Let's keep the peace, folks.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=31762 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Let's keep the peace, folks.
|
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
JimXII wrote: I don't understand how any of my posts would warrant an attack back at me. I certainly dont perceive myself to be under attack. It is an interesting choice of words.. Doomkitten had an opinion on the question that he exprssed, along with some thoughts on the posts here as well. His opinion was completely ignored in a dismissive response where you assumed he was trolling you. You then followed up that assumption with a snide comment, implying that his post's only use was to keep the thread on top of the active topics thread. |
|
| Author: | JimXII [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
So Dark Lances... |
|
| Author: | Geep [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
The current stats fit with what it should be (the same as an Eldar Bright Lance). There's plenty of armies that struggle with AT shooting, often with fewer alternative options than DE have. If they must rely on assaults I don't see why DE should get any special treatment. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
JimXII wrote: So Dark Lances... My bad, I forgot who I was talking to. |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Not in a good place to dig this data/comparison out at the moment but how close is the NetEA to the EUK lists and just how often do we see them taken there and what results? I think I remember that they've shown up over in the Epic AU realm occasionally too but I don't know where any of that is actually documented (assuming it is). Lacking any hard data in front of me I'd sadly have to vote no change at this time (though without the "you fool" part <3  - this is a good conversation to have) . Personally I'd rather see work towards a dark eldar homunculi variant list and some effort towards validating the KoPW with harllies allies that Ginger is working on than dinking around with this guy. The DE are pretty neat and I'd like to see new variants than rehashing this.
|
|
| Author: | JimXII [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Hi JZ, Yeah nice, the Dark Lance is pretty ubiquitous throughout all Dark Eldar builds, mostly in the form of the raider, but also a 5 unit ravager formation is included in most builds. The 5 unit formation is already pretty deadly treadly.when used in the right circumstances, combining the weapon system with hit and run and run and skimmer. The plan at this stage would be to stabilise the main Net EA Dark Eldar list and then Scarik already has some pretty sadistic and tortured ideas (as appropriate) for haemonculi and wych lists. Cheers, Jim |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:01 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance | ||
mmmmmmm sadists...in space
|
|||
| Author: | Ginger [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Unfortunately I think Jim is starting in a difficult place with limited information available about the performance of the NetEA list and not much more from the E-UK list;12 wins, 9 loses and 4 draws against 14 races really gives no real clues to their performance and certainly no indication on the AT. I tend to follow the axiom "when in doubt, don't". In this case the Dark Lance stats are identical with the E-UK stats and 6 out of the 7 lists available included Raiders which suggests that they are possibly adequate, at least as far as the limited E-UK lists are concerned. So I voted for "no change". IMHO we need something much more concrete than a vague suggestion that there might possibly be something wrong, but I have absolutely no problem with phrasing this as a question "do the community think there is an issue", or asking for people to test a particular aspect of a list. One thing I would suggest is presenting the intended scope and direction to help focus people's efforts. That said, testing anything is notoriously subjective unless you can fix the many other variables. In the past at least one highly respected AC ended up rejecting all battle results other than those from a limited group of friends purely because of the wide variation in results (and thus opinions) caused by different terrain coverage, positioning and LoS interpretations (let alone tactics and synergistic formation choices). This is why I think we should at least try to 'test' against the core lists to minimise that particular variable. Also I tend to think tournament results are a bit more valid than 'friendly' games, at least as far as approved lists are concerned. |
|
| Author: | danielcollins [ Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
I would vote for Deadly Treadly but sadly it is not an option |
|
| Author: | JimXII [ Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Hey Geep, Thanks for your contribution. You make an excellent point about DE playing style and limitations versus other lists. Cheers Jim |
|
| Author: | JimXII [ Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Hey Ginger, Thanks for taking the time to provide your comprehensive response. A real issue is the lack of data. And you are right about the scope and broader last considerations for the synergy of the list. Fortunately for me the EUK lost provides an excellent starting point for the redevelopment of the netea list. These polls are designed to do just as you said, get people thinking and engaged with the list and help me focus any changes to the list. At this stage i see the Netea DE list looking very similar to the EUK list, but with most of the units from the current NetEA list (minus the krashnarak). Thanks again ginger! Cheers Jim |
|
| Author: | lord-bruno [ Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
They are (and should be) exactly the same as Bright Lances, so no change. |
|
| Author: | JimXII [ Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
Cheers LB, that view is also shared by many and makes sense for comparison amd cross list balancing. Cheers Jim |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dark Eldar Lets Poll 1: Dark Lance |
My only experience of them is anecdotal, last year Rug took DE to the tournament I run and he ended up facing two AMTl lists, he got two big wins and when we were chatting afterwards he did say that he felt the matchups were good for him thanks to the DE having lots of lance shooting (I'm sure the high degree of maneuverability and a high activation count helped too of course!) so I'd support them staying as they are 
|
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|