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.

I have heard that ELdar are very difficult to play, so before I start collecting an Eldar army, I would like o know some advice on building a good Eldar army from you guys here at Dakka. I guess the only thing I truly know is that I would like to field an army with some Striking Scorpions, since they are my favorite aspect from the fluff, but otherwise I know very little about Eldar, since I am mostly a Nids/CSM player.

So please, give me some advice on Eldar, my Dakka friends.

Well, as a long term Eldar player, I'd take a fully mech army based on Serpents in the 5th edition.
If you want Scorpions, stick them into a Serpent and let them outflank.
Fire Dragons excel at popping tanks while Dire Avengers with bladestorm are good at taking on infantry.
Eldar armies should generally fill all HS and Elite slots if possible.
Fire Prisms taken in pairs can do some damage against all kinds of units but are rather unpredictable.ar
Warwalkers with scatterlasers are the best bet for fire support.
Falcons lost an edge in the 5th ed, but you could use one to transport a small (scoring) DA unit.
At larger pt levels, I'd consider a Seer Council which is tough to beat in cc.
An Autarch is useful if you want your army to start in reserve as she can bolster reserve rolls.

The strongest Eldar build right now, IMO, is one with built around wave serpents.

I start every Eldar build with six wave serpents--2 or 3 with 5 fire dragons and the rest with 5 dire avengers each. I use str 6 spam, so scatterlaser turrets and shuriken cannon upgrades.

Then I fill out my heavy slots with war walkers and falcons (most prefer prisms) and my fast slots with scatterlaser/shuricannon vypers, add an autarch for HQ, sometimes also a farseer, and I'm done.

Eldar assault elites (scorpions, banshees, harlequins) are sub-par in a mechanized list right now because they can't assault out of transports and are so fragile that they usually wind up making suicide assaults--wipe out one thing and then get shot to death the following turn. But if your list is otherwise efficient, you can use them without weakening your army too much.

As a lot of people on Dakka will probably tell you, you should build any army to compliment your playing style. For example, I prefer fast armies, so my own Eldar force is heavy on jet bikes, vypers. If you're looking for a competitive army, in addition to the comments above, I recommend going into the 'Army Lists' forums, look at what is posted for Eldar and read the lists and what people are saying. A little research goes a long way. Good luck!

As a slight thread hijack, would the Battleforce for eldar be a good jumping off point to start and eldar army?

Happygrunt wrote:As a slight thread hijack, would the Battleforce for eldar be a good jumping off point to start and eldar army?

It certainly would. The models there are all useful.

I would say that 90% of the Battleforce is useful. The Warwalker is awesome (when fielded as a unit of 3) and the Dire Avengers are always good. The battleforce also gives you a Wave Serpent so thats a great start right there.

I play both imperial armies, so I want to "mix it up". I want a xeno army, and its between nids and Eldar, but I can do eldar for REALLY cheap, as in a battleforce, a farseer and the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, guardians dont seem that bad, as objective holders they look kind of good.

Happygrunt wrote:
Also, guardians dont seem that bad, as objective holders they look kind of good.

Guardians look okay on paper, but the minimum squad size and cost-per-model, plus the need to give them some kind of weapon platform to give them some useful role, means you're typically paying over 100 points for even a small unit. The cost goes up even more quickly if you add a warlock, who adds important capabilities, but doesn't boost their leadership (unless you give him the embolden power). At that point, you're approaching the cost of a unit of rangers or pathfinders, who are also scoring, much more resistant to long-range shooting, and can sometimes hurt things with their guns (guardians have good guns, but the 12" range means it's really a one-shot weapon of last resort that you use in the final turn before the berzerkers or whatever charge in and wipe you out).

With leadership 8, no ability to regroup below half, no ability to resist sweeping, and extreme vulnerability to flamers, guardians are just too fragile to hold anything for long if the enemy wants to move them. My experience is that heavy bolter or something shoots them from across the table, and they immediatelybreak and run off the table.

In 4th edition we used to make guardians work by taking tiny units of 5 in a wave serpent with flamers, or 6-8 of them with a starcannon, and that was a good value for its capabilities. And some players still get them to work in horde armies supported by the Avatar to keep them from running off. But in their current form, there are better ways to get scoring units and better ways to mass firepower in your army for the same points.

Sure, they sound bad, but for a low point game, or at least until I can get my hands on more powerful units. Rangers look like fun, and for just starting I could do a lot worse with Guardians.

Lots of Swooping hawks. Plenty of dark reapers. Pathfinders for troops and baharroth for an hq. Contrary to popular belief with these guys you'll be like the caesar.