Welcome to Librarium Online!
One of the things I hear a great deal when reading other armies' forums is the idea of having a lot of armour or none at all. The idea is that if you have a lot of armour they won't have enough anti-tank guns to deal with them all, while if you have no armour their anti-tank guns aren't particularly effective against your troops.
This doesn't sound right to me when dealing with DE. Our vehicles are made out of cardboard, after all, so I don't see there being much of a difference between our troops being shot at compared to our vehicles.
Does this concept still work with DE, or is it largely meaningless for us?
Edit: I ask because I have a very limited number of raider/ravagers, and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to have a small number of them, or if I'd need them in droves.
It works rather well depending on your point of view.
Think about it, our raiders are made out of cardboard.
They are cheap.
You can have loads.
They can be boltered down.
What does this mean? it means if they waste things like lascannon shots (or other such expensive single shot weapons) because of skimmers moving fast the High S of the shot is basically wasted because you cannot penetrate it, thus meaning the damage is minimised.
Thus you can easily swamp anti tank weapons just by taking an averagely mounted force (say, 4 raiders).
Then you get the bolter side of things.
Such weapons has high rate of fire but low /medium strength, thus your opponent has to waste an entire units worth fo fire that may/may not even dent a raider - thats fire not going on your infantry and its infantry that win games.
The raiders also pose a threat to an opponent that cannot stop it because of its nice shiny dark lance, so if they try and botler it down you can shwo them their mistake by nuking their landraider for them
So no, unless you are facing a min maxed list, at 1500 points 2-4 raiders (always moving enough to claim SMF) will survive a lot longer than you'd think - especially if their cargo makes CC and ties up said anti tank weapons.
I should clarify. I'm not saying that the raiders/ravagers are underpowered, but am rather asking if you need to use them in large numbers, or if you can get by with one or two of them and mix them with footslogging squads.
I'm trying to plan out my model buying as carefully as possible, and I'm trying to decide if I can use a small number of raider/ravagers, or whether I need to buy them in bulk to make them effective.
I use them in pairs, so at least four I would say. Two raiders or two ravagers looks much more intimidating than one.
Lately, my store is running more Cities of Death (CoD) games and I would rather cut down on raiders to 1 or 2 and have larger foot squads. In my last wych cult game at 1500 I ran no ravagers at all but ran large warrior squads that had one purpose - "pop" that tank. I thought the list was a little weak but tried it out all the same and it did very well against another all infantry chaos list.
I have to admit I feel a little naked with at least one ravager but in those games I did quite well without them.
On the other hand, I have seen highly mobile army list with everything mounted and absolutely devastate the opponent. Of course, on escalation it screwed but he made sure he never played escalation missions.
So I really do believe your original question is totally up to you. I do feel, however, to have alot of ravagers/raiders and choose not to use them is better than not having alot and not use them. I would take a good look at buying the "Titan Hunter" pack of 5 ravagers - that comes out to $25 a ravager. You can always convert a ravager into a raider so use 3 of them as ravagers and use the remaining 2 as raiders. Buying raiders individually at $35 is alot and will be even more as they are definitely going to raise the price of them to $40.
Just my opinion though, you definitely can be competitive with out ravagers, no doubt.
The tricky part is that once those packs start shipping, I expect to see a lot of Raiders/Ravagers on ebay for fairly reasonable prices. So it's a gamble either way.
I'm such a miser.
I didnít think that we had any true armour in Dark Eldar but merely transports and Disintergrator delivery systems. Both the Ravager and the Raider I class as transport systems, one carries troops whilst the other guns and only guns.
True armour to me is something that can be out in the open and reliably ignore incoming fire whilst giving it back to the enemy. So I guess its rather meaningless when referring to DE as you have stated.
Now we have tons of Lance weapons at our disposal, so anti-tank isnít going to be a problem but transport is a different matter.
Every squad that is combat orientated in my army gets transport and every squad that is firepower heavy gets to go on foot.
So this questions answer would rely upon your own army composition, sorry I canít be any more helpful than that.
In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
I completely agree with this. The first thing I thought when I saw the thread title was "armour? we don't have any of that do we?".Originally Posted by wickywacky1
I don't really agree with what the outsider is saying. While I'd rather face a lascannon than say... an autocannon, lascannons are still scary. 4 raiders isn't nearly enough to overwhelm the enemy with too many vehicles or "swamp anti tank weapons" as he might be suggesting and glancing hits are still scary. Why? Because our vehicles aren't just destroyed on a 6 on a glancing hit, we're destroyed on a 4+, which is the same as a penetrating hit for most other vehicles, hence, no, we can't shrug of any sort of fire. Best thing to do is just try to keep all raiders hidden at all times pretty much, when you use too many for the terrain to hide, then it's time to switch to webway portal.
So yeah, I agree with wicky, that general rule for armies is meaningless for us. Taking 2 raiders is just as valid as taking 10, probably more so since you can easily hide 2 behind terrain and with 10 it's pretty much impossible.
Tenozuma - The Burninator... I came, I saw, I posted.Originally Posted by Aussie Bogan
Dark Eldar player.
Feel free to PM if you want any advice or help with anything.
Assume everything I say has a "what I think" disclaimer.
Hang out with all the other Aussie and NZ members at The ANZAC Clan.
Need advice, want to talk warhammer or just want a laugh? Come on LO Chat. http://www.librarium-chat.com/
See what I failed to mention in my post is that "swamping anti tank weapon" isnt just raiders.
Naturally you'd have return fire of your own to add tothe mix thus reducing down those big shiny lascannons.
As for pure anti vehichle experience had taught me that lascannons are meh or their cost vs raiders - I lose more raiders due to rapid fire than I do due to that devastator squad sitting on a hill.
In my first tournament I ran 3 Ravagers and 5 Raiders. I did not too bad until I hit the guard player with 3 leman russ, Las, Heavy bolter and autocannon support squads. I couldn't hide enough raiders behind terrain and he wasted everything by turn 4.
IMO more than 4 skimmers is hard to keep alive if you lose first turn.
Other armies piling on the armor however is usually a good thing for us because we tend to have enough dark lances to deal with it. The exception might be fully mechanized Tau (everything in a skimmer with upgrades that negate immobilized results). I also had problems vs an armor company on a table with 40% lvl 3 area terrain. I never had LOS until he was right on top of me. But by and large when a marine player tries to go tank heavy I have more than enough to deal with it.
War Record Since Sept 2005
Old Codex 48-20-9 Dark Eldar
New Codex 1-0-0 Dark Eldar