Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Martel732 wrote:
12 sides. On a 400+ pt model. But the game is totally pro-imperium.

Huh. That may make it the only walker in the game that has a lower side armor than front. This made me think you were wrong, but after checking it out you are correct.

Can anyone else name a walker that has lower side armor than front? I guess I'm only familiar with SM and ork ones, really. I know all ork walker have same front/side, pretty sure SM ones are the same, pretty sure about necron ones too.

Armored Sentinels are AV12/10/10.

FW Decimator and Blood Slaughterer Daemon Engines are 13/12/11 I believe.

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head.

BA furiosos are 13/12/10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
12 sides. On a 400+ pt model. But the game is totally pro-imperium.

Its pro-imperium because you can ally in white scars bikers to cover your flanks, or a librarius conclave to (maybe) make an invisible IK with RAW.
I know you don't play that way, but with all imperium as battle brothers, the mix and match options are very high to cover weaknesses elsewhere. where as xenos tend to have very small ally option, and some suffer for it.

Actually if you bring out the "but allies!" defense, everyone can take everything, even come the apocalypse allies. Our BA have the same access to grav cannons, for example, that orks have to scatbikes and wraithknights.

12 side armor on a 400 pt model means the game hates IoM?

How 'bout 12 *front* and side armor. For 900 points. Oh a Super heavy walker. GW must really hate... CWE?

I didn't say hate. But certainly doesn't favor. Although the wulfen guys fit in with SW being little furry Mary Sues. I'll be blood vomiting in the corner.

Bharring wrote:
12 side armor on a 400 pt model means the game hates IoM?

How 'bout 12 *front* and side armor. For 900 points. Oh a Super heavy walker. GW must really hate... CWE?

If you're talking about an Eldar Revenant titan, it has Holofields, crazy mobility and can only be hit on 6's in close combat now unless its another super heavy, in which its 5's.

Honestly Eldar really are OP but I don't think its for the reasons people are explaining.

On a Unit vs. unit basis Eldar are usually T3 and die just like a T3 model should (with the exception of Waithguard). WK can be taken down by Ghazzy's Bully Boys Formation. Maulerfiends can rip apart WS and 10 Marines with Bolters within rapid fire range can easily rip apart a few Fire Dragons and Aspect warriors.

The problem I find is the (keyword here) synergy. Eldar have so many things that are so, so cheap that excel in their roles that when combined with each other make them perform way above average playstyles, shutting down other peoples playstyles in some cases.

Like I say 15 MANZ can take out a WK until that WK is buffed by invisibility. That Maulerfiend can rip apart that WS, but doesn't want too because it knows of the D-Weapon Waithguard sitting inside it. Eldar ignore core rules such as running and shooting with the use of Battle Focus and ignoring Perils with the use of the Ghosthelm as others have suggested, WS have that annoying shield that makes pens glances forcing your opponent to focus fire on one unit (letting all the other units have flexible breating space). This makes them incredibly flexible with the addition of their cheap costs. This is what sets them apart for the other cases presented in the forms of Necrons, SM, etc, etc.

You then have to look at direction 7th edition want you to play in the competitive sense. the game rewards you for playing SMU backed up by big stompy things. Eldar excel at this with the common use of bikers and WK and even though 1st place at that major tourney may have not used a WK (can't remember if they did or not) they surely did play to the MSU role of 7th ed.

With those examples in mind it does not make the Eldar exempt from "Being OP" some factions have good stuff will be limited or very expensive, but how would you say CSM operate with Eldar? sure you can taylor for a 1v1 match but when your in a tournament with multiple factions then how would they opertate? They like Guard and Orks to an extent are not as flexible for the direction of the edition like Eldar are and so Eldar will usually wipe a mono force of these factions.

I think what people need to ask now is Why are Eldar OP? I think its been widely agreed that Eldar are OP, in my area even Eldar players agree their Codex is OP. I have even had a conversation with another Eldar player and he agreed that his stuff was too good and that he thinks he needs to restrict his choices as they perform way too well but then asked why was his stuff too good when others had or have it so rough? I will always think it was codex writer bias combined with that the writer didn't know what direction he wanted the Eldar to go so he made everything above average because pressure to release the book and bias, but that's my opinion.

delete

I always find myself a little lost in these discussions; I assume this is due to OP being a very subjective term.

When you drop an over-powered claim - are you saying that it is (A) above the curve of balance, (B) well above the curve balance, or (C) on the top of the curve of balance?

Taking this idea one step further, are you basing your judgement comparing (X) local FLGS scene, (Y) internet hypothetical, or (Z) large scale tournament scene?

The conversation gets heavily muddled from this lack of distinction. I - for one - if combining A and X would say that Eldar are well overpowered, easily yes. However if I combined C and Z I use my anecdotal information in tandem with empirical understanding of tournament statistics and say absolutely not, Eldar have not had *that* kind of OP presence.

Hrm, the LVO results would appear to differ, lending a lot of weight to the idea that C and Z are closer to true than not.

Why are we even talking about just LVO?

Look at the entire history of 40k.

It has always been Eldar on top, usually by a HUGE margin.

 Quickjager wrote:
Look at the entire history of 40k.

It has always been Eldar on top, usually by a HUGE margin.

Umm....I started playing Eldar in 4th ed, they were barely mid-tier and only because Falcons were 'annoying", so your statement is not true.

Eldar only became top tier in 6th. Some spoke of the glory days of 2nd or 3rd ed Eldar with super Star-cannon, but I know not of those times.

--

 Quickjager wrote:
Why are we even talking about just LVO?

Look at the entire history of 40k.

It has always been Eldar on top, usually by a HUGE margin.

while true...most people aren't playing 2E or flying circus 4E invincifalcons anymore.

 Galef wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Look at the entire history of 40k.

It has always been Eldar on top, usually by a HUGE margin.

I started playing Eldar in 4th ed, they were barely mid-tier., so your statement is False.

you sure you arent thinking 5th? Eldar were amazing in 4th. Between unkillable skimmers, harlies you never got to shoot at, untargetable IC's, fish-o-fury tactic Dire Avengers, and more, they were *very* strong in 4E. 5E was the only edition that Eldar were not a very top tier army

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:
And fully justified, because the Eldar are ridiculously OP. Even without abuse of scatterbikes or other such cheese. Almost everything in the codex is really good. Try playing as BA against an Eldar list, then come again. Any Eldar list will beat any BA list.
I don't hate Eldar, and arguably, the problem is not with the Eldar codex (in a perfect codex, all options should be good) but with underpowered codices like Orks, BA or CSM, but that doesn't take away the fact that playing against Eldar just isn't much fun because even non-cheese Eldar lists are so powerful compared to my BA .

Funny story, the second game I ever played as Eldar was versus BA and it ended up in a stalemate. I didn't have any scatbikes nor wraithguard, but did run a WK. It was an intense fight.

Edit: formatting

Oh, don't get me wrong. It is possible for BA to do good or even win against Eldar. But the Eldar player has to deliberately handicap himself while the BA player needs a really well optimised list and a lot of luck with dice rolls to pull off a narrow win. It is such an uphill battle every time that after the first few times, it stops being fun. I like a challenging game, but it has to be fair (and fluffy. Fluffwise, BA being so much outmatched by Eldar is not correct).
I wouldn't refuse games against Eldar, but I will have less fun then when playing other armies. Ideally, if two players bring a somewhat competitive list of equal points value, both players should have an equal chance at victory.

master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, its fine if theyre better and comparatively more expensive. Its not fine when they're as much or cheaper, like with Fire Dragons or Rangers relative to equivalents. And the problem is that just about the entire army is like that. Nobody thought Jetbikes, Fire Dragons or Wraithguard were undergunned or incapable in their previous incarnations at the same points costs, why they needed the massive boosts they got is a mystery.

Likewise, the "well they should be better because...elves are just better" thing wears very thin indeed...and I say that as someone with ~5k pts worth of Eldar (including two eldar superheavies and gobs of fire dragons and wave serpents). I mean, it might be fluffy if the IG player got to hit everything with a Basilisk shell before the first turn too for a preliminary bombardment, but few would find that fun or balanced

Getting to smack everything my enemy has with a big preliminary bombardment..... Well it would be "forging the narrative"

You guys are not thinking big enough. What if Vortex missiles were actually fluffy?
"Remove all models on the table from play with no saves of any kind allowed. The player who fired the Vortex Missile wins the game automatically."
-Codex: Deathstrike Missile Launchers

 Galef wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Look at the entire history of 40k.

It has always been Eldar on top, usually by a HUGE margin.

Umm....I started playing Eldar in 4th ed, they were barely mid-tier and only because Falcons were 'annoying", so your statement is not true.

Eldar only became top tier in 6th. Some spoke of the glory days of 2nd or 3rd ed Eldar with super Star-cannon, but I know not of those times.

--

I think you have editions confused. In 4th, Eldar were the strongest army in the game. In 3rd, eldar were up there with marines who were also one of the strongest armies in the game, but eldar countered marines quite well. 5th they were mid, maybe upper mid. 6th and 7th they are again top tier.
I've owned eldar since the start of 3rd edition and I've never felt handicapped outside of 5th. Even then, it wasn't horrible (not like a lot of my other armies are nowadays).

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Besides the fluff would establish that they should cost more, because they're a dying race, there are less and less of them as the years go on

This honestly is my biggest gripe with Eldar. I would be 100% fine with their D-spam, insane movement, insane psyker powers, general awesomeness, if their entire codex costed like 1.5% more than it currently does. The fact that a scatterbike, one of the best options in the game, costs less than something like a meganob, which is a unit in a "cheap" army that can only do well in very, very specific circumstances is just dumb. Really, really dumb. Hell, why not compare an actual ork jetbike to the scatterbike?

The deffkopta is BS 2, T4, W2, 4+, and can either take a TL bigshoota (S5 AP4 Assault 3) or a TL rokkit (S8 AP3). It has standard jetbike movement and has no options for adding characters, and can't be a troop choice so no ObSec. Now, I'd be fine with all of this if it costed something cheap, as on paper it's not that fantastic of a unit. And yet, for some reason this thing costs more than a scatterbike- It's 30 points. Why in the hell would anyone make a deffkopta more expensive than a scatterbike? Because of its extra wound and 1 higher toughness? Scatterbikes alone should cost way more than they currently do, somewhere around 40 points.

Its worse than you think. Scatbikes are T4 also...

Nocturus wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Besides the fluff would establish that they should cost more, because they're a dying race, there are less and less of them as the years go on

This honestly is my biggest gripe with Eldar. I would be 100% fine with their D-spam, insane movement, insane psyker powers, general awesomeness, if their entire codex costed like 1.5% more than it currently does. The fact that a scatterbike, one of the best options in the game, costs less than something like a meganob, which is a unit in a "cheap" army that can only do well in very, very specific circumstances is just dumb. Really, really dumb. Hell, why not compare an actual ork jetbike to the scatterbike?

The deffkopta is BS 2, T4, W2, 4+, and can either take a TL bigshoota (S5 AP4 Assault 3) or a TL rokkit (S8 AP3). It has standard jetbike movement and has no options for adding characters, and can't be a troop choice so no ObSec. Now, I'd be fine with all of this if it costed something cheap, as on paper it's not that fantastic of a unit. And yet, for some reason this thing costs more than a scatterbike- It's 30 points. Why in the hell would anyone make a deffkopta more expensive than a scatterbike? Because of its extra wound and 1 higher toughness? Scatterbikes alone should cost way more than they currently do, somewhere around 40 points.

Its worse than you think. Scatbikes are T4 also...

Why would they make it cheaper than a Deffkopta? Because money is acquired from selling new kits, that of which the Scatterbike is.

Jetbikes, Wraith contructs, Exarchs, Formations, Insane psychic phase.

They are god tier.

 Galef wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Look at the entire history of 40k.

It has always been Eldar on top, usually by a HUGE margin.

Umm....I started playing Eldar in 4th ed, they were barely mid-tier and only because Falcons were 'annoying", so your statement is not true.

--

No, the Eldar were pretty top then too, and with the hard turn limit to the game, bikes and skimmers were excellent last turn quarter grabbers/contestors, as well as being ridiculously hard to kill. IIRC, star cannon spam was a strong build the same way that AC spam was for marines, although Eldar couldn't drop quite as many.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Nocturus wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Besides the fluff would establish that they should cost more, because they're a dying race, there are less and less of them as the years go on

This honestly is my biggest gripe with Eldar. I would be 100% fine with their D-spam, insane movement, insane psyker powers, general awesomeness, if their entire codex costed like 1.5% more than it currently does. The fact that a scatterbike, one of the best options in the game, costs less than something like a meganob, which is a unit in a "cheap" army that can only do well in very, very specific circumstances is just dumb. Really, really dumb. Hell, why not compare an actual ork jetbike to the scatterbike?

The deffkopta is BS 2, T4, W2, 4+, and can either take a TL bigshoota (S5 AP4 Assault 3) or a TL rokkit (S8 AP3). It has standard jetbike movement and has no options for adding characters, and can't be a troop choice so no ObSec. Now, I'd be fine with all of this if it costed something cheap, as on paper it's not that fantastic of a unit. And yet, for some reason this thing costs more than a scatterbike- It's 30 points. Why in the hell would anyone make a deffkopta more expensive than a scatterbike? Because of its extra wound and 1 higher toughness? Scatterbikes alone should cost way more than they currently do, somewhere around 40 points.

Its worse than you think. Scatbikes are T4 also...

Why would they make it cheaper than a Deffkopta? Because money is acquired from selling new kits, that of which the Scatterbike is.

Not always. The Wave Serpent kit was like 7 years old when it got made broken with the 6E codex, meanwhile Ogryns have had two model updates in the same timespan and were total garbage the entire time. Then of course there was also Mutilators, Possessed, Pyrovores, whatever they did to the poor Hydra Flak Tank when it got a plastic kit, tauroxes, Scions, etc. GW is not kind to all new kits

 Bookwrack wrote:

No, the Eldar were pretty top then too, and with the hard turn limit to the game, bikes and skimmers were excellent last turn quarter grabbers/contestors, as well as being ridiculously hard to kill. IIRC, star cannon spam was a strong build the same way that AC spam was for marines, although Eldar couldn't drop quite as many.

That's not correct. Eldar could cram in far more starcannons than Marines could get assault cannons. Starcannons were all over the Eldar list like a rash. You could take tiny Guardian squads with them, you could put twin-linked ones on Wave Serpents, you could upgrade a Falcon to have one, Vypers could take them, War Walkers could take them, Wraithlords could take them (and Wraithlords were criminally undercosted in 3rd ed.) Marines could only get assault cannons on 4 units - Razorbacks, Land Speeders, Terminators, and Land Raider Crusaders. Of those units, only Land Speeders were particularly good.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Nocturus wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Besides the fluff would establish that they should cost more, because they're a dying race, there are less and less of them as the years go on

This honestly is my biggest gripe with Eldar. I would be 100% fine with their D-spam, insane movement, insane psyker powers, general awesomeness, if their entire codex costed like 1.5% more than it currently does. The fact that a scatterbike, one of the best options in the game, costs less than something like a meganob, which is a unit in a "cheap" army that can only do well in very, very specific circumstances is just dumb. Really, really dumb. Hell, why not compare an actual ork jetbike to the scatterbike?

The deffkopta is BS 2, T4, W2, 4+, and can either take a TL bigshoota (S5 AP4 Assault 3) or a TL rokkit (S8 AP3). It has standard jetbike movement and has no options for adding characters, and can't be a troop choice so no ObSec. Now, I'd be fine with all of this if it costed something cheap, as on paper it's not that fantastic of a unit. And yet, for some reason this thing costs more than a scatterbike- It's 30 points. Why in the hell would anyone make a deffkopta more expensive than a scatterbike? Because of its extra wound and 1 higher toughness? Scatterbikes alone should cost way more than they currently do, somewhere around 40 points.

Its worse than you think. Scatbikes are T4 also...

Why would they make it cheaper than a Deffkopta? Because money is acquired from selling new kits, that of which the Scatterbike is.

Not always. The Wave Serpent kit was like 7 years old when it got made broken with the 6E codex, meanwhile Ogryns have had two model updates in the same timespan and were total garbage the entire time. Then of course there was also Mutilators, Possessed, Pyrovores, whatever they did to the poor Hydra Flak Tank when it got a plastic kit, tauroxes, Scions, etc. GW is not kind to all new kits

Hmm, this is true. There's also the example of the Maleceptor. The only reason people bought that kit was for the Toxicrene. You'd be hard pressed to find someone with a Maleceptor model.

I sort of feel bad for the long-time Eldar players because while Eldar have always been a strong army, ever since 6th, they have been crazy over the top powerful, with units that are long-standing becoming horribly broken. So now whenever those players pull out their army containing older units, they immediately become TFG through no fault of their own.

Of course, the only ones I don't feel bad for are Iyanden players I hate that "fields more wraith units than any other craftworld due to reasons" suddenly became "ALL WRAITH ALL THE TIME!!!!" Beyond the power game elements, I don't even understand why Wraith armies exist under the Eldar name....Hey, I love the slender, sleek aesthetics of the Eldar people, the specialized and subtle style of warfare with the Aspects, the speed of their vehicles and bikes....so Imma gonna field this army of nothing but big, chunky, psy-robot units that are mostly kind of slow, but are extremely tough, unsubtle, and hit like a truck against everything. Actual Eldar in an Eldar army, PFFFFFT! Oh, wait, there is one, the seer, see, totally an Eldar army. (Detect my bitterness against wraith units you will )

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I sort of feel bad for the long-time Eldar players because while Eldar have always been a strong army, ever since 6th, they have been crazy over the top powerful, with units that are long-standing becoming horribly broken. So now whenever those players pull out their army containing older units, they immediately become TFG through no fault of their own.

Thank you.

I started in the middle of 4th ed and didn't have a good grasp on the rules until 5th, so I didn't realize Eldar were good in 4th.
So what you guys are telling me is that Eldar started as a top tier army, and with the exception of 5th ed, they continue to be a top tier army? So what's new? Why is this still a surprise to anyone?

I whole-heartedly accept that Eldar are "the" top army. If the top 4 are Eldar, Tau, SM & Necrons, then absolutely Eldar have the edge over the other 3.
HOWEVER, I can only except that an army is OP if there little to no counters to them. Eldar have plenty of counters. Drop pods (and by extension, every army that can take them) have always been a pretty hard counter to Eldar. Drop in, kill half their army and they are on the backfoot for a few turns. Only skilled players can recover from that. This has been made worse with Skyhammer.

Another counter to Eldar is a Decurion with multiple Canoptek Harvests. If you don't kill the Wraiths in the first turn (which is unlikely even for Scatterbike spam) bye-bye bikes or WK. I haven't seen the new Tau in action, but they seem terrifying with all therir shooting and 2+ cover saves

Granted all those examples are from the other top 3, but what about Tyranids and Daemons? Both of those armies have builds that are considered good and can beat Eldar consistently. Dakka Tyrants, Fexes and Devilguants make Scatterbike die and everything has a 2+ cover from Venomthropes. Daemons can drown the board in fast units that can get the Eldar into combat by turn 2. 36" turboboost means nothing if nowhere on the board is safe.
-------
It really sucks that there are so many armies that struggle against the top 4, especially Eldar. Here's hoping CSM get some kinda boosts soon that upset the meta.

--

 Galef wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I sort of feel bad for the long-time Eldar players because while Eldar have always been a strong army, ever since 6th, they have been crazy over the top powerful, with units that are long-standing becoming horriybly broken. So now whenever those players pull out their army containing older units, they immediately become TFG through no fault of their own.

Thank you.

I started in the middle of 4th ed and didn't have a good grasp on the rules until 5th, so I didn't realize Eldar were good in 4th.
So what you guys are telling me is that Eldar started as a top tier army, and with the exception of 5th ed, they continue to be a top tier army? So what's new? Why is this still a surprise to anyone?

Because they've consistently been overpowered for the past 20 years except for a single edition, no other army has enjoyed anything near such supremacy, and it's old. There's also longstanding myth about Eldar that they're some intricate army that only great generals can play well, which just isn't true, at least, not anymoreso than any other army, and then that gets coupled with a sense that "well, they're space elves, they *should* be better" quite often, and that gets old as well. And I say this as someone who has owned and played and Eldar army about as long as you have.

HOWEVER, I can only except that an army is OP if there little to no counters to them.

OP != unbeatable. If an army can only be considered OP if they're unbeatable, then nothing is ever OP, which is a hard statement to accept. Overpowered inherently means they're unreasonably above the power curve, which pretty much every agrees they are.

Sure, there are some counters. However, that doesn't mean that the Eldar won't still end up on top a majority of the time, and that they don't have some of the best (if not *the* best in may cases) ability to defeat many of these threats (e.g. drop pods, Necron Wraiths, etc) that exist in the game (far moreso than most other armies), which is pretty much the definition of overpowered. Drop Pods can be heavily defanged by a reserve denial strategy (which Eldar can do very well) and have more resiliency against alpha strikes than most other armies (e.g. a squad of 10 drop pod melta sternguard have a negligible chance to explode a Jinking Wave Serpent, and will only on average barely kill one through HP's, while they're likely to combat squad and kill two AV12 non-skimmer vehicles against another army, likely exploding both), and nobody can kill Necron Wraiths (admittedly another absurdly overpowered unit) as well as Eldar can.