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.

The problem with Eldar is self control. There are a ton of really good options in the codex, but none of those options are particularly "broken" by themselves (except the WK, but SHV & GC's are a whole separate issue). Yes Scatterbikes are the best troop in the game, but they still die fast in every game I have ever played (both as Eldar and against them). Spyders are annoying, but just charge them, not enough will survive to Hit & Run. If you don't have good assault options (or enough shooting to not need assault units), that's an issue with you're army, not Eldar.

The issue is the small group of players who abuse ALL the options together. It only takes 1 guy in a group that runs Scatterbikes, WK's, Spyder Hosts, etc and suddenly EVERY Eldar player is the cheesiest neckbeard TFG since cheddar came to mozzarella-ville.

Not every Eldar player fields that list and MOST players that do would be happy to swap out some of those options to make the game more enjoyable for both players. I have played Eldar since 4th ed and have always played bikes, even when the only tactic was to hide them all game. I love the army and outside of tournaments most of my bikes have Shuricannons, not Scatters. If an opponent doesn't what to play against a WK, I drop it for something else like a Nightspinner and some Hawks.

Seriously guys, can we stop with the "Eldar are OP" threads? Even the ones started innocently like this one quickly devolve into: "Yes, they are" " I hate Eldar" and comments like that.

--

 Galef wrote:


Seriously guys, can we stop with the "Eldar are OP" threads? Even the ones started innocently like this one quickly devolve into: "Yes, they are" " I hate Eldar" and comments like that.

--

To stop those threads, troll posters need to stop trolling, and having people take it seriously

"generally powerful and good army Isn't that powerful"
"generally weak army isn't as weak its agreed it is"
"Free vehicles that produce a statistically unkillable army and wins by points not kills is not op"
"inflammatory article is inflammatory"

Don't feed the troll, but don't try and defend an obvious troll post with legit defense, because its undermined by troll OP.

 Galef wrote:
The problem with Eldar is self control. There are a ton of really good options in the codex, but none of those options are particularly "broken" by themselves (except the WK, but SHV & GC's are a whole separate issue). Yes Scatterbikes are the best troop in the game, but they still die fast in every game I have ever played (both as Eldar and against them). Spyders are annoying, but just charge them, not enough will survive to Hit & Run. If you don't have good assault options (or enough shooting to not need assault units), that's an issue with you're army, not Eldar.

The issue is the small group of players who abuse ALL the options together. It only takes 1 guy in a group that runs Scatterbikes, WK's, Spyder Hosts, etc and suddenly EVERY Eldar player is the cheesiest neckbeard TFG since cheddar came to mozzarella-ville.

Not every Eldar player fields that list and MOST players that do would be happy to swap out some of those options to make the game more enjoyable for both players. I have played Eldar since 4th ed and have always played bikes, even when the only tactic was to hide them all game. I love the army and outside of tournaments most of my bikes have Shuricannons, not Scatters. If an opponent doesn't what to play against a WK, I drop it for something else like a Nightspinner and some Hawks.

Seriously guys, can we stop with the "Eldar are OP" threads? Even the ones started innocently like this one quickly devolve into: "Yes, they are" " I hate Eldar" and comments like that.

--

And fully justified, because the Eldar are ridiculously OP. Even without abuse of scatterbikes or other such cheese. Almost everything in the codex is really good. Try playing as BA against an Eldar list, then come again. Any Eldar list will beat any BA list.
I don't hate Eldar, and arguably, the problem is not with the Eldar codex (in a perfect codex, all options should be good) but with underpowered codices like Orks, BA or CSM, but that doesn't take away the fact that playing against Eldar just isn't much fun because even non-cheese Eldar lists are so powerful compared to my BA .

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The problem with Eldar is self control. There are a ton of really good options in the codex, but none of those options are particularly "broken" by themselves (except the WK, but SHV & GC's are a whole separate issue). Yes Scatterbikes are the best troop in the game, but they still die fast in every game I have ever played (both as Eldar and against them). Spyders are annoying, but just charge them, not enough will survive to Hit & Run. If you don't have good assault options (or enough shooting to not need assault units), that's an issue with you're army, not Eldar.

The issue is the small group of players who abuse ALL the options together. It only takes 1 guy in a group that runs Scatterbikes, WK's, Spyder Hosts, etc and suddenly EVERY Eldar player is the cheesiest neckbeard TFG since cheddar came to mozzarella-ville.

Not every Eldar player fields that list and MOST players that do would be happy to swap out some of those options to make the game more enjoyable for both players. I have played Eldar since 4th ed and have always played bikes, even when the only tactic was to hide them all game. I love the army and outside of tournaments most of my bikes have Shuricannons, not Scatters. If an opponent doesn't what to play against a WK, I drop it for something else like a Nightspinner and some Hawks.

Seriously guys, can we stop with the "Eldar are OP" threads? Even the ones started innocently like this one quickly devolve into: "Yes, they are" " I hate Eldar" and comments like that.

--

And fully justified, because the Eldar are ridiculously OP. Even without abuse of scatterbikes or other such cheese. Almost everything in the codex is really good. Try playing as BA against an Eldar list, then come again. Any Eldar list will beat any BA list.
I don't hate Eldar, and arguably, the problem is not with the Eldar codex (in a perfect codex, all options should be good) but with underpowered codices like Orks, BA or CSM, but that doesn't take away the fact that playing against Eldar just isn't much fun because even non-cheese Eldar lists are so powerful compared to my BA .

Do my eyes deceive me? Some is complaining about BA and its not Martel?

Eldar just have more cheese in their codex and more ways to stuff that cheese into an army than any other codex right now. There isn't a phase of the game they suffer in. SM don't gunline that well, necrons and tau have no psykers, etc. Eldar can gunline, own the psychic phase against anyone but daemons, are the most mobile army, have great durability and units with unique tactics that are well suited to tournament style missions packets. Then add in 6" battle focus for everyone, the ability to take 12 wraithknights in a battleforged list and you have an army that has a 60%+ win rate against everyone.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The problem with Eldar is self control. There are a ton of really good options in the codex, but none of those options are particularly "broken" by themselves (except the WK, but SHV & GC's are a whole separate issue). Yes Scatterbikes are the best troop in the game, but they still die fast in every game I have ever played (both as Eldar and against them). Spyders are annoying, but just charge them, not enough will survive to Hit & Run. If you don't have good assault options (or enough shooting to not need assault units), that's an issue with you're army, not Eldar.

The issue is the small group of players who abuse ALL the options together. It only takes 1 guy in a group that runs Scatterbikes, WK's, Spyder Hosts, etc and suddenly EVERY Eldar player is the cheesiest neckbeard TFG since cheddar came to mozzarella-ville.

Not every Eldar player fields that list and MOST players that do would be happy to swap out some of those options to make the game more enjoyable for both players. I have played Eldar since 4th ed and have always played bikes, even when the only tactic was to hide them all game. I love the army and outside of tournaments most of my bikes have Shuricannons, not Scatters. If an opponent doesn't what to play against a WK, I drop it for something else like a Nightspinner and some Hawks.

Seriously guys, can we stop with the "Eldar are OP" threads? Even the ones started innocently like this one quickly devolve into: "Yes, they are" " I hate Eldar" and comments like that.

--

And fully justified, because the Eldar are ridiculously OP. Even without abuse of scatterbikes or other such cheese. Almost everything in the codex is really good. Try playing as BA against an Eldar list, then come again. Any Eldar list will beat any BA list.
I don't hate Eldar, and arguably, the problem is not with the Eldar codex (in a perfect codex, all options should be good) but with underpowered codices like Orks, BA or CSM, but that doesn't take away the fact that playing against Eldar just isn't much fun because even non-cheese Eldar lists are so powerful compared to my BA .

Do my eyes deceive me? Some is complaining about BA and its not Martel?

I have regular Ork, BA and CSM opponents that not only have fun against my Eldar, but often make winning hard for me. I don't always win, nor do I want to.

Heck, most of my "wins" have more to do with my allies then my main Eldar force. I rarely play pure Eldar at 1850, usually I have around 700pts of either DE venom spam with Reavers or a GK Nemisis Strike force.

All I ask is that you don't refuse an Eldar player because they're Eldar. Instead refuse them a game if they're a D-bag that won't tone their list down in casual games.

--

marcman wrote:
I mean realistically, SM Necrons Tau and Eldar all have their cheese and ways to beat them. Eldar just seems to have a little more options of cheese and easier access. And it's not like Eldar are dominating 100%, like Eldar armies are 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and so on. I mean sure I can kite the crap outta your troops, wound on 2's and get some D, but let's not mention free vehicles and grav spam, ignores cover or the army wide FNP. Yea I get the WK may kill 2 IK in CC, but then again 1 unit of grav can still splat a WK, or when drop pod Melta melts all my tanks turn 1, or when all the troops I kill come back to life. I guess I get that some of the units are rediqulously strong, but I mean sure you can complain to me for bringing my 3 units of scatbikes and warpspiders while you bring your 5 riptides and 40 markerlights

Please forgive my nievity, but how can a wk kil 2 imperial knights in melee?

I get the wk is i5 and st10... But the ik has a d melee weapon.

As far as I see it, if the wk doesn't kill the ik on the first round of melee, its dead.

If you *have* to water down the army by taking a huge chunk of non-eldar stuff just to not be a "d-bag", something clearly is wrong with the army.

Its not even just the worst offenders like Wraithknights and Scatterbikes that are bad. Most Eldar units are simply flat out better at their roles than equivalents from other factions, like Rangers vs Scouts or Ratlings and Fire Dragons vs mechvets or Sternguard. Why a Fire Dragon needed AP "0" on top of a BS5 formation buff (allowing them to be twice as effective at oneshotting tanks as either Imperial unit) is beyond me.

 Konrax wrote:

marcman wrote:
I mean realistically, SM Necrons Tau and Eldar all have their cheese and ways to beat them. Eldar just seems to have a little more options of cheese and easier access. And it's not like Eldar are dominating 100%, like Eldar armies are 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and so on. I mean sure I can kite the crap outta your troops, wound on 2's and get some D, but let's not mention free vehicles and grav spam, ignores cover or the army wide FNP. Yea I get the WK may kill 2 IK in CC, but then again 1 unit of grav can still splat a WK, or when drop pod Melta melts all my tanks turn 1, or when all the troops I kill come back to life. I guess I get that some of the units are rediqulously strong, but I mean sure you can complain to me for bringing my 3 units of scatbikes and warpspiders while you bring your 5 riptides and 40 markerlights

Please forgive my nievity, but how can a wk kil 2 imperial knights in melee?

I get the wk is i5 and st10... But the ik has a d melee weapon.

As far as I see it, if the wk doesn't kill the ik on the first round of melee, its dead.

Wraightknights with the Sword are also Str D at Ini 5, It should statistically kill the knight before the knight swings

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most Eldar units are simply flat out better at their roles than equivalents from other factions, like Rangers vs Scouts or Ratlings and Fire Dragons vs mechvets or Sternguard.

So what you are saying is that for once GW released rules that actually match the fluff? Eldar have always been described as better than their Human equivalents, in a similar way as Elves are better then Men in most fantasy worlds

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why a Fire Dragon needed AP "0" on top of a BS5 formation buff (allowing them to be twice as effective at oneshotting tanks as either Imperial unit) is beyond me.

Yeah, you got me on this one. That was a weird decision. Tank Hunters would have been just fine, if they wanted that, and the Exarch should have been the model to grant it.

 Galef wrote:

So what you are saying is that for once GW released rules that actually match the fluff? Eldar have always been described as better than their Human equivalents, in a similar way as Elves are better then Men in most fantasy worlds.

The issue isnt that they're better, its that their most of their units cost isnt accurately reflected for how much better they are

You can be better if you cost an accurate equivalent in points to show how much better you are

 Galef wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most Eldar units are simply flat out better at their roles than equivalents from other factions, like Rangers vs Scouts or Ratlings and Fire Dragons vs mechvets or Sternguard.

So what you are saying is that for once GW released rules that actually match the fluff? Eldar have always been described as better than their Human equivalents, in a similar way as Elves are better then Men in most fantasy worlds

And space marines should be better than everyone because engineering/my duty
And sisters should be better than everyone because faith
And tyranids should be better than everyone because bio-engineering
And necrons should be better than everyone because ancient tech

Lots of factions can claim "better than everyone". It's not exclusively eldar, and to think so is a bit of bias leaking through.
If they are better than guardsmen, fine. If they are better than marines? That's weird. Different sure, equally effective and similar in point cost okay, but not flat out superior.

 Galef wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why a Fire Dragon needed AP "0" on top of a BS5 formation buff (allowing them to be twice as effective at oneshotting tanks as either Imperial unit) is beyond me.

Yeah, you got me on this one. That was a weird decision. Tank Hunters would have been just fine, if they wanted that, and the Exarch should have been the model to grant it.

Eldar have many things like this. Str D spam, warp spider teleport, heavy weapons for everyone, Hawks getting haywire grenades. Some of it is a little out there, even if it's fluffy.
I mean, according to some fluff 5 marines can steam roll an Ork Waaagh

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Galef wrote:

So what you are saying is that for once GW released rules that actually match the fluff? Eldar have always been described as better than their Human equivalents, in a similar way as Elves are better then Men in most fantasy worlds.

The issue isnt that they're better, its that their most of their units cost isnt accurately reflected for how much better they are

You can be better if you cost an accurate equivalent in points to show how much better you are

Yeah, if they where priced accordingly then maybe the complaints would be less.
But the Mary Sues are ot even priced fairly. Everything our perfect overlords have is far too cheap for what it should be..

Yeah, its fine if theyre better and comparatively more expensive. Its not fine when they're as much or cheaper, like with Fire Dragons or Rangers relative to equivalents. And the problem is that just about the entire army is like that. Nobody thought Jetbikes, Fire Dragons or Wraithguard were undergunned or incapable in their previous incarnations at the same points costs, why they needed the massive boosts they got is a mystery.

Likewise, the "well they should be better because...elves are just better" thing wears very thin indeed...and I say that as someone with ~5k pts worth of Eldar (including two eldar superheavies and gobs of fire dragons and wave serpents). I mean, it might be fluffy if the IG player got to hit everything with a Basilisk shell before the first turn too for a preliminary bombardment, but few would find that fun or balanced

Besides the fluff would establish that they should cost more, because they're a dying race, there are less and less of them as the years go on

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, its fine if theyre better and comparatively more expensive. Its not fine when they're as much or cheaper, like with Fire Dragons or Rangers relative to equivalents. And the problem is that just about the entire army is like that. Nobody thought Jetbikes, Fire Dragons or Wraithguard were undergunned or incapable in their previous incarnations at the same points costs, why they needed the massive boosts they got is a mystery.

Likewise, the "well they should be better because...elves are just better" thing wears very thin indeed...and I say that as someone with ~5k pts worth of Eldar (including two eldar superheavies and gobs of fire dragons and wave serpents). I mean, it might be fluffy if the IG player got to hit everything with a Basilisk shell before the first turn too for a preliminary bombardment, but few would find that fun or balanced

Getting to smack everything my enemy has with a big preliminary bombardment..... Well it would be "forging the narrative"

Just to add a bit of clarification to the points I was discussing earlier, I have never turned down a game against Eldar and enjoy the challenge that they and other armies can all uniquely bring. I've got no problems with players bringing what they want to the table against me. However, denying that they are a top tier faction with probably the highest percentage of strong units out of the total available roster - again, only Necrons really compare in this sense - just doesn't cut it given their tournament representation.

If you played with 0 formations, based book they are BY FAR the strongest, other armies are strong like necrons and Marines but they have formations to make them on par with Eladar. Without those formations Eldar would be the only army you see in all tournaments.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Besides the fluff would establish that they should cost more, because they're a dying race, there are less and less of them as the years go on

This honestly is my biggest gripe with Eldar. I would be 100% fine with their D-spam, insane movement, insane psyker powers, general awesomeness, if their entire codex costed like 1.5% more than it currently does. The fact that a scatterbike, one of the best options in the game, costs less than something like a meganob, which is a unit in a "cheap" army that can only do well in very, very specific circumstances is just dumb. Really, really dumb. Hell, why not compare an actual ork jetbike to the scatterbike?

The deffkopta is BS 2, T4, W2, 4+, and can either take a TL bigshoota (S5 AP4 Assault 3) or a TL rokkit (S8 AP3). It has standard jetbike movement and has no options for adding characters, and can't be a troop choice so no ObSec. Now, I'd be fine with all of this if it costed something cheap, as on paper it's not that fantastic of a unit. And yet, for some reason this thing costs more than a scatterbike- It's 30 points. Why in the hell would anyone make a deffkopta more expensive than a scatterbike? Because of its extra wound and 1 higher toughness? Scatterbikes alone should cost way more than they currently do, somewhere around 40 points.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Based on all possible metrics using actual data of their game performances, Eldar can not be considered overpowered.

There are several other armies performing within the same ranges of success.

Unless you're also going to declare Space Marines, Dark Angels, Tau, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Renegades as overpowered, you cannot apply that to Eldar. If 7 armies are equally powerful, calling them all overpowered would be disingenuous.

Except in essentially every major tournament, elder are disproportionally ranked in the top ranks compared to other armies. Just look at LVO for example

Yes, look at that. It only proves what I said.

Eldar have no statistical significantly better performance.

If you think they do, please consult some statistics text books.

Or better yet, just skip to the summary here: Number crunching the LVO

He's done all the hard math for you.

There are 4 armies equivalent to Eldar. So until you're willing to admit that Space Marines are also Overpowered (along with Necrons and Demons), there's nothing left to discuss.

Iron_Captain wrote:
And fully justified, because the Eldar are ridiculously OP. Even without abuse of scatterbikes or other such cheese. Almost everything in the codex is really good. Try playing as BA against an Eldar list, then come again. Any Eldar list will beat any BA list.
I don't hate Eldar, and arguably, the problem is not with the Eldar codex (in a perfect codex, all options should be good) but with underpowered codices like Orks, BA or CSM, but that doesn't take away the fact that playing against Eldar just isn't much fun because even non-cheese Eldar lists are so powerful compared to my BA .

Funny story, the second game I ever played as Eldar was versus BA and it ended up in a stalemate. I didn't have any scatbikes nor wraithguard, but did run a WK. It was an intense fight.

Edit: formatting

 DarknessEternal wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Based on all possible metrics using actual data of their game performances, Eldar can not be considered overpowered.

There are several other armies performing within the same ranges of success.

Unless you're also going to declare Space Marines, Dark Angels, Tau, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Renegades as overpowered, you cannot apply that to Eldar. If 7 armies are equally powerful, calling them all overpowered would be disingenuous.

Except in essentially every major tournament, elder are disproportionally ranked in the top ranks compared to other armies. Just look at LVO for example

Yes, look at that. It only proves what I said.

Eldar have no statistical significantly better performance.

If you think they do, please consult some statistics text books.

Or better yet, just skip to the summary here: Number crunching the LVO

He's done all the hard math for you.

There are 4 armies equivalent to Eldar. So until you're willing to admit that Space Marines are also Overpowered (along with Necrons and Demons), there's nothing left to discuss.

There are what 23 armies? So your saying B.c Eldar is only slightly better than 7 other armies and 4 of them might be within 5-10% as good as Eldar it doesnt make them OP?

So you saying Eldar being better than 16 armies by a good margin that it doesnt make them OP?

Eldar is better than 82% of all the armies and Equal if not slightly better than the rest, that doesnt make them better?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
The problem with arguments that Caederes and the like make come from a lack of follow-through thought with what happens when you actually play as Eldar.

S/he points out that specific unit A is good at task A, and specific unit B is good at task B, therefore OP. Problem is, that's bad logic. If you can do task A, great...but the game isn't exclusively task A. Games are a large combination of tasks. For example, a Crimson Hunter may be good at killing another flyer, but it can be toasted by bolter fire without effort. In order to take advantage of all of those benefits he describes, you'd have to have every unit on the board, ready to use, in the right place at the right time. Hell, if you can manage that task, you can make *any* army OP.

It actually fits really nicely with the Eldar fluff - their army is made of a symphony of specialists, trying to play together in a harmony in destruction. There are days I wish I could pull a SM and put a rocket launcher in a squad of scouts, a power fist in a Dire Avenger unit, etc.


Edit: Again, I'm not saying that they don't have some very OP units, but by and large the race isn't.

Yeah, it only takes 108 bolters in rapid fire range to kill a crimson hunter. So next time you see one, just take your 1,680 points of tactical marines and point them at that crimson hunter.

I'm so sick of posters who think that just because something is AV 10 or T6 that means that bolters is a realistic way to deal with them.

 DarknessEternal wrote:


-snip-

Eldar have no statistical significantly better performance.

If you think they do, please consult some statistics text books.

Or better yet, just skip to the summary here: Number crunching the LVO

He's done all the hard math for you.

There are 4 armies equivalent to Eldar. So until you're willing to admit that Space Marines are also Overpowered (along with Necrons and Demons), there's nothing left to discuss.

But then you have to ask where does the Eldar hate come from? If they really were only as strong as Space Marines and Daemons then we'd hear an equal amount of complaining about them, too- but we don't. The most complaining we hear are about Eldar, Tau, and Necrons, in that order (though I actually prefer playing against Eldar over Tau). You can point at statistics until your finger falls off, but there has to be some underlying reason that Eldar are the most complained about army. If Eldar are only as powerful as Space Marines, then there should hardly be any complaints about them.

Also, I think that article actually proves our point. On a 120 point scale, Eldar are 20 points higher than the next highest army- Space Marines. That's a 16% difference. Plus, the median is thirty. Hell, the guy writing the article even stated "Eldar are really, really good. Not only to have the highest performance of any army at the LVO, but also I’m pretty sure to drag up the scores of a number of Dark Eldar primary armies until that codex looks, statistically, like it’s in good shape."

 DarknessEternal wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Based on all possible metrics using actual data of their game performances, Eldar can not be considered overpowered.

There are several other armies performing within the same ranges of success.

Unless you're also going to declare Space Marines, Dark Angels, Tau, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Renegades as overpowered, you cannot apply that to Eldar. If 7 armies are equally powerful, calling them all overpowered would be disingenuous.

Except in essentially every major tournament, elder are disproportionally ranked in the top ranks compared to other armies. Just look at LVO for example

Yes, look at that. It only proves what I said.

Eldar have no statistical significantly better performance.

If you think they do, please consult some statistics text books.

Or better yet, just skip to the summary here: Number crunching the LVO

He's done all the hard math for you.

There are 4 armies equivalent to Eldar. So until you're willing to admit that Space Marines are also Overpowered (along with Necrons and Demons), there's nothing left to discuss.

um, I beg to differ lol

At LVO, Eldar ranked 1, 2, 6, 8, 16, and 19. That is extremely disproportionate to the number of armies there are. Thats 4 out of the top 10 being elder and 6 out of the top 20 being elder.

Proving your point how now?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Based on all possible metrics using actual data of their game performances, Eldar can not be considered overpowered.

There are several other armies performing within the same ranges of success.

Unless you're also going to declare Space Marines, Dark Angels, Tau, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Renegades as overpowered, you cannot apply that to Eldar. If 7 armies are equally powerful, calling them all overpowered would be disingenuous.

Except in essentially every major tournament, elder are disproportionally ranked in the top ranks compared to other armies. Just look at LVO for example

Yes, look at that. It only proves what I said.

Eldar have no statistical significantly better performance.

If you think they do, please consult some statistics text books.

Or better yet, just skip to the summary here: Number crunching the LVO

He's done all the hard math for you.

And straight from said article...

Variancehammer wrote:First, lets get this out of the way: An Eldar army won, and an Eldar army game in second. That is not inherently significant in its own right – we have to look at populations, but it’s strong indicator that they’re doing quite well. And, as an aside, I’m rather pleased with myself for calling that we’d see Pale Courts armies because of the utter lack of unit taxes in those formations before I actually looked at the winning list.
...
Eldar are really, really good. Not only to have the highest performance of any army at the LVO, but also I’m pretty sure to drag up the scores of a number of Dark Eldar primary armies until that codex looks, statistically, like it’s in good shape.

and again, straight from the article, here's the score data graph, which shows a commanding Eldar lead in both top end and average above-median performance over even the other "top" armies.


The article you linked would appear to strongly support that Eldar have an edge over and above even the other "strong" factions. So yeah, some of the other armies can be broken and hideously powerful, but Eldar are consistently showing strength above even those.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

But then you have to ask where does the Eldar hate come from? If they really were only as strong as Space Marines and Daemons then we'd hear an equal amount of complaining about them, too- but we don't.

Because the IP is Marines. People don't whine about their own army being overpowered.

Incidentally, what I said was that if Eldar are overpowered, then so are Marines (and a few other armies). If your definition of overpowered encompasses Eldar's statistical performance, you are forced to state that several other armies fall into the same bucket. As soon as you're willing to admit that, a proper conversation can be had on the subject. Until then, you're being myopic.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

Also, I think that article actually proves our point. On a 120 point scale, Eldar are 20 points higher than the next highest army- Space Marines. That's a 16% difference.

You should go into politics with your ability to spin nonsense into sounding like statistics. The author of that article even did the math for you. "Points" is not a valid statistical comparison of things. What you're looking for is standard deviations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notredameguy10 wrote:

At LVO, Eldar ranked 1, 2, 6, 8, 16, and 19. That is extremely disproportionate to the number of armies there are. Thats 4 out of the top 10 being elder and 6 out of the top 20 being elder.

Proving your point how now?

Because those are spurious statistics. The sample size is far too small to say anything about a 10 places of ranking, and even 20 isn't very reliable. Seriously, read the guy's summation, it doesn't have any math in it to confuse you.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Because those are spurious statistics, seriously, read the guy's summation, it doesn't have any math in it to confuse you.