So as an eldar player (I've been one for quite a while) the talk of banning the codex has come up along with banning units. I just wanted to ask the general public since I'll be playing eldar aspect list is it fair for me to say no to things like: Flyrants, grav-cents, Belakor etc. in return?
Thanks

Sure, you can say no to whatever you want. The question isn't whether you can say no, it's whether you can find an opponent willing to negotiate and compromise, which is a real challenge when it comes to pick up games.

No game is better than a bad game.

Sure. Go ahead.

The further along GW gets into the 6th-7th release cycle, the more pick up games are resembling tense diplomatic negotiations.

You can all you want! Walk in and demand that you will not face those units! And then watch the players that slightly considered playing you, decide to not. Fact is, and it's sad but true, everyone knows the eldar codex is ridiculously good. There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. People obviously take the anger out on eldar and its players by taking away the units that were overly powered up, in an attempt to help them stand a better chance. You're arguement would go like this... They want your strongest units not used... Leaving their strongest units on even ground with your average units.. you then say you don't want them to use their strongest units.. Leaving them with craps to fight your good units..

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
You can all you want! Walk in and demand that you will not face those units! And then watch the players that slightly considered playing you, decide to not. Fact is, and it's sad but true, everyone knows the eldar codex is ridiculously good. There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. People obviously take the anger out on eldar and its players by taking away the units that were overly powered up, in an attempt to help them stand a better chance. You're arguement would go like this... They want your strongest units not used... Leaving their strongest units on even ground with your average units.. you then say you don't want them to use their strongest units.. Leaving them with craps to fight your good units..

I'm not saying that's what I'm going to do, in fact it would've been better if explained it more. I'm saying that games tend to be more fun when there isn't destroyer weapons, invisibility(invinciblity), 2++ re-rollable saves and 5 flying monstrous creatures on the board. So when an opponent says no to those units (which I agree with) he shouldn't be taking his tournamament crusher list either.

Ah I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought from your original post you were doing so in retaliation. How you rephrased it makes sense.

 hiveof_chimera wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
You can all you want! Walk in and demand that you will not face those units! And then watch the players that slightly considered playing you, decide to not. Fact is, and it's sad but true, everyone knows the eldar codex is ridiculously good. There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. People obviously take the anger out on eldar and its players by taking away the units that were overly powered up, in an attempt to help them stand a better chance. You're arguement would go like this... They want your strongest units not used... Leaving their strongest units on even ground with your average units.. you then say you don't want them to use their strongest units.. Leaving them with craps to fight your good units..

I'm not saying that's what I'm going to do, in fact it would've been better if explained it more. I'm saying that games tend to be more fun when there isn't destroyer weapons, invisibility(invinciblity), 2++ re-rollable saves and 5 flying monstrous creatures on the board. So when an opponent says no to those units (which I agree with) he shouldn't be taking his tournamament crusher list either.

Find an opponent with BA. Problem solved.

Martel732 wrote:

 hiveof_chimera wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
You can all you want! Walk in and demand that you will not face those units! And then watch the players that slightly considered playing you, decide to not. Fact is, and it's sad but true, everyone knows the eldar codex is ridiculously good. There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. People obviously take the anger out on eldar and its players by taking away the units that were overly powered up, in an attempt to help them stand a better chance. You're arguement would go like this... They want your strongest units not used... Leaving their strongest units on even ground with your average units.. you then say you don't want them to use their strongest units.. Leaving them with craps to fight your good units..

I'm not saying that's what I'm going to do, in fact it would've been better if explained it more. I'm saying that games tend to be more fun when there isn't destroyer weapons, invisibility(invinciblity), 2++ re-rollable saves and 5 flying monstrous creatures on the board. So when an opponent says no to those units (which I agree with) he shouldn't be taking his tournamament crusher list either.

Find an opponent with BA. Problem solved.

I haven't played against BA in ages, I'd like to play against them but unfortunately we only have one player and he only plays at the GW store.
BTW you could still ally in a invisible centstar, but it wouldn't be BA then would it eh?

Yeah, mono-BA and mono-DA are both pretty much abuse-proof.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, mono-BA and mono-DA are both pretty much abuse-proof.

Player skill doesn't enter the equation? I think you're selling yourself short man. You're in a hyper competitive meta, you'd crush a newbie with a pure BA army.

The player is kind of an important factor to consider. You might crush a fluffy 7th Eldar army too even...

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, mono-BA and mono-DA are both pretty much abuse-proof.

Player skill doesn't enter the equation? I think you're selling yourself short man. You're in a hyper competitive meta, you'd crush a newbie with a pure BA army.

The player is kind of an important factor to consider. You might crush a fluffy 7th Eldar army too even...

That's not list abuse. That's good play. Mono-BA have no mathematical exploits available to them via undercosted units like scatbikes or Riptides.

Also, I'd pick almost any kind of Eldar list over mono-BA. They are that good, and BA are that anemic.

 hiveof_chimera wrote:
So as an eldar player (I've been one for quite a while) the talk of banning the codex has come up along with banning units. I just wanted to ask the general public since I'll be playing eldar aspect list is it fair for me to say no to things like: Flyrants, grav-cents, Belakor etc. in return?
Thanks

Perfectly fair, since a lot of us will just be straight up refusing to play eldar entirely. Go ahead and refuse the power units you don't like that actually can give eldar trouble. Mabye you can still find a baby seal out there willing to be clubbed...once or twice anyway.

 Orock wrote:

 hiveof_chimera wrote:
So as an eldar player (I've been one for quite a while) the talk of banning the codex has come up along with banning units. I just wanted to ask the general public since I'll be playing eldar aspect list is it fair for me to say no to things like: Flyrants, grav-cents, Belakor etc. in return?
Thanks

Perfectly fair, since a lot of us will just be straight up refusing to play eldar entirely. Go ahead and refuse the power units you don't like that actually can give eldar trouble. Mabye you can still find a baby seal out there willing to be clubbed...once or twice anyway.

Way to not read the rest of the read dude

Yay, another Eldar thread. We really needed one.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No game is better than a bad game.

That's what 40k has devolved into, apparently; bunch of people sitting around not playing the game and either crying or screaming at each other, pointing fingers and laying blame for things that are ultimately GW's fault, all the while continuing to buy massive amounts of models from GW inexplicably.

This is the "hobby" now, there's no game left. Even if you were willing to play you would never find anyone else that would want to.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. .

GW's poster boys wear power armor, make no mistake about that. Two Eldar books don't suddenly erase nearly two decades worth of favoritism.

 Orock wrote:
Perfectly fair, since a lot of us will just be straight up refusing to play eldar entirely.

And you should give yourself a big, fat pat on the back, for doing your part and assisting GW in making sure that 40k as a tabletop game dies a slow, horrible death. Good job.

Because as we all know it's the Eldar player's fault, and they should all be shunned and ridiculed for their crime of picking an army with really cool models. That'll fething teach them to play something other than Spehss Mahreens, and it'll totally show GW that the fanbase won't put up with their bullgak...you know...just as soon as they start giving a feth what the fans think.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Yay, another Eldar thread. We really needed one.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No game is better than a bad game.

That's what 40k has devolved into, apparently; bunch of people sitting around not playing the game and either crying or screaming at each other, pointing fingers and laying blame for things that are ultimately GW's fault, all the while continuing to buy massive amounts of models from GW inexplicably.

This is the "hobby" now, there's no game left. Even if you were willing to play you would never find anyone else that would want to.

I learned that hard lesson from RPGs actually. It simply isn't worth my time to play a game I know will not be fun. Whether that is based on the people, rules, or situation. No one is obligated to take one for the team.

Beside haven't you heard that "the Hobby" is actually buying stuff from GW.

GW's poster boys wear power armor, make no mistake about that. Two Eldar books don't suddenly erase nearly two decades worth of favoritism.

They get all the models, but Eldar certainly haven't gotten just two OP books, considering one should count 2nd (Exarch full gear could break an army, the closest cheese was space wolf terminator assault/cyclone), 3rd (starcannons and Altoic craftworld), 4th (Falconspam), 6th (Serpentspam!), and now 7th (Scatbikes, wraithknights).

Martel732 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, mono-BA and mono-DA are both pretty much abuse-proof.

Player skill doesn't enter the equation? I think you're selling yourself short man. You're in a hyper competitive meta, you'd crush a newbie with a pure BA army.

The player is kind of an important factor to consider. You might crush a fluffy 7th Eldar army too even...

That's not list abuse. That's good play. Mono-BA have no mathematical exploits available to them via undercosted units like scatbikes or Riptides.

Also, I'd pick almost any kind of Eldar list over mono-BA. They are that good, and BA are that anemic.

Except pods full of whatever special weapons you want for a criminally low price. And one of the top 5 assault units in the game. And universally fast vehicles. And several of the best combat characters in the game. And one of the best support HQs.

BA are a balanced book, and really for the most part the Eldar book is, too. It ust so happens that no thought went into the creation of the new jetbikes, wraith guard or wraith knights.

Thought went into their creation. The problem is, that thought was "oh man, the financial report isn't looking too good this year. How do we make sure we sell as many eldar codexes, jetseers, jetbikes and wraith units as possible?" rather than "how do we make these fluffy and powerful but still balanced?"

 th3maninblak wrote:


BA are a balanced book, and really for the most part the Eldar book is, too. It ust so happens that no thought went into the creation of the new jetbikes, wraith guard or wraith knights.

If we're also forgeting things like BS5 "better than AP1" Fire Dragons, and other such massive across the board monster buffs that late 6E/early 7E armies didn't get in on over the course of the last 12 months

BA, like many other books up until the Necron book (GK, IG, DA, etc) got a laundry list of option removals and nerfs (some justified to be fair) with very little if any attention paid to underperforming units/internal balance.. Eldar simply had nearly every single unit (bar the Wave Serpent) made better or got formations to make them better. (EDIT: though, that said, BA's do have a one or two absolutely absurd formations...have I mentioned I just really dislike formations?)

 Toofast wrote:
Thought went into their creation. The problem is, that thought was "oh man, the financial report isn't looking too good this year. How do we make sure we sell as many eldar codexes, jetseers, jetbikes and wraith units as possible?" rather than "how do we make these fluffy and powerful but still balanced?"

And that's the sad part, from what I've seen and heard it's an awesome book apart from the and jetbikes. If it wasn't for that this would've been in-line with the balance of some of the other current books. It's a shame really

Yeah, absolutely. As an Eldar player, if you agree to not bring Scatbikes or Strength D in your list they can agree to at the very least no invisibility or super heavies of their own.


You see a knight or invis? You get a WK. seems totally fair.

WK is a lot better then a single knight. It is probably better then two times, because of the mobility combined with D shoting weapons on it.

All armies are capable of cheese. Eldar just get it easier, within their own codex (not allies needed) and can take it further. If you want to play a fun and friendly game, you can. And it’s perfectly reasonable to ask your opponents to do the same.

The problem is getting everyone on the same page as to what level to play at. But if someone refuses to play against you using Wraiths or scatterbikes and puts down a scremerstar or adamantium lance, they’ve got more chutzpah then is healthy.

We're only just at the start of the 7th codex cycle. People need to calm down.

Look at a recent batrep on youtube - the necron player absolutely savaged the eldar player who had 2 wraithknights.

All armies are capable of cheese

Show me an IG or SoB list comperable to eldar or necrons at 1500pts.

We're only just at the start of the 7th codex cycle.

there were already 4 books before eldar cron that were ment for 7th. 5 if one counts the last codex in 6th which was clearly ment for 7th too.

Makumba wrote:

All armies are capable of cheese

Show me an IG or SoB list comperable to eldar or necrons at 1500pts.

I mentioned that Eldar can do it worse, without help. SoB or IG might need a little help to get something that would be considered cheezy, and probably can’t reach the heights of Eldar, but they can still pull some tricks. IG blob squads are a base that other things work well with, SoB priests can pull some shenanigans, and they can spam scouting melta and have a few other aces up their sleeves. Can someone who knows them better then I cobble up a list that would get past your “cheese” threshold? Possibly. Everyone has a different tolerance.

Eldar can put together a cheesy list almost accidentally. Building a fluffy list from a number of craftworlds is going to be a powerhouse on the table. I’m not going to argue it’s a weak codex, because it is still quite powerful. But you can put together friendly lists with it.

I love all the claims of mono BA being average or bad - they give exceptional options to counter eldar. I watched this very game today as it destroyed the new eldar Dex.

2 jet seers, 3x6 scatter bikes, 1x5 scatter bikes, 3 d cannons, WK, 3 scatter walkers, 3x5 swooping Hawks

Vs

Storm raven formation (3 Ravens and 3x 10 tactical marines)
2 chaplains, 2x8 vanguard in pods, 5 scouts, pod

Eldar got smashed hard.

 th3maninblak wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, mono-BA and mono-DA are both pretty much abuse-proof.

Player skill doesn't enter the equation? I think you're selling yourself short man. You're in a hyper competitive meta, you'd crush a newbie with a pure BA army.

The player is kind of an important factor to consider. You might crush a fluffy 7th Eldar army too even...

That's not list abuse. That's good play. Mono-BA have no mathematical exploits available to them via undercosted units like scatbikes or Riptides.

Also, I'd pick almost any kind of Eldar list over mono-BA. They are that good, and BA are that anemic.

Except pods full of whatever special weapons you want for a criminally low price. And one of the top 5 assault units in the game. And universally fast vehicles. And several of the best combat characters in the game. And one of the best support HQs.

BA are a balanced book, and really for the most part the Eldar book is, too. It ust so happens that no thought went into the creation of the new jetbikes, wraith guard or wraith knights.

LOL, pods with special weapons. One shot wonders who then footslog and get massacred. If I had an Eldar army, I could confidently say I would never lose to mono-BA. No matter rolling, no matter anything. The internal balance of the BA book is actually pretty poor, considering how many never-takes there are in the book. I'd also like to go on record to say that there is NOTHING criminally undercosted in the BA codex. Especially compared to the real codices in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Massaen wrote:
I love all the claims of mono BA being average or bad - they give exceptional options to counter eldar. I watched this very game today as it destroyed the new eldar Dex.

2 jet seers, 3x6 scatter bikes, 1x5 scatter bikes, 3 d cannons, WK, 3 scatter walkers, 3x5 swooping Hawks

Vs

Storm raven formation (3 Ravens and 3x 10 tactical marines)
2 chaplains, 2x8 vanguard in pods, 5 scouts, pod

Eldar got smashed hard.

There's nothing exceptional in that book. I could prove it to all these posters over and over in actual games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
All armies are capable of cheese. Eldar just get it easier, within their own codex (not allies needed) and can take it further. If you want to play a fun and friendly game, you can. And it’s perfectly reasonable to ask your opponents to do the same.

The problem is getting everyone on the same page as to what level to play at. But if someone refuses to play against you using Wraiths or scatterbikes and puts down a scremerstar or adamantium lance, they’ve got more chutzpah then is healthy.

I don't see any in the BA codex. We got a bunch of trap units again, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 th3maninblak wrote:


BA are a balanced book, and really for the most part the Eldar book is, too. It ust so happens that no thought went into the creation of the new jetbikes, wraith guard or wraith knights.

If we're also forgeting things like BS5 "better than AP1" Fire Dragons, and other such massive across the board monster buffs that late 6E/early 7E armies didn't get in on over the course of the last 12 months

BA, like many other books up until the Necron book (GK, IG, DA, etc) got a laundry list of option removals and nerfs (some justified to be fair) with very little if any attention paid to underperforming units/internal balance.. Eldar simply had nearly every single unit (bar the Wave Serpent) made better or got formations to make them better. (EDIT: though, that said, BA's do have a one or two absolutely absurd formations...have I mentioned I just really dislike formations?)

Which are those? Because I've already beaten all the BA formations in mirror matches using the CAD. Oh noes! Don't assault me with your tac squads from overcosted flyers! OMGZ whatever will the high tier codices do? The Vanguards with power weapons are particularly amusing, because of the cursing from the opponent when I shoot them to death. It's almost like a vacation compared to fighting Wraith, who have real defenses. Giving Vanguads power weapons is cute, but futile because they are still just meqs.

For OP,
To me, it seems like the formations are going to be another 'wtf' for opponents.

I plan on sticking to the CAD, because those buffs are obscene.

But yes, if you aren't cheesing, it'd be optimal to play other non-cheese. Although that line is incredibly subjective.

zerosignal wrote:
We're only just at the start of the 7th codex cycle. People need to calm down.

Look at a recent batrep on youtube - the necron player absolutely savaged the eldar player who had 2 wraithknights.

Thanks for the view! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mct8KsqEsYM

Martel732 wrote:
Which are those? Because I've already beaten all the BA formations in mirror matches using the CAD. Oh noes! Don't assault me with your tac squads from overcosted flyers! OMGZ whatever will the high tier codices do? The Vanguards with power weapons are particularly amusing, because of the cursing from the opponent when I shoot them to death. It's almost like a vacation compared to fighting Wraith, who have real defenses. Giving Vanguads power weapons is cute, but futile because they are still just meqs.

You don't get it then - the raven formation is not about 30 tactical marines charging you - its about the death punch from 2+ vanguard units arriving turn 1 via drop pods and assaulting you via multi charge before you can do jack about it. Substitute death company or dreadnaughts or what ever BA assault units you like. The 30 tacticals are there to mop up what survives the angry marines with WS, S, I 5 and many attacks each

And if you aren't afraid of getting charged by Tacs, you aren't playing Eldar.

Granted, its really hard to get said charge, but still.

 Massaen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Which are those? Because I've already beaten all the BA formations in mirror matches using the CAD. Oh noes! Don't assault me with your tac squads from overcosted flyers! OMGZ whatever will the high tier codices do? The Vanguards with power weapons are particularly amusing, because of the cursing from the opponent when I shoot them to death. It's almost like a vacation compared to fighting Wraith, who have real defenses. Giving Vanguads power weapons is cute, but futile because they are still just meqs.

You don't get it then - the raven formation is not about 30 tactical marines charging you - its about the death punch from 2+ vanguard units arriving turn 1 via drop pods and assaulting you via multi charge before you can do jack about it. Substitute death company or dreadnaughts or what ever BA assault units you like. The 30 tacticals are there to mop up what survives the angry marines with WS, S, I 5 and many attacks each

I foiled those units as well. There's not enough points left for a viable force after you pay the Stormraven/tactical squad tax. Been there, done that. It's another formation that initial deployment that hoses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
And if you aren't afraid of getting charged by Tacs, you aren't playing Eldar.

Granted, its really hard to get said charge, but still.

Small detail there.

 Massaen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Which are those? Because I've already beaten all the BA formations in mirror matches using the CAD. Oh noes! Don't assault me with your tac squads from overcosted flyers! OMGZ whatever will the high tier codices do? The Vanguards with power weapons are particularly amusing, because of the cursing from the opponent when I shoot them to death. It's almost like a vacation compared to fighting Wraith, who have real defenses. Giving Vanguads power weapons is cute, but futile because they are still just meqs.

You don't get it then - the raven formation is not about 30 tactical marines charging you - its about the death punch from 2+ vanguard units arriving turn 1 via drop pods and assaulting you via multi charge before you can do jack about it. Substitute death company or dreadnaughts or what ever BA assault units you like. The 30 tacticals are there to mop up what survives the angry marines with WS, S, I 5 and many attacks each

Why did the Eldar player bunch up together?

It's not hard to stop 8-9 models from getting a multi-charge by spacing out. You did remember the bold text under Move Initial Charger on page 55, right?

Martel732 wrote:
I foiled those units as well. There's not enough points left for a viable force after you pay the Stormraven/tactical squad tax. Been there, done that. It's another formation that initial deployment that hoses.

Huh?

How many points are you playing because at 1850 you can make a perfectly viable TAC death punch list with this formation.

 Massaen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I foiled those units as well. There's not enough points left for a viable force after you pay the Stormraven/tactical squad tax. Been there, done that. It's another formation that initial deployment that hoses.

Huh?

How many points are you playing because at 1850 you can make a perfectly viable TAC death punch list with this formation.

1850. I crushed the formation list, actually. I forced him to assault a bunch of Rhinos and razor backs. My counter fire/assault crushed him. I wouldn't call less than 850 pts of actual army "TAC" in any way. Spending 1000+ on six units that aren't that good is a recipe for disaster, imo.

with 3 SR, PotMS and MM/LC I fail to see how you still had Av11 vehicles on the table. Also - I almost never see a TAC tourney list with rhinos or razorbacks these days - YRMV

With one of the BA detachments you can keep it to a single cheap troops or take the DC dreadnaught character then still get 2 very good assault units along with 3 pods and either mephy or a couple of mid level heros like chaplains or priests.

BA crushed a BA list doesn't mean the OP would crush the same list.

You made his T1 charges kill transports at 35 pts base. Try the same thing with Eldar and you lose 110pts base each. Which is substantially more.

And then, your jucy parts are still Marines. Non-Wraith Eldar jucy bits die much, much faster when attacked.

"with 3 SR, PotMS and MM/LC I"

Because AP 1/2 got nerfed. SR aren't that reliable at killing anything anything anymore. Even if the vehicles die, they are still physically blocking assaults. Because explodes almost never happen anymore. And even still, they are getting to assault my throw away tacs. It's a lose/lose/lose/lose for the formation list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
BA crushed a BA list doesn't mean the OP would crush the same list.

You made his T1 charges kill transports at 35 pts base. Try the same thing with Eldar and you lose 110pts base each. Which is substantially more.

And then, your jucy parts are still Marines. Non-Wraith Eldar jucy bits die much, much faster when attacked.

This is the world's smallest violin playing for the Eldar. You'll just have to have some OP unit bail you out in the miracle that a marine manages to touch one of the precious Eldar units.

How are guys getting out of Rhinos then charging you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, in the context of this thread:

Q: "If I use a reasonable list from the Eldar 'dex, is it reasonable to think it wouldn't be fair to go up against tue most broken non-Eldar things in the game?"

A: "No, because BA will lose to you, because you'll field the most broken stuff in the Eldar list!"

Is that what you're saying?

Bharring wrote:
How are guys getting out of Rhinos then charging you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, in the context of this thread:

Q: "If I use a reasonable list from the Eldar 'dex, is it reasonable to think it wouldn't be fair to go up against tue most broken non-Eldar things in the game?"

A: "No, because BA will lose to you, because you'll field the most broken stuff in the Eldar list!"

Is that what you're saying?

The guys getting out of the Rhinos shoot. The jump infantry hiding behind the rhinos assault. And the fragnoughts show up and frag their faces off.

I'm saying that a random sampling of Eldar units curb stomps a random sampling of BA units. I'm saying that a constructed Eldar list curb stomps the BA even worse. Across the board, Eldar units make the BA look stupid. That's what I'm saying. If I had infinite time and money, I could visit and meticulously show every Eldar player how to curb stomp BA pretty much every time. Without access to the toys of real space marines, the Eldar codex as an entity is OP for the BA. There is no "reasonable".

But in this context, that isn't the question.

Eldar have some stupid things they can do now. The OP (and many other Eldar players) really want to know how to have fun games.

That usually involves not cheesing to the max for most of us. Eldar can certainly cheese better than most, but its not the only cheese. So if he (or I) drop down an Aspect CAD, is another player dropping down Cent Stars or Decurions or Adamantium Lances or Invis on us reasonable? Any more reasonable than if we had taken Scatterbikes and WKs in the first place?

The question isn't optimised Eldar vs optimised BA. Its if fluffy/reasonable Eldar lists vs other Dex's should be facing the non-Eldar stupidly good stuff in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(My Tau list from last night is an empirical display of Reasonable. Mostly short ranged non-Suit infantry, plus tank support. Just because its subjectively defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist)

Bharring wrote:
But in this context, that isn't the question.

Eldar have some stupid things they can do now. The OP (and many other Eldar players) really want to know how to have fun games.

That usually involves not cheesing to the max for most of us. Eldar can certainly cheese better than most, but its not the only cheese. So if he (or I) drop down an Aspect CAD, is another player dropping down Cent Stars or Decurions or Adamantium Lances or Invis on us reasonable? Any more reasonable than if we had taken Scatterbikes and WKs in the first place?

The question isn't optimised Eldar vs optimised BA. Its if fluffy/reasonable Eldar lists vs other Dex's should be facing the non-Eldar stupidly good stuff in the game.

I honestly see no reason to ever put on kid gloves against Eldar. I don't think you realize what a struggle most lists will have against a even "reasonable" Eldar list. They are that good. They were solid before across the board and EVERYTHING got buffed,except the WS. Yay.

"Do reasonable Eldar lists exist?" is a valid question.

I would say undeniably so.

Your argument is that, because you face brutal lists from all factions where you need to do your best to have a snowballs chance, and you rarely, if ever, beat Eldar, no reasonable Eldar list exists.

I would argue that (1) your sample is horribly biased, and (2) asserting something doesn't exist because any finite sample doesn't see it is just bad logic.

Consider a more concrete list. I haven't adapted points to the new Dex yet, but that would mean swapping the Serpent for a Falcon, plus upgrades, and maybe another DA or two (and model count could be off by 1):

CAD
HQ:
Asurmen
Troops:
10 DA
+ Exarch
++w/ShimmerShield/Lance

5 DA
+ Exarch
++ TL catapult

5 DA

Elites:
6 Scorpions
+ Exarch
++ Claw

6 Fire Dragons
+ Exarch
++ Firepike
+ Serpent
++ SL
++ SC
++ Holo

FA

6 Hawks
+ Exarch
++ Sun Rifle

5 Spiders
+ Exarch
++ TL Deathspinners
++ Blades

HS
5 Reapers
+ Exarch
++ EML

That's about 1500. Is that not a "reasonable" list?

If not, why not?
If so, then does that not prove they exist?

Now put that up against a "reasonable" BA list. I think the Eldar win going away. Again, non-optimal Eldar crushes non-optimal BA.

Yes, we know already. It's all good. We mourne for BA. If you took 150 Rangers you'd win against me/us/all of them nasty Eldarz wielding a BA tournament force.

Suite wrote:
Yes, we know already. It's all good. We mourne for BA. If you took 150 Rangers you'd win against me/us/all of them nasty Eldarz wielding a BA tournament force.

I didn't say that. I was comparing random to random and optimized to optimized. One could also argue there IS no BA tournament force.

One could argue that, but they were in a recent #2 list, but I don't really keep track of that.

You might be comparing 'random to random' and 'optimised to optimised', but this thread is about 'reasonable to reasonable'.

The list above is very organized (literally one box of each Aspect chosen + more troops + the first Phoenix Lord).

The open question is, does there exist a reasonable BA list against which the above list wouldn't clearly dominate regularly?

But you miss the point of the thread. Since BA don't appear to have very strong units like the OP mentioned in the first post, you have a life without sorrows then

 Sidstyler wrote:
Yay, another Eldar thread. We really needed one.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No game is better than a bad game.

That's what 40k has devolved into, apparently; bunch of people sitting around not playing the game and either crying or screaming at each other, pointing fingers and laying blame for things that are ultimately GW's fault, all the while continuing to buy massive amounts of models from GW inexplicably.

This is the "hobby" now, there's no game left. Even if you were willing to play you would never find anyone else that would want to.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. .

GW's poster boys wear power armor, make no mistake about that. Two Eldar books don't suddenly erase nearly two decades worth of favoritism.

 Orock wrote:
Perfectly fair, since a lot of us will just be straight up refusing to play eldar entirely.

And you should give yourself a big, fat pat on the back, for doing your part and assisting GW in making sure that 40k as a tabletop game dies a slow, horrible death. Good job.

Because as we all know it's the Eldar player's fault, and they should all be shunned and ridiculed for their crime of picking an army with really cool models. That'll fething teach them to play something other than Spehss Mahreens, and it'll totally show GW that the fanbase won't put up with their bullgak...you know...just as soon as they start giving a feth what the fans think.

Well thats just too bad. Its not my job to subsadize someones fun at the expense of mine. I dont have the time in the week to waste it on a game that wouldnt be any fun for me. And it wouldnt bother me one bit if GW went under. The IP would be picked up, because its too profitable, then the people responsible for the crap decisions over the last 4 years would be out on their ass, You are worried the next people in charge will be worse than the current ones. Well when you have already hit rock bottom, change can be a good thing.

And I have no sympathy for eldar players. They have been OP for the vast majority of their existence. They have been criminally underpriced for a long time, and now that people have had enough of their easy mode books, they call foul because nobody is willing to sit there and let them beat on them with an uneven playing field.

Martel732 wrote:
I honestly see no reason to ever put on kid gloves against Eldar.

Because you're playing a player, not simply rock-paper-scissors with abstracted lists. Even modifying the missions and terrain has an impact. Eldar have good units but they don't have Necron-level defence. So in pick up games, just scale everything to the experience of the player.

Imagine you're not fighting an optimized list. Maybe it's not how your meta rolls but people do still play this game without trying to leverage every edge to win. Even in taking "never take" units.

Not every thread should be about your struggles in your specific meta Martel. And if your opponents are somewhat abusive in exploiting imbalance, you need to solve that locally.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
And I have no sympathy for eldar players. They have been OP for the vast majority of their existence. They have been criminally underpriced for a long time, and now that people have had enough of their easy mode books, they call foul because nobody is willing to sit there and let them beat on them with an uneven playing field.

I'm sure an Eldar player going heavy on the Rangers and Guardians might resent that characterization.

Having a codex doesn't obligate you to exploit the most abusive and undercosted units. If you're not playing "for fun", don't be surprised if you don't have any. I don't get everyone's obsession with making 40k as cutthroat as possible at the expensive of personal enjoyment and a positive social environment.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I honestly see no reason to ever put on kid gloves against Eldar.

Because you're playing a player, not simply rock-paper-scissors with abstracted lists. Even modifying the missions and terrain has an impact. Eldar have good units but they don't have Necron-level defence. So in pick up games, just scale everything to the experience of the player.

In pick up games, you do not know the experience of the player. It's a pick up game, not something you planned weeks in advance.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Imagine you're not fighting an optimized list. Maybe it's not how your meta rolls but people do still play this game without trying to leverage every edge to win. Even in taking "never take" units.

Not every thread should be about your struggles in your specific meta Martel. And if your opponents are somewhat abusive in exploiting imbalance, you need to solve that locally.

I agree that martel focuses too much on his local meta, but his points usually carry over to any competitive meta. I usually find myself agreeing with him.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
And I have no sympathy for eldar players. They have been OP for the vast majority of their existence. They have been criminally underpriced for a long time, and now that people have had enough of their easy mode books, they call foul because nobody is willing to sit there and let them beat on them with an uneven playing field.

I'm sure an Eldar player going heavy on the Rangers and Guardians might resent that characterization.

Alaitoc wasn't OP, but it wasn't a fun list to play against for the most part.
Guardians and rangers are bad in the eldar dex, but would be pretty good in most dexes. I'd take them in CSM, at least rangers, for the anti-mc aspect.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Having a codex doesn't obligate you to exploit the most abusive and undercosted units. If you're not playing "for fun", don't be surprised if you don't have any.

That's absurd. Everything I do in my leisure time is for fun. I have fun by playing competitive games with my friends and not having to handicap myself.
This is no different than how it worked in 3.5 DnD. You had tiers, and as long as everyone was playing in the same tier, everyone had a good time. But throw a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Fighter together, and the fighter stops having a good time.
Very few armies are on the Eldar Tier, or can rise up to meet it.

You think it's "absurd" not to exploit the most undercosted and abusive units?

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You think it's "absurd" not to exploit the most undercosted and abusive units?

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Choices are legal or they are not legal. The social contract approach fails when it is scaled up to a large player base, I think.

That gets said about every social construct. But I haven't been knifed by a coworker for the cash in my wallet.

Once again, you're claiming that 'reasonable' doesn't exist. So I direct you, once again, to previous examples of 'reasonable' already mentioned in this thread.

Large player base may seem to make it unwieldy, but would actually offer the chance to have subdivisions amongst what constitutes 'reasonable' in the group.

Bharring wrote:
That gets said about every social construct. But I haven't been knifed by a coworker for the cash in my wallet.

Once again, you're claiming that 'reasonable' doesn't exist. So I direct you, once again, to previous examples of 'reasonable' already mentioned in this thread.

Large player base may seem to make it unwieldy, but would actually offer the chance to have subdivisions amongst what constitutes 'reasonable' in the group.

Maybe. It's an awful lot of work to be heaped on the players, though.

Formal divisions, sure, lots of work.

"Maybe I'll ask Steve for a game, because Bobby likes his netlists" isn't much work at all.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You think it's "absurd" not to exploit the most undercosted and abusive units?

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

They don't need to abuse the most under costed units to make them unfun. A lot of the weaker units are strong enough to do so.
But they shouldn't have to handicap themselves

Bharring wrote:
Formal divisions, sure, lots of work.

"Maybe I'll ask Steve for a game, because Bobby likes his netlists" isn't much work at all.

I thought this thread was about pick up games. I seldom know my opponents beforehand.

I suppose you wouldn't know in a blind pick up game. But has that really changed anything? You could always wind up going against a broken list before the new Dex. So if we aren't banning all codexes that can produce a "broken list", isn't it a bit uneven to ban one of them?

If it's good form not to bring Wraith constructs and ScatterBikes, or other ridiculous options, wouldn't it also be good form not to bring super Grav stars or Knight spam to pickup games?

Bharring wrote:
I suppose you wouldn't know in a blind pick up game. But has that really changed anything? You could always wind up going against a broken list before the new Dex. So if we aren't banning all codexes that can produce a "broken list", isn't it a bit uneven to ban one of them?

If it's good form not to bring Wraith constructs and ScatterBikes, or other ridiculous options, wouldn't it also be good form not to bring super Grav stars or Knight spam to pickup games?

Because many people will say that bringing a few OP units isn't OP and quite fair. "It's just a few scatter bikes and just two WK's."
Not that that will always be the case, but what I'm trying to say is that "reasonable" isn't always going to be the same for people.

 hiveof_chimera wrote:
So as an eldar player (I've been one for quite a while) the talk of banning the codex has come up along with banning units. I just wanted to ask the general public since I'll be playing eldar aspect list is it fair for me to say no to things like: Flyrants, grav-cents, Belakor etc. in return?
Thanks

My local group made a choice awhile ago, formations can be used, but must be paid for out of your FOC, and we all use the FOC. .If a formation requires more then the FOC allows (the tyranid one that requires 3 gargoyles, one crone, and one harpy as an example), then you can take it, but have to sacrifice two slots from non-troop (so in the previous example, 1 over in fast attack has to be paid for by 2 slots from other areas). The advantage of taking a formation, should be the special rules of the formation, not being able to spam more. I think this has gone a long way to limiting spamming, and certainly gets rid of the 5 flyrant silliness. And I play tyranids.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I suppose you wouldn't know in a blind pick up game. But has that really changed anything? You could always wind up going against a broken list before the new Dex. So if we aren't banning all codexes that can produce a "broken list", isn't it a bit uneven to ban one of them?

If it's good form not to bring Wraith constructs and ScatterBikes, or other ridiculous options, wouldn't it also be good form not to bring super Grav stars or Knight spam to pickup games?

Because many people will say that bringing a few OP units isn't OP and quite fair. "It's just a few scatter bikes and just two WK's."
Not that that will always be the case, but what I'm trying to say is that "reasonable" isn't always going to be the same for people.

I've had necron players tell me my blastmaster spam list is OP and absurd. Same with some eldar players.
A lot of people on this forum think drop pod lists are completely unfair too. OP is a very relative term.

Go to warseer. There is someone arguing the WK got worse somehow, genestealers are good, and warp talons beat eldar.

It is entirely subjective. Even if it were a clean continuum, how would cutting out an entire faction be fair? So, let's say I can't bring Swordwind to a pug, then why is it OK to stomp my demi company SM with an adamantium lance?

Bharring wrote:
It is entirely subjective. Even if it were a clean continuum, how would cutting out an entire faction be fair? So, let's say I can't bring Swordwind to a pug, then why is it OK to stomp my demi company SM with an adamantium lance?

Sometimes it's combos that break the game. Sometimes it's formations. Other times it's the entire dex.
I don't think it's fair for someone with a lower tier dex (and I'm talking bottom of the barrel) to have to waste 2-3 hours playing a game that probably won't go well. 40k is not a short game, I can only get 2-3 a day in on a weekend. 1 on a weekday.
Again, if people talk before hand it can work. But with a pick up game I probably wouldn't be too interested with my CSM. If I used allies a lot of my other dexes would work but I don't. The eldar are a uniquely strong stand alone codex that doesn't need anything to be good. Even necrons need a formation to be really obscene.

@kburn, could you fix your quote?

Yoyoyo wrote:
I'm sure an Eldar player going heavy on the Rangers and Guardians might resent that characterization.

Because we see so many Eldar lists with Rangers and Guardians around. /s They're not even that bad, and taking them in conjunction with anything else would still make the army far eclipse anything other armies can put out.

Of course, all we'll see is fluffy iyanden and siam hann armies "they started 10 years ago" so if you lose, you nid 2 git gud

 hiveof_chimera wrote:

I'm not saying that's what I'm going to do, in fact it would've been better if explained it more. I'm saying that games tend to be more fun when there isn't destroyer weapons, invisibility(invinciblity), 2++ re-rollable saves and 5 flying monstrous creatures on the board. So when an opponent says no to those units (which I agree with) he shouldn't be taking his tournamament crusher list either.

Because even the weakest aspect warriors are still far stronger than flyrant spam. If you want to get rid of all the unfair, unfun units, everything in the eldar codex should be banned other than guardians and rangers.

Good on you for picking on the only arsenal Tyranids have. Its like shooting a puppy after you kick it,

"Even the weakest Aspect Warrior list" loses very, very badly to Flyrant spam, I would bet.

Its statements like that we Eldar players fear.

Have you faced many Aspect lists?

kburn wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
I'm sure an Eldar player going heavy on the Rangers and Guardians might resent that characterization.

Because we see so many Eldar lists with Rangers and Guardians around. /s They're not even that bad, and taking them in conjunction with anything else would still make the army far eclipse anything other armies can put out.

Of course, all we'll see is fluffy iyanden and siam hann armies "they started 10 years ago" so if you lose, you nid 2 git gud

Of the four Eldar armies we have at my local store, there's two Guardian heavy lists, approximately 60 in one and 40 in the other, a ranger heavy army, and one Saim-Hann list the guy's been playing it since at least the last Eldar codex came out, maybe even before that. Just thought I'd point that out, as although this is by no means representative of the whole Eldar community, it helps to illustrate that not all Eldar players are the same, and as such should not all be lumped together

Sure, you can deny me my power units. I don't care. No really I don't. It's a game after all.

*sobs in corner clutching Flyrants*

I'm not really complaining about Flyrants so much as saying an Aspect army isn't broken.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not really complaining about Flyrants so much as saying an Aspect army isn't broken.

Broken, no. Undercosted? Probably.

So paying CSM prices for a t3 4+ is undercosted?

Or 25 ppm for Shining Spears?

Or paying ASM prices for things that hit like ASMs, but infiltrate instead of having jetpacks and are t3, so die much faster?

How often have you played Swordwind?

kburn wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
I'm sure an Eldar player going heavy on the Rangers and Guardians might resent that characterization.

Because we see so many Eldar lists with Rangers and Guardians around. /s They're not even that bad, and taking them in conjunction with anything else would still make the army far eclipse anything other armies can put out.

Of course, all we'll see is fluffy iyanden and siam hann armies "they started 10 years ago" so if you lose, you nid 2 git gud

 hiveof_chimera wrote:

I'm not saying that's what I'm going to do, in fact it would've been better if explained it more. I'm saying that games tend to be more fun when there isn't destroyer weapons, invisibility(invinciblity), 2++ re-rollable saves and 5 flying monstrous creatures on the board. So when an opponent says no to those units (which I agree with) he shouldn't be taking his tournamament crusher list either.

Because even the weakest aspect warriors are still far stronger than flyrant spam. If you want to get rid of all the unfair, unfun units, everything in the eldar codex should be banned other than guardians and rangers.

Good on you for picking on the only arsenal Tyranids have. Its like shooting a puppy after you kick it,

Please tell me you are trolling, an Aspect list will NOT beat a flyrant spam army, Flyrant spam wins tournaments against serpent spam, screamer stars etc.
I don't mind playing against a flyrant or two but I really don't want to face more than that, besides isn't there stuff like dakka fexes and whole concealed armies from venomthroapes or whatever. Look I'll even type my list here, surely this will not beat the competetive armies out there.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not really complaining about Flyrants so much as saying an Aspect army isn't broken.

Fair comment. Wings upgrade is undercosted though, I will admit as a Nid player. I'm starting to take two in a list these days just for variety (normally run at least three) and so my opponent can have more fun. I recently brought three to a 1250 list and played against a SM list and it was gut-wrenching to see my opponents army do nothing against it. For all the cheese I bring or face, I still want both of us to have fun.

Has anyone actually complained about that list? Wow.

 hiveof_chimera wrote:
Please tell me you are trolling, an Aspect list will NOT beat a flyrant spam army, Flyrant spam wins tournaments against serpent spam, screamer stars etc.
I don't mind playing against a flyrant or two but I really don't want to face more than that, besides isn't there stuff like dakka fexes and whole concealed armies from venomthroapes or whatever. Look I'll even type my list here, surely this will not beat the competetive armies out there.

Spoiler:

Avatar of khaine
Jain zar
5 DA, exarch in WS w EML
5 DA, exarch in WS w EML
6 striking scorpions, Exarch w claw (aspect formation)
6 Howling Banshees, Exarch w Executioner (aspect formation)
5 Fire Dragons, Exarch in WS (aspect formation)
3 Shadow Spectres, Exarch w Prism Blaster
6 Warp Spiders, Exarch
Crimson Hunter

Surely this list isn't that bad, is it?
oh and BTW I've only got 10 DA so that's why they're in units of 5

It's a good list. Ofc it won't beat Flyrant spam, it doesn't have the durability to withstand the firepower or the Skyfire to deal enough damage to them (they will most likely go after your WS first to get rid of Skyfire and moility) but against one or two you should be fine.

Bharring wrote:
So paying CSM prices for a t3 4+ is undercosted?

Or 25 ppm for Shining Spears?

Or paying ASM prices for things that hit like ASMs, but infiltrate instead of having jetpacks and are t3, so die much faster?

How often have you played Swordwind?

Now we can talk about Warp Spiders and Fire Dragons. Yes, not broken, but probably too good for the points.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 hiveof_chimera wrote:
Please tell me you are trolling, an Aspect list will NOT beat a flyrant spam army, Flyrant spam wins tournaments against serpent spam, screamer stars etc.
I don't mind playing against a flyrant or two but I really don't want to face more than that, besides isn't there stuff like dakka fexes and whole concealed armies from venomthroapes or whatever. Look I'll even type my list here, surely this will not beat the competetive armies out there.

Spoiler:

Avatar of khaine
Jain zar
5 DA, exarch in WS w EML
5 DA, exarch in WS w EML
6 striking scorpions, Exarch w claw (aspect formation)
6 Howling Banshees, Exarch w Executioner (aspect formation)
5 Fire Dragons, Exarch in WS (aspect formation)
3 Shadow Spectres, Exarch w Prism Blaster
6 Warp Spiders, Exarch
Crimson Hunter

Surely this list isn't that bad, is it?
oh and BTW I've only got 10 DA so that's why they're in units of 5

It's a good list. Ofc it won't beat Flyrant spam, it doesn't have the durability to withstand the firepower or the Skyfire to deal enough damage to them (they will most likely go after your WS first to get rid of Skyfire and moility) but against one or two you should be fine.

And that's the thing, I don't mind facing a Flyrant or two but anymore than that and you might as well be facing another tourney list than stomping a bunch of T3 3/4+ armour models with only 3 models that do damage to your army.

Fire Dragons - Cheaper than Melta Sternguard, but less survivable, laughably worse in CC, no alternative fire modes, and can't Melta Drop. They can move d6" further though, and if they somehow survive the retaliation - much less likely than Sternguard - they can shoot more Melta. If they can get to another target.

The turn before they hop out, their 110+ transport can move further than a 35pt Rhino, but the turn of, it can't. And depending on Pivoting is played (check YMDC), the Rhino gets the Sternies a lot closer.

However you slice it, though, no transport can match the Droppod for getting a melta unit into position.

So they seem a little good, but not unreasonable compared to Sternguard.

Warp Spiders. What were they thinking with Flickerjump, I'll never know. Fortunately, their shooting versus your vehicles got crapton worse, and their other shooting vs Marines didn't change much. Shoot them at close range? At long-ish range, force them to move back, so they can't shoot next round? Charge them? Spammed, they could be a problem. A single unit shouldn't be too scary, though.

I don't think those units are as scary as you'd have us believe. And several other aspects, as pointed out, certainly aren't undercosted.

Honestly, have you never faced Aspect Warriors? Try shooting them. With boltguns.

Bharring wrote:
Fire Dragons - Cheaper than Melta Sternguard, but less survivable, laughably worse in CC, no alternative fire modes, and can't Melta Drop. They can move d6" further though, and if they somehow survive the retaliation - much less likely than Sternguard - they can shoot more Melta. If they can get to another target.

The turn before they hop out, their 110+ transport can move further than a 35pt Rhino, but the turn of, it can't. And depending on Pivoting is played (check YMDC), the Rhino gets the Sternies a lot closer.

However you slice it, though, no transport can match the Droppod for getting a melta unit into position.

So they seem a little good, but not unreasonable compared to Sternguard.

Warp Spiders. What were they thinking with Flickerjump, I'll never know. Fortunately, their shooting versus your vehicles got crapton worse, and their other shooting vs Marines didn't change much. Shoot them at close range? At long-ish range, force them to move back, so they can't shoot next round? Charge them? Spammed, they could be a problem. A single unit shouldn't be too scary, though.

I don't think those units are as scary as you'd have us believe. And several other aspects, as pointed out, certainly aren't undercosted.

Honestly, have you never faced Aspect Warriors? Try shooting them. With boltguns.

Who's this in reply to, I'm already aware that shooting them with anything will KILL them

Martel. Several people still seem to believe just about any Eldar list is broken.

It definitely got a lot harder to do a reasonable list, but there is a lot of reasonable options in the book too.

I've taken as many boltguns out of my lists as a I can, but I get the point. Also, I said undercosted, not broken. I'm just tired of Eldar being undercosted.

People shouldn't have to choose between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" options. Everyone should be able to field the best list they can and be able to have a good game.

For the record, drop pod melta backfires a lot. Clever set up and drop pods getting in each others way and all that. Melta has terrible, terrible range.

Bharring wrote:
So paying CSM prices for a t3 4+ is undercosted?

Or 25 ppm for Shining Spears?

Or paying ASM prices for things that hit like ASMs, but infiltrate instead of having jetpacks and are t3, so die much faster?

How often have you played Swordwind?

Considering the weapon you get for CSM prices (Which are very poor to begin with), and the rules, the ability to move 6, run 6, and still shoot...Yeah, I'd trade my CSM in for that, they got mauled by mass rending shots from Dire Avengers anyways.

On the other hand, CSM are one of the worst troops in the game, so. Not really a fair comparison imo.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
On the other hand, CSM are one of the worst troops in the game, so. Not really a fair comparison imo.

Those crazy CSM bringing their bottom tier infantry into a discussion about codex strength!
As if they matter

DAs move 6", run d6", then shoot 18".
CSM move 6", then shoot 24".

Unless the DAs roll a 6 (undependable), CSM outrange them. And that's before factoring in any upgrades CSM can have.

Bladestorm means a Shurken Catapult shot is a bit better than *half* as good against a CSM as a boltgun is against a DA. Said another way, if it weren't for Bladestorm, a Shuriken shot would be exactly *half* as deadly to a CSM than a Boltgun round is to a DA.

In melee, assuming CSM are naked, a DA has a 1/18 chance of killing a Marine. A Marine has a 1/6 chance *per attack* to kill a DA. DAs go first, but will get their clocks cleaned easily.

So, in summary:
-18"+ CSM win no contest
-12-18" w/o cover DAs do a little better than CSM
-0-12" CSM destroy DAs
-Melee, CSM destroy DAs.

For threat ranges, battle focus is nice, but 24"+d6" will never be as good as 30" standard. Might match the number, but has to commit before rolling, and the odds aren't good.

DAs do better against 2+ saves than CSM, bust much, much worse to AV10-12. And have far, far fewer options.

I maintain DAs compare reasonably to *naked CSMs*.

Bharring wrote:
DAs move 6", run d6", then shoot 18".
CSM move 6", then shoot 24".

Unless the DAs roll a 6 (undependable), CSM outrange them. And that's before factoring in any upgrades CSM can have.

Bladestorm means a Shurken Catapult shot is a bit better than *half* as good against a CSM as a boltgun is against a DA. Said another way, if it weren't for Bladestorm, a Shuriken shot would be exactly *half* as deadly to a CSM than a Boltgun round is to a DA.

In melee, assuming CSM are naked, a DA has a 1/18 chance of killing a Marine. A Marine has a 1/6 chance *per attack* to kill a DA. DAs go first, but will get their clocks cleaned easily.

So, in summary:
-18"+ CSM win no contest
-12-18" w/o cover DAs do a little better than CSM
-0-12" CSM destroy DAs
-Melee, CSM destroy DAs.

For threat ranges, battle focus is nice, but 24"+d6" will never be as good as 30" standard. Might match the number, but has to commit before rolling, and the odds aren't good.

DAs do better against 2+ saves than CSM, bust much, much worse to AV10-12. And have far, far fewer options.

I maintain DAs compare reasonably to *naked CSMs*.

DA have assault 2, and can get either counter attack or overwatch at bs 2, meaning that at 18+ CSM have 1x(4/6)(4/6)(1/2) compared to 2x(4/6)(2/6)(2/6) armour and 2x(4/6)(1/6) rend chance each. I'd actually say that the only range CSM win is at 6" because DA can't get out of rapid fire range. but in a cover versus cover (4+) I'd give it to the marines as well. Melee however depending on overwatch could go either way.

DAs can't get out of rapid fire if they are within 12", and even then its a d6, so they can't guarantee it unless they are 17" away, not 6".

10v10, if the CSM assault - they lose 2 to overwatch, then half a guy to CC, then kill 2-3 guys. Win combat by 2+, then fight next round about 7.5 to 7.5. And dominate at 3-1 when the numbers are equal.

Bharring wrote:
DAs can't get out of rapid fire if they are within 12", and even then its a d6, so they can't guarantee it unless they are 17" away, not 6".

10v10, if the CSM assault - they lose 2 to overwatch, then half a guy to CC, then kill 2-3 guys. Win combat by 2+, then fight next round about 7.5 to 7.5. And dominate at 3-1 when the numbers are equal.

In terms of rapid fire range, imagine both units within 12(linear), DA move 6 back, shoot and then run bringing them a minimum of 19 therefore out of rapid fire range. and the DA can continue kiting until the cows come home.

in melee asuming both CSM seargent and DA exarch have powersword the dire avenger will win(CA used) will turn into a DP then proceed to destroy the rest. I'm joking of course, the CSM will win in the squad vs squad but I have no clue how you would get into melee.

In an open board with no difficult/impassible terrain, no cover, no other models, no board edge, and no objectives, and infinite turns, DAs do have the tools to kite CSM. The CSM definitely get first volley, and can stand still or even back up instead of chasing the dancing Eldar, but they would eventually win:

Boltgun shots:
(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 2/9 dead DAs
Shuriken Shot
(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) = 2/27 nonrends
(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 1/9 rends
2/27 + 1/9 = 5/27 dead CSM

10vs10
10 CSM kill (10)(1)(2/9) for 2.2 dead DA
7.8 DA kill (7.8)(2)(5/27) for (78/27) or 2.8 dead CSM

So, if DAs are allowed to 'do their thing', they eventually win, but with substantial losses.

Let's just look at the matchup if CSMs get a 5+ cover save. Considering how common those are, and the fact that CSM needn't move if they don't want to when DAs kite them, seems more than reasonable.

Boltguns still kill 2 DAs for every 9 shots.
Shurikens shooting CSMs in light cover:
Nonrends are still 2/27
Rends: (2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27
So 4/27 Shuriken shots kill CSMs. Let's run the numbers:

10v10
CSM kill (10)(1)(2/9), still 2.2 dead DAs
7.8 DAs kill (7.8)(2)(4/27), or (62.4/27), or 2.3
7.7 CSM kill 1.7
6.1 DAs kill 1.8
5.9 CSM kill 1.3
4.8 DAs kill 1.4
4.5 CSM kill 1.0
3.8 DA kill 1.1
3.4 CSM kill 0.8
3.0 DA kill 0.9
2.5 CSM kill 0.6
2.4 DA kill 0.7
1.8 CSM kill 0.4
2.0 DA kill 0.6
1.2 CSM kill 0.3
1.7 DA kill 0.5
0.7 CSM kill 0.2
1.5 DA kill 0.4
0.3 CSM kill 0.1
1.4 DA kill 0.4

DAs finish the CSM after 10 rounds, with only 1.4 DAs left. So CSM got to pick where to be all game. While DAs win the firefight, as games cap out at 7 rounds, CSM would win any objective. DAs cannot shift them off anything in equal numbers! But CSM shift DAs quite easily. And DAs got close enough to contest last round, they'd die to either rapid fire or Assault, where they lose handily.

So that situation is really, really close.

CSM win any other potential matchups easily, too.

I'm not saying DAs are worse than CSMs. I'm just saying that, compared to CSMs, DAs are reasonable.

People often forget Aspect Warriors cost MEQ prices for less-than-MEQ survivability. Of course their guns should be better-than-MEQ for their intended specialized target.

And you often forget that in many situations, T3 and T4 are identical, and so there is no drop off in durability from that. Like against..... scatterlasers. Funny that. The 3+ armor aspect warriors might as well be marines as far as I'm concerned. A huge, huge percentage of incoming fire is going to be S6+ now. Even more than before.

In some metas.

Same could be said for output. Shuriken Catapualts aren't any better or worse than Boltguns when trying to kill Rhinos. But they are laughably outclassed by Krak grenades in that case.

So, in your hypothetical example, Jetbikes is what you want them measured by.

DAs cost the same as a CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 30" to avoid retaliation from CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 24 +d6" to avoid retaliation from DAs.
Minor advantage CSM.

For every 2 CSM who die to SLs, 3 DAs die. *Major* advantage CSMs.

If there are enough SLs to drown CSMs most of the time, there are enough SLs to drown DAs almost all the time. A third of the SLs that would kill the CSMs could be shooting at something other than DAs, with the same effect on the DAs.

Dying 50% more than CSM (for S6AP6 SL) is better than dying 100% more (for S4AP5 boltguns). But they cost the same. And against Jetbikes, they are certainly no better at catching them. So aren't they simply worse vs your feared Jetbike spam?

i hope all the new codexs coming out are like this except the imperium ones then slowly the Imperium will ban all other races from playing in there galaxy.

on original note if there going to ban the Eldar they might as well ban the scitarii & the necrons too and don't leave out bans on the future knights & mechanicus whilst there at i, When 7th edition came out we all knew this was what they had in store for us in the future from summoning daemons to blasts hitting all models under the template in ruins regardless of levels to outrageous psychic powers with the words "forge the narrative" written on every second page!

I am glad personally that i get to play games in my local GW store where banning any army or unit in the game will never come up and if it did the person who said it might be asked to leave or drop the subject immediately.

Bharring wrote:
In some metas.

Same could be said for output. Shuriken Catapualts aren't any better or worse than Boltguns when trying to kill Rhinos. But they are laughably outclassed by Krak grenades in that case.

So, in your hypothetical example, Jetbikes is what you want them measured by.

DAs cost the same as a CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 30" to avoid retaliation from CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 24 +d6" to avoid retaliation from DAs.
Minor advantage CSM.

For every 2 CSM who die to SLs, 3 DAs die. *Major* advantage CSMs.

If there are enough SLs to drown CSMs most of the time, there are enough SLs to drown DAs almost all the time. A third of the SLs that would kill the CSMs could be shooting at something other than DAs, with the same effect on the DAs.

Dying 50% more than CSM (for S6AP6 SL) is better than dying 100% more (for S4AP5 boltguns). But they cost the same. And against Jetbikes, they are certainly no better at catching them. So aren't they simply worse vs your feared Jetbike spam?

Except CSM can't bring Jetbike spam.

I get your mathematical point, but your entire premise is built around Eldar players pretending to have restraint.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In some metas.

Same could be said for output. Shuriken Catapualts aren't any better or worse than Boltguns when trying to kill Rhinos. But they are laughably outclassed by Krak grenades in that case.

So, in your hypothetical example, Jetbikes is what you want them measured by.

DAs cost the same as a CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 30" to avoid retaliation from CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 24 +d6" to avoid retaliation from DAs.
Minor advantage CSM.

For every 2 CSM who die to SLs, 3 DAs die. *Major* advantage CSMs.

If there are enough SLs to drown CSMs most of the time, there are enough SLs to drown DAs almost all the time. A third of the SLs that would kill the CSMs could be shooting at something other than DAs, with the same effect on the DAs.

Dying 50% more than CSM (for S6AP6 SL) is better than dying 100% more (for S4AP5 boltguns). But they cost the same. And against Jetbikes, they are certainly no better at catching them. So aren't they simply worse vs your feared Jetbike spam?

Except CSM can't bring Jetbike spam.

I get your mathematical point, but your entire premise is built around Eldar players pretending to have restraint.

"If I only bring the worst my dex has, it might be a fair game!"

Considering the subject is explicitly about Eldar lists that aren't all about Wraiths and Scatter bikes, assuming a list without scatter bikes is full of scatterbikes is probably a less safe assumption than the CSM player allying them in.

So we are back to "Eldar lists aren't reasonable even if they don't take things like Scatter bikes, because they will take Scatter Bikes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian,
That particular line is "If I take some units, they are about equal to low-tier units."

Countered with "But those Eldar units are only 50% worse than those low-tier units when facing Eldar cheese".

This thread isn't about claiming Eldar aren't OP as a dex. Its about (1) if there are 'reasonable' lists Eldar players can bring, and (2) if there are, are there lists from other sources that are comparatively 'unreasonable'?

There are two Eldar lists posted in this thread that seem to be quite reasonable against mid-tier lists. And they would both probably get destroyed by most non-Eldar well-placed tourney lists. So the answer seems to be 'yes' on both accounts.

Bharring wrote:
Considering the subject is explicitly about Eldar lists that aren't all about Wraiths and Scatter bikes, assuming a list without scatter bikes is full of scatterbikes is probably a less safe assumption than the CSM player allying them in.

So we are back to "Eldar lists aren't reasonable even if they don't take things like Scatter bikes, because they will take Scatter Bikes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian,
That particular line is "If I take some units, they are about equal to low-tier units."

Countered with "But those Eldar units are only 50% worse than those low-tier units when facing Eldar cheese".

This thread isn't about claiming Eldar aren't OP as a dex. Its about (1) if there are 'reasonable' lists Eldar players can bring, and (2) if there are, are there lists from other sources that are comparatively 'unreasonable'?

There are two Eldar lists posted in this thread that seem to be quite reasonable against mid-tier lists. And they would both probably get destroyed by most non-Eldar well-placed tourney lists. So the answer seems to be 'yes' on both accounts.

Well, the subject line is how does an aspect army compare to other armies that aren't crazy (deathstars and flyrants), imo. It was kinda tongue in cheek though.
We compared DA, arguably the worst aspect in the dex, against vanilla CSM, in one area and they came to be about equal. There are a few things wrong with this however.

1) Eldar psuedo rending makes them better against a lot of other targets, like 2+ save enemies.
2) CSM per squad are typically more expensive due to various equipment. Eldar outside of very few choices don't have this on aspects
3) Eldar are faster.
4) Eldar have more in house buffs.
5) DA are the worst aspect. CSM are not the worst troop in their codex.

We could compare blastmasters to dragons or reapers, maybe spiders. Plaguemarines to SS, Banshees, or whatever. It gets worse from here.

Bharring wrote:
Considering the subject is explicitly about Eldar lists that aren't all about Wraiths and Scatter bikes, assuming a list without scatter bikes is full of scatterbikes is probably a less safe assumption than the CSM player allying them in.

So we are back to "Eldar lists aren't reasonable even if they don't take things like Scatter bikes, because they will take Scatter Bikes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian,
That particular line is "If I take some units, they are about equal to low-tier units."

Countered with "But those Eldar units are only 50% worse than those low-tier units when facing Eldar cheese".

This thread isn't about claiming Eldar aren't OP as a dex. Its about (1) if there are 'reasonable' lists Eldar players can bring, and (2) if there are, are there lists from other sources that are comparatively 'unreasonable'?

There are two Eldar lists posted in this thread that seem to be quite reasonable against mid-tier lists. And they would both probably get destroyed by most non-Eldar well-placed tourney lists. So the answer seems to be 'yes' on both accounts.

If my opponent has to cripple his own list by being "reasonable" to have a close game, then I don't know any better example of pure dominance. I could be as "unreasonable" as I liked with BA, and the aspect list would probably still do fine.

Fire Dragons are better at popping stationary tanks at close range than Blast master noise marines.
Blast master noise marines are better against :
-Distant vehicles
-Vehicles with good cover
-MCs that don't have 2+ armor saves, don't have good cover saves, or aren't very close
-Infantry, other than 2+ armor saves
-Surviving anything below S6
-Melee with almost anything.

So Fire Dragons are less survivable, and worse at everything *except* their narrow intended target.

BlastMasters vs Reapers:
-Reapers are better against jinking Marines, or Marines with no cover save.
-Blast Masters are better against anything high-T, with a decent non-jink cover save, and any vehicles.
-Paying for the Krak-equivelent missile makes Reapers better against high-T and vehicles, but only when there is no non-Jonk cover
-Blast masters are much more survivable
-Blastmasters can run and overwatch, but aren't relentless
-Blast masters are much, much better in CC

so again, Reapers are better against a narrow range of targets, but Blastmasrters are better at other targets.

Plague Marines are much, much harder to kill than Striking Scorpions. Striking Scorpions hit harder. They are so different its hard to compare them.

Same with Plage Marines and Banshees. banshees are a bit too cheap, but they kill Plague Marines (I'll assume they don't have FnP, but I'm not sure) on (1/2)(1/6), or once per *12* attacks. Plague Marines kill Banshees on (1/2)(2/3)(1/2). Or one per *six* attacks. Considering that Plague Marines are much, much better at shooting (Banshees have pistols), and are twice as likely to kill a Banshee as a Banshee is to kill a Plague Marine, I'm not so sure that matchup is a problem.

DA pseudorending does help against 2+ and 3+ saves. But is useless against vehicles. However, a PG/combiPG loyalist squad does only a small margin (~10-20%?) less damage than the same points of DAs when shooting at a 2+ unit. Its good, but specialized.

I am well aware that CSM almost always have upgrades. Because they are better with upgrades. So if naked CSM aren't worth it, and DAs compare reasonably with them, doesn't that make the DAs look more reasonable?

Being D6" faster in a round it shoots is very nice and useful, but having 6" further range is too. These comparisons above are heavily predicated on the DAs using that speed to maintain the one range at which they have an edge over CSM. Without it, they lose easily.

Eldar do have a lot of "in-house" buffs. If its too many, a reasonable list may need to shy away from those options. Not sure that's the case with a Swordwind CAD, though.

DAs are *not* the worst aspect. Shining Spears. Shadow Spectres. Compared to those, DAs are great.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Yay, another Eldar thread. We really needed one.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No game is better than a bad game.

That's what 40k has devolved into, apparently; bunch of people sitting around not playing the game and either crying or screaming at each other, pointing fingers and laying blame for things that are ultimately GW's fault, all the while continuing to buy massive amounts of models from GW inexplicably.

This is the "hobby" now, there's no game left. Even if you were willing to play you would never find anyone else that would want to.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. .

GW's poster boys wear power armor, make no mistake about that. Two Eldar books don't suddenly erase nearly two decades worth of favoritism.

 Orock wrote:
Perfectly fair, since a lot of us will just be straight up refusing to play eldar entirely.

And you should give yourself a big, fat pat on the back, for doing your part and assisting GW in making sure that 40k as a tabletop game dies a slow, horrible death. Good job.

Because as we all know it's the Eldar player's fault, and they should all be shunned and ridiculed for their crime of picking an army with really cool models. That'll fething teach them to play something other than Spehss Mahreens, and it'll totally show GW that the fanbase won't put up with their bullgak...you know...just as soon as they start giving a feth what the fans think.

I'm replying to the 2 decades of favouritism statement you made, now if you are referring.to the product line, then yes that is a fair statement, if you are referring to rules, you are flat wrong in the most extreme sense, eldar have always been above the pale in power, always, that's 26 years of experience telling you this.

2nd eldar ruled the roost
3rd eldar ruled the roost, some competition from necrons
4th eldar ruled the roost
5th eldar are still competitive in spite of being an ed behind
6th eldar are still a good army in spite of being 2 eds behind, new eldar book drops and eldar are back on top
7th guess what, like always eldar are horrible

Eldar have been excellent in every ed they have had a codex release in, marines had some shine in 3rd and have been average to good ever since.

Hettar wrote:
i hope all the new codexs coming out are like this except the imperium ones then slowly the Imperium will ban all other races from playing in there galaxy.

on original note if there going to ban the Eldar they might as well ban the scitarii & the necrons too and don't leave out bans on the future knights & mechanicus whilst there at i, When 7th edition came out we all knew this was what they had in store for us in the future from summoning daemons to blasts hitting all models under the template in ruins regardless of levels to outrageous psychic powers with the words "forge the narrative" written on every second page!

I am glad personally that i get to play games in my local GW store where banning any army or unit in the game will never come up and if it did the person who said it might be asked to leave or drop the subject immediately.

So basically, Feth the Imperium because I got mine?

Bharring wrote:
Fire Dragons are better at popping stationary tanks at close range than Blast master noise marines.
Blast master noise marines are better against :
-Distant vehicles
-Vehicles with good cover
-MCs that don't have 2+ armor saves, don't have good cover saves, or aren't very close
-Infantry, other than 2+ armor saves
-Surviving anything below S6
-Melee with almost anything.

So Fire Dragons are less survivable, and worse at everything *except* their narrow intended target.

This isn't fair, and I think you are aware of that.
You can take 2 blastmasters in a squad of 10 marines. So if I fire at a tank, only two of the marines are going to do any damage. It's nearly impossible for a squad of noise marines to blow up a tank in one round of shooting.
This is not so for fire dragons.
The same is true throughout the squad. If I could take a blastmaster on every marine, your argument would hold some water, but this is not the case. I must take 8 bodies of garbage that are ablative wounds.
Why do you think people are so mad about the bikes?

I'll grant you that distant tanks and melee are the strengths of the Noise Marines. That's not much of an advantage given the fire dragons ability to delete a tank pretty reliably, and do serious damage to a MEQ or TEQ unit.
2 Blastmasters are lucky to get 4-6 hits in total. Scatters can make this better or worse. And a squad of these guys is very expensive, and can't pop out of a transport that is crazy tough and do damage. (the alternate shooting profile is pretty bad, imo)

Bharring wrote:

BlastMasters vs Reapers:
-Reapers are better against jinking Marines, or Marines with no cover save.
-Blast Masters are better against anything high-T, with a decent non-jink cover save, and any vehicles.
-Paying for the Krak-equivelent missile makes Reapers better against high-T and vehicles, but only when there is no non-Jonk cover
-Blast masters are much more survivable
-Blastmasters can run and overwatch, but aren't relentless
-Blast masters are much, much better in CC

so again, Reapers are better against a narrow range of targets, but Blastmasrters are better at other targets.

Many of my points apply here.
Outside of melee reapers are clearly the winners against pretty much every target when you compare squads, which is how they must be taken.
The eldar ability to put a good weapon on every model is absurd. I'm surprised you aren't making note of it. It's what has made them a strong codex in nearly every edition of this game when compared to other factions.
If this wasn't a good ability, no one would take sternguard.

Bharring wrote:

Plague Marines are much, much harder to kill than Striking Scorpions. Striking Scorpions hit harder. They are so different its hard to compare them.

Same with Plage Marines and Banshees. banshees are a bit too cheap, but they kill Plague Marines (I'll assume they don't have FnP, but I'm not sure) on (1/2)(1/6), or once per *12* attacks. Plague Marines kill Banshees on (1/2)(2/3)(1/2). Or one per *six* attacks. Considering that Plague Marines are much, much better at shooting (Banshees have pistols), and are twice as likely to kill a Banshee as a Banshee is to kill a Plague Marine, I'm not so sure that matchup is a problem.

DA pseudorending does help against 2+ and 3+ saves. But is useless against vehicles. However, a PG/combiPG loyalist squad does only a small margin (~10-20%?) less damage than the same points of DAs when shooting at a 2+ unit. Its good, but specialized.

I am well aware that CSM almost always have upgrades. Because they are better with upgrades. So if naked CSM aren't worth it, and DAs compare reasonably with them, doesn't that make the DAs look more reasonable?

Being D6" faster in a round it shoots is very nice and useful, but having 6" further range is too. These comparisons above are heavily predicated on the DAs using that speed to maintain the one range at which they have an edge over CSM. Without it, they lose easily.

Eldar do have a lot of "in-house" buffs. If its too many, a reasonable list may need to shy away from those options. Not sure that's the case with a Swordwind CAD, though.

DAs are *not* the worst aspect. Shining Spears. Shadow Spectres. Compared to those, DAs are great.

Plague marines are tougher, but killing ability is more important then toughness in 40k.
The striking scorpions are also tougher against the bigger guns considering their special rule. They can get a 3/2+ cover save without too much difficulty before combat.

Plague marines get to re-roll to wound against banshees due to poison knives. But with their 2 plasma guns, they are way more expensive than banshees. Plague marines are one of the worst targets for Banshees, yet point for point, they don't do that terribly.

Not exactly, the CSM ppm goes up. You can't compare model to model, you must compare point per point in this game. Considering most targets have cover in this game, plasma guns are not amazing. Marines don't benefit from cover.
The meta has become high volume/strength attacks, Low AP is nice but isn't really as good. Marines get a slightly better armor against scatter lasers and wraiths, but cost more ppm when all their upgrades are factored in.
I would argue shining spears are as good as DAs. Eldar bikes are amazing. Shadow spectres sure, fair enough.

Wow. Just looked at prices for Noise Marines and Plague Marines. Just wow.

At any rate, Noise Marines vs Fire Dragons:
Noise Marines aren't the same thing as Fire Dragons.
Fire Dragons are 12" range Land Raider killers. Cover kills their firepower, but they have to be super close anyways.
Noise Marines are cover-ignoring Marines. Their boltguns are quite scary to all the 5+ armors out there. And their blast master is a long ranged blast. There are many things a BlastMaster is better at than a Meltagun. As for the boltguns, even they have targets where they are better than meltaguns (GEQ targets, or stuff in really good cover). Sure, a Fire Dragon is worth more than a boltgun Noise Marine, but it also costs a lot less.

Noise Marines are more similar to Dark Reapers. A Blast master costs two basic Reapers, but is 1 per 5? I know ablative wounds are so passe, but let's do some estimation:

10v10
Blastmasterx2 Noise Marines (240 pts)
Krak missile Dark Reapers (320 pts)
Reapers go first, 5+ cover for both (usually 4+ for this kind of unit)

10 Reapers: 10(1)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = (10)(10/27) = ~ 4 dead boltguns
6 Noise (2 BM): (4-6 hits)(5/6)(1) = (25/6) =~ 4 dead Reapers.
6 Reapers: (6)(10/27) = ~ 2 dead boltguns
4 Noise: (4-6 hits)(5/6) = ~ 4 dead reapers

Noise Marines seem like a really good counter to Dark Reapers. Their killing power doesn't drop off while their 17ppm ablative wounds die, compared to the 33 (25+8) ppm Dark Reapers.

The ability to put a special weapon on every squad member makes Eldar very capable at taking out their intended targets. But the inability to take ablative wounds can be costly. When boltguns do serious damage to your squads, things are very different.

Bladestorm is hurt by cover just like Plasma Guns are. I think you'd find most CSM configurations still handle DA well.

Marines are 50% more survivable than Dire Avengers. I wouodnt call that slight. Kitted, TAC squads rarely cost 50% more per model than DAs.

(Eldar bikes are amazing, but remember that Shining Spears are 25ppm, and have a 6" range)

"When boltguns do serious damage to your squads, things are very different. "

Assuming that anyone is still using boltguns.

Also, was that a good "wow" or bad "wow"?

It was holy crap, I knew cult marines were expensive, but holy crap that's a lot of points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if Swordwind is kicking your ass, maybe you should field more boltguns?

Bharring wrote:
It was holy crap, I knew cult marines were expensive, but holy crap that's a lot of points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if Swordwind is kicking your ass, maybe you should field more boltguns?

You can't get within range without going dedicated drop pod, which is not a TAC build for BA. The movement is rate is too much to deal with.

When you start looking at other lists, you realize how stupid good the Eldar are. CSM are horribly overcosted for they actually accomplish before Eldar guns put them back in their model case.

If Dire Avengers, Banshees, Scorpions, and Fire Dragons are killing you before you can get into boltgun range, something is very, very wrong.

Bharring wrote:
If Dire Avengers, Banshees, Scorpions, and Fire Dragons are killing you before you can get into boltgun range, something is very, very wrong.

|

I was talking about Wind Riders. Admittedly, boltgun armed units will probably be shot last, but they will die nonetheless.

How is discussing Wind riders helpful when discussing lists without Windriders?

Bharring wrote:
How is discussing Wind riders helpful when discussing lists without Windriders?

Because like it or not, they will show up in Pick Up Games and should be discussed.

I really hope my meta never devolves into that.

Bharring wrote:
I really hope my meta never devolves into that.

Beggars can't be choosers

Bharring wrote:
I really hope my meta never devolves into that.

It's not "devolution"; it's a legal choice in the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I also conflated Wind Riders with Sword Wind. What's Sword Wind exactly?

Yet, when something goes from a more sophisticated, while still flawed, state to something more crude and unrefined, describing it as devolving seems fairly accurate.

I can see that, but it's REALLY hard for me to fault people for making the best list they can.

I do not know. In a competitive game, sure. Do the absolutely best you can given the boundaries of the competition. But since the the game is not balanced competitively without modifying scenarios and army construction, I can think of any number of circumstances where it is appropriate to fault someone for making absolutely the best list they can.

That's the thing. One could argue EVERY 40K match is competitive, since there is a winner and loser.

Sure, but if you have that outlook, why spend the time on a such a flawed framework? The game needs adjustments to be competitive. In my world a competition is not where some participants enter with severe handicaps. It is kind of like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Limiting your gameplay to tournaments and tournament practice seems valid, but adapting the same mindset for every pickup game seems a little pathetic. The game is not truly competitive just because you can keep score.

I'm not really the one where I play that adopts that mindset. Most game are tuneups for tourneys, though.

Swordwind is an Aspect list, usually with minimal duplication of Aspects. The 'Thousand Cuts' gameplay, where each unit does a different job.

Bharring wrote:
Swordwind is an Aspect list, usually with minimal duplication of Aspects. The 'Thousand Cuts' gameplay, where each unit does a different job.

Okay. Well that's a lot different than Wind Riders

If you're ever concerned about the power level of your lists... just bring a few lists. Ask your opponent to place his list on a scale of Funsies, Competitive, and Hard Core. Play the matching list. Or ask your opponent if he would mind if you played "X" list today.

I used to do that, back in 5/6 edition. I'll toot my own horn and say that I had a pretty powerful IG build. Most people were interested in playing the Competitive lists. I'm pretty lucky that way, people that play to win, but also take units that they "just feel like" using. I've got soooo many Dreadnaughts.

Anyhow, if you're worried, just bring options. You'd be surprised how quickly you can change a core of 1000 points to 1500 points of silly gimmick list, to a vicious castration list.

Bharring wrote:
Wow. Just looked at prices for Noise Marines and Plague Marines. Just wow.

Right? Now keep in mind that you can upgrade the bolters and get icons...they get absurdly expensive.
Point wise, eldar are winning against most dexes.

Bharring wrote:

At any rate, Noise Marines vs Fire Dragons:
Noise Marines aren't the same thing as Fire Dragons.
Fire Dragons are 12" range Land Raider killers. Cover kills their firepower, but they have to be super close anyways.
Noise Marines are cover-ignoring Marines. Their boltguns are quite scary to all the 5+ armors out there. And their blast master is a long ranged blast. There are many things a BlastMaster is better at than a Meltagun. As for the boltguns, even they have targets where they are better than meltaguns (GEQ targets, or stuff in really good cover). Sure, a Fire Dragon is worth more than a boltgun Noise Marine, but it also costs a lot less.

Well, this is different then what was claimed earlier, but alright.
I wouldn't say Fire dragons have their firepower killed by cover. It's a 4-5+ save, so cut in half is bad but not horrible. For noise marines, just basic armor on most units does that or worse.
Very few scary units have 5+ armor saves. Orks do, but are T4. Guard do, but are 1/4th the cost of a noise marine with a special bolter. Nids do, but are in the same boat as the guard.
I guess DE troops? Also, nobody takes the bolters. They are considered universally bad since noise marines don't have relentless.

A long range blast have their uses, true. The problem is, it's not as useful as firedragons or reapers. Mainly because I only get 2 per 10 man squad. If I had access to 4-5 per squad, this would be a different conversation. The eldar's ability to take a good weapon on every single trooper is what makes them such a good army.

I wouldn't say that fire dragons cost a lot more then a bolter toting noise marine. Between the blast master, bolter, possibly the icon, champion, the cost per model is really high.

Bharring wrote:

Noise Marines are more similar to Dark Reapers. A Blast master costs two basic Reapers, but is 1 per 5? I know ablative wounds are so passe, but let's do some estimation:

10v10
Blastmasterx2 Noise Marines (240 pts)
Krak missile Dark Reapers (320 pts)
Reapers go first, 5+ cover for both (usually 4+ for this kind of unit)

10 Reapers: 10(1)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = (10)(10/27) = ~ 4 dead boltguns
6 Noise (2 BM): (4-6 hits)(5/6)(1) = (25/6) =~ 4 dead Reapers.
6 Reapers: (6)(10/27) = ~ 2 dead boltguns
4 Noise: (4-6 hits)(5/6) = ~ 4 dead reapers

Noise Marines seem like a really good counter to Dark Reapers. Their killing power doesn't drop off while their 17ppm ablative wounds die, compared to the 33 (25+8) ppm Dark Reapers.

The ability to put a special weapon on every squad member makes Eldar very capable at taking out their intended targets. But the inability to take ablative wounds can be costly. When boltguns do serious damage to your squads, things are very different.

Bladestorm is hurt by cover just like Plasma Guns are. I think you'd find most CSM configurations still handle DA well.

Marines are 50% more survivable than Dire Avengers. I wouodnt call that slight. Kitted, TAC squads rarely cost 50% more per model than DAs.

(Eldar bikes are amazing, but remember that Shining Spears are 25ppm, and have a 6" range)

Your numbers assume the following
1) I never miss with the scatter dice. It doesn't scatter much, but it can scatter and result in a lot fewer hits.
2) You never are forced to remove the blastmaster. Having a precision hit from the leader suddenly cuts my firepower in half.
3) Nobody is moving in a way that allows them to target the blastmasters. No longer passing the good weapons on after death hurt marines a lot.

Boltguns do not do serious damage. They do damage, sure, but I wouldn't call it serious. 1 shot at 24 or 2 at 12 for 14ppm is bad, making them one of the worst infantry in the game.
Ablative wounds are terrible. If they were good, you would never see sternguard taken. The ability to alpha punch with a lot of shots is king in 40k, due to the overwhelming firepower better armies possess.
This used to be a uniquely DE strategy, but it's become quite the common move.

DA are 50% less survivable against bolters, true. Nobody cares about bolters. Compare them to scat lasers, plasma guns, blastmasters, and other units that get work done. But them up against noise marines or reapers, see who looks worse.

Guardians and Corsairs also have a 5+.

I do think Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers are 'better' overall compared to Noise Marines. But not better at everything.

When I was talking about cover saves hurting FD firepower, I was thinking about things like jinking Nurgle princes and such. When Cover saves get good, meltaguns get worse. Still, a MG is much better overall than a Boltgun, obviously.

FD are really short range units, whereas Noise Marines do some nasty long range work (Blast masters), and have a decent volume of small arms fire at medium range. Two very different skillsets.

Reapers, if you're taking Krak missiles, are not cheap. And get no ablaitive wounds. Ablative wounds really do help, as Precision isn't that common (even Eldar lost a lot of it with the new Dex).

There are things Reapers are better against (flat-out a jinking SM bikers!), and things Noise Marines are better against (Devs or Havoks in heavy cover).

Overall, though, Cult Marines got one of the shortest sticks in the game. Hell, Dark Angels probably look down on you. But I still think Swordwind verses Marine heavy CSM would be a reasonable game.

At the top end, ablative wounds don't seem to do much. But on more reasonable tables, having 3 guys survive the enemy, and having those be a Plas/CombiPlas/MM isn't the sort of thing that is too rare.

I, too, wish the game were less Alpha-heavy. I try to build my list with that in mind. Again, on reasonable tables, it works.

(Also, DAs die 50% faster than Marines to S6. They die 100% faster to S4).

Bharring wrote:
Guardians and Corsairs also have a 5+.

I said scary units

I do think Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers are 'better' overall compared to Noise Marines. But not better at everything.

Bharring wrote:
6 Noise (2 BM): (4-6 hits)(5/6)(1) = (25/6) =~ 4 dead Reapers.

This is something I do not understand. How on earth are you going to get 4-6 hits with 2 small blast markers? Maybe it is just the players I play with, who always spread the units at max coherency. What the heck?

These kind of comparisons are useless. We might as well decide that the eldar player places all his models in base contact with each other and ignore any chance of the blast scattering away from the intended target.

I just don't get this, sorry.

I thought that blastmasters were large templates from his numbers. Small templates are indeed awful and usually only hit one target.

The 4-6 was based on an estimate provided upthread. 3-5 seems more likely, I think.

What delivery system are you calling second only to droppods? If you're talking about WWP, that's a wholly different 'Dex, and wouldn't be Swordwind. If you're talking about Wave Serpents, now that they're not gunboats, that is an aweful lot of points for a transport without much firepower (110 stock, before weapons/wargear). And would need to suicide along with FireDragons, most likely.

Characters no longer get Precision stock. That ended with 7th. A few Eldar models get it (Rangers are always fun!), but not a lot of them.

'Swordwind' is an army style. Its a lot of different Aspects, each with their own specialty. Preferably with minimal duplication (an army full of Warp Spider spam probably wouldn't be Swordwind).

All this is without using those formations. Because many of those formations are outright broken. Like further from balance than Noise Marines broken. A Formation-heavy Eldar list would struggle to be reasonable.

While it is true that Dire Avengers die just as fast to Blast masters as Marines, its also true that Shuriken Catapults do just as much damage to Rhinos as Boltguns.

Aspect Warriors tend to be MEQ prices. Dark Reapers with Krak are 33ppm. Shining Spears are 25 ppm. Scorpion Exarch, even without the rest of the squad, runs at 57 points. Those are the more expensive options, sure, but my point is that Aspect Warriors are more often than not outnumbered against MEQ armies, so expecting them to perform worse than MEQ like most T3 armies leads to confusion.

Usually I can score 2 hits with a small blast, sometimes I can score 3. Very rarely do I get 1.

Wave serpents are an amazing transport. I would say they are the second best in the game, though I don't count delivery systems.

What is the 2nd best transport after drop pods if not the wave serpent?

I really need to reread 7th edition. Or play some games...after 5 months I am forgetting things.

I don't think drop pods are the number one transport. Arguably, they aren't a transport at all, just a fancy teleport mechanism.

Second berlst is probably the Webway portal.

Don't forget you get a Predator and a Rhino for the price of a Serpent. Now that its been nerfed, its not so bonkers. 110 points for 3 S6 shots...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you're kitting up the Serpent, that 130pt 10-man DA squad is now paying 140 points just to get where they need to go.

Depending how you play pivots (I'm shocked that there doesn't seem to be a consensus in YMDC), on the turn the unit disembarks, the rear hatch actually is further away than the front of the Serpent started. That means, the turn before they hop out and shoot, they flat out to nearly in range. Which means you'll frequently throw away a 110pt transport to get Fire Dragons in range.

Even the lowly 35pt Rhino has side hatches, which help quite a bit. But more importantly, 3 Rhinos for 3 squads is 105. 3 Serpents to 3 squads is 330 base, before upgrades/weapons. When they were stupidly OP gunboats, that wasn't considered a problem. But Eldar infantry are very Transport-reliant.

The Web way portal is not a transport, it's a delivery system like teleport.
Drop pods you can argue are not a transport, since you can't destroy them until after they've done their job.

Transports are tanks thar deliver infantry to where they need to go. In this capacity, wave serpents are second to only drop pods. They are extremely safe, decent firepower, fast, and not absurdly expensive for what you get.

If the Web way portal counts as a transport anyway, then the waveserpent is still the next best one after drop pods and wwp.

You may see rhinos in a list, may, but predators are rarely taken. They are pretty bad.

OP

I wouldn't play against Eldar before this codex update. Now, I definetly wouldn't.

You have a codex where 100pts can buy you what in another army would cost 3 times the amount. Access to multiple lords of war and d weapons. Access to formation and army wide bonuses that massively increase the armies effectiveness for free. Some armies the power difference is not as great such as Tau and Space Marines. But the likes of my tyranids and dark eldar it would be a pointless excersice even if the eldar player was not trying to be gamey.

GW needs to update every single codex. Until they do that and bring other codexes in line with eldar or nerf eldar then there is no point. The book has clearly been designed in the new post necron design, so its unfair to rock up with the likes of Dark Eldar because the army is shockingly inferior by comparison.

If you want fair games then I would house rule to double the points cost of almost every unit in that codex to factor in formation buffs and all the boosts these units have recieved.

.

For all the talk about "reasonable Eldar lists", there have been very few examples of such lists posted here. This is my first idea of what a reasonable list would look like with the new codex that I posted in the Army Lists page, with some alterations after feedback. .

I present 1750 points of lore-friendly semi-competitive Biel-Tan/Swordwind high-elves-in-space goodness:

CORE DETACHMENT: Guardian Battlehost (970 points)

Farseer
-Warlord
-Singing Spear
-The Spirit Stone of Anath'lan

Warlock Conclave
3x Warlocks

Guardian Defenders (X3)
-Starcannon Weapon Platforms

Vyper Squadron
2x Vypers
-Shuriken Cannon
-Scatter Laser
-Holo Fields

Vaul's Wrath Support Battery
3x Vibro Cannon

War Walker Squadron
3x War Walkers
-Bright Lance
-Eldar Missile Launcher

AUXILIARY DETACHMENT: Aspect Host (780 points)

Dire Avengers
10x Dire Avengers
-Exarch with power sword and shimmershield
Wave Serpent Dedicated Transport
-TL Scatter Laser
-Shuriken Cannon
-Holo Fields

Fire Dragons
5x Fire Dragons
-Exarch with Firepike
Wave Serpent Dedicated Transport
-TL Scatter Laser
-Shuriken Cannon
-Holo Fields

Warp Spiders
10x Warp Spiders
-Exarch with TL Death Spinner

I feel that most armies at a friendly/semi-competitive level could stand a good chance of beating this army if my opponent plays well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

stopcallingmechief wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No game is better than a bad game.

totally agree, a bad game can make me not want to play again for weeks. And flyrants are just as undercosted/overpowered as anything in the new eldar book. Ive had tons of trouble with them in the past but frankly the crimson hunter and in particular the 3 pack with improved rules will murder 3 flyrants for alot less points. If your concerned about being that guy with the new eldar, to me the only overpowered thing is the d-scythes teleporting in with a DE web way portal. avoid that and i imagine most of the complaining will cease, the bikes in a real game world scenario are not as good as the math hammering crybabies on this forum would lead you to believe. Its hard to hide 30-40 bikes as some would lead you to believe is all they would field.

I know that feeling all too well. Some of my friends have been burned out for weeks after having a particularly unpleasant game.

Eldar do not have a monopoly on broken and overpowered units. Centstar, Pentatyrant, Decurion Wraith spam, Screamerstar, and anything involving invisibility (Hi, Bel'akor!) can be just as cheesy, and I reserve the right to refuse to play against any of them.

D-weapons, Scatbikers, and the Wraithknight are all overpowered and undercosted. I wouldn't play an Eldar player who spammed these units, and I completely understand why people are upset about them. But they are no more cheesy at a friendly level than the examples I have given.

There are two others upthread. One uses CAD+Formation, the other is a single CAD.

I ran the points on the one I posted, and wow. What was 1500pts is now 1407. I'll either add Shining Spears or swap out the Serpent for a Falcon and add Banshees.

WWP and Drop Pod are more deliver than Transport, sure.

My point about the Predator wasnt that you should take them. My point was comparing a Rhino to a Serpent isnt a great comparison. It'd be a lot closer to compare a Rhino plus a Predator to a Serpent. Its a battle tank *and* a transport, and pays for both. Too much dakka in the last book (and the nerf probably should have been a little steeper), but not so much in the new book.

Compare the Serpent to the Ghost Ark. Ghost Ark doesn't have Fast, but probably does more snapshotting than the Serpent does at full BS. On top of several other benefits.

Or compare it to the Devilfish. A little worse in each category. But 30ppm cheaper.

The Serpent isn't anything super special anymore.

Bharring wrote:
There are two others upthread. One uses CAD+Formation, the other is a single CAD.

I ran the points on the one I posted, and wow. What was 1500pts is now 1407. I'll either add Shining Spears or swap out the Serpent for a Falcon and add Banshees.

WWP and Drop Pod are more deliver than Transport, sure.

My point about the Predator wasnt that you should take them. My point was comparing a Rhino to a Serpent isnt a great comparison. It'd be a lot closer to compare a Rhino plus a Predator to a Serpent. Its a battle tank *and* a transport, and pays for both. Too much dakka in the last book (and the nerf probably should have been a little steeper), but not so much in the new book.

My point was that the WS is better then taking both of these. It's arguably tougher, does a better job then both of them at their respective job, and is just an amazing buy. Yes, the shield got nerfed, but it's still the best transport in the game. Not delivery method (if we are placing Drop pods and WWP here), but far and away the best transport.

Bharring wrote:

Compare the Serpent to the Ghost Ark. Ghost Ark doesn't have Fast, but probably does more snapshotting than the Serpent does at full BS. On top of several other benefits.

Or compare it to the Devilfish. A little worse in each category. But 30ppm cheaper.

The Serpent isn't anything super special anymore.

The Ghost ark is an amazing transport. I would rate it right after the serpent. Before the 6th edition eldar codex, it was the best of the best. People did spam it, people complained about it.
The devilfish, however, is awful. This is in part because it lacks the firepower of a serpent, the units it transports don't need a transport as badly, and it is not quite as survivable. People are not lining up to take devilfishes.

The serpent is not massively better then all other tanks in the game like it used to be, but it is still hands down the best transport in the game. If it seems weak, that is because the eldar dex is very strong. If I had a WS I'd take chosen armed with plasma guns, meltas, and flamers in my army.

Firepower of the Devilfish is terrible.

4xS5 @18", BS3
4xS5 pinning @18", bs2

Serpent, stock, is comparable:
3xS6 pseudorending @24", bs4 TL
2x S4 pseudorending @12", bs4 TL

I certainly wouldn't call the stock Serpent's firepower all that much better.

Even with a heavy weapon instead of that Cannon, its firepower still isn't much for its points. 125 points for a single (albeit TL) Flak missile launcher?

Akiasura wrote:
Usually I can score 2 hits with a small blast, sometimes I can score 3. Very rarely do I get 1.

Our group is very careful with the placement, I usually clip 1 or 2 with the 3" blast marker, or miss completely.

I often see or read reports where 3+ hits are scored all the time, I find that weird.

It also heavily depends on a YMDC thread about vehicle movement. I've always assumed it was no-part-may-move-more, not the 'bubble method'.

And let's think about the Serpent being(a) tougher (b) a better battle tank (c) a better transport, and (d) a better buy.

(A) Is the Wave Serpent tougher than a Predator plus a Rhino? Half the IoM hull points are ACV13 front, and sit in the backfield. That is huge. S6 does nothing. S7 can only glance. Side armor, and the other 3 HP, are only AV11. And it can't jink. Twice the HP, comparable AV. With no cover, and ignoring being forced to snapshot, it seems a bit even, until the Serpent Shield factors in. So are (1) taking cover saves (should be a 5+ at least for the Pred), (2) not needing to Snapshot, and (3) reducing Pens to Glances on a 2+ vs pens only affecting half the vehicles balance it out? I'd say that the pair of vehicles easily win the hiw-tough comparison.

(B) Battle tank firepower
Dakka Preds are
-2xS7 AP4 TL @48"
-6xS5 AP4 @36"
Rhinos
-2xS4 AP5 @24"
-2X Fire points

Dakka Serpents are:
-4xS6 AP6 TL @35"
-3xS6 AP5 pseudoRending @24"

I'd give that, easily, to the IoM duo. Not that the Rhino adds much.

How about stock?
Pred:
2xS7 AP4 TL @48"
Rhino:
2xS4 AP5 @24"
2xFirepoints

Serpent:
3x S6 AP5 Pseudorending TL @24"
2x S4 AP5 Pseudorending TL @12"

So half the range for both weapons.
The 'main' weapon has half again the shots, at one less S. And AP5 pseudorendig (less than 1 AP2 every other round) vs AP4.Would be comparable, if it weren't so much shorter range.
The incidental weapon is the same S and number of shots, but less than 1 AP2 wound every third round. At 12", though, if its shooting anything, its in easy charge range. Storm Bolter easily wins here.



(C) Better transport
Serpent
-12 cap
-No fire points
-Only access in the rear
Rhino
-10 cap
-2 fire points
-Access in the rear + sides

Serpent can get past impassible terrain, and the contents are less likely to explode.

Serpent needs to expose rear armor to the enemy, whereas Rhino only needs to expose side

Rhino passengers can fire 2 weapons from inside

Serpent is much less likely to explodes! (Very important when what your transporting will lose half to a third of their numbers in the case of an explosion).

I'd give Transport to the Serpent, but not by a lot.

(D) A better buy. See above. Stock, 110 is a lot for a transport. Kitted, its even more.

The Serpent is a decent vehicle, but again I think it compares reasonably to Marine options.

(Swordwind would love a 35pt transport!)

Bharring wrote:
It also heavily depends on a YMDC thread about vehicle movement. I've always assumed it was no-part-may-move-more, not the 'bubble method'.

And let's think about the Serpent being(a) tougher (b) a better battle tank (c) a better transport, and (d) a better buy.

(A) Is the Wave Serpent tougher than a Predator plus a Rhino? Half the IoM hull points are ACV13 front, and sit in the backfield. That is huge. S6 does nothing. S7 can only glance. Side armor, and the other 3 HP, are only AV11. And it can't jink. Twice the HP, comparable AV. With no cover, and ignoring being forced to snapshot, it seems a bit even, until the Serpent Shield factors in. So are (1) taking cover saves (should be a 5+ at least for the Pred), (2) not needing to Snapshot, and (3) reducing Pens to Glances on a 2+ vs pens only affecting half the vehicles balance it out? I'd say that the pair of vehicles easily win the hiw-tough comparison.

It's harder for a Predator and rhino to get to cover then a waveserpent. Jinking is also huge. The waveserpent has a much easier time targeting those vulnerable side and rear armor then any of the other tanks mentioned. Sometimes predators don't get to fire if they can't draw LoS to a useful target.
Keep in mind that I need to do less damage to one of those tanks to reduce the firepower/transport ability. A rhino is pretty easy to one round, no more transport. A predator is also not hard to one round from the side (And honestly, with quick transports, bikes, deep striking, flying, and melee being commonly taken anti-tank threats, how often does the front armor come up?
Again, there are reasons that nobody takes predators (rhinos are somewhat common, though many marine armies seem to prefer bikes and deep striking lately) but eldar are still taking waveserpents. Defensively, nearly nothing has changed outside of the shield not working after it shoots, which you should save till the end anyway.

Bharring wrote:

(B) Battle tank firepower
Dakka Preds are
-2xS7 AP4 TL @48"
-6xS5 AP4 @36"
Rhinos
-2xS4 AP5 @24"
-2X Fire points

Dakka Serpents are:
-4xS6 AP6 TL @35"
-3xS6 AP5 pseudoRending @24"


I'd give that, easily, to the IoM duo. Not that the Rhino adds much.

The problem with the predator, despite the range issue and how slow it is, is that the autocannon really wants to fire at MC or light transports, and the heavy bolters do not. You can't split fire, so it makes the tank kinda worthless. The las pred is better, since at least everything it fires wants the same target.
Keep in mind that the Serpent has rending (kinda) to at least make AP 2/3 guys an option, and twice as much twin link. It wants to fire all of it's weapons at the same target, MC's and light tanks, so no firepower is wasted. The waveserpent is more likely to get side armor shots, while the predator can only target front armor unless your opponent isn't paying attention.
Again, to me, the serpent seems to have the firepower advantage here. I don't know how you are saying easily so many times. The fact you hardly ever see predators taken but see serpents often should be a clue that maybe one is vastly superior to the other.
If serpents aren't popular, it'll be in scatter bike spam lists, not in aspect heavy lists. FD's still desperately want the WS, as do banshees. Other aspects might be able to get by without it (SS, WS, DR especially) but it's a solid choice since it is such a useful tank.

Bharring wrote:

(C) Better transport
Serpent
-12 cap
-No fire points
-Only access in the rear
Rhino
-10 cap
-2 fire points
-Access in the rear + sides

Serpent can get past impassible terrain, and the contents are less likely to explode.

Serpent needs to expose rear armor to the enemy, whereas Rhino only needs to expose side

Rhino passengers can fire 2 weapons from inside

Serpent is much less likely to explodes! (Very important when what your transporting will lose half to a third of their numbers in the case of an explosion).

I'd give Transport to the Serpent, but not by a lot.

It's faster, more survivable, and has a better cargo. It doesn't get shot off the table turn 1 as an afterthought without doing its job like Rhinos do.
I'd give it to the serpent by quite a bit.

Bharring wrote:

(D) A better buy. See above. Stock, 110 is a lot for a transport. Kitted, its even more.

The Serpent is a decent vehicle, but again I think it compares reasonably to Marine options.

(Swordwind would love a 35pt transport!)

And yet it compares reasonably well to both a predator and a rhino, for a comparable point cost.
Again, marines aren't spamming rhinos and predators. Eldar were spamming wave serpents, and they are still being taken. There is a reason for this.
If rhinos were in eldar I don't think they'd be taken. You don't want them to die T1 and expose the expensive Firedragons inside, which is what rhinos do.


Naw, A lot of the local players use tyranid swarm armies, deep strikes still, and orks. There are a few eldar players. My most common opponent uses DE, where I have a hard time getting 3 shots, but my next most common is orks and nids. It's pretty easy to get 3 on them. I also roll really well on scatter.
I'll agree that 1-2 is the more common number statistically. I didn't think I needed to lower it that much to show that aspects are superior to noise marines.

With Jink, the Serpent gets a 4+ cover anywhere. However it snap fires. Its turret is TL, but its chincannon is not. While jinking, it only gets maybe 2 hits a round as a dakka Serpent. Loss of Laser Lock changed that quite a bit. So a 4+ cover save in the open. Compared to twice the HP. Plus more than halving its firepower. I thought Jink was covered reasonably.

Outside of Jinking, the Serpent is a much taller vehicle, and is on a skimmer stand. So getting enough cover to count requires more, *and* the cover must be raised higher. Predator sponsons are a bit low, so making sure they can still get LOS is an issue, but the chincannon is lower still, and is the lowest point on the tank. It is much easier for my pred to get cover than my Serpents. I had a round in a tournament where none of the terrain in our entire ruins-covered deployment zone could provide cover to my skimmers.

You may have also missed the change to Holofields. No more +1 cover. It is a 5++, so jinking in the open isn't as necessary. But, for things without Ignores Cover, the Serpent is much less durable now.

We saw Serpents taken in the old Dex because they were amazing gunboats, and hard to kill. Now, they have little firepower for the points, and good, but much worse survivability.

We'll still see them, because they are the only DT, and the only other transport both costs more points, and has a transport cap of 6.

We see Rhinos because its few points to get guys places. Predators usually lose out to Devs or Havoks (which also tend to lose out to things).

As for the Blade storm threatening 2+ MCs more than Dakka Preds, let's take a look.
Vs Dreadknights:
Serpent:
SL: 4X(8/9)(1/2)(1/6) = (32)/(108) =~0.30
SC: 3x (2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = (6/54) =~0.11
. +. 3x (2/3)(1/6)(1/2) = (6)/(36) =~0.16
Total: 0.57 wounds/round

Dakka Pred + Rhino
AC: 2x (8/9)(2/3)(1/6) = (32)/(162) =~ 0.20
HB: 3x2x (2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = (12)/(54) = ~0.22
SB: 2x(2/3)(1/6)(1/6) = 4/108 = ~ 0.04
Total: 0.46

So the Serpent is less than 25% better at shooting a Dreadknight. But has to be within 24" to shoot anything. And dies to one round of CC whereas Rhino + Dread take two rounds.

Neither are particularly a good idea for shooting a DK, but it is one place the Dakka serpent does more damage.

(For the number-of-hits, the 3-5 was for both templates. Averaging 2 per template doesn't seem high. And I still think you're undervaluing ignores cover on a S8AP3 weapon. And ablaitive wounds.)

I'd rather have wounds that perform than ablative wounds.

Bharring wrote:
With Jink, the Serpent gets a 4+ cover anywhere. However it snap fires. Its turret is TL, but its chincannon is not. While jinking, it only gets maybe 2 hits a round as a dakka Serpent. Loss of Laser Lock changed that quite a bit. So a 4+ cover save in the open. Compared to twice the HP. Plus more than halving its firepower. I thought Jink was covered reasonably.

Right, I mentioned it had more TL then the predator. A pred has 1 or 2 shots that are TL and a WS has 4.
Jink is not a weakness. The choice is jinking or blowing up. The ability to get a 4+ cover save anywhere on the field is really good. The predator must deploy in the back with cover, which units like devastators/longfangs want (and longfangs are a lot better).

Bharring wrote:

Outside of Jinking, the Serpent is a much taller vehicle, and is on a skimmer stand. So getting enough cover to count requires more, *and* the cover must be raised higher. Predator sponsons are a bit low, so making sure they can still get LOS is an issue, but the chincannon is lower still, and is the lowest point on the tank. It is much easier for my pred to get cover than my Serpents. I had a round in a tournament where none of the terrain in our entire ruins-covered deployment zone could provide cover to my skimmers.

Then that is a problem with your tournaments. Many fields include LoS blocking terrain that completely screws over predators, who can't get around it quickly, and greatly benefits waveserpents.
Predators have issues firing all of their weapons at a target without exposing their side armor. WS don't have this issue.

Bharring wrote:

You may have also missed the change to Holofields. No more +1 cover. It is a 5++, so jinking in the open isn't as necessary. But, for things without Ignores Cover, the Serpent is much less durable now.

Most things that ignore cover aren't great anti-tank weapons. Most are anti-infantry weapons. The best way to destroy tanks is still to fly to the side or rear and destroy it, which tends to negate cover. At least the cover used by a predator, being so immobile.

Bharring wrote:

We saw Serpents taken in the old Dex because they were amazing gunboats, and hard to kill. Now, they have little firepower for the points, and good, but much worse survivability.

Much worse is a stretch, and we've discussed how they still have great firepower. Better then a predator anyway.

Bharring wrote:

We'll still see them, because they are the only DT, and the only other transport both costs more points, and has a transport cap of 6.

Many armies don't take transports at all, yet eldar will continue to use the WS. This is for many reasons, but the WS isn't a bad tank. You haven't shown it's a bad tank at all.

Bharring wrote:

We see Rhinos because its few points to get guys places. Predators usually lose out to Devs or Havoks (which also tend to lose out to things).

Waveserpents are more commonly taken then rhinos, IMO.
Exactly, predators have awful fire power. Yet the Waveserpent is still a great tank, both offensively and defensively.

Bharring wrote:

As for the Blade storm threatening 2+ MCs more than Dakka Preds, let's take a look.
Vs Dreadknights:
Serpent:
SL: 4X(8/9)(1/2)(1/6) = (32)/(108) =~0.30
SC: 3x (2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = (6/54) =~0.11
. +. 3x (2/3)(1/6)(1/2) = (6)/(36) =~0.16
Total: 0.57 wounds/round

Dakka Pred + Rhino
AC: 2x (8/9)(2/3)(1/6) = (32)/(162) =~ 0.20
HB: 3x2x (2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = (12)/(54) = ~0.22
SB: 2x(2/3)(1/6)(1/6) = 4/108 = ~ 0.04
Total: 0.46

So the Serpent is less than 25% better at shooting a Dreadknight. But has to be within 24" to shoot anything. And dies to one round of CC whereas Rhino + Dread take two rounds.

Neither are particularly a good idea for shooting a DK, but it is one place the Dakka serpent does more damage.

(For the number-of-hits, the 3-5 was for both templates. Averaging 2 per template doesn't seem high. And I still think you're undervaluing ignores cover on a S8AP3 weapon. And ablaitive wounds.)

Right, so it's about 20% better at shooting a target. That's significant on a platform that isn't designed to be a MT. Remember, you are the one who claimed that the IoM won this by a huge amount. I never said it was a great option, just A option.
Against most targets, the WS will likely outperform the predator and rhino due to the advantage of wanting to target the same enemy with all of its weapons.

Melee will destroy a serpent easier, but good luck catching one. It's faster/as fast as any melee unit. Rhinos don't have the disgusting speed advantage and a predator wants to sit in the corner and shoot. They are more likely to get targeted in melee then a serpent. Speed is a defense. In many cases, it is the best defense given the limited turns of the game.

2 per template makes it about 4, people are claiming it's 1-2. Statistically this is correct. 2-4 would be the average number of hits for 2 small blast templates. I went with a higher number to prove my point.
It is not me undervaluing a ignores cover S8AP3 weapon. Considering the points you spend, it is a weaker option then plague marines. It is pretty widely agreed that plague marines are the best cult unit by a good margin, with noise marines being a distant second. The others are so bad they don't enter into the equation at all.
Ablative wounds are bad. Competitive lists take as few of these as possible, preferring a strong alpha punch unit that can either
A: always get an alpha punch via dropping or WS (like FD)
B: Are absurdly tough (Cent-stars)
Ablative wounds are not competitive.

It is not just me you are disagreeing with. It is the entire competitive meta.
And you are doing it without sticking to the same points, constantly moving them around.

Please prove the waveserpent has bad firepower. The one number run you did, they had 20% better firepower and it's not an optimal target.
Please prove the waveserpent has bad toughness. It seems like an absurdly tough tank to me.

Also, please keep in mind that my original argument was that the waveserpent is the best transport in the game.
You disagreed, suggesting we compare it to both predators and rhinos, which (IMO), are still losing this by quite a bit.

Those numbers were to demonstrate that, even with the target you provided as a place that Serpents kick Predator ass, Serpents were only mildly better. Still takes 9 rounds of Serpent shooting, or 11 rounds of Predator shooting, to kill one riptide. Yes, its a bad target for a dakka pred. Still a bad target for the Dakka Serpent too.

Against Guardsmen:
Dakka Pred:
AC: 2x (8/9)(5/6)(1) = 80/54 =~1.5
HB: 2x3x (2/3)(5/6)(1) = 60/18 =~3.3
Total: 4.8 dead Guardsmen

Dakka Serpent:
SL: 4x(8/9)(5/6)(2/3) = 320 /108 = 3
SC: 3x(2/3)(5/6)(1) = 30/18 = 1.6
Total: 4.6

So Dakka Pred wins. Lower cost. +12" range.

Against Fire Warriors/Dire Avengers/etc:
Dakka Pred:
Same as above, 4.8

Serpent
SL: 4x(8/9)(5/6)(1/2) = 160/108 = 1.5
SC: 3x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 12/18 = .6
+. 3x(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 6/18 = .3

Dakka pred kills 4.8, Serpent kills 2.5. Again, dakka pred wins.

The vs a t6 2+/3++ MC was the posterboy of the example of a time where a Pred is useless, and a Serpent kicks ass. As shown, even then, the Serpent is only marginally better.

And a Dakka Pred doesn't cost 140 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perhaps a Chimera would be a better comparison.

You claim a Serpent is the best transport in the game.

How does it outperform the Ghost Ark?
AV13 vs AV12, but the Serpent gan downgrade pens to a glance vs Open Topped. Could go either way.

Jink. Cuts the Ghost Arks shooting a little more than a Serpent, but not by much. But doesn't affect the guys inside.

Shooting. 20xS4 Gauss at 24". Even with them both jinking, that is a crapton more deadly than 7xS6, even if 3 of those have Blade storm. Plus the guys inside should be another 10-20 shots, whereas the guys in the Serpent can do nothing until they disembark.

Movement: Ark snapfires if it moves 12", but does so anyways if jinking.

Cost: 105 GA, 140 kitted Serpent.

Not seeing it.

Yes, the Wave Serpent is the best dedicated transport in the game; it combines high mobility, good firepower, solid (but decreased) survivability, and a good transport capacity.

It is also the most expensive dedicated transport in the game. With their standard loadout, they are on a par points-wise with the Predator Annihilator.

I still think that people should have the right to refuse a game against serpent spam, especially if combined with the Dire Avenger host.

Bharring wrote:
Those numbers were to demonstrate that, even with the target you provided as a place that Serpents kick Predator ass, Serpents were only mildly better. Still takes 9 rounds of Serpent shooting, or 11 rounds of Predator shooting, to kill one riptide. Yes, its a bad target for a dakka pred. Still a bad target for the Dakka Serpent too.

Against Guardsmen:
Dakka Pred:
AC: 2x (8/9)(5/6)(1) = 80/54 =~1.5
HB: 2x3x (2/3)(5/6)(1) = 60/18 =~3.3
Total: 4.8 dead Guardsmen

Dakka Serpent:
SL: 4x(8/9)(5/6)(2/3) = 320 /108 = 3
SC: 3x(2/3)(5/6)(1) = 30/18 = 1.6
Total: 4.6

So Dakka Pred wins. Lower cost. +12" range.

Against Fire Warriors/Dire Avengers/etc:
Dakka Pred:
Same as above, 4.8

Serpent
SL: 4x(8/9)(5/6)(1/2) = 160/108 = 1.5
SC: 3x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 12/18 = .6
+. 3x(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 6/18 = .3

Dakka pred kills 4.8, Serpent kills 2.5. Again, dakka pred wins.

The vs a t6 2+/3++ MC was the posterboy of the example of a time where a Pred is useless, and a Serpent kicks ass. As shown, even then, the Serpent is only marginally better.

And a Dakka Pred doesn't cost 140 points.

This example is remarkably skewed towards an unrealistic scenario.
A cover save reduces the predator's firepower to the point where it is losing again, and most of those troops will hug cover. And a T3 (so S5 and 6 are the same) 4/5+ save model outside of cover is probably the only good example you'll find.
Those models will grab cover when available.

A 20% increase in firepower isn't marginally better. It's an extra round of shooting over the course of the game. The shield can still be used to bump this number up.

Needing 9 Serpents to kill 1 Riptide isn't hugely different from needing 11 Predators to kill 1 Riptide. Both are a really bad idea. But when phrased as needing 1280 points of Wave Serpents or 1045 points of Predators to kill 1 Riptide, perhaps the difference will be a little more obvious.

I hadn't realised so many people thought the Serpent was so bonkers, post nerf. I really don't think it'll be that competitive.

It's still too good, but it just blends into the rest of the codex.

Bharring wrote:
Needing 9 Serpents to kill 1 Riptide isn't hugely different from needing 11 Predators to kill 1 Riptide. Both are a really bad idea. But when phrased as needing 1280 points of Wave Serpents or 1045 points of Predators to kill 1 Riptide, perhaps the difference will be a little more obvious.

I hadn't realised so many people thought the Serpent was so bonkers, post nerf. I really don't think it'll be that competitive.

Well, neither will shoot at a Riptide considering the range of the riptide when compared to the others.
It's more FMCs, and the twin link allowing them to be grounded, and then adding other wounds on top of it.

It's also better against troops
in cover
with a 3/2+ save
So, almost all troops that you are realistically likely to run into in a game. Or care to shoot at.

And it's better against most tanks.

Honestly the example of T3 troops with a 4/5+ save in the open is the only time the predator is better. It's such a rare thing that I didn't think of it.
The serpent is one of the best tanks in the game. Of course people think it's competitive. We are still aren't taking into account it's shield, or it's speed, or the fact it's more likely to hit a rear/side then a predator, or the fact that its payload is often much better then what another army can bring, due to the lack of ablative wounds taking up valuable space.