Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

What change do you think is appropriate, if any, to Dark Eldar Barge of Pleasure/ground based AA?
Poll ended at Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:05 pm
No change to Barge of Pleasure 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Add 2x 30cm AA5+ for free 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Add 2x 30cm AA5+ for +25 points 18%  18%  [ 4 ]
Add 2x 30cm AA5+ for +50 points 18%  18%  [ 4 ]
Something else (please specify) 5%  5%  [ 1 ]
Dark Eldar shouldn't have ground based AA 59%  59%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 22

Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure

 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
Hiya Ginger
Thank you for your detailed and well argued response.
You raise some very important points that haven't been dealt with (in this thread), which lie at the heart of the issue of AA and DE, regarding aircraft in epic and the effect of gbad on a air aslt formation.

For me these are the justification behind why i think it is strange that DE do not have access to GBAD. Additionally there is only one other list i could find that doesn't have access to GBAD and that's khorne bezekers. The rest of the lists have access to some form of GBAD. Therefore i find it difficult to imagine that such an advaced race, as the DE are, would willingly forego something that places them at such a disadvantage. I know this is attempting to apply real world logic to a toy wargame, but it is still strange to me.

My other issue is that by forcing the constraint of no GBAD people have to take the obligatory two planes to defend against other aircraft. I would like to at least playtest a DE GBAD unit to see how much impact it has and what viable lists people can create as a result.

I think you have raised some other very important points regarding barges in other lists and the AA 15cm 5/6+.

That is definitely food for thought and worthy of adopting as the maximum gbad allowed.

Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:55 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: Leicester UK
I think the lack of ground flak is a drawback but also really nice theme-wise, especially when you turn up with a dozen fighta bommas ;)

in all seriousness though, I really like the fact that you have to bring a big expensive war engine to get the ground flak.... it's not a great option but if you are getting torn to bits by thunderhawk terminators game after game, then maybe it's worth a try?

as previously said also the dark eldar probably have the best interceptor formations point-for-point in the game, so while they often spend their time flying laps round the table, they can be a HUGE deterrant, as a marine player who usually goes air-heavy, my opponent bringing a pair of raven fighters would put a big crimp in my plans and I'd probably think about teleporting the terminators instead.... that is more of a deterrant to me than having 3-4 units of falcons/firestorms on the ground which can be dealt with by other means

then if your opponent drops his assault boats on the table before you can CAP, make him pay for his rashness and make sure the flyers aren't leaving the table at the end of the turn! :)

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:30 am
Posts: 481
Location: (Sydney) NSW
I have 2 Titans for my Dark Eldar, I want to still use them, my Perditors, and my Executotr Landing Barge.

As to the Slavebringer being moved to the AC/ Titans section - ONLY if the Thunderhawk Gunship for the Marines (all flavours), The Overlord Armoured Airship and the Thunderfire Cannon for the Squats are moved to the War Engine/Titan Aircraft section of their relevant lists as well.

I also think that Imperial Guard, and Other forces that use Super Heavies should also have all non transport Super Heavies to the Titan/War Engine section of their lists. Yes this means DE Vessels of Pain, Eldar Engines of Vaul, Guard Super Heavy Companies, Ork Stompers and so on as well. Some armies use We as transports, some Ork vehicles/large beasts, Guard Gorgons are examples.

I do not see the problem with giving Dark Eldar WE transports a range 30 5+AA weapon as an upgrade. Barges of Pleasure are a larger vehicle, not seen generally in 40K, so they would undoubtedly add some form of mobile AA to protect their large WE Flotillas.

I think Venom LV transports should be added, and Dark Ekdar should also get the Vampire Raider as an optional aircraft.

_________________
6mm wargaming is just like 25mm wargaming with more units fitting on the same size table. Thus bigger games to get lost in and avoid the hassles of everyday living, and offerings for the dice gods.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 953
Deb wrote:
I also think that Imperial Guard, and Other forces that use Super Heavies should also have all non transport Super Heavies to the Titan/War Engine section of their lists.


:nooo

No words. Just... no words.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3314
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Indeed...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:54 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4252
Every list needs strengths and weaknesses, every list doesn't need to try and match the options that the other have.

Dark Eldar as they are are great at CC, the fastest race in a game where movement is key (+ can march and FF), have the best aircraft - any other list would kill for a shielded transport, plus they have units that provide the shooting and FF that the core units lack.
For all these things they are great at they need weaknesses - low numbers, poor armour and lack of ground AA.

I'd be very cautious about removing weaknesses or changing the army theme.

My focus would be removing unnecessary units (probably not the tormentor even though it shouldn't be in the list) but certainly the Kashnarak/

- fixing the slavebringer. As an upgrade it makes no sense, it needs either to be in the titans/air 3rd (preferable) or put in its own section. As it stands it breaks all list and building conventions, as an upgrade it is part of a formation so when it drops its transported units off and takes off either the troops or the slavebringer are destroyed as they are out of coherency

- fixing the in list costs for units and for their upgrades

IMO its a great list that plays very uniquely but has some design flaws that could be easily remedied without altering the way the list works

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1450
DE also have a nice counter to not having ground AA. They can simply keep units off the board until they can get their frankly terrifying fighters on CAP. I'd be rather sad to see ground based aa added because it makes the list demand players approach it in different ways and that is only a good thing.

Also, AA on war engines (even relatively low DC ones) is usually very tasty purely by virtue of it being harder to suppress!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:24 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: Leicester UK
Steve54 wrote:
Every list needs strengths and weaknesses, every list doesn't need to try and match the options that the other have.

Dark Eldar as they are are great at CC, the fastest race in a game where movement is key (+ can march and FF), have the best aircraft - any other list would kill for a shielded transport, plus they have units that provide the shooting and FF that the core units lack.
For all these things they are great at they need weaknesses - low numbers, poor armour and lack of ground AA.

I'd be very cautious about removing weaknesses or changing the army theme.

My focus would be removing unnecessary units (probably not the tormentor even though it shouldn't be in the list) but certainly the Kashnarak/

- fixing the slavebringer. As an upgrade it makes no sense, it needs either to be in the titans/air 3rd (preferable) or put in its own section. As it stands it breaks all list and building conventions, as an upgrade it is part of a formation so when it drops its transported units off and takes off either the troops or the slavebringer are destroyed as they are out of coherency

- fixing the in list costs for units and for their upgrades

IMO its a great list that plays very uniquely but has some design flaws that could be easily remedied without altering the way the list works


Nail on the head!

could not agree more strongly with all of this :)

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:04 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3314
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Yes, Steve is absolutly correct on all points!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:30 am
Posts: 481
Location: (Sydney) NSW
I agree with the Karnashak, it is a silly unit, and sounds like ti should be a a Chaos or perhaps Ork army as a Squiggy beast.

That aside, I think the Slave Bringer could be left in the standard section as a Partisan which can be brought separately, or left a a separate fiormatoin in the core Kabal. It should only be moved to the WE/Aircraft section IF BOTH the marine (all varieties of loyalist marine) and the Squats have their formations that NEED to be moved to the Aircraft/WE section are moved as well.

Yes I mean the Thunderhawk gunship, and the Overlord Airship. Both are War Engines, and fill the gap of an support anti-aircraft and attack unit. The Thunderhawk also shares the same role as the Slavebringer. The Thunderhawk MUST be put in the Aircraft/ WE section if the Slavebringer is relocated to that part of the Dark Eldar list.

Marines should not get such an advantage over everyone else. Squats are already seen as unbalanced because of CanCon and the Overlord airship spam list. Marines can easily Spam Thunderhawk gunships as aerial support to be added to their normal aircraft, and then use them to fast redeploy troops from one area to another.

I am not saying that Slavebringers should not be moved, I am saying other lists are ripe with unbalanced units like the Overlord and Thunderhawk that give them an advantage over other races. If you see it necessary to repositoin the Slavebringer then you also need to preposition these 2 units in their respective lists to balance those armies.

The Chaos Marine list already has the Thunderhawk Gunship in the Aircraft/War Engine section. Until The Imperial Marine Thunderhawk is also move to the 1/3 allotment section leave the Slavebringer where it is. If you do not want change the Marine lists, then you should chamnge the Chaos Marine lists to move their Thunderhawks to their core formations or support formations as well.

_________________
6mm wargaming is just like 25mm wargaming with more units fitting on the same size table. Thus bigger games to get lost in and avoid the hassles of everyday living, and offerings for the dice gods.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:19 am
Posts: 51
Quote:
The Thunderhawk also shares the same role as the Slavebringer. The Thunderhawk MUST be put in the Aircraft/ WE section if the Slavebringer is relocated to that part of the Dark Eldar list.


What are you talking about? Space Marine List doesn't have an Aircraft/WE Section. It has an 'Imperial Ally Formations' Section which contains Imperial Navy and Titian formations. A Thunderhawk is neither of those things.

Lists are all built differently and saying other list "must" be written and built the same or else they have an 'unfair' advantage is doesn't make sense to me.

Why shouldn't Marine's get this 'advantage'? Space Marine's have no MW over 15cm - Should everyone else's be reduced to this, or should one be invented for Space Marines? Feral Orks have no flyers - should every other list lose their flyers or should some be invented for FOs? They have no flyers/WE section either (they're gargant formation is in the main list with everything else) Baran Siege Masters can't take any Titans - should everyone else lose them or should they get one? While we're at it, should everyone else get access to fortifications? It seems like an 'unfair advantage' to me...(that was sarcasm)...

These things are what make the lists fluffy and different to play and play against.

Moving the Slavebringer to 'a section' of the list only if the Thunderhawk is, is a not a sensible argument. Steve54 is quite right - where the Slavebringer sits has never made any sense to me either. It needs to go 'somewhere'.

Which brings me back round to on topic. Dark Eldar don't need and shouldn't have ground based AA. That fact you basically have to take flyers for AA in a DE list is perfectly fluffly and screams DE to me. Lunatics on drugs flying interceptors - yes please! >:D

Regards

Harry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:30 am
Posts: 481
Location: (Sydney) NSW
Well then, your own statement means that Dark Eldar are their own list and people griping about how the Dark Eldar can use Slavebringers as a transport option, as it is unfair to their armies and makes Dark Eldar too powerful is also uncalled for. Slavebringers cost 200 points each. You can not take a formation split up over 2 Slavebringers, it must all fit into one unit. Not many people spam Slavebringer as they are too expensive, and they are a thematic use of a bomber craft to deliver troops into battle which suits the Dark Eldar's battle tactics very much.

Dark Eldar in the NetEA list already have limitations on what they get with their fighters, Fighter Bombers, and Titan all in the 1/3 allocation. The use of overly expensive war engines as transports, heavy support (in a similar role to Engines of Vaull), and as a Bomber transport (in a similar role to the Thunderhawk Gunship) are there to off set the lack of durable transports and tanks the Dark Eldar have.

Their vehicles, for the most part are light Vehicles. They have to pay big points for their War Engines. Yes, most of them are skimmers, with a slightly slower speed than their Ravagers and Raiders, and these are the units that have the weaponry to make up for Dark Eldars general lack of longer range weapons (45cm or more) on troops, and vehicles. However these War Engines soak up the points, make list building harder as you tend to give the opponent multiple BTS if you are not careful, and concentrated fire will bring them down. Their shadow fields are lost once they are all gone, so they are not like Imperial ones, or even Eldar ones.

Why not just put the Chaos Thunderhawk Gunship in the core forces of their list, and make it a 200 point formation just like the Imperial lists do?

If you want it to go into a specific area, then not in the 1/3 section, Put into the Partisan or Kalabite section on its own a a separate formation.

I personally think the Space Marine list set out seemed silly. It needed to separate the support elements like Whirlwinds, Thunderhawk Gunships, Vindicators Squadrons, Bikes, Land Speeders, and Predator Squadrons into a support section. Elite Formations like Terminators, and any special Elite formations like Vanguard Veterans should go into an Elite Formations option.

The core formations of any space marine army should be Tactical and Scouts. Just like in 40K. You could get the flexibility by allowing 2 Support and 1 Elite formation per Core Formation.

This makes more sense to me. Also Where are the new weapons Marines are suppose to get? Thunderfire Batteries.

From listening to comments made by so many over the last year, the only thing I can see that the Dark Eldar list needs is to add in Venom Light Transports. Otherwise everyone will be wanting to get every army list re-worked, as in the example I gave for Space Marines. The Slavebringer should not be put into the 1/3 allotment as this makes Dark Eldar then have less to get their much needed AA/CAP fighters and Fighter Bombers. If it has to be moved, then in the Partisan section.

Marines do get fliers, at least in 40K. They get Storm Ravens, and other similar gunships. These can be set as their fighter, Fighter bomber transports, and so on. Make their rules so that they fill the Aircraft role.

I even think the points costing of Space Marines is silly. Rather than add in the cost of transports automatically, make it an optional upgrade that you can take for a set point value for that particular formation, and then it is Rhinos for standard troops, Landraiders for Terminators. This means it would cheaper to take termies as teleport troops, or put them in Thunderhawk Gunships. They already get the advantage of ATSKNF, however this should already be worked into their points cost along with their armour value, and other special rules.

_________________
6mm wargaming is just like 25mm wargaming with more units fitting on the same size table. Thus bigger games to get lost in and avoid the hassles of everyday living, and offerings for the dice gods.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 222
Slavebringers as an autonomous unit would make sense. Make sit more like a thunderhawk which is great for flexibility.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:30 am
Posts: 481
Location: (Sydney) NSW
As I said before, do not put them in the 1/3 of army section. They should be in the support section, as you would reduce the Dark Eldars ability to get enough fighters/ Fighter Bombers to handle enemy aircraft.

If you relocate them as an autonomous unit, make it part of the Kalbite section or the Partisan section.

_________________
6mm wargaming is just like 25mm wargaming with more units fitting on the same size table. Thus bigger games to get lost in and avoid the hassles of everyday living, and offerings for the dice gods.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 2: Barge of Pleasure
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:07 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4252
Deb wrote:
As I said before, do not put them in the 1/3 of army section. They should be in the support section, as you would reduce the Dark Eldars ability to get enough fighters/ Fighter Bombers to handle enemy aircraft.

If you relocate them as an autonomous unit, make it part of the Kalbite section or the Partisan section.

You've said this repeatedly but with no reasoning beyond thunderhawks not being in the 1/3 section

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net