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.

zonino wrote:Umm... I don't get it.

Are people honestly saying Eldar are good because one mistake can cost a player a game? Really?

Do none of you have any idea how silly that sounds?

Let's think about this for a moment. Every army needs to be played tactically there's no doubt about it. Even with Marines you can't just take a mish mash of units and have them fire wildly around the place it just won't work. Every army should go into battle with a plan, a course of action to take, and they should be able to adapt when said plan goes pair shaped because it will. No plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

The problem is things can go pair shaped for any number of reasons. Misjudging distances is one thing, but what about dice rolls? You'll find a lot of the time dents in your plan appear because the dice turned against you. Maybe you missed that tank with your lazcannon, or you failed a save you really needed to pass.

With that in mind, most of you seem to think that it's ok that a single failed dice roll should cost an Eldar player a game and it's just not on.

Eldar aren't that bad of any army though. They can work, but unfortunately only if they are in transports. Pretty much everything needs to be in their hard to kill but overpriced transports or they die because everything is in tanks and has flamers or ignores cover nowadays. That's not really a problem with the Eldar though, that's the 5th ed codex making everything focused on Tanks.

Still get it together guys. Every army is punished by mistakes, don't make it some sort of endearing character trait that Eldar lose because of one.

This is exactly right. Well said!

zonino wrote:
Are people honestly saying Eldar are good because one mistake can cost a player a game? Really?

I certainly wasn't arguing that. Other people can defend that point if they want. Any army list can be screwed over by a mistake.

Each eldar unit seems to have a specific task that they can accomplish, and they do it very well. They are a specialist army and they take more strategy and planning to play well than Space Marines IMHO.

We're not saying that they're good because they're hard to play, we're saying that the OP might not be fighting a player who plays Eldar to their full potential, simply because they're hard to use.

No ones saying they're good because one mistake can screw them over, they're good because if you play them right, and play their aspets to their full strength you will annhilate the enemy. However, there is a major challenge in that if you screw up and end up with Fire Dragons facing off against an IG blob instead of some nice juicy Leman Russes, THAT will cost you the game.

I'd imagine that yes, alot of Eldar players like that aspect just because it's a new and interesting challenge. It apllies to other factions too....Imperial Guardsmen can rain hordes of heavy weapons on you, but if the IG player screws up and lets a squad get caught out of cover? Then the faction isn't very forgiving. If the same thing happened to Marines, the Marine player would have a much higher chance of bouncing back from it, and that's whart we mean by 'forgiving'.

Actually no, Eldar units are specialized to one role but I'm not convinced they do it that well... at least, not without major support, which goes against what it means to be a specialist.

Take Banshees. As people have pointed out, they can hit hard but don't stand up to much. That means they can't run up the table, they'll be shot up. So they have to take a transport. But said transport only has one access point and is neither open topped nor does it have an assault ramp. So said transport has to stay completely still for one turn, albiet if they moved flat out one turn with a 4+ cover save, but it still has to stand still. It cannot even turn on the spot because that counts as moving.

So now the Banshees are out and they assault a unit of Marines. Both units will be 4+ to hit, apart from the Exarch who is 3+, Banshees are then 5+ to kill, and Marines are 3+ to wound. Without Doom the Banshees should kill more than they lose, but not by much. With Doom, it's a whole different story of course.

So it's a lot of work to get them to do the job they are supposed to do, which is kill Marines. If it's an IG or, say, Tau army, their usefulness is greatly diminished, since Striking Scorpions would be much better here.

The level of specialization causes problems when it comes to lists, because it's hard to make a take all comers list. The only one that works is Mechdar, because the tanks and transports do most of the work while the troops chill out.

So yes, the OP isn't fighting a player who played Eldar to their full potential because they are so hard to use. The question is why are they so hard to use? The answer is because they are so specialized as to be obtuse. Very few things in the codex meld with each other despite it being pretty much required to play Eldar well. When the answer to the question of how to play any army is "take only the lowest priced units and put everything in tanks/transports" something has gone horribly wrong. But that's just the way 40K is at the moment. There aren't many armies that can get away without fielding massive amounts of tanks nowadays.

Edit:

ChrisWWII wrote:No ones saying they're good because one mistake can screw them over, they're good because if you play them right, and play their aspets to their full strength you will annhilate the enemy. However, there is a major challenge in that if you screw up and end up with Fire Dragons facing off against an IG blob instead of some nice juicy Leman Russes, THAT will cost you the game.

Isn't that the same for every army though? If you fight an opponent with a list that you are weak against then of course you are going to have an uphill battle. The problem with the Eldar though is that unless you know what your opponent is using and tailor your list to fight it, chances are you're going to have a couple of units that will have little to no impact on the game. But tailoring your list like that is a horrible thing to do and will never happen. So you have to pick the best list and go with it.

Don't get me wrong, I like that about Eldar, the variety of choice and the different aspects all working together, it just doesn't seem to translate well into the game. At least, not right now. Perhaps the new codex will help by fixing a lot of the duff units (looking at you Shining Spears and Swooping Hawks), but it's gonna be a while before that.

purplefood wrote:

Rube wrote:Yeah Eldars are pretty bad.

They aren't that fast. Blood Angles are faster and tougher.

They don't have the best psychic powers. Jaws of the World Wolf and psychic flying Dreadnoughts are better psykers.

And even the worst Space Marine unit, Scouts, are tougher and harder to kill! Their best units are worse than our worsest unit lol!

JotWW isn't a psyker and it isn't a particularly great power in things considered.
BA are a new codex and thus have shinier things.
Their best unit IMO is a wraithlord. Are scouts harder to kill than them? No they aren't.
Eldar are good when played well and to their strengths which is why they are difficult to play.
Ignore them at your own risk.

Seconded

DrownedRat117 wrote:Ok, I have this mate who won't shut up about his new Eldar. "Their tanks are epic", "They have the best psychic attacks" Blahblahblah...
So I asked him to join me in a doubles game. All equal points values. He is slaughtered in the second turn... So I read the codex and conclude..

-The tanks are flimsy, an assault cannon could punch through a fire prism
-Tyranids have better psychic attacks (IMHO)
-The infantry is basically target practice

They just don't seem as good as he makes them out to be..

The Eldar army takes a long time to learn how to play. Eldar are a specialists army which means you have to have the units you need where they are required when they are required – necessitating a great deal of forethought. Coupled with the fact that they are fragile outside their transports, it compounds the necessity for forethought.

As others have mentioned, one mistake can cost the entire game for an Eldar player but, once you’ve mastered the Eldar play style they are extremely difficult to beat. At one time a veteran Eldar player was neigh unstoppable but a half decade of codex creep has made this less so.

When your friend learns his army, he will be a force to reckon with. However, I will add here that Eldar do not tend to do tremendously well in doubles games without another mobile ally to support them. The Eldar maneuverability essentially places them “out of sync” with other allied forces and a smart opposition will force the Eldar player into a 2 on 1 situation.

Rube wrote:That's what everyone says about Eldars. "They're the tactical army".

It’s “Eldar” not “Eldars”. And most veteran 40k players would agree that Eldar require more tactical aptitude to play than most other armies. The cost/benefit is a more effective army when played correctly.

Rube wrote:Well Blood Angles can move just as fast, so if Eldars are tactical because of positioning and movement then so are BA. Space Marines are also just as specialised, because you have devastators which are specialised at shooting, assault marines which are specialised at assaults, tactical marines which are specialised at being good at everything, etc.

Blood Angels are not just as fast. Eldar vehicles are skimmers which means they can ignore intervening terrain and can move 24” when they move flat out where Blood Angels vehicles can only move 18”. Devistators and assault marines are nowhere near as specialized as Eldar equivalents. Fire Dragons are the best vehicle killers in the game – there’s nothing else that’s more efficient. Likewise, Bladestorming Dire Avengers are among the best anti-infantry units in the game (particularly when supported by Doom). Banshees, when supported by Doom, make a mockery of MEQ assault squads. The asterion that tactical marines are specialized because they’re good at everything is a bold faced contradiction… not to mention grossly inaccurate.

Rube wrote:Plus Eldars aren't an army of specialists because you have to spam Fire Dragons to be competitive. How is that specialised or tactical, spamming one unit!?

Are you even reading what you’re typing? You’re saying an Eldar army isn’t specialized because they have to rely on their specialists to fill their intended roll. That doesn’t even make any sense.

zonino wrote:Actually no, Eldar units are specialized to one role but I'm not convinced they do it that well... at least, not without major support, which goes against what it means to be a specialist.

Wait what, that how Eldar work specialist with proper support. You know how specialist unit in modern armys work now days, with proper support, in the from of info and backup.

zonino wrote:The question is why are they so hard to use? The answer is because they are so specialized as to be obtuse. Very few things in the codex meld with each other despite it being pretty much required to play Eldar well. When the answer to the question of how to play any army is "take only the lowest priced units and put everything in tanks/transports" something has gone horribly wrong. But that's just the way 40K is at the moment. There aren't many armies that can get away without fielding massive amounts of tanks nowadays.

I will disagree with your answer to the question as to why Eldar are difficult to use. I maintain that it’s because their specialized nature, coupled with lack of resilience means that the Eldar army suffers more than generalized more resilient units when those units are caught out of place. Where MEQ armies can, and often do rely on their resiliency to carry them through a mistake or excellent play on behalf of the opponent, an Eldar player does not have that luxury. The luxury he DOES have is the existence of a unit that is mathematically more efficient within its intended roll than nearly any other unit (though, I will admit this has diminished in the years since the codex was released).

I think some people are misinterpreting Eldar being “more tactical” than army X as a disparagement to other armies. All armies have their advantages and disadvantages. Eldar may be “more tactical” but that doesn’t make them better – it makes them stylized… but I digress.

As time has gone on the answer to competitive Eldar play has usually been mechanization and that is a shame. There was once a day when anything from footdar to Eldarzilla to mechdar to even all jetbike was competitive. Today only mechdar really remains and that’s really an issue with an out of date codex. I sincerely hope that problem starts to resolve with GW’s revised release schedule but I think we may have to wait until after Daemon Hunters of even Necrons are released before we’ll know for sure.

Meh. You guys can argue in circles all day because no one is actually going to concede a point. It is what it is. Eldar are a fairly old codex but continue to perform well as long as you adapt to the meta. Eventually Eldar will get re-done. Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be a day when Eldar get more than 2 months ahead of Space Marines.

Play what you like and keep a SM army handy to play Blood Angels, Wolves, Vanilla, etc.

One point I'd have to stand behind is that Eldar are WAY more fun to paint than power armour.

Eldar require a combination of tactical knowledge (basically, know what your units do), tactical exploitation(spotting opportune situations), and a hint of luck (moreso than other armies due to having to captialize on chance situations). Eldar are indeed very flimsy and any small mistake can and will be multiplied ten folds. However the reverse is also true. When an Eldar player can captialize on an opponent's moment of weakness or an error in judgement (such as an assault squad charging for your Fire Dragons, but fall short and are now in range of the Banshees) you can seriously punish them for this error. Fire Dragons, if not taken care of, will seriously mess up a mech army's day almost instantly, and even a basic squad of 5 can completely decimate a Terminator Squad, and severly wound a Space Marine Squad, but only if there is an opening for them to get close enough. Knowing proper unit combinations are also a necessity for Eldar, but it pays off in that once you get the ball rolling, it's never going to stop. I remember my last battle with an Eldar force. my friend used a squad of 5 Pathfinders, who basically locked down this center area to anyone that's not in combat or a a vehicle. His banshees lied in wait, and pounced on anything that got too close. He also sent out his Avatar and Wraithlords to cause distraction, who managed to divert my ally's entire army (and into the pieplates of his Fire Prisms). We lost that battle very horribly since we basically fell down a hill and could never get back up.

incarna wrote:

I will disagree with your answer to the question as to why Eldar are difficult to use. I maintain that it’s because their specialized nature, coupled with lack of resilience means that the Eldar army suffers more than generalized more resilient units when those units are caught out of place. Where MEQ armies can, and often do rely on their resiliency to carry them through a mistake or excellent play on behalf of the opponent, an Eldar player does not have that luxury. The luxury he DOES have is the existence of a unit that is mathematically more efficient within its intended roll than nearly any other unit (though, I will admit this has diminished in the years since the codex was released).

I think some people are misinterpreting Eldar being “more tactical” than army X as a disparagement to other armies. All armies have their advantages and disadvantages. Eldar may be “more tactical” but that doesn’t make them better – it makes them stylized… but I digress.

As time has gone on the answer to competitive Eldar play has usually been mechanization and that is a shame. There was once a day when anything from footdar to Eldarzilla to mechdar to even all jetbike was competitive. Today only mechdar really remains and that’s really an issue with an out of date codex. I sincerely hope that problem starts to resolve with GW’s revised release schedule but I think we may have to wait until after Daemon Hunters of even Necrons are released before we’ll know for sure.

Yes, you've probably summed up the point I was trying to make better than I could. The codex being out of date is the main issue that needs to be addressed but Eldar are not unique there and I know I should stand aside and let other armies get updated. It's a horrible system that GW uses, letting armies stagnate for years on end before they update them, and then making them look and sound awesome when they do come out. It's a shallow, pathetic way to make money but that's just the way it is now. Pity.

It's not just the competitive scene though, because every army has a list or 2 that will play better and/or easier than others, but the army in general. As you've said the lack of resilience really hurts. Unlike IG who get weight of numbers or the new Dark Eldar who get power through pain, Eldar have to deal with being a T3 army with no special benefits. This can translate poorly into many games, especially against MEQ and their over abundance of flamers. Guardians, Rangers, anything that relies on cover goes up in a puff of smoke when fire arrives, and it's hard to stop when it's drop podding right next to your lines. Again though, that's just Marines being more forgiving.

Edit:

Unfortunately MechaEmpereor7000, the only thing I think when I read your story was "yeah, GW are probably going to nerf Fire Dragons in the next codex they are far too good".

And again, as motivational as your anecdote was, the same can be said for any army. Tactics win games, it doesn't matter what army you play. Eldar are in the same boat as everyone else, they just have to work harder to get the same result and get punished a lot more for any mistakes.

Why are so many people feeding this troll?

Eldar are a good army. They aren't the best, but they are pretty good. This is obvious when you look at how armies perform in Tournaments. SW, IG, BA are all top tier. Eldar fall just behind these armies.

They have their strengths, they have their weaknesses, but so does every army.

Lets move on.

Rube wrote:

purplefood wrote:Each Eldars aspect is good at something whether it is anti-tank shooting or assaulting. These units cannot do anything else which is why Eldars players need to support their units and have a plan etc.
Marines can absorb lossses reatively easily due to T4 and 3+ save. Tactical squads can assault units if they have to they can also shoot people and ccan have a heavy weapon and a special weapon, devestators can shoot infantry and tanks, assault squads can assault infantry and tanks.
Basically SM are forgiving whereas a mistake with Eldars can cost you the game.

So they're the same as Space Marines only easier to kill?

Giving yourself a handicap doesn't make them more complicated to play. That's all Eldars are - exactly as tactical as Space Marines, only worse. If you play with 500pts less than your opponent you'll also have to try harder to win, but that doesn't mean playing with 500pts less makes the game more tactical!

If anything it means Eldars players are strategically inept. They couldn't even see that they were picking a bad choice of army! That's what I call bad decision making lol!

Playing with 500 points less does make it more tactical, because you cant just them with everything you have and realistically expect to win. You have to use units for what they're specialised in. Playing with 500 points less means that can't afford to make any mistakes and means that you HAVE to think through each and every move before you make. I dont know about you, but i consider that to be tactical.

Mattieau wrote:

Playing with 500 points less does make it more tactical, because you cant just them with everything you have and realistically expect to win. You have to use units for what they're specialised in. Playing with 500 points less means that can't afford to make any mistakes and means that you HAVE to think through each and every move before you make. I dont know about you, but i consider that to be tactical.

What you've just said can be taken 2 ways:

1. Eldar players have to play better because they are playing with a handicap.
2. Other armies don't need to bother with skill and tactics as much as Eldar do.

1 backs up the whole argument of this topic and 2 is insulting to non Eldar players, as it implies that they don't really need to bother with tactics.

Which is it?

It was number one. Wasn't intending to offend anyone.

Mattieau wrote:It was number one. Wasn't intending to offend anyone.

That's fine, but don't you think there's something wrong with that? No army should have to play with a handicap and you cannot justify it in any way shape or form.

Still, again it comes back to the out of date codex. Once it's fixed things should be much more interesting. Until then I'll keep trying different things and getting tabled in different ways, so that I'm at maximum knowledge when it is changed.

I think your friend is....Correct

Eldar depend completely on the player. They have a variety of specialist units that can wreak havoc upon a lot of armies. Skimmers are great, for how fast they move, yaddayadda.

I like eldar. I thought of playing them at one point, but realized I don't like the idea of buying so much metal

Swooping hawks, warp spiders, fire dragons and striking scorpions could all be plastic IMO.

zonino wrote:

Mattieau wrote:It was number one. Wasn't intending to offend anyone.

That's fine, but don't you think there's something wrong with that? No army should have to play with a handicap and you cannot justify it in any way shape or form.

Still, again it comes back to the out of date codex. Once it's fixed things should be much more interesting. Until then I'll keep trying different things and getting tabled in different ways, so that I'm at maximum knowledge when it is changed.

Oh yes, i definitely see something wrong with that, and the fact that i get tabled in essentially every battle because i dont use my units to their full extent, but i was responding to the comment that Eldar weren't tactical nor did they require tactical acumen. Which in my opinion, is false.

Rube wrote:

purplefood wrote:Each Eldars aspect is good at something whether it is anti-tank shooting or assaulting. These units cannot do anything else which is why Eldars players need to support their units and have a plan etc.
Marines can absorb lossses reatively easily due to T4 and 3+ save. Tactical squads can assault units if they have to they can also shoot people and ccan have a heavy weapon and a special weapon, devestators can shoot infantry and tanks, assault squads can assault infantry and tanks.
Basically SM are forgiving whereas a mistake with Eldars can cost you the game.

So they're the same as Space Marines only easier to kill?

Giving yourself a handicap doesn't make them more complicated to play. That's all Eldars are - exactly as tactical as Space Marines, only worse. If you play with 500pts less than your opponent you'll also have to try harder to win, but that doesn't mean playing with 500pts less makes the game more tactical!

If anything it means Eldars players are strategically inept. They couldn't even see that they were picking a bad choice of army! That's what I call bad decision making lol!

My how insulting of you. Nice to meet gamers with such wonderful people skills.
anyway, a lot of the rules chaanges from 4th to 5th seriously hurt many of the Eldar strengths, making them a less viable army. This is not bad decision making, this is being overtaken by a new edition and among the last armies in line for an update any time soon. Harlequins used to be worth their points back when rending affected hits instead of wounds, vehicle move/fire rules made Vypers worthless, Falcons not nearly as hard hitting. Everybody being able to 'run' made our 'fleet' less valuable as a maneuver advantage. The list could go on and on. The abundance of newer codex with flavor-of-the-month overpowered psykic abilities, underpriced troops, and newer available options all over 5th edition designed to sell marines and their variants to noobs and competetive bandwagon jumpers who want an easy win? Maybe that has left them kind of outclassed, and now neding to spam the few things that they didn't get nerfed on, which is why the dragon wagon is still a solid choice in most armies.

If 'strategy' means picking the easy nobrainer army, instead of something more complicated and seeing if you can make it work, then hey I guess we would all be huffing our marine variants around secure in our knowledge that playing anything else is just dumb, right?

I still think Eldar pays off effective tactics with bigger rewards than any other army. I found that out the hard way when I got my ass handed to me by the Harlequins. Plus who doesnt love the fair folk IN SPACE?

OP Are you talking about that match where it was you and the eldar kid VS me and the ork kid ?

Because If you are .. the eldar did'nt stand a chance .... "the eldrich storm is soo awesome!" "ha ! you only immobilsed my rhino !" ah good times

The Eldar are indeed not so great.. If you want to go power gaming, various tournament competitive builds and so on..

Bad choice for an army? Maybe for you! Hurr Durr, I picked the easiest army and pwn nabs with army somebody posted on Dakka. Big deal. Go play your boring WAAC MEQ army of the month.
Basically, what Yeenoghu said.

Eldar have so many good traits, it's hard to count them all.
You think I'm "strategically inept" just because I like their fluff, their minatures, the way the army plays AND people don't roll their eyes with "oh god, not another BA army" look on their faces before game..? O...K...

And eldrich storm is awesome, just like my awesome Warp Spiders. It won't win you games, but that doesn't mean it's not cool!
Have some fun with this game.

Geez this thread is harsh for Eldar...

I agree with some of this stuff, but Rube is making it sound like Eldar absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, win any games, ever.

This is insane. Blackmoor and Fritz of Way of Saim-Hann disprove this.

I mean, seriously? They're not that bad... loads of armies are worse...

We've pretty much established that Rube is trolling just to satisfy his vindictiveness against Eldar....it's sad, he had nice posts early on, but he's come around to just bashing the Space Elves over the head now.

It's basically been established that the Eldar are hard to use, and are not a forgiving army. Is this the factions weak point? Yes. But does it make them suck? No. Just like limited numbers for Marines, and weakness in close combat for Guard, the over specialization for Eldar is their factions weakness that playstyle has to compromise for. This means that running an ELdar army requires lots of planning behore hand, as well as thinking on your feet. To say that this makes Eldar a failure as a race, and no one should ever play them is simply wrong. It just requires a lot more thinking than point and click armies.

Thankyou ChrisWWII.

Your post was a proper, unbiased evaluation; well done.

My question is, why does Rube troll against Eldar?

Methinks someone is suffering from rage at a nasty loss against the pointy-ears...

I play Eldar, and I think the only problem is that (like most of the armies) they are suffering from Codex Creep.

I find it hard to build lists for other armies, because I am used to the specialization that Eldar offer.

WHAT!!!???? only two meltaguns/power weapons per squad, INSANITY!!!!

All armies get punished for their mistakes, I just think what is considered a mistake with Eldar will not really be seen as a mistake with a MEQ army.

@OP, they aren't as good as your friend is saying, but they are still good.

Unlike space marines, Eldar require a high degree of tacticality to pilot. Unlike space marines we get wounded on 3+. Space marines are one of the easiest armies to play. Let's face the facts people: Space Marines are behemoths that are too favored. They have a codex for different chapters! Do you see any other army out there with multiple codices, cause I sure as H E double hockeysticks don't! Take blood angels for example: Deepstriking land raiders! 2+ feel no pain!
Eldar do not suck. They are awesome. But, they do take the highest amount of time and skill to master.

Yeah, you see? Rube views that as a reason why the army sucks. Because it requires alot of effort to master.

To him, it seems that the only good armies are the ones with no weakness.

Eldar Savior wrote:Unlike space marines, Eldar require a high degree of tacticality to pilot. Unlike space marines we get wounded on 3+. Space marines are one of the easiest armies to play. Let's face the facts people: Space Marines are behemoths that are too favored. They have a codex for different chapters! Do you see any other army out there with multiple codices, cause I sure as H E double hockeysticks don't! Take blood angels for example: Deepstriking land raiders! 2+ feel no pain!
Eldar do not suck. They are awesome. But, they do take the highest amount of time and skill to master.

Ok, now you're going too far the other way. Space Marines are very versatile. Each and every model is capable of performing well in whatever duty you need them to. That is their strength. But, they do each of those tasks much worse than an Eldar model specialized for that task. That is the Eldar's strength.

Neither army is easy mode that doesn't require any tactics. Every army has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Learning how to protect your weaknesses and use your strengths is the entire point of playing 40k.

Except Necrons. Necrons require no tactics simply because the only decision you make when you field them is: Do I loose now or later? (I'm kidding! I love Necrons, they're just in dire need of a codex update)