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.

Posted By Mannahnin on 03/09/2007 9:04 AM

I do agree with you that the Eldar codex could have been better than it is. But I disagree that the old Alaitoc/Ulthwe garbage better represented the race. They were only no-Comp GT winning lists because of broken mechanics (disruption/unlimited seer council).  They were ass.

IMHO, an Eldar army should function like a specialty tool.  Extremely effective when used in the right situation, but useless when out of its element.  IMO, the typical Eldar army should be represented by the Biel Tan swordwind, which actually uses trained warriors instead of citizen militia - and represents the surgical combined arms methodology of the Eldar.

While combined arms still functions, I for one, am unsure if it retains the same punch to offset the built in weaknessess of the 4th ed transport mechanism, the boost to enemy shooting with rapidfire and the premium prices (largely unchanged from 4th edition) paid for all Aspect Warriors and Eldar transport vehicles.  Long ranged firepower has generally been eschewed for the close range meltagun fusillade and any maneuvering is completely dependent on terrain availability.

The dev team has delivered an army which can't decide if it wants to engage in a low damage standoff long range battle to preserve VPs or run straight at the enemy to actually be able to use the large quantities of high damage 12" weapons, and then die in a rapid battle of attrition... 

As for the wierd lists seen in 4th edition... these only came about since the coming of 4th edition largely invalidated the use of the Biel Tan list through its reworking of transports.  In the days of 3rd edition, all vyper lists and all council lists were far too prohibitively expensive to build, especially when the stock Biel Tan and Ulthwé lists worked so well.

Everyone will be in agreement that the uber-council is an abomination which should never have made print.

I do not see the Alaitoc disruption table as being largely overpowering.  The Alaitoc list's strengths are largely useless against drop pods, mechanized infantry, tank heavy armies and armies that make heavy use of deepstrike (as being forced off the table is no longer a problem).  IMHO, the disruption table itself is not inherently broken, as this ability was paid for by having to buy mandatory (non FA) rangers - combined with the low in-game ROI (outside of disruption) for FA designated rangers (if additional rolls were desired).  The problem lay in that all the other choices were freely available.  If the Alaitoc host had caps on non-pathfinder elites and limits on HS slots, the list would not be in the least overpowered.

To get back on topic...  I do not think that anyone can be surprised that the "specialized" marine lists - AKA Daemonbomb and Obliteration were strong performers.  The Marine statline is head and shoulders above everyone elses and when tooled to be either supremely shooty or HTH proficient, it makes for a very potent (and hard to outfight) list.

Actually daemonbomb doesn't trouble the scorers that much at the UKGT. The top Chaos armies were a surfeit of IW (as usual) and the odd dual Siren list knocking around.
The second place marine list was a podding list with a few preds. Doesn't look particularly powerful on paper as 1500 pod lists all have weaknesses that a lot of us are used to (although I gather pods are very powerful at 1850). However it was played very well.
Therion, I'll reply in detail tomorrow when I'm sober, but apologies for my confrontational tone earlier. I was a bit hungover and have been used to lots of people saying how Eldar are junk in the new codex. I can get a bit defensive about it.



Is the UKGT really seen like that? Maybe I'm just used to a no-comp environment.....

Posted By anathema on 03/09/2007 12:25 PM

Eldar clearly are still viable in the hardest cheesefest in the world.

Is the UKGT really seen like that? Maybe I'm just used to a no-comp environment.....

Yes.

 

Not so much if you read any English forums (I’ve just started reading TWF in the last year), as I’ve learned that some people really do just go for fun, while recognizing what they’re in for, but that’s the general impression we have on this side of the pond. 

 

From reading various sources, I understand that some other countries have nasty scenes as well (Finland, Italy), but the UK GT is the grand daddy of them all, and it’s the one on which players converge from several countries to play no holds barred and try to win it all.

 

I also know that there are lots of fluffier, friendlier events in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> too, but the whole tone of the comp discussion is different.  Here comp has been the expected standard for around ten years, and painting and sports scoring have a substantial impact on GT results.  In the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> the GT has (AFAIK) always been all about battles, with other scores having negligible impact. 

As an example, in the US,  pretty much no one brings Siren to a tournament unless it’s understood ahead of time and publicized to be a Gladiator/”cheese all you want” event. 

That's untrue. You don't know how the others would have played if they knew the scoring would've been different, not to mention the fact that the Eldar would have scored more tournament points and thus drawn harder (atleast different) opponents.

You agree that the codex could have been better? Well frankly the Eldar codex is the biggest disappointment of them all to me, but you're still not understanding what I'm saying. I'm currently engaged in a thread where most of the people say Tomb Kings are the most balanced and fair army book in Warhammer Fantasy, and I think that it's completely broken and even more so than VC who are much more powerful generally speaking. Why? Because all of the effective variants look the same and the potential in designing the army list has been wasted. I'm not going to talk about the TK heroes and units here but the exact same thing applies to Eldar. So Dragons, Harlequins, Falcons and Prisms are useful -- Good, you can probably make a 1500 points army by using those four elements. However, is there a hidden rule somewhere that states that while those four elements are useful it's illegal that Wraithguard, Wraithlords, Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Guardians, Vypers, Swooping Hawks are also useful? I suppose not, so why aren't they useful then? Because the designer was an incompetent monkey, simple as that. We all know the business reality of GW wanting to make every Eldar player buy new models, and if everyone were playing broken Ulthwé and Alaitoc (Avatars, Seers, Warlocks, Rangers, Guardians, Wraithlords, Vypers, Falcons) they certainly achieved their goal because most of that stuff now belongs to the trash bin. However, noone was using for example Wraithguard or Swooping Hawks before and noone still use them. In addition to that, they made the change to Striking Scorpions just for the 'heck of it' because S4 didn't somehow feel 'right' in an Eldar army and in the process forgot that this would completely destroy the Exarch's power fist. Again it was too hard just to make the Scorpion's Claw a S8 power weapon that always strikes last. If this wasn't an unacceptable fu**up then it can only be explained by the fact that GW felt a lot of people were using Striking Scorpions and the players had to be forced into buying something else. God only knows why they then made all these stupid units new models.

When I look at the Eldar codex, I see a lot of units that wouldn't be used ever even if their points cost was lowered by 1 or 2  and they were given free abilities. What does this say about the army design? You say that the idea of Eldar is best represented by a mobile strike force that hits here and there and employs fragile elite troopers in achieving a win. Well great, you've described one way of playing Eldar. It's like me saying that I think the coolest way of playing Marines is by going full drop pods, and because drop pods work in tournaments I don't care if the rest of the army list is utter trash. Can Eldar make a footslogging SAFH army like Marines can? No, but they could have if the Avatar, Guardians, War Walkers, and Wraithlords would be more points efficient and their guns better. Can Eldar make a specialised assault army that is based on jump packs? No, but they could have if the Warp Spiders were more like they were in 2nd edition and if Swooping Hawks would become useful for the first time ever. Can Eldar make an elite army filled with Terminator equivalent units? No, but they could have if the idea of Iyanden was expanded a little further and Wraithguard gained the attention the unit has deserved for a decade.

As far as the broken Ulthwé and Alaitoc go those lists shouldn't have been removed. Rangers are overpriced for what they do and simply by upping the minimum unit size to 5, lowering the maximum amount of Ranger/Pathfinder units to 6, and by revising the Disruption Table the army could have lived on in a more balanced way. Instead, it no longer exists. The Seer Council was always the heart of the Ulthwé army and what made it imbalanced were the ablative Warlocks with no wargear whatsoever. Simply by forcing each Warlock to buy a blade or a spear and a pistol this problem would have been overcome as noone could have afforded to keep massive Seer Councils anymore. However, the Seer Councils would still have lived on as perhaps 10 strong incredibly elite units where the Farseers could still not be picked out by every single close combatant out there. Instead, it no longer exists. As far as the small nerfs like Farseer T3 and Wraithlord wraithsight go I don't want to get into them because both of those were completely uncalled for and they can be classed as nothing but idiocy. Now as far as the starcannon nerf goes, who can say that it made any sense whatsoever? Hey, it might make some sense in a friendly environment where Marines cry cheese easily, but the game has always been filled with guns better than the starcannon and noone nerfs them. Plasma guns can now move and rapid fire, and Obliterators even got those things twin linked. Assault cannons can destroy anything they encounter. The heavy flamer kills almost any Eldar unit it even barely touches. Devourers are quadrupal shuriken cannons, and so on. What did the starcannon require? It needed a points increase of 5 to 10 points depending on where its mounted, and the alternatives needed a points decrease. Instead, the gun no longer exists.

I send all the satisfied Eldar generals in the world my compliments. You've been fed crap inside a shiny new cover and yet you still accept it with a smile on. Despite all the potential that was squandered, all you need is three or four useful units to keep you going for the next six years, and you won't complain.

Mmmm... shiny crap!

I don't play 40K at all, but this thread has been quite fun to read. People defend their positions with well thought out logic and rational argument, and the occasional bon mot ("hardest cheesefest in the world"... priceless!) and no one has called anyone a poopoo-head, or otherwise started a flame war.

Is this really Dakka? Or have I slipped into the alternate universe... where is the evil me, the one with the beard?

Posted By spikydavid on 03/09/2007 4:51 AM

Posted By Da Boss on 03/09/2007 4:43 AM
TWO ORK PLAYERS!
TWO!
Still, one of them did quite well for himself.
But that is a joke.

A joke?  What's the punchline, then?

Spase marienz!  Hurr!!

Posted By fellblade on 03/09/2007 9:53 PM
I don't play 40K at all, but this thread has been quite fun to read. People defend their positions with well thought out logic and rational argument, and the occasional bon mot ("hardest cheesefest in the world"... priceless!) and no one has called anyone a poopoo-head, or otherwise started a flame war.

Eldar are all poopoo-heads.  That's why they have pointy hats!

Posted By Therion- on 03/09/2007 9:21 PM

However, is there a hidden rule somewhere that states that while those four elements are useful it's illegal that Wraithguard, Wraithlords, Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Guardians, Vypers, Swooping Hawks are also useful? I suppose not, so why aren't they useful then?

Most of what you just mentioned is useful.  Funnily enough I was watching agame last weekend with a serious eldar player using 3 of those units. 

(Avatars, Seers, Warlocks, Rangers, Guardians, Wraithlords, Vypers, Falcons) they certainly achieved their goal because most of that stuff now belongs to the trash bin.

Most of those units are still good.

However, noone was using for example Wraithguard or Swooping Hawks before and noone still use them.

I'm in the process of doing up 20 wraithguard. I don't see them used much, but I know others who do use them - clearly your 'noone' is way off.  Swooping hawks i see used quite a bit. Again your definition of 'no-one' seems off by a factor of infinity

In addition to that, they made the change to Striking Scorpions just for the 'heck of it' because S4 didn't somehow feel 'right' in an Eldar army and in the process forgot that this would completely destroy the Exarch's power fist. Again it was too hard just to make the Scorpion's Claw a S8 power weapon that always strikes last.

Talk about hysterics, how did that 'destroy' the claw. Its still there, you can still use it - it may be weaker but thats fundamentally different to destroyed. You are correct they could have just made it S8 - but you provide no justification for why they should have done that, why should it be more powerful than a normal power fist weaapon in addition to the built in catapult? As for 'feel', of course they should change things for 'feel'. The armies are meant to be based on some background. Marines are S4 due to their fluff, eldar are S3 due to their fluff.  A marine squad can upgrade one guy to a powerfist for 30pts, the scorps do the same for 27pts.

If this wasn't an unacceptable fu**up

Which it wasn't...

then it can only be explained by the fact that GW felt a lot of people were using Striking Scorpions and the players had to be forced into buying something else. God only knows why they then made all these stupid units new models.

... And even if was, that is not the ONLY explanation.

It's like me saying that I think the coolest way of playing Marines is by going full drop pods, and because drop pods work in tournaments I don't care if the rest of the army list is utter trash. Can Eldar make a footslogging SAFH army like Marines can? No, but they could have if the Avatar, Guardians, War Walkers, and Wraithlords would be more points efficient and their guns better.

So you don't like the idea of one codex having maybe just a couple of variants, but you do want to make all codices basically be the same anyway? If I wanted a 'footslogging SAFH army like Marines' I would use marines.

Can Eldar make an elite army filled with Terminator equivalent units? No, but they could have if the idea of Iyanden was expanded a little further and Wraithguard gained the attention the unit has deserved for a decade.

Eldar can make an 'elite' army, but again if I wanted termies I'd use termies and a 'marine' codex. Why must 'elite' lists be based on termie like units?

revising the Disruption Table the army could have lived on in a more balanced way.

That'll I agree with, not that i ever used, or intended on using it, but I like codices to be different and not just limited to the same lists/tactics as a marine equivalent.

 As far as the small nerfs like Farseer T3 and Wraithlord wraithsight go I don't want to get into them because both of those were completely uncalled for and they can be classed as nothing but idiocy.

Again you make to explanation as to why they were uncalled for. why shouldn't the farseer have T3 like the other pointed ear guys, why shouldn't the Lord suffer wraithsight like the guard. Whilst they 'could' have stayed, your classification as it being 'nothing but idiocy' seems to indicate you've lost any ability to look at things rationally - of course there are other reasons, you may not agree with them  but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Now as far as the starcannon nerf goes, who can say that it made any sense whatsoever? Hey, it might make some sense in a friendly environment where Marines cry cheese easily,

Or .. Who can say it doesn't make sense?  And as to the friendly environment, well that probably accounts for a serious chunk of revenue.  Of all the people I see playing the game only a couple play in 'non friendly' enviroments. The game has never been designed as a first and foremost 'non friendly' game, it was always and still is a friendly' hobby, with modelling, painting, and gaming. The choice of word friendy is interesting - I take it you aren' t friendly?

but the game has always been filled with guns better than the starcannon and noone nerfs them.

Really - my blast weapons certainly feel a whole lot less powerful. Can't remember the last I saw a plasma cannon.

Plasma guns can now move and rapid fire,

with  ~350% the chance of getting hot

and Obliterators even got those things twin linked.

No doubt they will get some nerf come a new codex, but are you ranting about weapon nerf or a specific unit.

Assault cannons can destroy anything they encounter.

No arguing with that.

The heavy flamer kills almost any Eldar unit it even barely touches.

What point are you making - eldar aren't T4/power armored supermen, or that the heavy flamer is an uber weapon that we should all be using?

Devourers are quadrupal shuriken cannons,

Not sure how the devourer on my gaunts (assault2  S2 Ap-) classes as a quadruple shuri-cannon

and so on. What did the starcannon require? It needed a points increase of 5 to 10 points depending on where its mounted, and the alternatives needed a points decrease. Instead, the gun no longer exists.

The gun does still exist, it even has the same name. its still S6 and Ap2 it lost a shot and went up in price. All you essentially say is that it needed to be less points efficient compared to the alternatives, that is exactly what they did.

I send all the satisfied Eldar generals in the world my compliments. You've been fed crap inside a shiny new cover and yet you still accept it with a smile on. Despite all the potential that was squandered, all you need is three or four useful units to keep you going for the next six years, and you won't complain.

So you lament the loss of the previous couple of standard lists whilst bemoaning the fact that (in your opinion) there are now only a couple of standard lists.

Posted By puree on 03/10/2007 4:35 AM

It's like me saying that I think the coolest way of playing Marines is by going full drop pods, and because drop pods work in tournaments I don't care if the rest of the army list is utter trash. Can Eldar make a footslogging SAFH army like Marines can? No, but they could have if the Avatar, Guardians, War Walkers, and Wraithlords would be more points efficient and their guns better.

So you don't like the idea of one codex having maybe just a couple of variants, but you do want to make all codices basically be the same anyway? If I wanted a 'footslogging SAFH army like Marines' I would use marines.

I'm not into post dissection so I'll just point this one out.

Therion didn't say 'footslogging SAFH army like Marines', he said ' make a footslogging SAFH army like Marines can'. Quite the distortion thanks to your selective quoting.

Having dealt with both Eldar codexii, I feel like the new one is a vast improvement over the older one.  A lot of units that were good no longer are that worth while, and there were some other serious nerfs tossed in there.  The main reason why the new Eldar Codex is so much better is that it simplified a lot of the overly complicated and unbalanced stuff from the Craftworld books, preserved the ability to make themed armies and nerfed the starcannon.  I got tired of seeing nothing but starcannons in Eldar armies combined with whatever over the top craftworld configuration that the Eldar player could cook up.  The new list, while it has a few uber configurations is much more balanced and flexible overall with more interesting army lists possible.

Posted By Xerxes on 03/10/2007 7:23 AM

Therion didn't say 'footslogging SAFH army like Marines', he said ' make a footslogging SAFH army like Marines can'. Quite the distortion thanks to your selective quoting.

Lol - a subtle but probably correct point. Not an attempt to distort it - but point taken.

 I would say the same with with the 'make...can' in there - if I wanted to make a list (of what ever type) like marines can I'd use marines. You can make a shooty or elite or assaulty list with eldar, but no, it isn't going to be like marines can, cos its not the marine codex. I doubt any other army can make the SAFH like marines (or marine flavors) can, neither can they do the termie style elite force, or the podding force, then again marines don't do the 'air force' list like either the eldar or tau, or an MC list like the nids.

Puree your whole reply reminds me of the old confrontantional sad attempt to ridicule style of posting the good old dakka bugswarm used to employ against everyone who disagreed with him. Selective quoting, intentionally misunderstanding things I said to bring your own opinion forward and so on. Like others pointed out your post doesn't really deserve a serious reply. My argument in my post was quite crystal clear and if you fail to understand what I mean don't take it out on the reasonable people who can. Alternatively if you're just being a fanboy you can take that elsewhere too as we're really not interested.

Therion, I am not going to respond, because Puree pretty much covered everything I would say. The Eldar codex was tightened up and rules were standardized. Things that were overpowered were toned down, things that people didn't play were made better.

I have seen so many different armies played with the new Eldar dex that are competitive that it makes it seem like a whole new army. I have seen the guardian horde supported by guide and doom farseers. I have seen a total foot aspect warrior force backed up with vehicles. I see the normal mech eldar. One thing I don't see at the moment is the cheese from the past. It is a much more balanced and tweaked list overall. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than before? A resounding yes in my opinion.

I don't really think your argument is as good as you think it is. You have all these conclusions with nothing but personal opinion to support it.

In my area I see a lot of those units you say are "ineffective" and in effective eldar forces. The one thing I don't see a lot of are Wraithguard, but that is partly cost of models, partly a unit that still has problems.

Proponents of the the codex tickle me to death.  Here are some good ones for you to explain.


1) The Crystal Targeting Matrix was removed in the new Codex for no explainable reason, yet the overpowered holofield was left in. Explain this. What does this tell you about how much the codex designer knew about the game?

2) Explain why Scorpions cost more than Tactical Marines yet have an inferior statline. Justify this.

3) If GW released a unit that was more cost effective than both scorpions and banshees, would you still take scorpions and banshees? Would it be an easier choice if the unit in question was also extremely effective against vehicles and monsterous creatures? What if you couldn't shoot at them unless they were within charge range?

4) GW stated that the starcannon was reduced to 2 shots because no other race had a 3 shot plasma weapon. Should Eldars BS 3 have been factored in when considering this? What about race diversity, should that have been considered as well?

5) Follow Up: By this logic, would it also be unfair for a race to be the only one with a rending ranged weapon? If you answered no, explain how this isn't blatent hypocrisy on the part of GW. If you answered yes, explain why it won't be changed.

6) Make a cost justification of why guardsmen with jumpacks should cost 21 points apiece.  Do ambiguously worded special rules help or hurt them?

7) Eldar are the most powerful psychics in 40k, yet the farseer pails in comparison to the librarian.  Explain.  Does it make sense that farseers cost more than librarians?

... I see I spoke too soon.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 03/10/2007 12:16 PM
5) Follow Up: By this logic, would it also be unfair for a race to be the only one with a rending ranged weapon?

Ummm...Just FYI, there's two races with ranged rending weapons

Just try and steal my thunder why don't you?

Edit: oh and who else has rending weapons, I'm drawing a blank.

Eldar...Reaper Phoenix Lord.

Granted, it's just one of them, but hey

I'm probably going to regret this, but, what the hell?

Posted By IntoTheRain on 03/10/2007 12:16 PM
Proponents of the the codex tickle me to death.  Here are some good ones for you to explain.

Just for starters, none of the "proponents of the codex" claimed it was perfect.

1) The Crystal Targeting Matrix was removed in the new Codex for no explainable reason, yet the overpowered holofield was left in. Explain this. What does this tell you about how much the codex designer knew about the game?

Details. I agree that holofields still don't work right, but who cares about CTMs? They aren't important.

2) Explain why Scorpions cost more than Tactical Marines yet have an inferior statline. Justify this.

Tactical marines are underpriced. I don't have to justify it.

3) If GW released a unit that was more cost effective than both scorpions and banshees, would you still take scorpions and banshees? Would it be an easier choice if the unit in question was also extremely effective against vehicles and monsterous creatures? What if you couldn't shoot at them unless they were within charge range?

Maybe I missed something, but what are you talking about? Harlequins? They're nice enough, but with their high costs and bad armour, they're hardly the universal assault troops you've made them out to be. And they CAN be shot before they get into assault range, so THERE!

4) GW stated that the starcannon was reduced to 2 shots because no other race had a 3 shot plasma weapon. Should Eldars BS 3 have been factored in when considering this? What about race diversity, should that have been considered as well?

Who CARES why GW SAID they did something? Fact: Starcannons were overused. Fact: Starcannons are no longer overused. Good enough for me.

5) Follow Up: By this logic, would it also be unfair for a race to be the only one with a rending ranged weapon? If you answered no, explain how this isn't blatent hypocrisy on the part of GW. If you answered yes, explain why it won't be changed.

By this logic, yes, it would be unfair for anyone to use a different army list than anyone else. Zzzzzz...

6) Make a cost justification of why guardsmen with jumpacks should cost 21 points apiece.  Do ambiguously worded special rules help or hurt them?

Yep. Swooping Hawks still suck. I'll give you that one.

7) Eldar are the most powerful psychics in 40k, yet the farseer pails in comparison to the librarian.  Explain.  Does it make sense that farseers cost more than librarians?

A Farseer is more subtle. I don't know if that means that they pale in comparison. A librarian is cheaper because most of his powers simulate weapons, I think. He doesn't contribute much that can't be accomplished by other marines. Also, I don't think that equivilent things should cost the same in every army list. A lascannon in the hands of a guardsman is not the same as a lascannon in the hands of a marine. Of course, GW gots the prices backward, but... you know what I mean!

Posted By IntoTheRain on 03/10/2007 12:16 PM

1) The Crystal Targeting Matrix was removed in the new Codex for no explainable reason, yet the overpowered holofield was left in. Explain this. What does this tell you about how much the codex designer knew about the game?

Nothing. How would you arrive at any conclusion based merely on why 1 thing was left in and another not?

2) Explain why Scorpions cost more than Tactical Marines yet have an inferior statline. Justify this.

Why would the stat line be the sole dertermination of a models cost, much less why should we be comparing cross codex units in total isolation to the rest of the respectives codices.

3) If GW released a unit that was more cost effective than both scorpions and banshees, would you still take scorpions and banshees? Would it be an easier choice if the unit in question was also extremely effective against vehicles and monsterous creatures? What if you couldn't shoot at them unless they were within charge range?

Well i still prefer banshees, havnt got round to working out the fine details between the 3 units, my gut feeling is that scorps and banshees will still work out better at what I would expect to use them against, but harlies a better general purpose unit.

4) GW stated that the starcannon was reduced to 2 shots because no other race had a 3 shot plasma weapon. Should Eldars BS 3 have been factored in when considering this? What about race diversity, should that have been considered as well?

No idea why they did or didn't justify it, i assumed 'balance'. if it is being compared to plasma guns, then it already has superior range with multishot out to max range , seems race diverse enough to me. As for BS3 - do you know actually it wasn't considered? Did they consider that walkers can have 2, lords BS4 and twinlinked, serpents twin-link, and that you can load out with quite a lot of them (every slot bar HQ can have them if i remember correct, if you use serpents on the elites anyway)

5) Follow Up: By this logic, would it also be unfair for a race to be the only one with a rending ranged weapon? If you answered no, explain how this isn't blatent hypocrisy on the part of GW. If you answered yes, explain why it won't be changed.

No - would you care to explain why it is blatent hypocisy? I don't know why marines are or will or will not remain the only ranged render. But the fact that they have something that no-one has is not in and of itself unfair. Whether or not it has been costed fairly??

6) Make a cost justification of why guardsmen with jumpacks should cost 21 points apiece.  Do ambiguously worded special rules help or hurt them?

Guardsmen? Lost me there, for a moment i thought you might mean hawks, but then I realised they have a better stat-line than guardsmen, better armor, ld and and a better gun and come with a variety of grenades as well as the 'jump pack'. Not sure about the ambigous rules - not seen an argument yet, maybe just havn't seen the situation that is ambigous.

7) Eldar are the most powerful psychics in 40k, yet the farseer pails in comparison to the librarian.  Explain.  Does it make sense that farseers cost more than librarians?

Well I don't agree they pail in comparison. I suppose it depends what you use them for and how you measure good/bad - a subjective issue, unlike the cost.  My farseers don't even cost the same as the base cost of a libby, so no it makes no sense that they cost more!

This quote system is annoying, so I am going to put my answers in italics.  I have excluded the scorpion and hawk questions since were on the same page about them.

Details. I agree that holofields still don't work right, but who cares about CTMs? They aren't important.

Not important?  Tell that to anyone who owns a viper with a bright lance.  The prism too was this close from greatness.  Instead we have an upgrade that is obviously overpowered, and makes every non vehicle heavy support choice look terrible in comparison.  Even if you don't consider them important, thats no reason for them to be arbitrarily removed. 

Maybe I missed something, but what are you talking about? Harlequins? They're nice enough, but with their high costs and bad armour, they're hardly the universal assault troops you've made them out to be. And they CAN be shot before they get into assault range, so THERE!

What?  The Eldar codex has two powerful areas, heavy support and elites.  You cannot take the cheap units here, as its the only places you will find quality units.  Do the math, the average spotting distance will be 14", well within harlequin charge range.  Armor is irrelevant when you either can't be targetted or clean out your kill zone, both of which harlies excell at.  Harlies also put up better numbers than scorps/banshees as well.  6 harliquins will kill 6 MEQ, while 10 banshees will get 5 MEQs.  10 Scorpions kill 12 GEQ, 6 harlies kill 10.  In both of those examples, the harlies will easily clean their kill zone out.  You also have less to fear with harlies if you get 'lucky' and completely kill the squad, since with veil they still have to be able to spot you. 

Who CARES why GW SAID they did something? Fact: Starcannons were overused. Fact: Starcannons are no longer overused. Good enough for me.

Rewrite that to Starcannons are no longer used and I would agree with you. 

By this logic, yes, it would be unfair for anyone to use a different army list than anyone else. Zzzzzz...

But thats my point exactly, yet its the logic GW is applying here.

A Farseer is more subtle. I don't know if that means that they pale in comparison. A librarian is cheaper because most of his powers simulate weapons, I think. He doesn't contribute much that can't be accomplished by other marines. Also, I don't think that equivilent things should cost the same in every army list. A lascannon in the hands of a guardsman is not the same as a lascannon in the hands of a marine. Of course, GW gots the prices backward, but... you know what I mean!

Let me ask you which seems more dangerous, a librarian that can land anywhere on the board and then send half your opponents army running off the board, or a farseer that lets you re roll wounds and armor saves.  As a follow up, does slaying carnifexes in 1 hit seem more powerful than a 12" lascannon?  Which one completely negates the other one?  Oh and just for fun, which one costs more?  Librarians single handedly win games against lists that aren't fearless/ld 10. (and their dangerous to Ld 10 lists)  There is nothing wrong with subtlety, it just shouldn't cost that much. 

Er, things seem to have got a little heated since I last posted so I won't respond to anyone directly.
However as noted I am someone who is impressed by the new codex. Various people have noted that the net.lists from the old codex have been nerfed. I like this fact, I've yet to see many Eldar lists that look exaclty the same so far, something you couldn't really say that much before. The variety seems to be:

HQ: Some swear by the Avatar to create a fearless bubble for a guardian core of a foot-slogger list, for sure he's a hell of a lot more useful now. Farseers seem very popular still. Although weaker in T, Runes of Warding is extremely useful to shut down enemy psychics. On foot for static lists, jetbike for mech lists, they are useful. Same can be said for the Autarch. I've been very impressed by them. If you go pure ground-based then the Fruitiest of them all Eldrad is an extremely good choice.

Elites: While Harlies seem to be the uber elite on paper, people still find place for Banshees and a few for Scorpions (not a favourite of mine outside of Cityfight). The Serepnt mounted squad can save a heavy support so that the Falcon for the Harlies isn't needed.
Fire Dragons are extremely useful still, but a guy I know swears by his Wraithguard and has been extremely successful with them against high-calibre opponents. So much so, that he's persuaded me to give them a go.

Troops: I've seen much variety in the troops choices for one, people liking the cheapo jetbikes, some swear by their Avengers, others like me enjoy the Pathfinders. I've been recently involved in a discussion with an American guy who is a big fan of Guardians. I can see the merits in all of them (guardians less so, but I admit they do have uses), it seems to depend on how you use them in most cases.

Fast Attack: While I would have loved War Walkers to be in this section as rumoured before release, sadly they aren't. I'm a big fan of Warp Spiders and never leave home without them. Others however favour squadrons of dual-shuricannon vypers and get them working well. Shining Spears have their uses also, but seem better in lists over 1500. Hawks, meh. I still think they're naff.

Heavy Support: I like my grav tanks, and the 2 prism, Falcon set-up seems increasingly popular for obvious reasons. For a ground pounder list  though , Wraithlords still have their place with the lance/launcher set-up providing  a good source of always firing  AT, especially in 4+ fortuned cover.  Wal;kers are a cheap source of  S6, 40points for 2 shuricannons isn't to be sniffed at and the Scout move can be useful if they get out-deployed. Vibrocannons are quite frankl;y great. Set-up behind a big piece of size 3 their ability to autoglance is extremely useful. Ideal for a more static list and a unit I see a lot of round here.
Reapers and the other platforms I think are the poor relations and only to be used for a change or in fluffier lists.  

This may be a rose-tinted view to some, but I see guys making good use of a lot of different units in Eldar lists every week against damn good players and I think there is enough variety in there to have potential for more than just one standard list, especially in the hands of an experienced Eldar player.

Things I think wrong with the codex: Starcannons were a nerf too far, I find them useless now. Massed S6 is  more cost effective against everything short of  2+ saves IMO and  there are enough tools to deal with that elsewhere. Keeping them 3 shots but more expensive may have been an option, or dropping
the price by a third too. Still a real term increase when including the cost of the platform its on, but may have been enough.
Bright lances are too expensive. They're OK, but not THAT good. I would never include one on anything short of a Wraithlord now, unless I was trying a funky build that lacked AT and I shoved it on a Serpent.
Hawks are still rubbish IMO. S3 guns on 20-odd point models don't cut it in 40K these days.
D-cannons were made worse. Why? Shadow Weavers. Pfft. I really want to find a use for Dark Reapers, but they're just too fragile, even with a 3+ save. And the indirect template weapon is just too expensive when you include the other 2 that aren't firing most of the time.
There are a few bits of wargear that I find silly, but I can't be bothered going through them.
Anyway, having shown that mech lists can live at the top of the tournament tables over here, I intend to find a way of making a non-mech list that can do the same for the GT this coming year. Will be interesting, not least because I'll need to find a way to deal with mech lists like my current set-up.

EDIT: Brief note on Harlequins: Against any mobile units they are toast.
Jump a sqaudron of Tornadoes up close and they will evaporate. I've held off a unit of 8 with Warp Spiders, because my opponent knew he couldn't let them take 15-odd wounds. I don't fear Harlies on foot as I can get them with grav tanks, Warp Spiders and my own Harlies out of a Falcon (6 on the charge>8 receiving one). Most armies have the tools for them, drop troops, pods, fast vehicles, jump troops etc. Thats why I put them in the Falcon, they WILL get  that charge unless the Tank dies. However this takes a Heavy slot. You pays your money....

I actually want to harp in on one of your points anathema.

I had meant to put bright lances on my impromtu questionaire. The weapon is statistically weaker than a lascannon, yet is going for 30+ points apiece. Someone at GW really needs to hold a training seminar on SECOND GRADE MATH.

AV 10 -> lascannon wins
AV 11 -> lascannon wins
AV 12 -> lascannon wins
AV 13 -> tie
AV 14 -> bright lance wins

Now before you say anything, consider what AV 14 vehicles show up regularly at tournaments. I can think of 1, the Monolith. Oh wait, lance rules don't work against it. (I suppose there is always the occasional Leman Russ, but its extremely easy for an Eldar player to flank it)

Indeed, the lance is well overpriced for what could be a ubiquitous weapon. The only other comparable one is the EML, which is better for the points, or the Fire Prism cannon which is limited in number and has force org implications. 
There are two common cases where the lance is better than the EML in the list and thats against Hammerheads and to insta-kill Oblits and termies (Russes can usually be outflanked and hit in the side), but its not worth the extra points when there are more cost-effective weapon that do the same job and often have wider uses in the codex. Apart from that if someone takes a Raider against me then I'm happy regardless of what weapon I have, but it doesn't happen often.

You still can't compare the las-cannon and bright lance in a vacuum like that. Bright lances are on those same vehicles that are quite survivable. They practically negate the usefulness of any heavy armour on the board, and they can be bought in droves. You really can't compare in a vacuum.

1) The CTM was used to great affect, and was deemed bad and dropped. Some things for any price are still worth taking. We don't need pop-ups in the game. It came from epic, and needed to stay there. Holo fields are fine just as Venerable dreads are fine. Vypers still rock, and are amazing with cheap shuriken cannons on them.

2) Can't justify points in cross list comparisons. Apples and oranges.

3) Harlequins are a one trick pony, that costs quite a bit. I hardly see them used around here. A lot of things can counter them. The ubiquitous tornado does a wonderful job of gaining it's points back on them....

4) Star cannons were very abused in the last codex. Again, just pricing things up in points doesn't always solve the issue. They got a justified nerf. I still see them on the table, just not in the amount they used to be.

5) No, it's not fair. I want Necron's glancing shooting, and Orks mob up rules for my marines. Yes it's fair. Who knows, someone may some day get another. The eldar do have that one....

6) You mean leaping all over the place, always hitting vehicles on a 4+, hit and running, grenade dropping many shot guardsmen? Gee, I am not sure. Love em. Such a nice little unit now with a defined use. Great against Tau.

7) The Farseer is still amzingly powerful. Doom? Guide? Fortune? Mind War? 2 a turn? You mistake direct damage with power......

Anathema, I see Reapers doing great things. I had to try and get 2 units of reapers in different buildings dislodged, and couldn't accomplish it all game which meant almost anyone on foot was dead by the end of it. I really like reapers, and in some games they are truly much more effective than others.

Harlequins in the Falcon then makes the Fire Dragons everyone takes hop out on foot. Not a great prospect for them. Does everyone seem to see Fire Dragons in a Falcon in most eldar armies they see?

Obviously comparing lances to lascannons isn't really valid, so I compared them to other AT weapons in the codex, such as the EML, which is significantly cheaper. I still think they're overpriced in an army where everything is expensive, so I get my AT from different sources. On a Serpent they make an expensive transport unneccesarily expensive and put more points into non-scoring units. I don't want that. I'd only use them on an AT Wraithlord now. Starcannons I wouldn't use full stop as they're overpriced for what they do now IMO. 2 BS3 shots aren't worth the X points you pay for them.  As someone who only used 3 in 1500 its not a great loss and again I compensate elsewhere.

If people are finding good uses for Reapers and Hawks then fair enough, that underlines my point that there is variety and potential in there. I haven't yet and I think Hawks in particular are too niche but hopefully I'll manage to get something out of them. They probably won't appear in any tournament builds of mine though simply because I can't use them right.

As to Fire Dragons in a Falcon, I use mine in a Serpent. With careful use of cover they're usually dropping turn 2 or 3 having been exposed to minimal fire, so time spent in the transport is usually minimal enough to avoid death by living wreckage. The Serpent itself is then fairly expendable being non-scoring and is a low priority target for my opponent.
I can then use it aggresively to get side armour shots or ping S6 at infantry or speeders. Doesn't always live, but a lot of people deperately try and get the more powerful tanks and leave it alone.

Posted By anathema on 03/11/2007 3:44 AM
Obviously comparing lances to lascannons isn't really valid, so I compared them to other AT weapons in the codex, such as the EML, which is significantly cheaper. I still think they're overpriced in an army where everything is expensive, so I get my AT from different sources. On a Serpent they make an expensive transport unneccesarily expensive and put more points into non-scoring units. I don't want that. I'd only use them on an AT Wraithlord now.

 

I'm grappling with that issue, I would like a brightlance or 2 in my list as it is still the best long range heavy (av13/14) AT gun the eldar have (ignoring points for the moment). I know i'm not going to be having prisms or falcons, so no pulse lasers or prism cannons. Whilst I could happily drop any vehicle at short range I just don't feel comfortable without the ability to drop heavy armor from long range as well (or at least threaten to do so), even if it is just 1 such gun.

At the moment I'm looking at 2 variant lists around using wraithguard, 1 would have serpents, the other not.  If I have serpents then I think the lance on them is probably a good deal (given I want a lance somewhere), 45pts buys a twin-linked lance which in itself is not that bad as the eldar codex goes - better kill/points efficiency for the gun than buying one on a wraithlord - though probably less survivabe. Given I will already have the serpents then getting the lord is extra points for the lord as well as the lance which I'm not sure I can afford, ie 45 pts for a twin-linked BS3 lance or 130pts for a single BS4 lance. For the other list I wouldn't have serpents, at that point the choices seem to be Lord or walkers. Whilst lords have a nice BS4, the walkers can get 2 lances if needed for just the base cost of a lord, and a scout move to ensure it starts on board and can redeploy to in be line with where targets are (or in cover). Again though the lord is vastly more survivable. I'll probably go for the lord as guard and lord just look so much cooler in the same list.

I did vaguely consider small reaper squads for long range AT, exarch with EML and fast shot.  Rather expensive unit (140ish, can't quite remember), but get 2 BS5 shots from a longer range than the lance, and in the absence of heavy tanks they still have a use in shooting the snot out of meqs. As much as I would like a lance, it would bug me to turn up with an AT unit like the lance lord/walker and not have any heavies to shoot at, so the dual role is sort of appealing. The big downer though is reapers are rather static.

I see enough AV14 that id like to have 1 gun to deal with it decently from range, and AV13 is into the land of preds and hammerheads, both popular choices in their respective armies.  The Lance costs 50% more than the EML on most units. Against Hammerheads the Lance is 50% more likely to get a glance (assuming fast move), against a pred it is 50% more likely to get a useful hit, but 75% more likely to get an outright kill. The difference is far more pronounced against AV14 (except lith of course). So in terms of kill/point efficiency the lance is better against what I want it to deal with. Once you get down to Av12 or less then, yes, the EMLwins hands down - but at that point there are even cheaper options than the EML. The other thing that kill/points efficiency doesn't deal with is that everytime the EML doesn't get a hit that silences the target for a turn is a turn that I stand to lose points somewhere from the targets return fire. When your faced with the hammerhead zipping up to your harlies and dropping a pie plate on them would you rather rely on the lance to prevent it or the EML? there is no points discount built in to the EML to compensate for that.

It appears there are two distinct camps on this issue:

Those who prefer the Ulthwe/Alaitoc tourney style armies and those who don't (there are some fringe players who had min/max other craftworlds, but not as common as the two).

Fact is the old stuff is gone and GW tightened some obvious, no brainer issues in the old codex. Everyone has agreed the new codex is not perfect. People playing 40K need to pay attention to the new codexes being written, plain and simple. IW spam proliferated as one of the few easy power armies at the 1500 point level for the UK GT. The Chaos Codex is getting a rewrite (or already completed). Does anyone truly believe the IW will remain the same? I'd bet my children they won't.

I think if you start comparing the 4th edtion codexes, Eldar are easily a competitive army against other 4th edition codexes. People can *female dog* and moan about nerfings, but it is really irrelevant: the older codex is obsolete. Since 1st edition, this has been GW's mantra and it is nothing new. If you want to continue to play with your existing army, you have to update it with most current rules. I haven't truly had an effective Hawk Exarch since 2nd edition.

Do I think the 3rd edition Craftworld lists were more powerful than the current Eldar Codex: yes. Can I use the old Craftworld lists in a tourney? No. So, in the end, it doesn't really matter.

I forgot about Preds, which is a rather large omission. The best place for a lance IMO is on a Wraithlord along with an EML. The Serpent option is just so damned expensive. However if you're not using Prisms or Falcons and want some ranged AT then it is useful. The War Walker option again is so expensive for what you get. Its incredibly fragile and likely to get popped before you get a second shot.
If you do want some cheeky 36" anti-tank, you could do worse than a pair of Vibrocannons for 100 points or so. Twin-linked and auto-glance is v. useful. 2 pairs will cover most of the board provided you have decent cover.

2) Explain why Scorpions cost more than Tactical Marines yet have an inferior statline. Justify this.

spase marienz!  hurr!!

4) GW stated that the starcannon was reduced to 2 shots because no other race had a 3 shot plasma weapon. Should Eldars BS 3 have been factored in when considering this? What about race diversity, should that have been considered as well?

spase marienz!  hurr!!

5) Follow Up: By this logic, would it also be unfair for a race to be the only one with a rending ranged weapon? If you answered no, explain how this isn't blatent hypocrisy on the part of GW. If you answered yes, explain why it won't be changed.

spase marienz!  hurr!!

6) Make a cost justification of why guardsmen with jumpacks should cost 21 points apiece.  Do ambiguously worded special rules help or hurt them?

spase marienz!  hurr!!

7) Eldar are the most powerful psychics in 40k, yet the farseer pails in comparison to the librarian.  Explain.  Does it make sense that farseers cost more than librarians?

spase marienz!  hurr!!

Posted By IntoTheRain on 03/10/2007 3:29 PM
Now before you say anything, consider what AV 14 vehicles show up regularly at tournaments. I can think of 1, the Monolith. Oh wait, lance rules don't work against it. (I suppose there is always the occasional Leman Russ, but its extremely easy for an Eldar player to flank it)

What about the Land Raider?  I know they don't really show up regularly at tournaments, but they're supposed to be the spase marienz (hurr!) uber-tank.  And according to GW dizein filosofie (hurr!) this means that any weapon that can kill a Land Raider should cost almost as much as one.  Unless that weapon is a lascannon.  And only if it's carried by spase marienz (hurr!).