Old Question, New Enemies

Right. I've posted an army list and made a tentative dip into this issue but I'm stuck so thought I'd straight-up ask it here. I'm so torn between Flickerfields and Nightshields. I know I want one or the other, so no crazy talk about naked Raiders/Ravagers .
The list I'm running has 3 Venoms, 2 Raiders and 2 Ravagers in it, so, from a points perspective I'm already leaning towards Flickerfields at this stage. I was leaning the other way, mainly through fear of Tau SMS and reading Mushkilla's recent Batrep against gunline Tau, where he played them to perfection and then said afterwards that one of the only ways it could have gone better was if he'd had Nightshields to get even more unanswered shooting in there.
The thing that's got me doubting is quite simple, Serpent's Shields. I'm putting together a list for a tournament next weekend and I'm expecting to face a fair bit of Eldar. At that stage, Nightshields start to look like an enormous points-sink and I find myself firmly back in the Flickerfields camp.
So, what I want to know is: if you had to take one or the other, which would you go for? Please check out my Army list as well, just to get an idea of what we're talking about exactly. I have to have my final list submitted by Friday night (GMT) and it's the only part of my list that's causing me headaches.
  Come on Commorites, I have faith in you!

So you are asking advice but saying don't propose the best choise?

A good article in Death or Glory CLICK HERE

Just because there is an article on Death or Glory advocating something doesn't make it the 'best choice'.
I disagree with a few points on there, which I won't go in to here. What I was asking was simply which is overall more useful between Flickerfield and Nightshields. Which is going to go further, on average against a variety of armies, to helping to keep those boats moving? That is all I wanted to ask.

It depends on what's in the transports.

If they have close combat squads in them, Night Shields aren't going to help because you're going to be getting close anyway. If they're ranged squads, the Night Shields are more likely to be useful.

Night Shields provide the -6" range, which is very nice against a lot of opponents and when transporting shooting units. I've been saved quite a few times by it. But Flickerfields provide the 5+ Invulnerable Save, which can be seen as pretty good too. But in 6th Edition, our vehicles get a Jink save if they move at all, so that's a 5+ Cover Save. This Cover Save doesn't protect against everything, but it does a pretty good job of keeping Raiders alive until they drop off our assault troops.

The Invulnerable Save from the Flickerfield protects more often, but the Jink save is free. If you're tight on points, just compromise a bit and only buy Flickerfields for Raiders/Ravagers that will be stuck near the enemy. Not all of them need protection.

'ello,

(My first post!! Yay)

First, you could raise a rule dispute on the ignore cover rule- the rule provides only that cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds. (I'm not big on causing disputes, but if I cannot re-roll armor penetration rolls with shatter-field missiles because they say only re-roll to wound; then I'm not all that inclined to agree that “ignore cover” negates vehicle cover saves ... Sorry it’s kinda a personal gripe of mine.)

Bias Disclose: Generally, I think night shields are too situational for tournament play and would recommend against them. An Exception might be to the Razorwing to protect it from en mass s4 rapid fire shots.

If your concern is Eldar, Night Shields on raiders will not be helpful at all because of the almost non-existent rapid fire for Eldar. Also, (generally speaking), if it has melta it probably doesn’t need melta to destroy the raider. Against Eldar, if your close enough to be a threat, your in range with or without the night shield.

Flickerfields on the ravagers definitely – your protecting your 3 lance platform for the same points costs as the raider. The flickerfield is also a better supplement to the Ravagers av 11.

Depending upon your opponent and what you have in the venoms/raiders, the venoms will likely be a higher target priority than the raiders because of the large amount of supplemental fire they provide. (And the venoms already have the field). Again if your opponent needs to take out your lances it will look at the Ravagers before the individual raiders.

Finally, not having flicker fields on the raiders can give them a dual role of serpent shield bait and draw out the serpent shield fire to make the serpent more vulnerable to attack.

Hope my two cents helps.

Athalkar wrote:

'ello,

(My first post!! Yay)

Welcome to the Dark CityAthalkar!

Athalkar wrote:

First, you could raise a rule dispute on the ignore cover rule-  the rule provides only that cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds.   (I'm not big on causing disputes, but if I cannot re-roll armor penetration rolls with shatter-field missiles because they say only re-roll to wound; then I'm not all that inclined to agree that “ignore cover” negates vehicle cover saves ... Sorry it’s kinda a personal gripe of mine.)

That's an incomplete reading of the rules.

Rules for vehicles and cover saves page 75:

Quote :

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded, no Hull Points themselves, are lost and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table.

This is the rule that lets vehicles benefit from cover. Without it they would not be able to take cover saves as cover saves only work against wounds. The above rule specifically states "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" emphasis mine, so if a non-vehicle model can't take a cover save (because of ignore cover), then a vehicle model can't as they treat cover exactly like a non-vehicle model does.

It's amazing how much of the internet chooses to ignore that section of the rules. I believe there was even a big tournament in the UK that ruled ignore cover didn't affect vehicles.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for your input about the relative merits of the two, I'm pretty sure I'm going to Flickerfield up.

You are incorrect about the ignores cover debate though, read the 2nd bullet point on page 75 ( the 3rd bullet point under the Vehicles and cover-Obscured targets heading). It says clearly 'must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non vehicle model would do against a Wound'.. So the Ignores Cover USR comes into play immediately as you consider whether it would get the cover save 'exactly like....a Wound'.

Also, Shatterfield Missiles freeze organic matter solid and then blow it apart with percussive force, going by what is written in the background in the Dark Eldar Codex. Also note, in the Death from the Skies supplement they are listed as having the Shred USR instead, they were clearly only ever intended to work against living beings, not vehicles.

Hah! Yes Mushkilla, I was typing that and had to go and do something quickly. We both explained that very well in tandem though I feel.

Night Shields is almost a no contest choice in my mind. Very few upgrades will so profoundly impact how your opponent will place models and play in general. Rapid Fire range shrinks by 3". Meltas become much less reliable. Eldar, Necron, and Tyranid small arms become way less effective. Safe bet medium-long range AT becomes more vulnerable and less reliable. Your deployment often becomes safer (especially if you go second).

The other thing to consider is your own biases. Sure, certain types of armies could be a problem irregardless of -6 inch range (Waveserpent spam) but you also need to avoid tunnel vision.

Anyway, that's my case.

Timatron wrote:

Hah! Yes Mushkilla, I was typing that and had to go and do something quickly. We both explained that very well in tandem though I feel.

Always nice when someone agrees with you on the internet isn't it.

See, this thread is interesting reading for me. I've never found night shields to be that useful, but this is why:
1) My raiders are close-support units. One's generally a splinter raider (warriors, cannon, splinter racks) so benefits from being quite close to the enemy, whilst the other usually has a combat unit.

2) Anything that can KO my ravager tends to have a longer threat range than the lances on it; most ranged anti-armour hovers around 48" or more. Therefore even with the night shields reducing it to 42", it still hits before the lance will. Best case scenario, I pay 10 points to ensure I get one set of shots off.

3) I run my razorwings with flickerfields, so as not to have to jink. They're already on the high side of what I'd like to pay for them, and I'm not keen to add any more points on top.

Generally, I tend to go without either on most things. Would rather spend the points elsewhere, but that's just how it fits my army and style. I've used night shields a few times, but it doesn't really stymie any opponents, it maybe acts as a minor niggle at best.

(although you already made your decision)

I dislike spending more points on the raider which it already fairly expensive transport (particularly if the unit taking it will not be taking advantage of the ability to assault from the transport).

And on that note, if I have the extra points for the upgrades, I have added flicker fields to the raiders carrying assault units just to for the little extra to get them to where they need to be. You know its kinda like seat belts on a plane... when the plane crashes.

Anyway, good look at your tournament.

(on that rule issue) The positions are fair; however, please allow me to add:

-The portion your quoting is in a bullet point from rule which starts with its general thesis with: “Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry– their sheer size and bulk mean they cannot take advantage of cover as well as smaller, more agile troops.” (pg 74). (emphasis mine).

-Notwithstanding your emphasized portion of the quoted rule, I cannot ignore that (1) its in the middle of a paragraph and (2) the parenthetical immediately following within the quoted sentence “(for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on).” The purpose of the bullet point seems more directed at how to determine what value the cover save should be and not obliterating the rule book's distinction between "Wound" and “Penetrating/glancing hits” in another part of the book. (Additionally, the remainder of the same bullet point goes on to explain that if a upgrade makes the vehicle count as obscured that cover save is a 5+).
--In other words, the focus on a sentence splice, to create a rule that modifies another part of the rule book does not seem like a reasonable interpretation. Particularly when the the rule your making is not relevant to the general purpose of the bullet point being drawn from. Further, GW has errated other portions of the rule book to include "in the case of vehicles, suffering a penetrating or glancing hit" were only "Wound" was previously mentioned yet GW has not done so for the ignore cover rule. (See errata to invulnerable save on pg 17).

Regardless of your position, it is a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

(I also heard about that tournament – so I expect that the next FAQ resolve this... assuming they still intend to do FAQs).

P.S.... As to the missile thing -- ya... i know your right -- "to wound roll" is not "armor penetration roll." I'm just angry about having to learn that the unpleasant way back in 5th; i.e., the middle of a game... there was too much IG in my 5th meta.... like i said a personal gripe.

Vasara wrote:

So you are asking advice but saying don't propose the best choise?

A good article in Death or Glory CLICK HERE

I really disagree with a lot of that article.

Thor665 wrote:

Vasara wrote:

So you are asking advice but saying don't propose the best choise?

A good article in Death or Glory CLICK HERE

I really disagree with a lot of that article.

I'd like to hear your opinions on it. But maybe we should put it in another thread.

As for OP. I have played several tournament games with night shields on all of my 10 boats. My army was a shooty so I didn't want to close in except with my beasts.

In Dawn of War and Vanguard Deployment they were meh and I'd rather had one extra Venom in stead of those with the 100pts. Both of those deploymets allow enemy to come close enough for them not to be good enough. Venoms benefit more from NS as their guns are more to the front. With Ravager I have found it more difficult to get it to that sweet spot as the prow (or the better looking shock prow) points long way to shooting direction. 4" perhaps. Venoms can be also turned 45 degrees sideways to get the most benefit of range control. Ravager needs to face the enemy as its side guns are so far back. Raider is equal to Venom mayby is this.

NS also meant that I needed to deploy my beasts and other non NS units 6" further back than Venoms and Ravagers. It made the deployment zones quite crouded and left me a bit vulnerable to Blasts. Tau with Broadsides and couple of Iontides is a good example where minimizing the effect on most of the enemy weapons leaves you vulnerable to others.

At least I haven't faced so much cover ignoring weapons that I wanted to pay for those FF. Most of the time I have the 5+ or better cover save. Although I like that the Venoms come with it as standard. It makes them just as durable as Raiders with out FF on T1 when they have not moved.

Secondly most of the time DE skimmers get shot with so many S6/7 shots that I end up trying to save 3 glans and 4 Pens. Then it usualy doesn't matter if you can save 1/3 of those.

And as you might have noticed I'm not a native English speaker so some of my writings aren't as clear as I want them to be.

Athalkar wrote:

The purpose of the bullet point seems more directed at how to determine what value the cover save should be and not obliterating the rule book's distinction between "Wound" and “Penetrating/glancing hits” in another part of the book.

Sadly it's purpose is to "obliterating the rule book's distinction between "Wound" and “Penetrating/glancing hits".

Without "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" vehicles cannot actually take cover saves. As according to page 18 (determining cover saves) cover saves can only be taken against wounds and according to page 17-18 "saves" can only be used to stop wounds.

Back on topic.

Thor665 wrote:

Vasara wrote:

So you are asking advice but saying don't propose the best choise?

A good article in Death or Glory CLICK HERE

I really disagree with a lot of that article.

Same here, I wrote a long explanation about it, but I can't seem to post on that blog any more for some reason, so I gave up trying to post it. The only thing I agree on is keeping upgrades at a minimum.

What I disagree with:

Archon's draw a lot of fire: A problem if you run him in a fragile unit like wyches? Yes. Run him with a cost effective damage sponge unit like grots, and suddenly you have a unit that is very cost efficient in terms of survivability taking the brunt of fire for the rest of your army.

Squads of 10 warriors are bad: Only if you keep them in your raider at all costs, run them outside the raider in some area terrain, and you get increased saturation for your other non-mechanised models (reavers, beasts), get a reasonably survivable fire base (thanks to going to ground for +2 to cover saves, and splinter cannons being great even when snapshoting). Empty raiders are low on the target priority list, meaning they tend to stick around. So when turn 4-5 comes they can still be used to block enemies from contesting objectives, and move your warriors onto objectives.

Units in an army need to have similar levels of survivability: Not necessarily. If you run units that are more survivable alongside fragile units, they need to be bigger threats and higher on your opponents target priority list. This allows units that are more cost effective in terms of survivability "tank" incoming damage for the rest of your army. The archon with grotesques is a good example of this, as your warlord and close combat threat, he is a high priority target, which helps ensure that your resilient unit of grots take punishment for the rest of your army. Same goes for Talos they are one of the most cost effective units in our codex in terms of resilience, whilst at the same time are a unit your opponent can't ignore as they can cause terrible damage if allowed to close in on his army. In short there is a place for more resilient units, if you can manage your threat saturation properly.

I have to agree with Mushkilla completely, this article seems a little strange. The guy says he hates Raiders, and that just seems very anti-Dark Eldar. Without Raiders, our weaker units die way too easily. Venoms are a good alternative, but for 5pts less you carry 5 less troops. 5 Warriors in a Venom are not as effective as 10 Warriors in a Raider, it's just simple math there.

But back to the main issue of Night Shields vs. Flickerfields, they aren't necessary. Try some Raiders without either upgrade and see how they work for you. If you have too much trouble keeping them alive, try the upgrades. You just have to find a way to suit your own play style.

Rather than 10 points for those upgrades, how about the 5 points required for enhanced aethersails? If you are willing to forego a round of shooting, the flat out 4+ cover save plus the bonus movement can really put you in a sweet spot on the table.
Nightshields are better purely for the reason that your raider will still be alive a long as nothing can reach it.

I've done the Aethersails with combat-unit raiders. Unless you -really- need that lance (i.e., it's imperative that you destroy/stall a particular unit), it can work. The problem is that it sometimes just leaves your raider isolated from everything else and near the enemy, whereupon you just get atomised.

Issue with night shields is, as I said, sometimes there'll just be armies that can outrange you even with the 6" reduction (Tau, Eldar, SM, arguably CSM thanks to those sodding Heldrakes), so it's really just 10 points wasted a lot of the time barring the very rare 'gotcha' moment where your opponent forgets about the night shields.

Too true! It all depends on the table, aye. When I rolled the local guard player the aethrsails got 3 of my raiders to within 12" of his line and behind a LOS blocking building. From there, the destruction was beautifully choreographed to Flight of the Valkyries.

Quote :

And on that note, if I have the extra points for the upgrades, I have added flicker fields to the raiders carrying assault units just to for the little extra to get them to where they need to be. You know its kinda like seat belts on a plane... when the plane crashes.

I actually never get that mentality - get Flicker FIelds for assault transports, get night shields for shooty transport.

In a fair view - you need Night Shields on an assault transports more then flicker fields, becuase, well you kinda dont want to leave your assault units in a smoking wreckage in your deployment zone. You want them to have that 1 movement turn, whether you are going 1st or second.

And after flat-out you got that 4+ cover anyway. So i dont see points in Flickers on assault Raiders.
And lets face - the majority of what now have Ignores Cover will toast any of your raider regardless of Flicker Fields. So why bother?

Get Night Shield on assault transports or dont bother at all.

I don't do either on transports. I'll put night shields on a ravager or razorwing, but I would rather keep the points for something else rather than put NS/FF on a transport.

[quote="Mushkilla"]

Athalkar wrote:

What I disagree with:

Archon's draw a lot of fire: A problem if you run him in a fragile unit like wyches? Yes. Run him with a cost effective damage sponge unit like grots, and suddenly you have a unit that is very cost efficient in terms of survivability taking the brunt of fire for the rest of your army.

Squads of 10 warriors are bad: Only if you keep them in your raider at all costs, run them outside the raider in some area terrain, and you get increased saturation for your other non-mechanised models (reavers, beasts), get a reasonably survivable fire base (thanks to going to ground for +2 to cover saves, and splinter cannons being great even when snapshoting). Empty raiders are low on the target priority list, meaning they tend to stick around. So when turn 4-5 comes they can still be used to block enemies from contesting objectives, and move your warriors onto objectives.

Units in an army need to have similar levels of survivability: Not necessarily. If you run units that are more survivable alongside fragile units, they need to be bigger threats and higher on your opponents target priority list. This allows units that are more cost effective in terms of survivability "tank" incoming damage for the rest of your army. The archon with grotesques is a good example of this, as your warlord and close combat threat, he is a high priority target, which helps ensure that your resilient unit of grots take punishment for the rest of your army. Same goes for Talos they are one of the most cost effective units in our codex in terms of resilience, whilst at the same time are a unit your opponent can't ignore as they can cause terrible damage if allowed to close in on his army. In short there is a place for more resilient units, if you can manage your threat saturation properly.

Agree on a) and c) but disagree with b) in application. It is highly dependent upon list and playstyle. Venomspam players would never use 10 warriors, while a more aggressive Mechanized list might want the Kabalite Warriors to be in the raiders. For a more conservative general, your plan with them would work.

In addition, with the current meta an exposed flimsy scoring unit like ours can be dead within seconds due to the influx of 'ignore cover' weaponry. You are right that empty raiders are less of a target, but in return that makes these flimsy troopers a much more enticing target. Reavers and Beastmater units can be countered very easily by Tau and Eldar, and a smart general would already start to whittle down the kabalites little by little or their means of mobility. Daemons arguably could also make the plans all gamut, and never forget the Heldrakes and their ability to do as they please. I have not even gone ahead and talk about the ideas of playing against another Dark Eldar player......

It is nice if they can be out, but generally even with the 3+ wounding within the transport, Kabalites can and will be safer within a transport in quite a number of games.