "the death of mech and foot armies being everywhere" which is hogwash IMO). Yeah sure there are matches with objectives but as long as you have one and they have none you're fine. Or even better if they are simply dead there isn't any issue at all. So I don't "dance around the objectives for 3 turns then grab some on the 4/5th" (putting forth the idea that the objectives are what I care about/am focused on), I work on killing my enemy and at the end if there are objectives on hand to grab/contest at the end of the game then I do that. Just a matter of mindset/priorities.

And of course if afterwards you find the army doesn't work how you want it to you can always change it (proxy a game or two if you're worried about buying units you in the end don't want).

@Murkglow: I wrote that out of own experience, not internet. I wrote that to back up the statement that our troops are not really objective holders. You are quoting it out of context. I find going for killing the enemy harder than playing for the mission. But if it works for you, go ahead. You' re, obviously, a better tactician than me, 'cause I can't seem to pull it off against the people I play. But if you go for the mission then having enough troops is important.
I' ll agree with you on the notion that it's about mindset though. Indeed, if you go for tabling your opponent then troops to claim are of less concern. But i'm telling you, try that against experienced IG/Necron/BA players on tournaments and I don't give it much chance.

tlronin wrote:

Well, maybe you should start on some tactic articles on here then. Would love to read your ideas.

Might give it a though... I'm not the best at writing articles tho. But there are som excellent threads here from Thor and Plastikente even tho they might be more of unit breakdown than tactics...

"The winning army realises the conditions for victory first, then fights. The losing army fights first, then seeks victory." - Sun Tzu

OT:

Mushkilla wrote:

"The winning army realises the conditions for victory first, then fights. The losing army fights first, then seeks victory." - Sun Tzu

Funnily this is how all the games I had went. I won every game where I used some time to think about "what are my goals?" and "how do I archive them?",while I lost all games where I thought tabling would be the best idea.


To the topic, I usually play with 3 troops under 1500 points and 4 troops at 1500 or higher. Never fielded more than 2x6 GJB's and 2x5 Wyches in a Raider. I tend to suicide the Wyches while I keep the GJB's out of sight until they can safely secure something of importance.

I guess my point or thought is, I can't win any other way then by attacking because if I don't attack then the enemy has more troops to shoot me with and then I die. Unless the board has ungodly amounts of terrain I don't see how you could afford not to attack and blunt the enemy offensive even if you prioritized the objectives first. Lastly just because I prioritize defeating the enemy (tabling being the end result/ideal) doesn't mean I move troops wildly out of the way of objectives just for the heck of it or ignore them out of spite for their existance, in short I'm not sure how "trying to table an enemy" in any way can lead to you losing the game.

Murkglow wrote:

I guess I don't understand how you can win without attacking the enemy as effectively as possible, at least with an army as fragile and offensively minded as dark eldar.

I think people are talking at cross purposes her.

Just because people say they play an objective game doesn't mean they don't attack.

Just because people say they play to table doesn't mean they don't take objectives into account.

Mushkilla wrote:

Murkglow wrote:

I guess I don't understand how you can win without attacking the enemy as effectively as possible, at least with an army as fragile and offensively minded as dark eldar.

I think people are talking at cross purposes her.

Just because people say they play an objective game doesn't mean they don't attack.

Just because people say they play to table doesn't mean they don't take objectives into account.

So very true, and I fall in the last category, unless I'm playing IG. Then its an differant situation. Man I hate that race :/

I suggest you disregard all the people who say they try and table their opponent every single game. They might do it once and a while but if they play even semi-competitive then they are loosing more games than they are winning. Tabling someone takes practice with good movement and objective taking. FACT: 5-6 missions are objective based, so trying to ruin your opponent with only 2 squads of troops you're going to fail, miserably. DE are super mobile so you can grab objectives very easily and force your opponent who 95% of the time is much slower to play your game plan and not theirs. Unlike what some people are saying you can't just run around the board for 3-4 turns and then just simply contest or take them on the last turn. You are going to get obliterated in semi-comp play. Take a couple gunboats and raiders full of wyches to tarpit the crap out of units to keep them from grabbing objectives and you're good to go. Even if you manage to grab an objective or two they can still win it with a warlord kill or linebreaker, etc.