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.

JGrand.

Do not mistake my comments for anything personal. This is not to say that I like or dislike you as a person. It is more to say that I was not really referring to you specifically.

The OP's point was that he thought the Codex: Eldar was imbalanced because of undue favor to some units over others. To paraphrase his post; "Why take A when B is clearly better".

That question in general speaks to me from a place of either ignorance or inexperience. He either does not know enough, or has not played enough to see why that statement is false. The book is not imbalanced at all.

The first few posts in this thread were basically a breakdown of units that people were having trouble with. Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Wave Serpents, etc. These are often points of contention becuase people view them as overpowered in some capacity and thusly they have a hard time fighting against them in lists. It also tells me that they are not seeing things in the right light.

My first post was to highlight the difference between units on paper and units on the table. There is so much more to a unit than it's statline or weapon profile. While those things matter, they never really matter as much as how they are used in tandem with other units in your lists. Creating good synergy is more important that fielding the flavor of the month units. I bring this up because it has been my experience that the more "competitive" a player claims to be, the more inept they tend to be in the general sense. To those players, the statline and mathhammer are more valuable than other, more valuable tactics on the table. There are of course exceptions and you may or may not be one of them. I, like you, prioritize enjoyment and so I play "competitively" much less than I play locally at my FLGS or with friends. This is not to say that I don't play competitively at all, just that I don't prefer it.

Now, why would I say such awful things about competitive players you ask? Well, becuase they are actually some of the worst players I play against. I can offer you nothing but anectodal evidence since my perceptions can only be based on my own experiences, but they are what they are. The competitive gamers are far less numerous than the casual gamers, and by fitting their playstyle to match other competitive players they are narrowing their experience significantly. They also limit their exposure to a wider world of experiences they will simply never have. As has been discussed many times recently, the recent Big events are dominated by Eldar & Tau lists. Players fighting in that arena are tailoring their lists to fight against that, and while they may enjoy some success, that does not make their list better than a list that is meant to fair better against other opponents. By building lists that have the best statline or weapon profiles, you may be reducing the mathematical likelyhood of failing to hit or wound, but that will still not save you from an opponent who can more skillfully play his army.

In that light, I posted to help the OP realise that there are many many other options in the codex than the current units most people tend to use. Warp Spiders are cool. Wave Serpents are also cool. But you know what else is? Nearly everything in that book except Banshees.

I strongly disagree about only disscussing the most competative level of play on Dakka. There is a definate middle ground between "what are the best possible lists" and "take whatever you like the look of".

Are you suggesting all Eldar tactics should consist of "serpent spam /thread"? People come on here all the time looking for advice on how to do better within their prefered playstyle. If someone is looking to create a good Altioc themed list you can give advice on how to do that as competativly as possible.

A Crimson Hunter might be good in semi-competative play but banshees will not be, there is discussion to be had at that level.

I think it is relavent to a disscusion of internal codex balance to point out that it is a niceley balanced book when played at the level that GW seem to aim for.

This is absolutely fine. I was merely stating my opinion on the matter. Competitive lists are very personal in many ways. There is a reason that many people fail with netlists. There is also a reason why you see some quirky stuff in top player's lists. I just don't personally understand trying to play competitively--but not too competitively. Just a personal disconnect, I guess. I do realize that not everyone feels the way I do though.

JGrand.

Do not mistake my comments for anything personal. This is not to say that I like or dislike you as a person. It is more to say that I was not really referring to you specifically.

No worries, it happens.

The OP's point was that he thought the Codex: Eldar was imbalanced because of undue favor to some units over others. To paraphrase his post; "Why take A when B is clearly better".

That question in general speaks to me from a place of either ignorance or inexperience. He either does not know enough, or has not played enough to see why that statement is false. The book is not imbalanced at all.

It is his opinion though. If the codex was truly balanced, we would see more variety. As it stands, there isn't a ton of that with Eldar. That being said, I do agree that the dex is better than many of GW's other efforts.

I would caution you that just because someone disagrees, it does not mean that they are ignorant or inexperienced. We all fall into that trap at times though.

The first few posts in this thread were basically a breakdown of units that people were having trouble with. Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks, Wave Serpents, etc. These are often points of contention becuase people view them as overpowered in some capacity and thusly they have a hard time fighting against them in lists. It also tells me that they are not seeing things in the right light.

My first post was to highlight the difference between units on paper and units on the table. There is so much more to a unit than it's statline or weapon profile. While those things matter, they never really matter as much as how they are used in tandem with other units in your lists. Creating good synergy is more important that fielding the flavor of the month units. I bring this up because it has been my experience that the more "competitive" a player claims to be, the more inept they tend to be in the general sense. To those players, the statline and mathhammer are more valuable than other, more valuable tactics on the table. There are of course exceptions and you may or may not be one of them. I, like you, prioritize enjoyment and so I play "competitively" much less than I play locally at my FLGS or with friends. This is not to say that I don't play competitively at all, just that I don't prefer it.

Sure. Synergy is important. However, is there a reason that you can't have synergy between things like Warp Spiders, Hawks, and Serpents?

Now, why would I say such awful things about competitive players you ask? Well, becuase they are actually some of the worst players I play against. I can offer you nothing but anectodal evidence since my perceptions can only be based on my own experiences, but they are what they are. The competitive gamers are far less numerous than the casual gamers, and by fitting their playstyle to match other competitive players they are narrowing their experience significantly. They also limit their exposure to a wider world of experiences they will simply never have. As has been discussed many times recently, the recent Big events are dominated by Eldar & Tau lists. Players fighting in that arena are tailoring their lists to fight against that, and while they may enjoy some success, that does not make their list better than a list that is meant to fair better against other opponents. By building lists that have the best statline or weapon profiles, you may be reducing the mathematical likelyhood of failing to hit or wound, but that will still not save you from an opponent who can more skillfully play his army.

Maybe, maybe not. By your logic, a person would be able to win a big event by creating a "meta buster" type list. If you happen to have something that can knock down standard Tau lists, Serpent Spam, and Daemons that other people haven't thought of, I'd love to hear it. The thing is, you don't see random casual gamers winning a big event with crazy out of left field lists. There are plenty of competitive players who can run units that aren't often seen, but that doesn't mean that there aren't units that completely unusable in anything but beer and pretzel hammer.

Good players aren't failing to be creative for a lack of trying--I can definitely tell you that. The guys who are spending time and money to go to a ton of events are trying to come up with out of the box combos in order to create that "meta buster". It is definitely not as easy as blindly claiming that "everything can be used." It just doesn't work that way.

In that light, I posted to help the OP realise that there are many many other options in the codex than the current units most people tend to use. Warp Spiders are cool. Wave Serpents are also cool. But you know what else is? Nearly everything in that book except Banshees.

I posted my list earlier of things that I think work out of the book. It isn't a bad list, but I wouldn't go as far as you are willing to go. I do think that not taking Serpents is an intentional gimp. That would be like a Cron player not taking Wraiths, Scythes, and Anni Barges or Tau not taking Riptides, Broadsides, and Skyrays. If you don't take these things, you won't "auto-lose", but you aren't likely to be winning anything major either. There are just some things that are overly efficient in each dex.

I think that's too extreme a view.

I genuinely do not see any one unit in any codex as being a "must have". Riptides are nice but not as important as people would be led to think after seeing the current tournament results. It is almost exclusively meta as far as I can tell. I bought into as well, I admit. I own a Wraithknight that I will likely never use on the table for anything other than the novelty of it. It's a cool model that has a striking look and entertaining presence the field. But it's no more valuable an asset to me in a game than anything else.

As for Wave Serpents. They are cool, but they are insanely expensive. More than double the point cost of dedicated transports that you see in other codices. Are they nice? Absolutely? Do I take them all the time? No I most certainly do not. A sqaud of five Dire Avengers costs nearly tripple their base point cost if you put them in a Serpent. Nearly TRIPPLE! is that worth it? Only in very limited instances. For that same number of points I can do a lot more productive things with other units. Unless youtr list is specifically tailored to make use of Serpents, having more than one or two is a poor use of resources.

I'm not trying to undermine your impressions of competitive lists. I am sure that they perform quiote well against other competitve lists. But I think it's a tad harmful to pass that along as being universally true... If I have misread your intentions feel free to let me know.

Also, in your list of units you mentioned Rangers as being useful. Iam not disputing this but I will say that my experiences have been radically different. What roles have they performed for you that makes them valuable? In what context are they worth taking... in your experience.

Crimson Hunter can be bad news for lists whose anti-flyer are fliers themselves.

I think that's too extreme a view.

I genuinely do not see any one unit in any codex as being a "must have". Riptides are nice but not as important as people would be led to think after seeing the current tournament results. It is almost exclusively meta as far as I can tell. I bought into as well, I admit. I own a Wraithknight that I will likely never use on the table for anything other than the novelty of it. It's a cool model that has a striking look and entertaining presence the field. But it's no more valuable an asset to me in a game than anything else.

Again, you can make lists without some of these overly efficient units, but it makes an inherently worse list. Not everything GW makes is created equal--far from it, in fact.

As for Wave Serpents. They are cool, but they are insanely expensive. More than double the point cost of dedicated transports that you see in other codices. Are they nice? Absolutely? Do I take them all the time? No I most certainly do not. A sqaud of five Dire Avengers costs nearly tripple their base point cost if you put them in a Serpent. Nearly TRIPPLE! is that worth it? Only in very limited instances. For that same number of points I can do a lot more productive things with other units. Unless youtr list is specifically tailored to make use of Serpents, having more than one or two is a poor use of resources.

And how much do you see those other transports? The only transport that is outright better than a Serpent is a Night Scythe, and that is due to the extremely undercosted nature of the unit. For 130 points I can get a Serpent with a Scatter Laser and Shriuken Cannon. The key to why it is so great is due to a combination of durability, mobility, rate of fire, ignore cover, and strength of fire. The Serpent is pretty good at killing most things. That kind of versatility is essential in making a TAC list.

I'm not trying to undermine your impressions of competitive lists. I am sure that they perform quiote well against other competitve lists. But I think it's a tad harmful to pass that along as being universally true... If I have misread your intentions feel free to let me know.

What are the lists that beat these competitive lists though? The answer is, casual lists don't. Again, what are these random casual units that give the top lists problems? Do you not think that top players are not cognizant of meta and not working to beat it?

Also, in your list of units you mentioned Rangers as being useful. Iam not disputing this but I will say that my experiences have been radically different. What roles have they performed for you that makes them valuable? In what context are they worth taking... in your experience.

I think that they are usable in min units as objective grabbers. They aren't great, but I wouldn't see a single min unit of Rangers in someone's list as uncompetitive. However, the amount of ignore cover out there makes them iffy. I'd advocate a squad of 3 Jetbikes as a backfield objective grabber (and potentially any objective grabber due to their range). At the same time, Rangers aren't too pricey to sit on an objective and go to ground.

 JGrand wrote:
What are the lists that beat these competitive lists though? The answer is, casual lists don't. Again, what are these random casual units that give the top lists problems? Do you not think that top players are not cognizant of meta and not working to beat it?

Yes. Yes I do. Not because I think they are bad players, but because I think they are simply fighting in a complete different arena. A competitive player is constantly adapting his list to take on other competitive lists. They tend to suffer from what the miltary calls Target Fixation. they basically narrow their field of expertise to dealing with very specific lists and tactics, and in so doing they fall out of touch with the much less competitive games that happen every day. Remember that competitive here contextually reffers to a type of player and not just players in general; obviously the game is a sort of competition so...

I think that they are usable in min units as objective grabbers. They aren't great, but I wouldn't see a single min unit of Rangers in someone's list as uncompetitive. However, the amount of ignore cover out there makes them iffy. I'd advocate a squad of 3 Jetbikes as a backfield objective grabber (and potentially any objective grabber due to their range). At the same time, Rangers aren't too pricey to sit on an objective and go to ground.

Hmmm... I don't follow how they could be useful as an objective grabber. To move to an objective that they are not already squating on, they would have to exit cover and move toward it (possibly into covar again but just as likely not). This is unwise since cover is their only real defence, and it's not a great one given the easy access other armies have to weapons that ignore cover.

I agree 100% that A small squad of Guardians on Jetbkites would perform that role more reliably.

The reason I asked for your take on Pathfinders is because I am finding myself more and more averse to them in this edition. They are nearly as lackluster as banshees are now. They rarely if ever do any significant harm to the enemy force, and they are quite vulnerable. Don't even get me started on why any weapon called a Sniper Rifle has the same range as a Heavy Bolter.

I tactic I had used (and to some small success) in the past was to take 2 squad of pathfinders and try to infiltrate somwhere in the enemy's deployment zone. This was mostly a psychological tactic since they really didn't do much of anything, but having enemy models in your starting locale is unsettling for most players. They tend to overthink and assume I have some sinister plan for them. Most players woudl waste a valuable turn of shooting to take a few of them out while my War Walkers / Vypers cut their way into their front line with that much less resistance.

While that was ... a thing. I have since found that Scorpions perform that same role many times more effectively. They simply cannot be ignored. In medium squads they are quite durable, and if they aren't dealt with swifty than they can really be cause some havoc. (Striking Scorpion Exarch is one of the most amazing units in the game for the points. That Biting Blade is just so killy, and if you have the spare poinst the Scorpion's Claw is just ridiculous).

Sorry for the rant. My point was that I dont see the Pathfinders excelling at anything enough to merit paying for them. Sniper Rfiles in general need to be seriously re-worked for them to be anywhere close to practical.

Pathfinders aren't effective. I suppose in a certain kind of gimmicky list that uses Seer Council, Hemlock Wraithfighters, Illic and Pathfinders they might work. Might.

But like I already said in this thread, 60 points is nothing. And in my particular list I actually have a need for a backfield objective grabber. Thing is, you need to plan accordingly to having Rangers in your list. Put one objective way off your opponent's way, plant Rangers there and be content with going to ground in the event something might take potshots at them. Or you start them in reserve. 6" move and d6" run should get them within 3" of the objective on the turn they come on. In a kill point mission, just hide them behind some big rock somewhere. Sure, if you have something else to spend your points on, do it. I have exactly 60 points to spend, on the dot, in the list I run. I can take Shimmershield Exarchs on my Dire Avengers or I can take Rangers. I'll test a few games to see which is better.

If you don't like competitive discussion, then leave the thread. Why do players not interested in absolute efficiency and min/maxing and tournament-relevant tactics always insist on butting in to threads about those topics and say that "casual play" or "playing for fun" is also a valid topic of discussion. Yes, of course it is. FOR ANOTHER THREAD.