Vehicles exploding on 7+

Cant say I agree with all the sentiments here about lance weaponry being outclassed or poison has more downsides than not.

Just for example yesterday I faced a cron list with an immortal airforce, Dlord + acanthrites, obyron + wraiths (yea weird but worked really well), trip anni barges etc and a av14 bunker full of heavy destroyers (Ive seen this as nemesor + 5 lanceteks = tankhunting lances and steals hit and run. Nasty). Back on track.. things like this list or multiple T7 pylons or triple riptides or av13 spam or full mechanized infantry or FMC circus or even combos of these are very common.

Point is, this is where DE 'generalist' weaponry is amazing at performing the spoiler role against any of these power type lists which try to capitalize on a specific strength like high armour-value, high toughness or terminator type saves.
Only flyers completely dodge our weaponry's blanket type approach to warfare although between skimmer movement, combat and multi story ruins I havent once felt obligation to bring anti aircraft, although I have a few times just to get a feel for it. Mostly flyers and especially FMCs look underwhelming against us IME (not including the helldrake).

Sure T3 hordes/blobs and av10-11 is also present but it doesnt make splinter weapons or lance weapons bad. Our entire army's weaponry essentially reads 'any target with above average protection instead counts its protection as average'. T5-6-7-8 target = T4. AV 13-14-15 target = av12.

So our weaponry's main weakness is.. toughness 3?! And in the case of lances.. volume. And this is where allies can shore things up. In the med-high strength department.. they bring mass S7+, lances and twin linking, all of which we lack.
Sorry to say but allying eldar brings diversity and many of their rules FEEL like DE more than eldar anyway. Maybe the reason I feel satisfied with DE weaponry IS because I choose to use allies for that extra little bit which in a perfect world we shouldn't be forced to do. But its not so I do.. and the result is I have the tools I need.

Brom wrote:

Point is, this is where DE 'generalist' weaponry is amazing at performing the spoiler role against any of these power type lists which try to capitalize on a specific strength like high armour-value, high toughness or terminator type saves.
Only flyers completely dodge our weaponry's blanket type approach to warfare although between skimmer movement, combat and multi story ruins I havent once felt obligation to bring anti aircraft, although I have a few times just to get a feel for it. Mostly flyers and especially FMCs look underwhelming against us IME (not including the helldrake).

When you say that most flyers look unappealing against us, are you including the aforementioned Night Scythes?

Brom wrote:

Sure T3 hordes/blobs and av10-11 is also present but it doesnt make splinter weapons or lance weapons bad.

It does when we have little else. As a comparison, Lascannons aren't bad - but if you replaced 90% of the 'heavy' weapon in the SM codex with Lascannons you'd really start to notice all that weapon's shortcomings.  

Brom wrote:

Our entire army's weaponry essentially reads 'any target with above average protection instead counts its protection as average'. T5-6-7-8 target = T4. AV 13-14-15 target = av12.

With regard to the former, I'd still rather have specialist weapons that could deal with these things - rather than relying on poison weapons. Against a lot of MCs, the poison is offset by the fact they our weapons have negligible AP, and they don't suffer until we remove their last wound. I mean, Carnifexes aren't so bad, but when you start to see Riptides and Tyrannofexes with 2+ saves, our poison loses a lot of its value. In my experience, the only army poison has proved particularly useful against is a DA biker army. Every other time, they've either had too few (or no) units with high-toughness, or ones like the aforementioned Riptide - where I'd much rather have plasma.

In the case of Blasters/Dark Lances, the problem is that 4+ isn't a good place to be in terms of penetration - especially for one-shot weapons that are never twin-linked and are very expensive to purchase. Know what else basically renders AV13/14 worthless? Meltas! And, in addition to being cheaper than blasters, they're also AP1 - so, as well as penetrating more easily, each penetration is also more likely to destroy the vehicle.


Also, whist we're on the subject, if you had to choose a weapon to get spammed on all your troops and vehicles, would you actually choose the Dark Lance? I certainly wouldn't. I mean, just look at its stats, do any of them stand out as being particularly impressive? About the only thing that stands out is 'Lance' - other than that it's just a crappy Lascannon.

Yes, it can hurt a variety of targets, but it isn't effective against any of them. Meltas are much better against heavy armour (AP1 and average penetration of 15 when in melta range), lascannons are better against AV10-12, plasma will best it against most MCs, TEQ, etc. And, that's the really horrible thing about the Dark Lance - it tricks you into thinking that it's somehow good, because it can hurt a variety of targets. Trouble is, it's also inefficient against all of those targets. And, because it's spammed across our entire army, we have next to no specialist weapons to help it out (which also means we have very little to compare it to - if we did, I suspect its shortcomings would be a lot more obvious).

Brom wrote:

So our weaponry's main weakness is.. toughness 3?!

And MCs with 2+ saves
And 2+ saves in general
And vehicle spamming
And fliers
And infantry hordes in general

Brom wrote:

And in the case of lances.. volume.

Which is a pretty big weakness. Again, it's not like we can just take some cheap autocannons/assault cannons/missile launchers/plasma to help against lighter vehicles.

Brom wrote:

And this is where allies can shore things up. In the med-high strength department.. they bring mass S7+, lances and twin linking, all of which we lack.

Suggesting that we take allies to get access to good weapons is not helping your argument that our weapons are fine.  :p

Brom wrote:

Sorry to say but allying eldar brings diversity and many of their rules FEEL like DE more than eldar anyway. Maybe the reason I feel satisfied with DE weaponry IS because I choose to use allies for that extra little bit which in a perfect world we shouldn't be forced to do. But its not so I do.. and the result is I have the tools I need.

But that's entirely the issue - we shouldn't be forced to use allies to compensate for our poor weapon selection. If you need to go to a different book to get some decent weapons, then the ones we have can't possibly be fine. QED.

I didnt suggest to take allies because our weapons aren't good. I suggested taking allies to supplement our great weapons ;-).

Honestly man I feel like the game has moved past 'pure' armies. If you get lucky like a few dexes did then great but recognize that those are not the norm. Otherwise slog through knowing you are playing with a handicap and expect it to be rough.

Brom wrote:

Honestly man I feel like the game has moved past 'pure' armies. If you get lucky like a few dexes did then great but recognize that those are not the norm. Otherwise slog through knowing you are playing with a handicap and expect it to be rough.

And this is why I hate 6th edition.

Brom, i could not agree more.
I am a tournament player, and I play Dark Eldar. Always Have, Always will. I had them when for 100 points you could have 10 warriors with 2 dark lances, When mandrakes were actually useful and Wyches were so complicated you needed a pen and paper to sort em out.

I won more tournaments (big and small) than I can remember, and yet never before have I ever felt the need for "outside help" until now.

To put it simply, as a tournament army, Dark Eldar are inferior to most other armies out there.
HOWEVER, when supported by our Eldar cousins, we become one of the most powerful builds out there.

Eldar don't need our help, but in tournaments, we sure need theirs!
And that saddens me. But, in october, when the new DE dex comes out, here is to hoping they allow us to stand on our own!

Skulnbonz wrote:

Brom, i could not agree more.
And that saddens me.  But, in october, when the new DE dex comes out, here is to hoping they allow us to stand on our own!

I second that hope.

Also, is it confirmed that we're getting a new book in October?

Well said Skulnbonz and Im glad im not the only one to have that sentiment. Thing is all my models are dark eldar range conversions/kitbashes, even down to my spiders/hawks and now Irillyth.

Some may say im betraying my army or whatever. I dont see it that way. Its just tools in my arsenal.

I could easily switch over to another army or make eldar primary like the highest level competition lists tends to do, but I enjoy the aspects of DE much more than any other army and just as importantly I still find them to be effective.


Shredder- I do include nightscythes in that statement. I commonly face 2-3 and upwards of 4 but they do suffer from diminishing returns especially with decent terrain saturation and board control like beast packs bring. Im not here to argue if they are effective or not. They are, and arguably the best dedicated transport in the game but they do have downfalls that are exploitable. I believe running opposing flyers may actually play to their strengths but thats pure supposition on my part.

Theres also target priority issues which they remove rather than create. For example if im facing down 3 anni barges and 3 scythes I cant destroy them all in one turn thats a given, so does it really matter which tesla destructor im killing? The answer for me is actually yes, but its the anni barge all day since I can mitigate the flyers impact much more easily. I will often completely ignore certain units in favor of destroying others (almost exclusively troops) so to me flyers are making this choice easier since I cant mess it up and its usually mistakes that win games more often then correct actions. Thats not to say I wont throw a snapshot at times but its not my primary concern.

Anyway not trying to stir up trouble. I just feel allied weaponry goes a long way to highlight the strengths of our own.

Guys, the new vehicle damage table seems to indicate that vehicle explosions are now always S4   

That is going to hurt

Elzadar wrote:

Guys, the new vehicle damage table seems to indicate that vehicle explosions are now always S4   

That is going to hurt

But vehicles will not explode as often, even ours. It's going to be better

Quote :

But vehicles will not explode as often, even ours. It's going to be better

I agree and ive already been testing this to prep for the 24th. Its more significant than I had first thought. Against crons I only had 1 explosion the entire game! I would expect tau to be similar outside of select weapons, at least until everyone starts packing more ap 1-2.

A melta will destroy our vehicles 1/2 of the times they hit.
In fact, Dark Eldar are the ONLY army in 40K that have (non flyer) vehicles that can ALWAYS explode from any penetrating hit, regardless of the AP of the weapon.
Every transport and every tank.
Were #1!   

Wouldn't Ork Trukks and a few Necron vehicles fall into that category? Anything that's open topped.

Skulnbonz wrote:

A melta will destroy our vehicles 1/2 of the times they hit.
In fact, Dark Eldar are the ONLY army in 40K that have (non flyer)  vehicles that can ALWAYS explode from any penetrating hit, regardless of the AP of the weapon.
Every transport and every tank.
Were #1!   

But a melta in 6th will explode our vehicles 2/3rds of the time, and any penetrating hit will explode them 1/3rd of the time, so it is better.

Orks have battlewagons and necrons have the monolith.
BUT...
Now, I just read a "confirmed" rumor that will hurt us quite a bit....

All vehicle pens caused by HTH attacks cause 2 Hull points.

So if we get penned in hand to hand, our venoms drop automatically.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Now, I just read a "confirmed" rumor that will hurt us quite a bit....

All vehicle pens caused by HTH attacks cause 2 Hull points.

So if we get penned in hand to hand, our venoms drop automatically.

I keep telling you, I have the 7th edition book. As in, with me, in my hands (well, in my lap, I'm typing), as we speak, and I can absolutely tell you that it is not so.

The confusion probably comes from how wounds are counted in the close combat. Each glancing hit against the vehicle counts as 1 wound and each penetrating hit as 2 wounds, for determining whether you win or lose the combat.

well, that is a relief!

Can you assault from reserves (heres to hoping our webways become useful again!)

Crons are probably not a good indication of frequency of explosions as they have very little AP1 or 2, so are only exploding you on a 6.

Skulnbonz wrote:

well, that is a relief!

Can you assault from reserves (heres to hoping our webways become useful again!)

Ha, ha! No.

Barking Agatha where in the Immaterium did you get that book?!?!?!?

It just arrived a bit early. Neat, huh?

Since it was brought up earlier:

Jink - declare before to hit rolls are made, all models gain a 4+ cover save but can only snap shot

Snap shots still hit on 6s (the -2BS thing was wrong)


Hard to see our vehicles getting better this edition.

That's what Flickerfirlds are for lol. Btw I wish Christmas came early for me too Agatha lol

MurDok wrote:

That's what Flickerfirlds are for lol.

Which still means forking out extra points for protection that was basically free in 6th.

The Shredder wrote:

MurDok wrote:

That's what Flickerfirlds are for lol.

Which still means forking out extra points for protection that was basically free in 6th.

Except flickerfield work on ignore cover weaponry and allow the tactical flexibility of not moving. I've always found the 5+ invulnerable to be worth the points given jinks flaws.

Now they would give you even more tactical flexibility, if for example you were delivering troops and firing was not a necessity you could take the 4+ instead of a 5+ invuln or vice versa if you needed to pop that dark lance off in your next turn.

I like it

Dragontree wrote:

Except flickerfield work on ignore cover weaponry and allow the tactical flexibility of not moving. I've always found the 5+ invulnerable to be worth the points given jinks flaws.

Now they would give you even more tactical flexibility, if for example you were delivering troops and firing was not a necessity you could take the 4+ instead of a 5+ invuln or vice versa if you needed to pop that dark lance off in your next turn.

I like it

I don't.

I prefer getting a free 5+ from moving, and taking my chances with Ignore Cover weapons.

Also, I dislike the idea that I have to declare jink before my opponent has even rolled to hit.

Here's the thing - I'm not saying that Flickerfields are bad. However, when you're forced to take them because of the changes to Jink, it can't possibly be an improvement.