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.

 Tinkrr wrote:

gungo wrote:
Eldar are fine in the ITC.

Statistically speaking, this isn't true:

There were 22 Tau players total, meaning 7% of the field. There were 5 Tau players in the top 50, or 6 if you count the multiple top 50s players making it 6 out of 53, meaning the top 50 was either 10% or 11% Tau, based on which you choose.

There were 44 Marine players, with only 5 or 6 in the top 50/53, meaning they had 10% or 11% of the top 50. Despite having a showing twice as high as Tau, they had less than half as many placing players in the top 50. (Derp: CSM)

There were 42 Eldar players in the event, with 10 or 13 in the top 50, meaning they had 20-26% of the top 50. More than double the Tau representation, with slightly less players than double that of Tau. (Correction: Accidentally counted a DE as Eldar)

Other armies in the top 50 (using the 53 figures):

Necrons (5): 9.4%
Dark Angels (5 out of 11 players): 9.4%
Renegades (5 out of 7 players!): 9.4%
Cult Mech (3): 5.6%
Daemons (3): 5.6%
Tyranids (2): 3.7%
Grey Knights (1): 1.8%
CSM (1): 1.8%
Inquisition (1): 1.8%
SoBs (1): 1.8%
Dark Eldar (1): 1.8%
(Source: http://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/lvo2016 )

That's not to say Eldar are face roll OP, but they are a bit too good and the numbers represent that. They need to go from something like 60% win rate to 55% win rate like the other top armies. It's only a 5% difference, but it's an important one.

Edit: Also, RiTides did this same thing for the top 20, Marines and Tau stay constant at percent of top 20, but Eldar go up to 30%.

A single tournament is hardly accurate results especially when you rank them based on what the top players use. And yes your rankings are based on what a handful of players use. For better results use a larger source of numbers and use the itc complete numbers from the entire season and you will notice elder doing significantly worse.

Furthermore I never stated elder aren't strong they are but even you stated its at best a 5% and that's not the point of the itc to nerf armies and perfectly balance the game.

gungo wrote:
A single tournament is hardly accurate results especially when you rank them based on what the top players use. And yes your rankings are based on what a handful of players use. For better results use a larger source of numbers and use the itc complete numbers from the entire season and you will notice elder doing significantly worse.

Furthermore I never stated elder aren't strong they are but even you stated its at best a 5% and that's not the point of the itc to nerf armies and perfectly balance the game.

I'll just re-post this from the first page since it addresses the points you brought up:


I don't think tournament wins are a good gauge of a codex's power level. Eldar didn't have a ton of big wins this year, but I don't think anyone will say that codex is under powered. I calculated the average scores of Top 10 faction finishers in the ITC for all factions in 2015 and then compared how each faction did compared to the average. Eldar players had scores 40% above the total average. Oddly, Orks came in second by that metric, which goes to show you that one good trick (Zardsnark) can also keep an army competitive.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-G4ftYsnn4RSFVxdF9LZm1aazA/view?usp=sharing

 LValx wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....wont solve everything, yeah eldar are stronger than Orks codex...guess what, everyone DOESN"T get a trophy, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Haha, this is so silly. Take away allies and formations and Eldar will be the only competitive army to play. They are the only codex that is good without the use of formations. No army can match scatbikes as troops. No army has a better LOW. Arguably the best psyker and thus the best HQ. Necrons become crippled, SM become mono-build (centurion deathstars), bye bye BA/SW/Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus/Inquisition. The books arent written with CADs in mind. The codexes are now written with formations in mind, not a traditional FOC.

BA aren't written with ANYTHING in mind. There is no reason to have them as allies except for drop pod cheese. All BA formations are basically garbage as well. BA run as well with CAD as anything else, That is to say, they don't run at all.

Martel732 wrote:
BA aren't written with ANYTHING in mind. There is no reason to have them as allies except for drop pod cheese. All BA formations are basically garbage as well. BA run as well with CAD as anything else, That is to say, they don't run at all.

Have to disagree - the death punch can be very effective in the right players hand. Yes it has issues and yes it has counters but its hardly garbage

Vaktathi wrote:To some, but with many having 3+ saves, and lots of psychic support to reroll failed saves or generate/enhance cover saves, and particularly that T3 eldar infantry are usually the smallest component of most armies, its not teally a factor

As a guard player, you should know both how limiting T3 is and how often a 3+ save can be made to regularly fail through weight of dice.

The re-rolling saves comes from one psychic power. Psychic powers are randomly generated and can fail/be made to fail. Eldar can have reliable casters, but unless you have multiple psykers all using the same table (or Eldrad) you are not guaranteed to get that power. Furthermore, that power can only affect one unit, and can only be cast by that Independant character joined to the unit. Thanks to casting requirements, you are unlikely to get it off more than once per turn, and usually only on one Farseer. Unless in a Seer council, no Eldar player will dare to have their Farseer moving aggressively with a unit of Aspect Warriors; it's a great way to had over victory points fast.

Only the truly nasty Eldar armies are composed solely of Jetbikes and D-weapons. There's usually plenty of Eldar infantry running around otherwise, and I can tell you all kinds of stories about how vulnerable those are.

Vaktathi wrote:
right, and Eldar have tons of this sort of firepower and its been significsntly enhanced in the last two years.

This is mostly due to changes in the core rulebook affecting how vehicles are wounded and units are allocated wounds.

Vaktathi wrote:sporting 3+ saves now, often with psychic support to reroll saves or get cover, and the almost complete lack of ability to fail to lill their targets when sporting BS5 and "AP0", theyrr much hardier than most equivalents and vastly moreso than they were in previous editions.

They're killing efficiency has increased, especially against armoured targets. Sternguard or Command Squads are still significantly more durable than Fire Dragons, and those are considered suicide units now. Furthermore, Eldar do not have assess to a delivery mechanism as cheap as a Drop Pod. Even wiht DE allies, nothing gets as cheap as 35 points.

Vaktathi wrote:not every army has such psychic abilities, most cant match Eldar, and those that can cant do so as cheaply.

Psychic Phases is an all-or-nothing aspect of the game; you either match your opponent or you do not. Last I chacked, IG could take plenty of their own psykers for cheap as well.

In any case, Eldar psykers are not on durable platforms. They cap out a T4. They may have great defensive spells, but you have to balance your self-preservation with handing out the necessary buff to your army. Unless you have sunken most of your points into a gigantic Seer Council, you can't do both.

 Blacksails wrote:
If a format or group wants to balance 40k for tournament play, they'll have to get down in the weeds and actually fix the game.

Banning a handful of formations, tweaking some ambiguous rules, and limiting army construction only shifts the balance. The game needs a dramatic overhaul, down to how the basic rules work together and the point costs of quite literally everything.

Anything less will always run into the same wall. The core is rotten. Band-aids only cover so much.

aye, the whole ruleset needs a fundamental reboot, everything else is largely just a bandaid on a gunshot wound

 Massaen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
BA aren't written with ANYTHING in mind. There is no reason to have them as allies except for drop pod cheese. All BA formations are basically garbage as well. BA run as well with CAD as anything else, That is to say, they don't run at all.

Have to disagree - the death punch can be very effective in the right players hand. Yes it has issues and yes it has counters but its hardly garbage

Death punch? TWC makes the entire codex pointless by just existing. That particularly sucks for me, because I hate SW so much.

Death punch is the triple raven formation with multiple assault units that deploy via pods turn 1 and charge. normally death company or vanguard.

It delivers a massive alpha strike to most forces and kills high value targets early.

TWC are good but not the be all and end of everything.

 Massaen wrote:
Death punch is the triple raven formation with multiple assault units that deploy via pods turn 1 and charge. normally death company or vanguard.

It delivers a massive alpha strike to most forces and kills high value targets early.

TWC are good but not the be all and end of everything.

That formation has 3 full tac squads in it. And three storm ravens. (Useless) It sucks. "Massive" alpha strike my ass. And you look like a fool against null deploy lists.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:To some, but with many having 3+ saves, and lots of psychic support to reroll failed saves or generate/enhance cover saves, and particularly that T3 eldar infantry are usually the smallest component of most armies, its not teally a factor

As a guard player, you should know both how limiting T3 is and how often a 3+ save can be made to regularly fail through weight of dice.

I do play Eldar as well, just not very often these days (and the army's been only partially painted for years), however, in general, yes, T3 can be felt, but it is increasingly meaningless in an environment where everything is wounded on 2's, particularly when we're talking about Eldar.

The re-rolling saves comes from one psychic power. Psychic powers are randomly generated and can fail/be made to fail.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't commonly there and don't commonly go off.

Furthermore, that power can only affect one unit, and can only be cast by that Independant character joined to the unit. Thanks to casting requirements, you are unlikely to get it off more than once per turn, and usually only on one Farseer. Unless in a Seer council, no Eldar player will dare to have their Farseer moving aggressively with a unit of Aspect Warriors; it's a great way to had over victory points fast.

Yes, I didn't say it was automatically there, but it's not uncommon. Meanwhile there's also things like Conceal that can be employed by many units.

Only the truly nasty Eldar armies are composed solely of Jetbikes and D-weapons. There's usually plenty of Eldar infantry running around otherwise, and I can tell you all kinds of stories about how vulnerable those are.

Some are, but many have 3+ saves, some are T6 and Fearless or have abilities that allow them to jump away when shot at, etc.

Ultimately, we're generally not tallking Guardsmen here.

This is mostly due to changes in the core rulebook affecting how vehicles are wounded and units are allocated wounds.

Well, the army wide boosting of everything to BS4, and formations allowing BS5 Aspect Warriors and last edition's Laser Lock and this edition's proliferation of scatterlasers to every jetbike, the serpent shield, and the like.

They're killing efficiency has increased, especially against armoured targets. Sternguard or Command Squads are still significantly more durable than Fire Dragons, and those are considered suicide units now.

They're only more durable against S3/4/5 hits (an increasingly small array of threat values) and don't have the same efficacy in dispatching their targets, and cost 9ppm more, and can't use their meltaguns more than once per game if they survive their first turn.

Furthermore, Eldar do not have assess to a delivery mechanism as cheap as a Drop Pod. Even wiht DE allies, nothing gets as cheap as 35 points.

True, but a Falcon or Wave Serpent isn't far behind, those are excellent delivery systems able to get a unit of fire dragons within Melta range of a target on turn 2 that was potentially 48" away turn 1 on top of being solid medium tanks.

Psychic Phases is an all-or-nothing aspect of the game; you either match your opponent or you do not.

Right, but even going all in, relatively few armies are going to be able to match the Eldar, and especially on a points-investment basis.

Last I chacked, IG could take plenty of their own psykers for cheap as well.

Yes IG can, but a mess of Lvl1 psykers isn't usually going to mean much, and they don't have access to powers of the same utility that Eldar do, and can't make as effective use of most of their powers as other armies can (as most IG psykers are pointless to self-buff in many instances or simply don't have the appropriate types of units available to the army for other powers to properly work with).

In any case, Eldar psykers are not on durable platforms. They cap out a T4. They may have great defensive spells, but you have to balance your self-preservation with handing out the necessary buff to your army. Unless you have sunken most of your points into a gigantic Seer Council, you can't do both.

They have all sorts of options to keep them around, it's not just a choice between being on their lonesome or being in a gigantic mega-seer-council, though the latter isn't uncommon. Farseers can join units of jetbikes or rangers to give them resiliency. Their individual Toughness is a relatively minor factor as typically, if it matters, something has probably gone wrong and it probably won't make a difference.

Except not all of the examples you lists wold be better served crammed into someone else's book. I don't think Sisters of Battle players would take kindly to being crammed in an IG book along with the new Admech and Skitarii units.

I didn't say sisters and AdMech should be combined with IG. IG should be IG, Admech should just be one book and not two, while the Sisters could be their own book or part of a combined Inquisition book.

Harlequins are a special problem on their own: which book do they join? If they can be used in both, they would need unit entries in both. What happens if the different entries contradict each other, or when one book is not updated and the other is? (In case you're wondering, this is exactly why Harlequins were given their own book in the first place)

They aren't really an army inherently, they're a jetbike unit, a single infantry unit with a couple transport options and some characters. If having them in two different books is an issue, then keep them a distinct book and make it clear that it applies to both armies but is not an army on its own. There's just not enough there to support an army as a distinct complete army.

Martel732 wrote:

 Massaen wrote:
Death punch is the triple raven formation with multiple assault units that deploy via pods turn 1 and charge. normally death company or vanguard.

It delivers a massive alpha strike to most forces and kills high value targets early.

TWC are good but not the be all and end of everything.

That formation has 3 full tac squads in it. And three storm ravens. (Useless) It sucks. "Massive" alpha strike my ass. And you look like a fool against null deploy lists.

Then we can agree to disagree - Any evidence I provide is going to be anecdotal and based on my own experiences of which you will write it off anyway.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
...

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want to see allies go away fully because several books become useless.
... ...

... ... There is no way to represent key pieces of 40k fluff without either allies or duplicate unit entries. Both have problems.

What do people want from a tournament? Do people want a flavoursome, fluffy game, or a fair competitive game?

If these two aims are mutually exclusive because of the way the rules work, which way should a TO jump?

My view is that tournaments should be a series of balanced fights, and fluffy games would be better served by a campaign game weekend with a much more structured scenario.

Neither of these aims necessarily is compatible with allowing players free choice of what forces they can take to the tabletop. The fundamental problem is that 40K has never been well balanced, and it has just got worse with Allies and Formations and Apocalypse units and so on. Yet for many players, the idea of army list building is central to the way they want to play the game.

Perhaps this is a circle that cannot be squared by anyone.

What about balancing off a different mechanic?

Min value/Max value

- 300/600pts of Infantry
- 120/400pts of Dedicated Transport
- 120/200pts of Bikes/Jetbikes/Cavalry/Beasts
- 120/200pts of Jump Or Jetpack Infantry
- 120/300pts of Walkers
- 120/300pts of Vehicles
- 300pts max of Flyers/FMCs
- 400pts max of LOW

At this point the CAD is broken, but unit types are still a thing. Points values aren't well-considered but you get the idea.

Yoyoyo wrote:
What about balancing off a different mechanic?

Min value/Max value

- 300/600pts of Infantry
- 120/400pts of Dedicated Transport
- 120/200pts of Bikes/Jetbikes/Cavalry/Beasts
- 120/200pts of Jump Or Jetpack Infantry
- 120/300pts of Walkers
- 120/300pts of Vehicles
- 300pts max of Flyers/FMCs
- 400pts max of LOW

At this point the CAD is broken, but unit types are still a thing. Points values aren't well-considered but you get the idea.

I'm afraid that would not work either since armies have different strenghts, some might need more troops, others might need flyers etc. also the different units costs themselves will quickly unbalance this.
Short of rewriting 40k i believe the only way to get different house-rules to work is to focus on the missions and how they award points and forget about changing/nerfing rules\units.

See my other post:

X078 wrote:
I'm afraid that would not work either since armies have different strenghts, some might need more troops, others might need flyers etc. also the different units costs themselves will quickly unbalance this.

A lot of top-tier armies are there because they're quite effective at dodging tax units, while lower-tier armies can't sidestep the requirement.

The effect of this is effectively raising an obstacle to min-maxing a handful of key units. It's so players can't run 4x Heldrakes or 45x Warp Spiders or 9x Riptides. Playing with/against diverse and varied armies is desirable, right?

In terms of balance I'm not sure how it actually would work, but I cannot imagine CSM being punished by Eldar paying for Wave Serpents (even on Dragons or D-Guard), or Tau paying for Strike Teams and Devilfish.

In terms of list restrictions you can look at the Know No Mercy GT for some lessons. In a word -- yikes!

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/08/dispatches-from-the-front-know-no-mercy-tournament-report/

 Massaen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Massaen wrote:
Death punch is the triple raven formation with multiple assault units that deploy via pods turn 1 and charge. normally death company or vanguard.

It delivers a massive alpha strike to most forces and kills high value targets early.

TWC are good but not the be all and end of everything.

That formation has 3 full tac squads in it. And three storm ravens. (Useless) It sucks. "Massive" alpha strike my ass. And you look like a fool against null deploy lists.

Then we can agree to disagree - Any evidence I provide is going to be anecdotal and based on my own experiences of which you will write it off anyway.

The main problem I had with your post is that you called the Angel's Fury Spearhead formation the "Death Punch" and expected everyone here to know what you were talking about. Apart from that, it does come with some issues (not enough oomph at 1850, for starters), but I like it in theory.

To add something to the original spirit of the thread, I wish an organizer like FLG would experiment with adjusting points costs of units rather than altering game rules. A given units points cost is SUPPOSED to help balance the game out, but GW does such a horrid job with certain units that they either become auto-include because of their extreme efficiency or totally extinct because of how detrimental the unit would be in a given list.

I have zero time to continue this post before work...but you get the idea. Yeah...it'll never happen...

Yoyoyo wrote:

X078 wrote:
I'm afraid that would not work either since armies have different strenghts, some might need more troops, others might need flyers etc. also the different units costs themselves will quickly unbalance this.

A lot of top-tier armies are there because they're quite effective at dodging tax units, while lower-tier armies can't sidestep the requirement.

The effect of this is effectively raising an obstacle to min-maxing a handful of key units. It's so players can't run 4x Heldrakes or 45x Warp Spiders or 9x Riptides. Playing with/against diverse and varied armies is desirable, right?

In terms of balance I'm not sure how it actually would work, but I cannot imagine CSM being punished by Eldar paying for Wave Serpents (even on Dragons or D-Guard), or Tau paying for Strike Teams and Devilfish.

In terms of list restrictions you can look at the Know No Mercy GT for some lessons. In a word -- yikes!

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/08/dispatches-from-the-front-know-no-mercy-tournament-report/

That tournament looks fun as **** actually. Pretty close to how we play it

Martel732 wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....wont solve everything, yeah eldar are stronger than Orks codex...guess what, everyone DOESN"T get a trophy, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Haha, this is so silly. Take away allies and formations and Eldar will be the only competitive army to play. They are the only codex that is good without the use of formations. No army can match scatbikes as troops. No army has a better LOW. Arguably the best psyker and thus the best HQ. Necrons become crippled, SM become mono-build (centurion deathstars), bye bye BA/SW/Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus/Inquisition. The books arent written with CADs in mind. The codexes are now written with formations in mind, not a traditional FOC.

BA aren't written with ANYTHING in mind. There is no reason to have them as allies except for drop pod cheese. All BA formations are basically garbage as well. BA run as well with CAD as anything else, That is to say, they don't run at all.

I disagree. I like 3x melta ASM, I like Sanguinary Priests, I like Dante, I used about 900 pts worth of BA for a while with my IG and they worked very well. I wont disagree that BA are underpowered, but unfortunately that goes for half the codexes in the game. The other half are actually pretty well balanced against one another.

We use the ITC FAQ for our events, but we score maelstrom at the end of each player turn. Scoring both Maelstrom and final objectives at the bottom of the turn is plain bonkers. The FAQ is a really useful tool however.

Maelstrom's random nature greatly increases the requirement for player activity in every game turn, and is a massive improvement to the game experience. We use the ETC deck, which is a bit more limited in that it largely makes you do things you would be doing anyway, albeit with a different priority - personally I'd prefer a few more capture objective X cards in - but it still works well. I wouldn't go to an event anymore that didn't include maelstrom in some form or another.

Certain units can really spoil that game experience (I'm looking at you Warp Spiders), but that's not really an organiser's fault. It's up to the players how they wish to participate. I'm sure giving out significant cash prizes incentivises that behaviour, but I guess that is needed to get a large turn-out.

 torgoch wrote:
We use the ITC FAQ for our events, but we score maelstrom at the end of each player turn. Scoring both Maelstrom and final objectives at the bottom of the turn is plain bonkers. The FAQ is a really useful tool however.

Maelstrom's random nature greatly increases the requirement for player activity in every game turn, and is a massive improvement to the game experience. We use the ETC deck, which is a bit more limited in that it largely makes you do things you would be doing anyway, albeit with a different priority - personally I'd prefer a few more capture objective X cards in - but it still works well. I wouldn't go to an event anymore that didn't include maelstrom in some form or another.

Certain units can really spoil that game experience (I'm looking at you Warp Spiders), but that's not really an organiser's fault. It's up to the players how they wish to participate. I'm sure giving out significant cash prizes incentivises that behaviour, but I guess that is needed to get a large turn-out.

I believe the future of 40k lies with using 40k "untouched" with the addition of "custom" mission/points faqs/formats. Sounds like you are partly on your way to a good format, just don't ban or nerf anything.

The ITC FAQ does make some rule changes, for example Strength D and Stomp are altered and in doing so, some things are nerfed. However, the result is a better game experience for the event participants overall.

I think there is probably a role for event organisers to agree that certain things are simply not appropriate for a situation where you are asking people to pay a lot of money and and give up a significant portion of their time to travel to your event. However, I'm not sure where that boundary is as its been years since I was close to what is 'competitive' in 40k.

And fundamentally, I don't really care what people at the top few tables are doing, my main concern as an organiser is with making sure the middle and bottom of the fields have the best event experience possible.

 LValx wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Just ban all formations. Straight CAD only single source, no allies....wont solve everything, yeah eldar are stronger than Orks codex...guess what, everyone DOESN"T get a trophy, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Haha, this is so silly. Take away allies and formations and Eldar will be the only competitive army to play. They are the only codex that is good without the use of formations. No army can match scatbikes as troops. No army has a better LOW. Arguably the best psyker and thus the best HQ. Necrons become crippled, SM become mono-build (centurion deathstars), bye bye BA/SW/Skitarii/Cult Mechanicus/Inquisition. The books arent written with CADs in mind. The codexes are now written with formations in mind, not a traditional FOC.

BA aren't written with ANYTHING in mind. There is no reason to have them as allies except for drop pod cheese. All BA formations are basically garbage as well. BA run as well with CAD as anything else, That is to say, they don't run at all.

I disagree. I like 3x melta ASM, I like Sanguinary Priests, I like Dante, I used about 900 pts worth of BA for a while with my IG and they worked very well. I wont disagree that BA are underpowered, but unfortunately that goes for half the codexes in the game. The other half are actually pretty well balanced against one another.

Triple melta ASM are actually quite poor because a) BA can't afford to throw away any models b) melta got its balls cut off in 7th and c) they only have three of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Massaen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Massaen wrote:
Death punch is the triple raven formation with multiple assault units that deploy via pods turn 1 and charge. normally death company or vanguard.

It delivers a massive alpha strike to most forces and kills high value targets early.

TWC are good but not the be all and end of everything.

That formation has 3 full tac squads in it. And three storm ravens. (Useless) It sucks. "Massive" alpha strike my ass. And you look like a fool against null deploy lists.

Then we can agree to disagree - Any evidence I provide is going to be anecdotal and based on my own experiences of which you will write it off anyway.

Then make a general mathematical argument. I can show for sure that tac squads are bad, and Stormravens are overcosted junk with no place in 7th. Anything you would assault with have to pay a drop pod tax as well.

Nah, you can go BSF and get 4x MSU DC with a Power Fist.

A Damocles Rhino would give you a 35/36 chance of bringing in your Stormraven formation on T1.

Scatterlasers and WKs will be generally ineffective against your flyers, going for 2x Strat traits gives you a good chance at Night Fighting for a 3+ Jink if you go first and rerollable reserves for DC.

Here is the mathematical argument:

Stormraven + Tacs = 340pts.
340/27 = ~13 Scatterbikes, 4 shots = 52(1/6)(1/6)(1/2) = 0.72HP

Nothing you put onto the board in T1 can be targeted effectively except a single Damocles Rhino. You can hide one Rhino I hope?

If he goes first, you come on second,
If he goes second, move 24" to set up for a T2 charge with DC.

He can't deploy flyers on T1 and probably has poor AA.

Doable? Probably better than getting shot to bits on T1 at least.

Martel is only on dakka to complain, I have never seen constructive posts on his part. You can give him advice but it will always be answered with, "BA are unplayable"

 LValx wrote:
Martel is only on dakka to complain, I have never seen constructive posts on his part. You can give him advice but it will always be answered with, "BA are unplayable"

to be fair, 40% of dakka just seems to be here to complain

You know what? Despite that he typically stays away from personal attacks and getting snarky, which is a lot better than most of us,

Incidentally Martel, I'm still hoping you play koooaei's mutilator Mutant Divison.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You know what? Despite that he typically stays away from personal attacks and getting snarky, which is a lot better than most of us,

Incidentally Martel, I'm still hoping you play koooaei's mutilator Mutant Divison.

I want to. It should be interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LValx wrote:
Martel is only on dakka to complain, I have never seen constructive posts on his part. You can give him advice but it will always be answered with, "BA are unplayable"

What can I say? I hate Stormravens, I hate the model, hate the stats and hate Imperial heavy weapons that are mounted on it. Oh, and I hate the pricetag on them as well. That, and I've crushed this formation every time some upstart thinks that it's the saviour of the BA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Nah, you can go BSF and get 4x MSU DC with a Power Fist.

A Damocles Rhino would give you a 35/36 chance of bringing in your Stormraven formation on T1.

Scatterlasers and WKs will be generally ineffective against your flyers, going for 2x Strat traits gives you a good chance at Night Fighting for a 3+ Jink if you go first and rerollable reserves for DC.

Here is the mathematical argument:

Stormraven + Tacs = 340pts.
340/27 = ~13 Scatterbikes, 4 shots = 52(1/6)(1/6)(1/2) = 0.72HP

Nothing you put onto the board in T1 can be targeted effectively except a single Damocles Rhino. You can hide one Rhino I hope?

If he goes first, you come on second,
If he goes second, move 24" to set up for a T2 charge with DC.

He can't deploy flyers on T1 and probably has poor AA.

Doable? Probably better than getting shot to bits on T1 at least.

But the WK is going to step on all the DC once the fighting starts. The WK is the ultimate trump card against BA. It out chops my choppy and out shoots my shooty.

You don't want to be distracted by the WK, it can kill at most 1x squad in melee and can't fight for objectives.

Drown it in combat squadded Tacs, leave DC to their revenge.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You don't want to be distracted by the WK, it can kill at most 1x squad in melee and can't fight for objectives.

Drown it in combat squadded Tacs, leave DC to their revenge.

You can't really tarpit GMCs, though. Stomp is a bitch.

This topic is dumb because there is no fixing eldar anymore then the ITC already has.

Eldar is unique in the fact thier codex and fw supplements are full of good core units and a very flexible decorian. There isn't many great or must take formations for eldar unlike other armies. This is why both lvo eldar top 2 lists were entirely different units.

Whereas every other codex has major duds and powerful units mixed together. This makes certain formations that maximizes those powerful units must take formations. Looking at you riptide Wing.

At best itc can go back too the no duplicate source rule however whole Alex spammed warp spiders that also really wasn't why eldar won and hurts other armies more. The ITC is at 3 source 1 duplicate right now and I think that's fine.

Personally I don't expect the ITC to balance the game completely. I don't think it's possible and the game constantly evolves. I would like to see changes to maelstrom kinda like ETC missions but with a few more claim objectives. I'd like to see tau unnerfed a bit.ghostkeel reversed, hunter contingent allowed to share but only on designated target. I'd like to see toe in cover for gmc only removed. Maybe remove the super heavy gargantuan victory points but that might need play testing.

Eldar codex is still relatively new and the fw update is new. We still have more sw, more chaos, a new fw book adding a lot of the fw ad mech models, a rumoured combined ad mech book, a rumoured dark eldar update. All due in the next 6 months and maybe a few more hidden releases. The status quo will change again. Unfortunately the eldar fw update hit at just the right time for lvo and the tau recieved some heavy handed rules clarifications. Things like that can sway an individual tournament result however eldar even though they are still good doesn't require anymore knee jerk reactions or nerfs. Which imho shouldn't happen to any army unless there is a major problem.

Martel732 wrote:
You can't really tarpit GMCs, though. Stomp is a bitch.

Mathematically, there's a good chance (~57%) he doesn't roll a 6. Imperial Knghts don't have a better stomp:

Even a 5 man SM TAC unit can hold an imperial knight for 2 rounds of combat with savvy casualty removal by marine player.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/623315.page#7356793

Considering you have 30 Tacs with no equipment except a free beacon, you are pretty much blessed with the perfect speed bump.

You might as well use it!