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.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the Eldar book is kinda unbalanced within itself?

What I mean is that in every FOC section that I can see (except HQ) there is one or two overwhelmingly obvious choices to take over everything else? For example, in the Fast Attack slot, Warp Spiders are head and heels better than everything else in FA point for point. Their 12" range is easily overcome by being able to jump in the movement phase, fleet forward if the roll was flubbed (or running back after shooting if not) and then jumping back in the assault phase to relative safety and having a 3+ save to hide behind. If you don't want to start them on the board then they can deep strike. The Crimson Hunter is ok but is so expensive for its definitive anti tank roll. After that it doesn't even seem worth it to take hawks, vipers, spears or the hemlock. Not when you could just take another unit of spiders for less/same points and provide a wider flexibility for tactics.

It seems like it's true for every slot. Why take Banshees, Dragons or Haliquins when you could have Wraith guard unit or maybe scorpions if you feel like getting into cc? Why take Avengers, Storm guardians, or rangers when you could have bikes, camping guardians or Wraith guard in troops? And the poor heavies. Why would you ever take Wraithlords, support platforms or the Falcon over a Wraithknight, prism, walkers or Reapers? (I say poor heavies because the falcon has been my fav since 4th, also I'm finding the the night spinner has some potential. Still has not been thoroughly tested.)

That pretty much makes 1/2 the codex not even worth looking at. If you need an extra awesome wave serpent why fill it with avengers or dragons when you can do it with cheaper with guardians and more durable with wraith guard? and just from reading on forums all the Eldar advice I see people posting say to take the same units over and over again. I'll tell you from personal experience from running Tau in 5th that having slight modifications to the same list over and over again every game is really soul crushing after a couple of years of playing your favorite army.

Am I the only one that has noticed this?

Cruddace and Kelly are poor at internal balance and hit or miss externally, Kelly writes good fluff and Cruddace writes boring fluff this has been a thing for a while. Ward writes poor fluff and has okayish to good internal balance and is hit or miss with external balance. Vetock so far seems to write great fluff, good internal balance, but one of his books is okay and the other destroyed external balance.

Overall, everyone is variably incompetent.

Hence the poor internal balance of most of the books and the tendency for the meta to get a bomb tossed into it when anyone but Cruddace, lord of mediocrity writes a book.

Just accept it and hope a new pack of idiots comes in some day.

Warp spiders are vastly overrated. They drop, they shoot, but they rarely have the distance to avoid the return fire which wipes them. Hawks are just as good at the mixed role fighting but bring precision deepstrike and longer range. Shining spears are decently viable, though i wanted AP2 back on their lances. Taken in small units they are much like TW-Cav harassment units. The fliers are bad, but so are all the new fliers since the helldrake, so not much new there. Vypers have always been bad, and got no love here.

Fire Dragons are still preferable to wraithguard for the vast majority of mech lists. Especially those that need both HQ slots and cant take the mediocre spiritseer. Both units have similar firepower on deployment, with WG being better vs MCs but FD being much better vs high-AV (most of the vehicles you see these days). Walking lists or lists that lack high troop counts will take WG, but WG are not significantly better than FD.

Banshees and harlequins are just sad stories of being intentionally bad. No idea why, but no one in their right mind would look at banshees and call them good. Even if they got back their AP2 swords, they still barely functioned with them. Harlequins just got the shaft with both the worse version of veil and the necessity to cast it now on a LD9 psyker. One perils or fail and the whole unit is gone. Scorps are the winner here simply by being the only ones who dont have a serious problem seeing combat. They were mediocre in 4th and, while they got a buff, they are still mediocre with the 6th assault nerfs. Still able to function well however, and make a cheaper deathstar with their pheonix lord.


Support platforms are the #1 heavy support choice, so im not sure what your complaint is in the HS slot. Wraithlords should have stayed at 90 points base, as they are just outclassed by the WK, but thats probably marketing for you. Everything else in the HS is competitive.


EVERY codex has bad units. However, you are making this out to be a lot worse than it is. The eldar codex has far more "good" quality things than most codexes if you look at the number of units rather than percent. Each slot has at least 3 "good" or better choices.

Sorry, but that's definitely not true. While it has some glaring imbalances(Wave Serpent is almost always better than a Falcon, for instance), most of what you say is very shortsighted.

Let's take your examples. You can always take 2 Farseers on bikes, 3 full squads of Warp Spiders, 4 squads of 6 bikes, 2 Wraithknights and 3 War Walkers. Scary list, for sure.

You could also take 4 Wave Serpents, some bikes, a Wraithknight and 2 squads of Warp Spiders. Scary list as well.

Or you can take something more interesting. Swooping Hawks have amazing utility, Rangers are great, cheap backfield objective holders, Nightspinners are almost universally more efficient than Prisms, Vaul's Wrath Batteries are the single best buy of the entire codex with the price of 90 points for 3 Shadow Weavers. Fire Dragons are still beasts and now they have a nigh-unkillable means of transportation. True, elites are by far the weakest section of the codex, but Scorpions and Dragons are still very much usable in the right list.

As for the internet wisdom, it'll always go like that. The internet takes notice of the most amazing thing in the codex and advises people to spam spam spam like there's no tomorrow.

Thing is, Eldar codex is an amazing book and not a single unit, except perhaps Howling Banshees, are by any means bad. Some are just better than others, but some also work together much better than others do. It's all about finding what's right for you. You literally can't go wrong with CWE, as long as you keep some form of synergy in your lists.

That's what I mean though. Sure hawks, rangers and dragons are good situationally and that's pretty much all eldar. But most units seem to have a much more narrow situational use than others.

Lets look at dragons. They're good for taking out high av tanks that the rest of the army's s6 and 7 can't deal with. Yes now they can get to their job thanks to serpents, get out, fry their one target, then celibate with a silly elf dance on a job well done. Then they are all dead by next turn. Lets face it, would you let your opponent keep a unit of melta guns next to your army? All in all this will come in around 250ish points depending on how you kit it out for a one use 5 man unit and good tank that will most likely be assaulted because it is really close to the enemy. Now that's IF the other guy brought av 13 or 14. (Serpent shields can take on av 12) you can do that or you can spend 130ish for a prism which covers av 14/13, and can also deal with infantry both hordes and elite with both of its blast shots, and does it across the board. So prisms fill the needed anti heavy av roll that dragons were taken for while also providing extra rolls.

Sure the prism will statistically not one shot a tank every turn but it is more flexible, more durable, more survivable and cost less. Best part, heavy bolters don't force saves on prisms making a lot of weapons moot vs them where they can just slaughter dragons.

5 unsupported Wraithguard are sure as hell dead same as Dragons, while 50 points more expensive.

Honestly, while they received huge buffs and some obvious choices, Eldar are still all about synergy. You don't think you can make a successful list without any Wave Serpents? I beg to differ.

We're not what we used to be. We used to be forced into mechdar because it was the only semi-competitive build out there. Now you can build a dozen different competitive combos. Sure, most WILL use some or all of those units you mention as obvious, but it's natural to use a tool that you have available.

Besides, Prisms aren't good as AT platforms. Especially since it's usually the case of "I need that tank dead and I need it dead NOW!" which Fire Dragons certainly do, even if they die in the process. Prisms get lucky sometimes, more often than not, they either miss or they fail to pen. The curse of the single-shot.

I think that it has some solid competitive options in most slots.

HQ: Farseer, Eldrad, Spiritseer, Autarch, and Warlocks are all competitive choices. A solid maybe to a few of the Phoenix Lords.

Elites: Fire Dragons. This is a weak slot.

Troops: Dire Avengers, Guardians, Jetbikes, Rangers, and Wraithguard are all competitive options.

Fast Attack: Spiders and Hawks are both very solid. If interceptor wasn't so prevalent, the Crimson Hunter would be decent.

Heavy Support: Wraithknights, Support Batteries, Dark Reapers, War Walkers, Night Spinners are all very solid choices. Some people like the Fire Prism as well.


The real reason the book seems so homogenized is that Wave Serpents are too good to pass up on. It would be hard to make a serious competitive list without considering at least two. If the Serpent Shield was toned down slightly, the Eldar book would be one of GWs most balanced efforts.

Sigh...

I don't know what game you're playing but the game we all paly at my FLGS is Warhammer 40k. You see, we don't just line our models up and take turns shiring at each other, thusly we concern ourselves with more than just armor saves and weapons profiles.

My personal ratio of wins to loses with the Eldar is singulary striking when compared to my other armies. Yes that's anecdotal but there is really no other way to make my point. I never use Warp Spiers and I win damn near every time I play them. I cannot say the same for my SM or CSM.

Mind you, it's not hat I have anything against the Warp Spiders. They are a fine unit in and of themselves, they simply have no place in my army. I play a very "true to the lore" type of Eldar. You rarely if ever see me coming, and once you do, it's too late. War Walkers and Vypers are absolutely essential to that play style as they can engage the enemy in Turn 1 nearly every game and they can really bring some hurt. Warp Spiders are just not as useful for blitzing (which is what Eldar have to do since thery are not tenacious enough to survice a sustained conflict).

Mhy Eldar Army gets First Blood in turn 1 99% of the time if I go first or steal the innitiative. Hell sometimes they get it anyway. And a small, elite, and frail army like the Eldar relies on our overwhelming firepower to chew through your numbers in a hurry or we lose. Having a single squad of Warp Spiders is just not going to do that kind of damage is such short order.

As for your take on the Crimson Hunter Exarch... I find it powerfully useful with it's special rules. I stays on the board longer than other flyers due to it's Vector Dancer rule and when it shoots it kills in almost all cases. Only the Hellturkey can boast that kind of efficient killing power, and it's not as long lasting since it often exits the board in a turn or two.

Warp Spiders have been amazing harrassment unit since they were first introduced. Same as Hawks now in 6th. That's what you use them for.

Vypers are pretty solid, especially in a jetbike list. But they're one of the units I can't find a place in in my lists. If I played Saim-hann, I'd certainly use them.

Sigh...

I don't know what game you're playing but the game we all paly at my FLGS is Warhammer 40k. You see, we don't just line our models up and take turns shiring at each other, thusly we concern ourselves with more than just armor saves and weapons profiles.

I play 40k too, I just happen to play at big events when I can. I don't particularly care what a small community does in FLGS play. You can play however you want, there is no need to disparage those who play differently.

My personal ratio of wins to loses with the Eldar is singulary striking when compared to my other armies. Yes that's anecdotal but there is really no other way to make my point. I never use Warp Spiers and I win damn near every time I play them. I cannot say the same for my SM or CSM.

Mind you, it's not hat I have anything against the Warp Spiders. They are a fine unit in and of themselves, they simply have no place in my army. I play a very "true to the lore" type of Eldar. You rarely if ever see me coming, and once you do, it's too late. War Walkers and Vypers are absolutely essential to that play style as they can engage the enemy in Turn 1 nearly every game and they can really bring some hurt. Warp Spiders are just not as useful for blitzing (which is what Eldar have to do since thery are not tenacious enough to survice a sustained conflict).

Cool stuff. I'm glad you like to use things like Vipers. I don't find them particularly good in competitive events.

Mhy Eldar Army gets First Blood in turn 1 99% of the time if I go first or steal the innitiative. Hell sometimes they get it anyway. And a small, elite, and frail army like the Eldar relies on our overwhelming firepower to chew through your numbers in a hurry or we lose. Having a single squad of Warp Spiders is just not going to do that kind of damage is such short order.

Lots of armies are designed not to give away first blood. It is hard to stop versus Eldar and Tau though.

As for your take on the Crimson Hunter Exarch... I find it powerfully useful with it's special rules. I stays on the board longer than other flyers due to it's Vector Dancer rule and when it shoots it kills in almost all cases. Only the Hellturkey can boast that kind of efficient killing power, and it's not as long lasting since it often exits the board in a turn or two.

I see too much Tau and too much Interceptor to put stock into it. If you have a FLGS that doesn't see them often, go for it. I find an AV 10 vehicle to be too fragile for 160 points.

It isn't all about "lining up models and taking turns shooting one another." Try your hand outside the small pond. Big fish rely on tactics too, they just can't get away with running crappy units against other good players. /shrug

I'm not even saything that any particular Eldar unit is bad, (except for you banshees. You go sit in the corner till you get a new book.) it's just that some units cover more bases for an all comers lists than others. Like Swooping hawks. They are a great harrasment unit and even better when given the exarch with sunrifle. But don't you have that role in your army covered already by the 3-4 serpent shields that you have? Yea Vipers can take out light tanks pretty well now but can't warp spiders do the same job because of their new given speed for cheaper so that you can spend the points you saved on another unit?

I'm not saying Eldar is bad. Far from it. Eldar are great. I just see the same tournement list popping up over and over again where the only difference is usually the hq and a single troop choice baised on play style. It's like I said in the first post, playing the same thing over and over again gets stale and boring very quickly.

 Rustbucket3437 wrote:
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the Eldar book is kinda unbalanced within itself?

What I mean is that in every FOC section that I can see (except HQ) there is one or two overwhelmingly obvious choices to take over everything else?

Has this ever not been the case? I've been playing since 98' and Eldar have always relied on spamming just 4-5 units out of their entire Codex. New editions just change which units those are.

 Rustbucket3437 wrote:
I'm not saying Eldar is bad. Far from it. Eldar are great. I just see the same tournement list popping up over and over again where the only difference is usually the hq and a single troop choice baised on play style. It's like I said in the first post, playing the same thing over and over again gets stale and boring very quickly.

Why do you think any other codex is any different? Sure, marines just got a helluva lot of new stuff to consider taking, but you can bet two armies will be extremely popular in tournaments. White Scars and Imperial Fists.

But it's not true that there isn't variety in lists on tournaments. There are two ways to handle 6th edition meta. One are spam lists and the other are tactical lists. You either discover what is good in a codex and you spam it with impunity. Or you spend a few more days pondering on what combinations are good in a codex, or several codices, given the have allies and you create a list that utilizes those great combinations which, true, are more often than not using at least one of the obvious-choice components, like Wave Serpents, but they don't resort to spamming them.

I try to build the tactical kind of lists and I also love to experiment. I don't gimp myself by intentionally taking bad units and I think I'd do rather well even in a larger tournament with those lists. Taking 4 Serpents is a no-brainer and plays like one also. Taking an allied Baron and attaching him to a squad of 9 bikes, warlock and two farseers takes a bit more planning to fit into a list. And once you realise what that kind of playstyle offers you, you'll never want to take more than 2 Wave Serpents ever again. There's just so much fun and amazingly good stuff out there just waiting for a bold gamer to discover.

I have to disagree totally with the OP. I think this Codex gave the Eldar a LOT of "good" or better units, and only one real stinker (Howling Banshees, I'm looking at you). Are warp spiders pretty awesome? Yes. Does that mean Vypers suck? Hells no. 180 points or so for a highly mobile squadron shooting 18 S6 rending shots at 24" range? Yes, please. I can't tell you how many silly Fire Warrior squads I've nuked with my Grenade Pack on the Swooping Hawks, or Blinded with a Sunrifle. As to heavies: how can you not love Wraithlords? The main gripe people have with Dark Reapers is that they are still T3, so they die so easily. Here you have a T8 walking dual Bright Lance or Missile Launcher platform. Just because the Wraithknight kicks butt doesn't mean the Wraithlord now stinks. I can go on, but I'll leave it at this: this Codex is fantastic. It made it possible to run the Eldar several different ways and still be competitive. I don't have 2-3 lists that I HAVE to use if I don't want my tail kicked.

 Homeskillet wrote:
I have to disagree totally with the OP. I think this Codex gave the Eldar a LOT of "good" or better units, and only one real stinker (Howling Banshees, I'm looking at you). Are warp spiders pretty awesome? Yes. Does that mean Vypers suck? Hells no. 180 points or so for a highly mobile squadron shooting 18 S6 rending shots at 24" range? Yes, please. I can't tell you how many silly Fire Warrior squads I've nuked with my Grenade Pack on the Swooping Hawks, or Blinded with a Sunrifle. As to heavies: how can you not love Wraithlords? The main gripe people have with Dark Reapers is that they are still T3, so they die so easily. Here you have a T8 walking dual Bright Lance or Missile Launcher platform. Just because the Wraithknight kicks butt doesn't mean the Wraithlord now stinks. I can go on, but I'll leave it at this: this Codex is fantastic. It made it possible to run the Eldar several different ways and still be competitive. I don't have 2-3 lists that I HAVE to use if I don't want my tail kicked.

You're quite correct.

Nearly every unit in the current Codex is perfectly useful. If anything this particular codex suffers from an overabundance of useful units. Every single one of the Heavy Support choices is dazzlingly good but with only 3 open slots and a finite point count it can be really tough to decide which units to take.

 Rustbucket3437 wrote:

I'm not saying Eldar is bad. Far from it. Eldar are great. I just see the same tournement list popping up over and over again where the only difference is usually the hq and a single troop choice baised on play style. It's like I said in the first post, playing the same thing over and over again gets stale and boring very quickly.

As opposed to the huge variation you might see in Necrons? Chaos Space Marine? All codex' will see a selection of "better" units, that become a staple for tournament and competitive play. Just because you are reading the same netlisters post over and over against about spamming serpents and warp spiders doesn't mean it's the be all end all. It means that you're reading posts from the non-creative and those ill-willing to experiment.

If you're basing your assessment of the codex from 'tournament' netlists, you're not getting a proper view of the book. The high level tournament players arn't going to be posting their ideas online. They'll save them from being copy-pasted to every corner of the internet.


It's not just Eldar, as I mentioned, you'll see the same units spammed from most codexes. Infact, i'd say Eldar gets more internal balance than most.

 JGrand wrote:
It isn't all about "lining up models and taking turns shooting one another." Try your hand outside the small pond. Big fish rely on tactics too, they just can't get away with running crappy units against other good players. /shrug

I had kind of an aggressive tone in my earlier post so I guess I understand your attitude in that way.

However, I am not sure I understand what makes you assume that my "small pond" is so far different than the "super leet, hardcore, ultra-competitive" gamers you seem to be suggesting I seek out?

My "small pond" is a town of 130,000 people with a State University that regularly draws in new people. It's also got the only two FLGSs within 100 miles in any direction. We're also pretty close to two very large annual torunaments and the odd Chicago GW events.

It's pretty easy to get locking into a certain state of perception with your hobby... after all you do only have access to what is available in your area. In that way I am very blessed to live where I live, and I enjoy the quality and quantity of gamers in my region. If your results are soo narrow that you suffer from "too much Tau to put stock in ..." than you should probably seek greener pastures and stop insinuating that other players who have a greater field of experience do so.

 Rustbucket3437 wrote:
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the Eldar book is kinda unbalanced within itself?

What I mean is that in every FOC section that I can see (except HQ) there is one or two overwhelmingly obvious choices to take over everything else? For example, in the Fast Attack slot, Warp Spiders are head and heels better than everything else in FA point for point. Their 12" range is easily overcome by being able to jump in the movement phase, fleet forward if the roll was flubbed (or running back after shooting if not) and then jumping back in the assault phase to relative safety and having a 3+ save to hide behind. If you don't want to start them on the board then they can deep strike. The Crimson Hunter is ok but is so expensive for its definitive anti tank roll. After that it doesn't even seem worth it to take hawks, vipers, spears or the hemlock. Not when you could just take another unit of spiders for less/same points and provide a wider flexibility for tactics.

It seems like it's true for every slot. Why take Banshees, Dragons or Haliquins when you could have Wraith guard unit or maybe scorpions if you feel like getting into cc? Why take Avengers, Storm guardians, or rangers when you could have bikes, camping guardians or Wraith guard in troops? And the poor heavies. Why would you ever take Wraithlords, support platforms or the Falcon over a Wraithknight, prism, walkers or Reapers? (I say poor heavies because the falcon has been my fav since 4th, also I'm finding the the night spinner has some potential. Still has not been thoroughly tested.)

That pretty much makes 1/2 the codex not even worth looking at. If you need an extra awesome wave serpent why fill it with avengers or dragons when you can do it with cheaper with guardians and more durable with wraith guard? and just from reading on forums all the Eldar advice I see people posting say to take the same units over and over again. I'll tell you from personal experience from running Tau in 5th that having slight modifications to the same list over and over again every game is really soul crushing after a couple of years of playing your favorite army.

Am I the only one that has noticed this?

yes well i cant say i disagree. wave serpents are amazing, so i run 5. war spiders are amazing, so i run 10. war walkers are amazing and so i run 3. while there are other units i could feild... im not going to.

its a little bit sad, but really im not complaing. actually, it would be nice for me to have a choice from alot of good options, but im fine with a few good units.

I had kind of an aggressive tone in my earlier post so I guess I understand your attitude in that way.

However, I am not sure I understand what makes you assume that my "small pond" is so far different than the "super leet, hardcore, ultra-competitive" gamers you seem to be suggesting I seek out?

My "small pond" is a town of 130,000 people with a State University that regularly draws in new people. It's also got the only two FLGSs within 100 miles in any direction. We're also pretty close to two very large annual torunaments and the odd Chicago GW events.

It's pretty easy to get locking into a certain state of perception with your hobby... after all you do only have access to what is available in your area. In that way I am very blessed to live where I live, and I enjoy the quality and quantity of gamers in my region. If your results are soo narrow that you suffer from "too much Tau to put stock in ..." than you should probably seek greener pastures and stop insinuating that other players who have a greater field of experience do so.

My issue was in fact, your tone. You may live in the hidden mecca of 40k--I don't know. What I do know is that GTs attract people from all over the US (to varying degrees based on the ease of travel). Your comment along the lines of "I don't know what game you are playing, but I play 40k at my store" insinuates that you either feel you have access to THE meta of "real" 40k, or that you just happen to know better than everyone else.

I generally tend to dismiss FLGS games as evidence of what is "competitive" on a national level in events of 100+ players. For instance, there are stores that I can go to in which there are no good players. I could bring just about anything and win. However, that anecdotal evidence is meaningless. At the same time, there are players who play crappy lists against other crappy players, win, and think that they are great, simply because they only play bad people. Lots of times when I see such radical call outs, this is the case. The player who has such a radical perspective is often untested in arenas that most people would consider "competitive" 40k. You could be the rare savant, but my skepticism is more than often well placed.

 JGrand wrote:
My issue was in fact, your tone. You may live in the hidden mecca of 40k--I don't know. What I do know is that GTs attract people from all over the US (to varying degrees based on the ease of travel). Your comment along the lines of "I don't know what game you are playing, but I play 40k at my store" insinuates that you either feel you have access to THE meta of "real" 40k, or that you just happen to know better than everyone else.

I generally tend to dismiss FLGS games as evidence of what is "competitive" on a national level in events of 100+ players. For instance, there are stores that I can go to in which there are no good players. I could bring just about anything and win. However, that anecdotal evidence is meaningless. At the same time, there are players who play crappy lists against other crappy players, win, and think that they are great, simply because they only play bad people. Lots of times when I see such radical call outs, this is the case. The player who has such a radical perspective is often untested in arenas that most people would consider "competitive" 40k. You could be the rare savant, but my skepticism is more than often well placed.

I understand your aloofness. I can see why you would feel superior for playing in a manner that you feel has you apart from other players. It's pretty common. I find players like you every so often. Some new college kid roles into town from a bigger city nearer to the regular GW tourney locations and tells his tales about how "competitive" his lists are. That person or TFG as we affectionately call them when they come is so much better than us that his lists are designed to fight other "competitive" lists and therefore he always ends up losing to a more realistic, balanced player with a little more knowledge.

Don't be TFG.

En Excelsis, that's actually not at all what JGrand seems to be. In fact, it's your tone that resonates with hostility and bad mannerism, not his. He even tried to explain why he's reacted the way he did.

So follow your own advice.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
My issue was in fact, your tone. You may live in the hidden mecca of 40k--I don't know. What I do know is that GTs attract people from all over the US (to varying degrees based on the ease of travel). Your comment along the lines of "I don't know what game you are playing, but I play 40k at my store" insinuates that you either feel you have access to THE meta of "real" 40k, or that you just happen to know better than everyone else.

I generally tend to dismiss FLGS games as evidence of what is "competitive" on a national level in events of 100+ players. For instance, there are stores that I can go to in which there are no good players. I could bring just about anything and win. However, that anecdotal evidence is meaningless. At the same time, there are players who play crappy lists against other crappy players, win, and think that they are great, simply because they only play bad people. Lots of times when I see such radical call outs, this is the case. The player who has such a radical perspective is often untested in arenas that most people would consider "competitive" 40k. You could be the rare savant, but my skepticism is more than often well placed.

I understand your aloofness. I can see why you would feel superior for playing in a manner that you feel has you apart from other players. It's pretty common. I find players like you every so often. Some new college kid roles into town from a bigger city nearer to the regular GW tourney locations and tells his tales about how "competitive" his lists are. That person or TFG as we affectionately call them when they come is so much better than us that his lists are designed to fight other "competitive" lists and therefore he always ends up losing to a more realistic, balanced player with a little more knowledge.

Don't be TFG.

Sorry but I had to say something. This post shows exactly how ignorant you are of what JGrand is actually saying.

He is not talking about GW tournies, he is talking about the big indy GTs in the US, which are probably the biggest and hardest GTs in the world. He is talking about events like the Golden Throne, NOVA, etc.

I don't always agree with JGrand in his posts, but I can say with confidence he knows the game inside out and isn't just talking the talk. In the end though you are the one who brought up the superiority complex in your attitude, he is only reciprocating in kind except he at least has proven that he can back it up. That's not to say you can't, but as was said above, take your own advice and don't be TFG and don't be that pot that calls the kettle black.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
My issue was in fact, your tone. You may live in the hidden mecca of 40k--I don't know. What I do know is that GTs attract people from all over the US (to varying degrees based on the ease of travel). Your comment along the lines of "I don't know what game you are playing, but I play 40k at my store" insinuates that you either feel you have access to THE meta of "real" 40k, or that you just happen to know better than everyone else.

I generally tend to dismiss FLGS games as evidence of what is "competitive" on a national level in events of 100+ players. For instance, there are stores that I can go to in which there are no good players. I could bring just about anything and win. However, that anecdotal evidence is meaningless. At the same time, there are players who play crappy lists against other crappy players, win, and think that they are great, simply because they only play bad people. Lots of times when I see such radical call outs, this is the case. The player who has such a radical perspective is often untested in arenas that most people would consider "competitive" 40k. You could be the rare savant, but my skepticism is more than often well placed.

I understand your aloofness. I can see why you would feel superior for playing in a manner that you feel has you apart from other players. It's pretty common. I find players like you every so often. Some new college kid roles into town from a bigger city nearer to the regular GW tourney locations and tells his tales about how "competitive" his lists are. That person or TFG as we affectionately call them when they come is so much better than us that his lists are designed to fight other "competitive" lists and therefore he always ends up losing to a more realistic, balanced player with a little more knowledge.

Don't be TFG.

J grand is a very strong player; don't be so quick to dismiss people as a TFG just because they disagree with what you see as the competitive meta.

I understand your aloofness. I can see why you would feel superior for playing in a manner that you feel has you apart from other players. It's pretty common. I find players like you every so often. Some new college kid roles into town from a bigger city nearer to the regular GW tourney locations and tells his tales about how "competitive" his lists are. That person or TFG as we affectionately call them when they come is so much better than us that his lists are designed to fight other "competitive" lists and therefore he always ends up losing to a more realistic, balanced player with a little more knowledge.

Don't be TFG.

TFG refers to a person who is bad to play against due to their general attitude. I don't get mad about toy soldiers, so I have no problem avoiding the label

I initially responded to your comment because of how dismissive you were to some of the comments here. People who play competitive 40k aren't just "throwing dice", I can assure you that. Generally, players who feel similar to you haven't been to big events. As such, they are quick to dismiss this niche of 40k. I don't have a problem with people playing this game different ways, the goal is to have fun. At the same time, if all you play are games with a small group in your FLGS, it becomes hard to comment on tourney play.

I can assure you that the reason that many "competitive" lists are so homogenized is not entirely due to a lack of imagination. I believe that the Eldar dex has good units, but the Serpents stands out as overly-efficient. Thus, you see it a whole lot.

If you do want to get a game in sometime, I plan to attend BFS in a few weeks. I also hope to hit Adepticon this year (which is near the area you indicated you are from), grad school permitting. It may be a good way for you to test whether or not you really are able to beat down on all of us "uncreative" schlubs.

 En Excelsis wrote:
I understand your aloofness. I can see why you would feel superior for playing in a manner that you feel has you apart from other players. It's pretty common. I find players like you every so often. Some new college kid roles into town from a bigger city nearer to the regular GW tourney locations and tells his tales about how "competitive" his lists are. That person or TFG as we affectionately call them when they come is so much better than us that his lists are designed to fight other "competitive" lists and therefore he always ends up losing to a more realistic, balanced player with a little more knowledge.

Don't be TFG.

Aaaaaaand you've lost it.

Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

I disagree. The inernal balance is great in this codex.

Right now you can make Eldar lists with a wide variety of units and still be competative. As time goes on and the meta shifts this will not be the case, internal balance always reduces over time in 40k codexes.

People spamming Wave Serpents now are missing out on the codex when it is at its most interesting. In a few years time you will NEED to spam to stay competative.


Their will always be units that are the best in their FOC slot, but I think they have to be significantly better than the other choices for the codex to have poor internal balance.

The idea that the only troops you need are Bikes is nonsense, Guardians/DAs in serpents or Wraithguard are just as viable and a mixture is best.

Heavy support is stuffed with great choices, Falcons and Fire Prisms are a bit duff but there are still more great units than can fit into a list.

Warp spiders are probably the unit that stands out most from the rest of their FOC slot, but spamming them gives you diminishing returns, as you loose the ability to avoid fire with them all. Hawks are unit with great tactical flexibilty that dont fall too far behind the spiders.

The only problem with the elite choices is that its where the HtH units go. There is poor balance between the effectivness of Banshees/Harlies/Scorps vs Dragons/Wguard but this is due to Eldar working much better as a shooting army.

I disagree. The inernal balance is great in this codex.

Right now you can make Eldar lists with a wide variety of units and still be competative. As time goes on and the meta shifts this will not be the case, internal balance always reduces over time in 40k codexes.

People spamming Wave Serpents now are missing out on the codex when it is at its most interesting. In a few years time you will NEED to spam to stay competative.

The problem is, Wave Serpents are far and away the best unit in the codex. You may not need to full out spam them, but it is hard to make a list without a few. Even the more successful Footdar lists I've seen have had a minimum of two.

Their will always be units that are the best in their FOC slot, but I think they have to be significantly better than the other choices for the codex to have poor internal balance.

The idea that the only troops you need are Bikes is nonsense, Guardians/DAs in serpents or Wraithguard are just as viable and a mixture is best.

The troop section is very solid. There is a good range of options here; however, Guardians and DA are secondary to taking that Serpent. I've also tried out some bike heavy lists and was underwhelmed. The firepower and survivability is decent, but the leadership is really awful. Also, MEQ don't last very long right now. You have to be able to hide them in order to survive.

Heavy support is stuffed with great choices, Falcons and Fire Prisms are a bit duff but there are still more great units than can fit into a list.

Agreed.

Warp spiders are probably the unit that stands out most from the rest of their FOC slot, but spamming them gives you diminishing returns, as you loose the ability to avoid fire with them all. Hawks are unit with great tactical flexibilty that dont fall too far behind the spiders.

Sure. Spiders are a bit overrated. They are solid, but not the be all to end all. Hawks are very solid as well. The rest of FA...not so much.

The only problem with the elite choices is that its where the HtH units go. There is poor balance between the effectivness of Banshees/Harlies/Scorps vs Dragons/Wguard but this is due to Eldar working much better as a shooting army.

The whole Elites section is poor. While not completely dead, assault is on life support. Unless an assault unit is a combination of really fast (without a transport), really durable, really killy, and reasonably priced, it isn't worth thinking about. None of the Eldar units fit that bill. I could see Dragons from the Elites slot, but they are a bit overcosted now. Did they really need the 3+ save?

I'd agree that there is some more potential to the Eldar dex than it is given credit for. If the Serpent was toned down, I would argue that the book is one of GWs more balanced efforts (which may not be saying all that much). Nevertheless, the Serpent IS that good. It isn't an overstatement. There is a reason why you don't see Footdar dominating top tables. They can work, but they also need to be ready to deal with Tau, other Eldar, and Daemons. That isn't so easy without at least a few Serpents.

 JGrand wrote:

I'd agree that there is some more potential to the Eldar dex than it is given credit for. If the Serpent was toned down, I would argue that the book is one of GWs more balanced efforts (which may not be saying all that much). Nevertheless, the Serpent IS that good. It isn't an overstatement. There is a reason why you don't see Footdar dominating top tables. They can work, but they also need to be ready to deal with Tau, other Eldar, and Daemons. That isn't so easy without at least a few Serpents.

I agree that the WS is a bit too good at the moment , spamming them will give you the best lists and allow you to dominate. My point is that you can make a more varied list and still have a competative army on par with what most other books bring. I wouldnt say a book has poor internal balance because of one unit being really good, just that one unit in the book is badly designed.


Edit: It may be worth mentioning that this disscussion is only relevent to very competative games. This is a really good book for providing great options for an interesting tabletop game. The Crimson hunter for example has great rules; its as ridiculously fast and deadly as it is fragile. Some games it will be shot down by interceptors as soon as it arrives, in others it will do massive damage. This unreliability makes it a non-starter in competative play when your aiming to win 5-6 games in a row, but really interesting in less competative games (the VAST majority games).

I agree that the WS is a bit too good at the moment , spamming them will give you the best lists and allow you to dominate. My point is that you can make a more varied list and still have a competative army on par with what most other books bring. I wouldnt say a book has poor internal balance because of one unit being really good, just that one unit in the book is badly designed.

An overwhelmingly good unit speaks to some level of poor internal balance. The Serpent stands out as a clear-cut auto include. It is a good counter to so many issues that an army must answer, that it is hard to create a successful list otherwise.

Edit: It may be worth mentioning that this disscussion is only relevent to very competative games. This is a really good book for providing great options for an interesting tabletop game. The Crimson hunter for example has great rules; its as ridiculously fast and deadly as it is fragile. Some games it will be shot down by interceptors as soon as it arrives, in others it will do massive damage. This unreliability makes it a non-starter in competative play when your aiming to win 5-6 games in a row, but really interesting in less competative games (the VAST majority games).

Sure. It doesn't really matter what a person takes in friendly games. I often see people asking advice about "semi-competitive" or "non-competitive" lists. The answer for those type of games is to take what you like. Nothing is on the line, and having fun is always the most important part. There are people who like playing with crazy and bad units. There's nothing wrong with that.

At the same time, I don't really see much of a point discussing non-competitive 40k in the tactics section of Dakka. Again, when you are taking units for fun, it doesn't really matter what happens. Competitive 40k is fun too, but the fun is beating challenging opponents and creating the best list for your playstyle.

Lots of disagreements happen on here because people aren't clear about what kind of game they are playing. I always try to make it clear, not to be pompous, but to avoid a failure to reach stasis. There is no right way to play, but how you play does change what is able to be used, as you correctly noted. The Crimson Hunter is one of those units that falls somewhere in the middle. If all I'd have to worry about was the occasional Quad Gun, I'd be happy to include one. Sadly, Tau just have too much interceptor, and competitive 40k is filled with too many Tau players.

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.