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.

We're finally able to look back on the BCP data to see who has/had the more broken army - Ynnari of yesteryear, the Drukhari of the present, or someone else?

So here's the data - GT level data only - no mirror matches. There's a ton more games being played now than ever ( more tournaments converting to BCP? ).

Damned elves....

The most broken army is typically the most recent released one in any given rule set. Especially in earlier editions when they were still trying to release entire new model ranges. Everybody remembers the Grey Knights of 5th edition, until the Necrons got released.

Typically 40K, between two equal players, is all about who has the newer codex, there is also a bit of Rock/Paper/Scissors to it, as some army build are a hard counter to other builds, but the newer the codex, usually the more effective it is under "all other things being equal" conditions.

 Jayden63 wrote:
The most broken army is typically the most recent released one in any given rule set.

Completely untrue. Eldar have been basically broken in every edition besides 5th, where they were just upper mid tier. 5th and 9th are the exception, but they got a codex soon and I'll put money on it being broken as well.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
The most broken army is typically the most recent released one in any given rule set.

Completely untrue. Eldar have been basically broken in every edition besides 5th, where they were just upper mid tier. 5th and 9th are the exception, but they got a codex soon and I'll put money on it being broken as well.

Not really true. Eldar when first produced were like +3 on the competitive scale, and when new editions came out they were only +1 over all, but still maintained some extremely broken combos with units that were ridiculously powerful in the first place. As long as you spammed those units alone, you had a competitive army, but the book as a whole was lacking behind whatever the newest release was. Its pretty much why all Eldar armies looked the same for a very long time.

The problem with armies like Eldar is is that they're very varied in their lineup. That means that chances are that something will be good. That also means that chances are that many things aren't good. Many other armies have much more basic themes where many units are fairly similar. So then it's a lower chance that some of them will be that exceptionally good.

That at least was the case in the past. But with new design paradigms that has changed a lot.

 Dolnikan wrote:
The problem with armies like Eldar is is that they're very varied in their lineup. That means that chances are that something will be good. That also means that chances are that many things aren't good. Many other armies have much more basic themes where many units are fairly similar. So then it's a lower chance that some of them will be that exceptionally good.

That at least was the case in the past. But with new design paradigms that has changed a lot.

I think that's the opposite of a problem. Problem is when armies aren't varied in their lineup: it typically means they're X level (bottom, top, low) no matter what, and it's hard to properly balance armies like those ones. When armies are very varied in their lineup a couple of nerfs after a few months of playing will generally fix them properly, but it's much harder to fix armies like custodes, AM, Tau, knights or harlequins when they become OP without nerfing them into the ground.

We all know that eldar were OP by the design in the past. They simpy were one of the top designers' favorite faction.

Not really sure Eldar were deliberately OP by design - because that assumes GW knew what they were doing. I agree though they were clearly one of (if not "the") favourite faction of the design team - and this is why, from a relatively early edition, every unit was getting a special rule or 3 while many other factions had "guy with gun". Some of these were undervalued, hence OP. Others were however always overvalued and a bit rubbish as a result.

I'm not convinced someone at GW circa 2017 was going "you know what, I love the idea of Ynnari reapers/shining spears. I love the idea of mass flyers". Its just the rules they wrote went that way.

As for the newest book always being best - I mean, the table above would suggest that's not a hard and fast rule. There is a tendency for power creep through an edition - but after their codex release some form of Eldar soup was there or thereabouts throughout 8th - despite guard meta, knight meta, a brief chaotic interregnum and then marine meta.

I think the most funny thing in the data is how the DE "nerfs" made the faction better. Is this because GW *loves* the faction? Well given the new nerfs - I think its more likely evidence they just don't know what they are doing.

Tyel wrote:


I'm not convinced someone at GW circa 2017 was going "you know what, I love the idea of Ynnari reapers/shining spears. I love the idea of mass flyers". Its just the rules they wrote went that way.

Or more likely "what's the worst that could happen, I mean we already have do it again strats..."

Then those mean old tfg went all reaper/spears with suicide locks or double minus ungood for flyers

So we added a do it again twice formation because err reasons because in a IGOUGO game thats sane