Venoms and blasters, viable?

I've been hunting around the internet looking for ways to play my new d.e. but have started to question some of the things I have been told. I have seen venom's with warriors and a blaster but started to wonder. should I even get that close to enemies ( card board box tanks)?

I seem to be lacking some anti tank in my list so I thought of adding some warriors in a venom. but should I? thanks!

You could probably benefit from looking at some batreps of people using DE.
Some armies you get close to, others you dance at midrange with. DE are certainly not a long range army though.

Thor665 wrote:

You could probably benefit from looking at some batreps of people using DE.
Some armies you get close to, others you dance at midrange with. DE are certainly not a long range army though.

T:D hanks mate ill take a look
-cheers

Skulwazza wrote:

I've been hunting around the internet looking for ways to play my new d.e. but have started to question some of the things I have been told. I have seen venom's with warriors and a blaster but started to wonder. should I even get that close to enemies ( card board box tanks)?

Well, there's no easy answer to that, since there are so many factors that can influence it.

To name a few:

- What is your enemy's range like? If he's short-ranged and/or assault, then he'll have to come to you. In this case, it may be better to fire the venom's splinter cannons, and the warrior's rifles if the enemy is within 24". If the enemy moves close to you, you can either move away, or move towards him to get yourself in rapid-fire range (and perhaps finish off a wounded squad). Conversely, if your enemy is a long-range army, then you'll almost certainly want to advance. He's unlikely to come to you, so you'll need to come to him if you want to bring all your guns to bear.

- How likely is it that your squad's venom will die? This comes down to what long-range anti-tank your opponent has, and how much priority your venom will have. Essentially, if your venom is likely to die, then you'll need to consider what position your squad will be left in. If it will render them useless (e.g. too far from enemies/objectives to do anything meaningful) then it's probably better to advance them now - whilst they still have a transport.

- How badly are they needed at the front? Is there an objective they need to move on, or a vehicle that needs to die (but you're running short of blasters/dark-lances). In this case, it's probably best to advance them.

- How much damage will your opponent do to you if you move closer? If you're likely to lose your transport and squad by advancing towards an objective, then doing so is almost certainly pointless. Maybe you need to try something desperate (e.g. blaster a troublesome vehicle), but sacrificing your squad is something you should think very carefully about.

Skulwazza wrote:

I seem to be lacking some anti tank in my list so I thought of adding some warriors in a venom. but should I? thanks!

Well, it depends on your list. See, the above squad is what I'd call last-resort anti-tank. The odds of them killing a vehicle with it are pretty poor, and the rest of the squad can't do anything to said vehicle. Basically, they're what you use when you're a) desperate, or b) trying to strip the last hull point from an already-damaged vehicle.

My first choices for anti-tank would be 1) Ravager with 3 dark lances, 2) 3-4 trueborn with blasters in a venom, 3) 6 Reaver jetbikes with 2 heat lances, or 5 scourges with 2 heat lances, haywire blasters or dark lances, 4) Razorwing or Voidraven with dark lances or disintegrators, respectively.

Basically, anything with 3 or more blasters or dark lances should be your first choice for anti tank. And, after that, things that can have 2 anti-tank weapons.

5 warriors with a blaster are an anti-infantry squad that happens to be carrying an anti-vehicle weapon. It should never be considered proper anti-tank.

If your opponent is mainly on foot and can't reach you: try to place objectives in the back and spread out and you can go by just keeping warriors inside venoms, and keep venoms in the back shooting down stuff.

If your opponent is mainly on foot, but CAN reach you, and stuff that can reach you is infantry based: same story as above, but deploy warriors in cover, not in venoms.

If your opponent is mainly mechanized = most likely can reach you: With this, you will need to disembark warriors a bit forward, and try to place objectives in specific places, where you suspect your warriors to fight, while maintaining venoms relatively on the back.

If your opponent is hybrid, with long range mech units and not exactly mechanized (most lists I encounter) the same as vs mechanized units. You also need to be a bit smart on what you want to do. If your opponent has like 2 Psyfleman dreads, and you have 3 ravagers, and you go first, it's more likely that you will come up with upper hand, so you won't need all those warriors in front realy.

5warriors blasters work about same as a single raider. It's not as good as a ravager obv, but 6 venoms with such warriors, sum up to 6 blasters. By spreading them in cover you increase the threat range of your blasters.

There is no need to be affraid of disembarking our warriors. It's surprising how many DE players are lazy and want to go from A to B without too many tricks/changes. Thats how Space marines should be played

It's actualy realy important to think before hand, where to put specific objective. There will be games where you will loose becouse of that, not becouse some unit didnt perform. But after those few "if I would place objective here, I would have won" you will get a hang of where to put them. That may sound like it has nothing to do with Anti-Tank weaponry, but it actualy shocked me how not true that is. I used to play like everybody did in someway -> I keeped my warriors with blasters inside venoms, and thought, that If I need that blaster at front, I'll just go right into his face. Than ppl learn to disembark their units, and keep them in cover while still in range. So once they are in cover AND in range, it's good to have an objective there aswell.

I write that becouse I was a bit mad on how warriors with blasters in venoms underperformed in some games, but it wasn't the case actualy. It was the objective placing issue. Hope it Helps

On the Weaponry front itself. Personaly I'd take on scourges only blasters. It makes them effective 30" AT Threat. Heatlances only work for me on reavers, becouse of their assault phase move. Raiders are actualy amazing in large groups. Blasterborn well, are good, but they work the same way as warriors with blasters. They need to get into the threat range if they want to serve AT role, and for my taste, it's a gamblers game. Unlike venom warriors, they have single blaster, and are actualy a tough nut to crack for opponent, becouse it's brainstorming him "do I realy want to attack that over that juicy venom / ravager/ etc etc" While Blasterborn, especialy those with 4 blasters, are one big flashing "Kill me" buttons.

ravenizer wrote:

5warriors blasters work about same as a single raider. It's not as good as a ravager obv, but 6 venoms with such warriors, sum up to 6 blasters.

If you're firing at vehicles, then it also adds up to 30 models firing 6 weapons.  

ravenizer wrote:

Before I would think of adding blaster born / haywire blasters / blasters, I would consider Raiders.

Raiders are good, but I'd advise considering them 'bonus' anti-tank, rather than making them a first choice.

ravenizer wrote:

Personaly I'd take on scourges only blasters. It makes them effective 30" AT Threat. Heatlances only work for me on reavers, becouse of their assault phase move.

I know what you mean, although there is the possibility of deep-striking the scourges. However, I don't see what's wrong with giving scourges Haywire Blasters or Dark Lances. Considering that blasters are available in every slot, but haywire blasters and heat lances are limited to fast attack (and the Talos, I suppose), it seems better to add some variation to the weapons in your army.

The Shredder wrote:

If you're firing at vehicles, then it also adds up to 30 models firing 6 weapons.  

Well, it's not 10 warriors with lance blob. I don't realy care that much for those rifles, if I have massive ammount of cannons on venoms in the back. And if you have no other choice, do we realy care?

The Shredder wrote:

Raiders are good, but I'd advise considering them 'bonus' anti-tank, rather than making them a first choice.

True. But if ppl have AT issues, and can't deal with them via specific tactics and tricks, I'd say raiders fit that role best. I guess it's best to say - personal tastes

The Shredder wrote:

I know what you mean, although there is the possibility of deep-striking the scourges. However, I don't see what's wrong with giving scourges Haywire Blasters or Dark Lances. Considering that blasters are available in every slot, but haywire blasters and heat lances are limited to fast attack (and the Talos, I suppose), it seems better to add some variation to the weapons in your army.

I'm heavy anti-fan of deepstriking, unless its Drop pods in SM lists. Not only at best they can do it from T2, but they also can mishap. If they don't mishap, they may land outside their melta range, and not exactly in the place you want them to be. I like taking them for their 12" juicy move, and can't emphasize how much I like them. Though, they seem a bit pricey.

Blasters over haywires. Haywires are mainly for glancing, and they are good at it. But Blasters are not only AT, but also S8 ap 2 stuff vs some foot models, ID paladins, taking care of obeliterators etc etc. More reliable. Dark lance on scourges? Well, I'd say dark lances on Trueborn are already not best idea, and paying so much, to make scourges stationary? Deepstrike counts the unit as moved, even after deepstriking you can't get full effectiveness from them. With trueborn I can understand why ppl take them sometimes, but anything that is stationary in DE list, just hurts my foul soul.

ravenizer wrote:

Well, it's not 10 warriors with lance blob. I don't realy care that much for those rifles, if I have massive ammount of cannons on venoms in the back. And if you have no other choice, do we realy care?

But that's the thing - you don't plan to have 'no other choice' during list building.

I agree, 4-8 rifle shots isn't anything to write home about. But, if you're only after the blasters, why not use trueborn and have 3 or 4 of them in a single venom? It just seems far more efficient when every man in the squad is firing their weapon.

ravenizer wrote:

True. But if ppl have AT issues, and can't deal with them via specific tactics and tricks, I'd say raiders fit that role best. I guess it's best to say - personal tastes

Depends on the list, I guess. They certainly wouldn't be my go-to choice for anti-tank.

See, I like to be able to concentrate fire - if I have an anti-vehicle squad I want it to be firing at least 2 blasters/dark-lances at it - preferably 3 or 4 (hence Ravagers and Trueborn). A single dark lance can be useful for pinging the last hull point off a vehicle, or for the occasional lucky-shot. But, I wouldn't want to rely on it as my main anti-tank.

ravenizer wrote:

I'm heavy anti-fan of deepstriking, unless its Drop pods in SM lists. Not only at best they can do it from T2, but they also can mishap. If they don't mishap, they may land outside their melta range, and not exactly in the place you want them to be. I like taking them for their 12" juicy move, and can't emphasize how much I like them. Though, they seem a bit pricey.

No, I don't particularly like deep-striking either. Especially since, unlike marines, we don't get to ignore all the risks of deep-striking. However, the possibility still seemed worth mentioning.

ravenizer wrote:

Blasters over haywires. Haywires are mainly for glancing, and they are good at it. But Blasters are not only AT, but also S8 ap 2 stuff vs some foot models, ID paladins, taking care of obeliterators etc etc. More reliable.

That's true, but if my enemy is short on vehicles, I'll already have plenty of blasters and dark-lances in my list to deal with T4 models. Basically, vehicles are much more of a concern than most infantry. And, with that in mind, I prefer haywire. What I like is that they're virtually guaranteed to strip at least 1 hull point - whereas, against a lot of vehicles, blasters need a 4+ just to glance them. In addition, the 24" range combined with the scourges' flight gives them a lot of flexibility. Obviously I wouldn't want haywire everywhere in my list (though it could be interesting ), but it's nice to have an alternative anti-vehicle weapon.

ravenizer wrote:

Well, I'd say dark lances on Trueborn are already not best idea, and paying so much, to make scourges stationary? Deepstrike counts the unit as moved, so Lances snap shot aswell. With trueborn I can understand why ppl take them sometimes, but anything that is stationary in DE list, just hurts my foul soul.

Oh, I agree with regard to the stationary aspect. It's one of the reasons I think we overpay for dark lances - since firing them basically takes away the central speed element from our army.

However, there are reasons to use dark lances on trueborn and scourges. For one, whilst they require the unit to remain stationary, they're also long-range weapons. And so (unlike blasters), they're less reliant on the squad effectively sacrificing itself to kill its target. In addition, scourges are the only unit that actually gets a decent discount on dark lances, so they're worth considering if only for that.

Skulwazza wrote:

I've been hunting around the internet looking for ways to play my new d.e. but have started to question some of the things I have been told. I have seen venom's with warriors and a blaster but started to wonder. should I even get that close to enemies ( card board box tanks)?

I seem to be lacking some anti tank in my list so I thought of adding some warriors in a venom. but should I? thanks!

Well to be honest, the reason why the configuration is recommended is due to the synergy between the two units for a steal. For 125 points you get arguably one of the most effective ranged infantry/ Monstrous Creature killing platforms in the game which also has the option to kill tanks if given the opportunity. Of course, people tend to focus upon the Venom because it is such a stellar unit.  

The thing about the Dark Eldar shooting phase is that we want to be close, but we also do not want to be close enough. And always, always never play to the opponent's tune. As The Shredder said before, their usage depends upon the situation you find yourself in.

Based upon my experiences, my guys inside the Venoms never really fire their guns in anger unless they are;

1) Near a flyer (which will hit on 6s anyway if you always move your Venoms more than 6" per turn)

2) Cheap shots (big things with single wounds, single hull points, a depleted unit, etc)

3) Mop-up

4) Desperation/insult shots

If I have to rely on them as my primary anti-tank, it is usually when all my Raiders, Ravagers, Voidravens, Trueborns and Reavers are all dead. That saying, by then it is already as good as a loss/draw/phyrric victory for me.

I don't have my rulebook handy (at work), but don't jump and jet troops have relentless? Or is that just jet?

The Red King wrote:

I don't have my rulebook handy (at work), but don't jump and jet troops have relentless? Or is that just jet?

Just jet, sadly.

I should have figured or what scourge would be great lol

Short answer; no you should never get that close.

Long answer, DE are not an army with multi purpose units (like Space Marines), the only exception to this rule is blasterborn, and admittedly they only become multi purpose because you pay the points for a unit full of anti tank weapons.  Kabalites in venoms are an anti infantry fire base, PERIOD.  Sit back and rain poison down from 36" away, the only time the warriors inside should be shooting is when an opponent is close enough for you to rapid fire and that unit needs to be killed. If you want anti tank add blasterborn, ravagers, scourges w/ HWB's, etc.  After that, if you still don't feel like you have enough AT, you could try going with 5 man wych squads w/ HWG's.  They are very close to being another exception to the no multi purpose rule I said above, I personally feel like having to sacrifice a venom for them to get in range just isn't worth it though.  

Hope my 2 cents has helped, happy hunting!

callofdoobie wrote:

Long answer, DE are not an army with multi purpose units (like Space Marines), the only exception to this rule is blasterborn, and admittedly they only become multi purpose because you pay the points for a unit full of anti tank weapons.

Reavers come to mind as another DE multi-purpose unit.

Touche, I forget about them a lot but they can do quite a bit, guaranteed linebreaker is always fun too lol

Well having read the entire page of comments has help me put them into perspective.
I have tried them in one game so far and they performed quite nicely but, I will try them a few more times before replacing them will a blast-born in a venom. I am hoping to purchase some more reavers and a ravager, that should help my AT. venoms seem too beastly to pass up, so I'm getting 3  . Any who thanks for all the help guys, ill have a chance to put whet Ive learned to the test at my game tomorrow, gonna curb stop the green brutes (hopefully).

callofdoobie wrote:

Short answer; no you should never get that close.

Long answer, DE are not an army with multi purpose units (like Space Marines), the only exception to this rule is blasterborn, and admittedly they only become multi purpose because you pay the points for a unit full of anti tank weapons.  Kabalites in venoms are an anti infantry fire base, PERIOD.  Sit back and rain poison down from 36" away, the only time the warriors inside should be shooting is when an opponent is close enough for you to rapid fire and that unit needs to be killed. If you want anti tank add blasterborn, ravagers, scourges w/ HWB's, etc.  After that, if you still don't feel like you have enough AT, you could try going with 5 man wych squads w/ HWG's.  They are very close to being another exception to the no multi purpose rule I said above, I personally feel like having to sacrifice a venom for them to get in range just isn't worth it though.  

Hope my 2 cents has helped, happy hunting!

I agree with what you're saying, which is making me start to think, is it even worth it to pay the 15 pts for the blaster on each of your venoms?
When you're playing 4-6 venoms in a list that's 60-90 pts you could be spending somewhere else.

My thing with venoms and blasters is that by putting a blaster in a Venom you nullify one of the venoms' best assets, the range of the cannons. You're always going to be trying to get that venom in range for the blaster and then the venom is going to get blowed-up. Best to do what venoms do best~ shoot poison shots.

Who said you need to keep warriors inside venoms?

ravenizer wrote:

Who said you need to keep warriors inside venoms?

very, very true. Its tempting to take them out but they will just get shoot to hell if certain conditions are met.

Keep them in forest / ruins, generaly in cover. Don't be affraid to go to the ground, and suddenly they are 3+ or 2+ (yeah there is an issue about 2+ in ruins with base, but tourneys allow that so ).

As I am sure its been said before, Kabalite trueborn with blasters in a venom with nightshields is a deadly combination against vehicles, marines, terminators etc. 5 Warriors in a venom with one blaster though, versatile yes but perhaps not effective. With Dark Eldar I find you have to dedicate units to jobs, they are not like a marine squad which can do combat, anti tank and anti infantry you should ideally pick one to do a good job and another to do another good jobs, no half measures!

Grub wrote:

As I am sure its been said before, Kabalite trueborn with blasters in a venom with nightshields is a deadly combination against vehicles, marines, terminators etc. 5 Warriors in a venom with one blaster though, versatile yes but perhaps not effective. With Dark Eldar I find you have to dedicate units to jobs, they are not like a marine squad which can do combat, anti tank and anti infantry you should ideally pick one to do a good job and another to do another good jobs, no half measures!

Different roles...

Trueborns supply the multiple lance shots for a premium price. Warriors in Venoms are cheaper and are scoring

Crisis suits / paladins / scarab farm necrons / and many other stuff come to my mind, where those balster warriors worked great.

It's true that if we count classic venom spam, with 6 blaster warriors, and take them off, we have 90 points to spend. 4 blaster Trueborn in venom still costs almost twice as much but even than, it is allocating all AT into one basket, that might backfire.

I'd say both sides, who opt for blasters, and opt against them, has their points and rights. Personaly, I think adding blaster to 5 man warriors grants more pros than cons. In the end It's personal preference I guess.