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.

Bharring wrote:
DAs can't get out of rapid fire if they are within 12", and even then its a d6, so they can't guarantee it unless they are 17" away, not 6".

10v10, if the CSM assault - they lose 2 to overwatch, then half a guy to CC, then kill 2-3 guys. Win combat by 2+, then fight next round about 7.5 to 7.5. And dominate at 3-1 when the numbers are equal.

In terms of rapid fire range, imagine both units within 12(linear), DA move 6 back, shoot and then run bringing them a minimum of 19 therefore out of rapid fire range. and the DA can continue kiting until the cows come home.

in melee asuming both CSM seargent and DA exarch have powersword the dire avenger will win(CA used) will turn into a DP then proceed to destroy the rest. I'm joking of course, the CSM will win in the squad vs squad but I have no clue how you would get into melee.

In an open board with no difficult/impassible terrain, no cover, no other models, no board edge, and no objectives, and infinite turns, DAs do have the tools to kite CSM. The CSM definitely get first volley, and can stand still or even back up instead of chasing the dancing Eldar, but they would eventually win:

Boltgun shots:
(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 2/9 dead DAs
Shuriken Shot
(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) = 2/27 nonrends
(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 1/9 rends
2/27 + 1/9 = 5/27 dead CSM

10vs10
10 CSM kill (10)(1)(2/9) for 2.2 dead DA
7.8 DA kill (7.8)(2)(5/27) for (78/27) or 2.8 dead CSM

So, if DAs are allowed to 'do their thing', they eventually win, but with substantial losses.

Let's just look at the matchup if CSMs get a 5+ cover save. Considering how common those are, and the fact that CSM needn't move if they don't want to when DAs kite them, seems more than reasonable.

Boltguns still kill 2 DAs for every 9 shots.
Shurikens shooting CSMs in light cover:
Nonrends are still 2/27
Rends: (2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27
So 4/27 Shuriken shots kill CSMs. Let's run the numbers:

10v10
CSM kill (10)(1)(2/9), still 2.2 dead DAs
7.8 DAs kill (7.8)(2)(4/27), or (62.4/27), or 2.3
7.7 CSM kill 1.7
6.1 DAs kill 1.8
5.9 CSM kill 1.3
4.8 DAs kill 1.4
4.5 CSM kill 1.0
3.8 DA kill 1.1
3.4 CSM kill 0.8
3.0 DA kill 0.9
2.5 CSM kill 0.6
2.4 DA kill 0.7
1.8 CSM kill 0.4
2.0 DA kill 0.6
1.2 CSM kill 0.3
1.7 DA kill 0.5
0.7 CSM kill 0.2
1.5 DA kill 0.4
0.3 CSM kill 0.1
1.4 DA kill 0.4

DAs finish the CSM after 10 rounds, with only 1.4 DAs left. So CSM got to pick where to be all game. While DAs win the firefight, as games cap out at 7 rounds, CSM would win any objective. DAs cannot shift them off anything in equal numbers! But CSM shift DAs quite easily. And DAs got close enough to contest last round, they'd die to either rapid fire or Assault, where they lose handily.

So that situation is really, really close.

CSM win any other potential matchups easily, too.

I'm not saying DAs are worse than CSMs. I'm just saying that, compared to CSMs, DAs are reasonable.

People often forget Aspect Warriors cost MEQ prices for less-than-MEQ survivability. Of course their guns should be better-than-MEQ for their intended specialized target.

And you often forget that in many situations, T3 and T4 are identical, and so there is no drop off in durability from that. Like against..... scatterlasers. Funny that. The 3+ armor aspect warriors might as well be marines as far as I'm concerned. A huge, huge percentage of incoming fire is going to be S6+ now. Even more than before.

In some metas.

Same could be said for output. Shuriken Catapualts aren't any better or worse than Boltguns when trying to kill Rhinos. But they are laughably outclassed by Krak grenades in that case.

So, in your hypothetical example, Jetbikes is what you want them measured by.

DAs cost the same as a CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 30" to avoid retaliation from CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 24 +d6" to avoid retaliation from DAs.
Minor advantage CSM.

For every 2 CSM who die to SLs, 3 DAs die. *Major* advantage CSMs.

If there are enough SLs to drown CSMs most of the time, there are enough SLs to drown DAs almost all the time. A third of the SLs that would kill the CSMs could be shooting at something other than DAs, with the same effect on the DAs.

Dying 50% more than CSM (for S6AP6 SL) is better than dying 100% more (for S4AP5 boltguns). But they cost the same. And against Jetbikes, they are certainly no better at catching them. So aren't they simply worse vs your feared Jetbike spam?

i hope all the new codexs coming out are like this except the imperium ones then slowly the Imperium will ban all other races from playing in there galaxy.

on original note if there going to ban the Eldar they might as well ban the scitarii & the necrons too and don't leave out bans on the future knights & mechanicus whilst there at i, When 7th edition came out we all knew this was what they had in store for us in the future from summoning daemons to blasts hitting all models under the template in ruins regardless of levels to outrageous psychic powers with the words "forge the narrative" written on every second page!

I am glad personally that i get to play games in my local GW store where banning any army or unit in the game will never come up and if it did the person who said it might be asked to leave or drop the subject immediately.

Bharring wrote:
In some metas.

Same could be said for output. Shuriken Catapualts aren't any better or worse than Boltguns when trying to kill Rhinos. But they are laughably outclassed by Krak grenades in that case.

So, in your hypothetical example, Jetbikes is what you want them measured by.

DAs cost the same as a CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 30" to avoid retaliation from CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 24 +d6" to avoid retaliation from DAs.
Minor advantage CSM.

For every 2 CSM who die to SLs, 3 DAs die. *Major* advantage CSMs.

If there are enough SLs to drown CSMs most of the time, there are enough SLs to drown DAs almost all the time. A third of the SLs that would kill the CSMs could be shooting at something other than DAs, with the same effect on the DAs.

Dying 50% more than CSM (for S6AP6 SL) is better than dying 100% more (for S4AP5 boltguns). But they cost the same. And against Jetbikes, they are certainly no better at catching them. So aren't they simply worse vs your feared Jetbike spam?

Except CSM can't bring Jetbike spam.

I get your mathematical point, but your entire premise is built around Eldar players pretending to have restraint.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In some metas.

Same could be said for output. Shuriken Catapualts aren't any better or worse than Boltguns when trying to kill Rhinos. But they are laughably outclassed by Krak grenades in that case.

So, in your hypothetical example, Jetbikes is what you want them measured by.

DAs cost the same as a CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 30" to avoid retaliation from CSM.
Jetbikes need to be outside 24 +d6" to avoid retaliation from DAs.
Minor advantage CSM.

For every 2 CSM who die to SLs, 3 DAs die. *Major* advantage CSMs.

If there are enough SLs to drown CSMs most of the time, there are enough SLs to drown DAs almost all the time. A third of the SLs that would kill the CSMs could be shooting at something other than DAs, with the same effect on the DAs.

Dying 50% more than CSM (for S6AP6 SL) is better than dying 100% more (for S4AP5 boltguns). But they cost the same. And against Jetbikes, they are certainly no better at catching them. So aren't they simply worse vs your feared Jetbike spam?

Except CSM can't bring Jetbike spam.

I get your mathematical point, but your entire premise is built around Eldar players pretending to have restraint.

"If I only bring the worst my dex has, it might be a fair game!"

Considering the subject is explicitly about Eldar lists that aren't all about Wraiths and Scatter bikes, assuming a list without scatter bikes is full of scatterbikes is probably a less safe assumption than the CSM player allying them in.

So we are back to "Eldar lists aren't reasonable even if they don't take things like Scatter bikes, because they will take Scatter Bikes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian,
That particular line is "If I take some units, they are about equal to low-tier units."

Countered with "But those Eldar units are only 50% worse than those low-tier units when facing Eldar cheese".

This thread isn't about claiming Eldar aren't OP as a dex. Its about (1) if there are 'reasonable' lists Eldar players can bring, and (2) if there are, are there lists from other sources that are comparatively 'unreasonable'?

There are two Eldar lists posted in this thread that seem to be quite reasonable against mid-tier lists. And they would both probably get destroyed by most non-Eldar well-placed tourney lists. So the answer seems to be 'yes' on both accounts.

Bharring wrote:
Considering the subject is explicitly about Eldar lists that aren't all about Wraiths and Scatter bikes, assuming a list without scatter bikes is full of scatterbikes is probably a less safe assumption than the CSM player allying them in.

So we are back to "Eldar lists aren't reasonable even if they don't take things like Scatter bikes, because they will take Scatter Bikes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian,
That particular line is "If I take some units, they are about equal to low-tier units."

Countered with "But those Eldar units are only 50% worse than those low-tier units when facing Eldar cheese".

This thread isn't about claiming Eldar aren't OP as a dex. Its about (1) if there are 'reasonable' lists Eldar players can bring, and (2) if there are, are there lists from other sources that are comparatively 'unreasonable'?

There are two Eldar lists posted in this thread that seem to be quite reasonable against mid-tier lists. And they would both probably get destroyed by most non-Eldar well-placed tourney lists. So the answer seems to be 'yes' on both accounts.

Well, the subject line is how does an aspect army compare to other armies that aren't crazy (deathstars and flyrants), imo. It was kinda tongue in cheek though.
We compared DA, arguably the worst aspect in the dex, against vanilla CSM, in one area and they came to be about equal. There are a few things wrong with this however.

1) Eldar psuedo rending makes them better against a lot of other targets, like 2+ save enemies.
2) CSM per squad are typically more expensive due to various equipment. Eldar outside of very few choices don't have this on aspects
3) Eldar are faster.
4) Eldar have more in house buffs.
5) DA are the worst aspect. CSM are not the worst troop in their codex.

We could compare blastmasters to dragons or reapers, maybe spiders. Plaguemarines to SS, Banshees, or whatever. It gets worse from here.

Bharring wrote:
Considering the subject is explicitly about Eldar lists that aren't all about Wraiths and Scatter bikes, assuming a list without scatter bikes is full of scatterbikes is probably a less safe assumption than the CSM player allying them in.

So we are back to "Eldar lists aren't reasonable even if they don't take things like Scatter bikes, because they will take Scatter Bikes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian,
That particular line is "If I take some units, they are about equal to low-tier units."

Countered with "But those Eldar units are only 50% worse than those low-tier units when facing Eldar cheese".

This thread isn't about claiming Eldar aren't OP as a dex. Its about (1) if there are 'reasonable' lists Eldar players can bring, and (2) if there are, are there lists from other sources that are comparatively 'unreasonable'?

There are two Eldar lists posted in this thread that seem to be quite reasonable against mid-tier lists. And they would both probably get destroyed by most non-Eldar well-placed tourney lists. So the answer seems to be 'yes' on both accounts.

If my opponent has to cripple his own list by being "reasonable" to have a close game, then I don't know any better example of pure dominance. I could be as "unreasonable" as I liked with BA, and the aspect list would probably still do fine.

Fire Dragons are better at popping stationary tanks at close range than Blast master noise marines.
Blast master noise marines are better against :
-Distant vehicles
-Vehicles with good cover
-MCs that don't have 2+ armor saves, don't have good cover saves, or aren't very close
-Infantry, other than 2+ armor saves
-Surviving anything below S6
-Melee with almost anything.

So Fire Dragons are less survivable, and worse at everything *except* their narrow intended target.

BlastMasters vs Reapers:
-Reapers are better against jinking Marines, or Marines with no cover save.
-Blast Masters are better against anything high-T, with a decent non-jink cover save, and any vehicles.
-Paying for the Krak-equivelent missile makes Reapers better against high-T and vehicles, but only when there is no non-Jonk cover
-Blast masters are much more survivable
-Blastmasters can run and overwatch, but aren't relentless
-Blast masters are much, much better in CC

so again, Reapers are better against a narrow range of targets, but Blastmasrters are better at other targets.

Plague Marines are much, much harder to kill than Striking Scorpions. Striking Scorpions hit harder. They are so different its hard to compare them.

Same with Plage Marines and Banshees. banshees are a bit too cheap, but they kill Plague Marines (I'll assume they don't have FnP, but I'm not sure) on (1/2)(1/6), or once per *12* attacks. Plague Marines kill Banshees on (1/2)(2/3)(1/2). Or one per *six* attacks. Considering that Plague Marines are much, much better at shooting (Banshees have pistols), and are twice as likely to kill a Banshee as a Banshee is to kill a Plague Marine, I'm not so sure that matchup is a problem.

DA pseudorending does help against 2+ and 3+ saves. But is useless against vehicles. However, a PG/combiPG loyalist squad does only a small margin (~10-20%?) less damage than the same points of DAs when shooting at a 2+ unit. Its good, but specialized.

I am well aware that CSM almost always have upgrades. Because they are better with upgrades. So if naked CSM aren't worth it, and DAs compare reasonably with them, doesn't that make the DAs look more reasonable?

Being D6" faster in a round it shoots is very nice and useful, but having 6" further range is too. These comparisons above are heavily predicated on the DAs using that speed to maintain the one range at which they have an edge over CSM. Without it, they lose easily.

Eldar do have a lot of "in-house" buffs. If its too many, a reasonable list may need to shy away from those options. Not sure that's the case with a Swordwind CAD, though.

DAs are *not* the worst aspect. Shining Spears. Shadow Spectres. Compared to those, DAs are great.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Yay, another Eldar thread. We really needed one.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No game is better than a bad game.

That's what 40k has devolved into, apparently; bunch of people sitting around not playing the game and either crying or screaming at each other, pointing fingers and laying blame for things that are ultimately GW's fault, all the while continuing to buy massive amounts of models from GW inexplicably.

This is the "hobby" now, there's no game left. Even if you were willing to play you would never find anyone else that would want to.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
There is no justifying why it's good... It just is a poster boy lover boy to gw so they drool over making its units overly viable. .

GW's poster boys wear power armor, make no mistake about that. Two Eldar books don't suddenly erase nearly two decades worth of favoritism.

 Orock wrote:
Perfectly fair, since a lot of us will just be straight up refusing to play eldar entirely.

And you should give yourself a big, fat pat on the back, for doing your part and assisting GW in making sure that 40k as a tabletop game dies a slow, horrible death. Good job.

Because as we all know it's the Eldar player's fault, and they should all be shunned and ridiculed for their crime of picking an army with really cool models. That'll fething teach them to play something other than Spehss Mahreens, and it'll totally show GW that the fanbase won't put up with their bullgak...you know...just as soon as they start giving a feth what the fans think.

I'm replying to the 2 decades of favouritism statement you made, now if you are referring.to the product line, then yes that is a fair statement, if you are referring to rules, you are flat wrong in the most extreme sense, eldar have always been above the pale in power, always, that's 26 years of experience telling you this.

2nd eldar ruled the roost
3rd eldar ruled the roost, some competition from necrons
4th eldar ruled the roost
5th eldar are still competitive in spite of being an ed behind
6th eldar are still a good army in spite of being 2 eds behind, new eldar book drops and eldar are back on top
7th guess what, like always eldar are horrible

Eldar have been excellent in every ed they have had a codex release in, marines had some shine in 3rd and have been average to good ever since.

Hettar wrote:
i hope all the new codexs coming out are like this except the imperium ones then slowly the Imperium will ban all other races from playing in there galaxy.

on original note if there going to ban the Eldar they might as well ban the scitarii & the necrons too and don't leave out bans on the future knights & mechanicus whilst there at i, When 7th edition came out we all knew this was what they had in store for us in the future from summoning daemons to blasts hitting all models under the template in ruins regardless of levels to outrageous psychic powers with the words "forge the narrative" written on every second page!

I am glad personally that i get to play games in my local GW store where banning any army or unit in the game will never come up and if it did the person who said it might be asked to leave or drop the subject immediately.

So basically, Feth the Imperium because I got mine?

Bharring wrote:
Fire Dragons are better at popping stationary tanks at close range than Blast master noise marines.
Blast master noise marines are better against :
-Distant vehicles
-Vehicles with good cover
-MCs that don't have 2+ armor saves, don't have good cover saves, or aren't very close
-Infantry, other than 2+ armor saves
-Surviving anything below S6
-Melee with almost anything.

So Fire Dragons are less survivable, and worse at everything *except* their narrow intended target.

This isn't fair, and I think you are aware of that.
You can take 2 blastmasters in a squad of 10 marines. So if I fire at a tank, only two of the marines are going to do any damage. It's nearly impossible for a squad of noise marines to blow up a tank in one round of shooting.
This is not so for fire dragons.
The same is true throughout the squad. If I could take a blastmaster on every marine, your argument would hold some water, but this is not the case. I must take 8 bodies of garbage that are ablative wounds.
Why do you think people are so mad about the bikes?

I'll grant you that distant tanks and melee are the strengths of the Noise Marines. That's not much of an advantage given the fire dragons ability to delete a tank pretty reliably, and do serious damage to a MEQ or TEQ unit.
2 Blastmasters are lucky to get 4-6 hits in total. Scatters can make this better or worse. And a squad of these guys is very expensive, and can't pop out of a transport that is crazy tough and do damage. (the alternate shooting profile is pretty bad, imo)

Bharring wrote:

BlastMasters vs Reapers:
-Reapers are better against jinking Marines, or Marines with no cover save.
-Blast Masters are better against anything high-T, with a decent non-jink cover save, and any vehicles.
-Paying for the Krak-equivelent missile makes Reapers better against high-T and vehicles, but only when there is no non-Jonk cover
-Blast masters are much more survivable
-Blastmasters can run and overwatch, but aren't relentless
-Blast masters are much, much better in CC

so again, Reapers are better against a narrow range of targets, but Blastmasrters are better at other targets.

Many of my points apply here.
Outside of melee reapers are clearly the winners against pretty much every target when you compare squads, which is how they must be taken.
The eldar ability to put a good weapon on every model is absurd. I'm surprised you aren't making note of it. It's what has made them a strong codex in nearly every edition of this game when compared to other factions.
If this wasn't a good ability, no one would take sternguard.

Bharring wrote:

Plague Marines are much, much harder to kill than Striking Scorpions. Striking Scorpions hit harder. They are so different its hard to compare them.

Same with Plage Marines and Banshees. banshees are a bit too cheap, but they kill Plague Marines (I'll assume they don't have FnP, but I'm not sure) on (1/2)(1/6), or once per *12* attacks. Plague Marines kill Banshees on (1/2)(2/3)(1/2). Or one per *six* attacks. Considering that Plague Marines are much, much better at shooting (Banshees have pistols), and are twice as likely to kill a Banshee as a Banshee is to kill a Plague Marine, I'm not so sure that matchup is a problem.

DA pseudorending does help against 2+ and 3+ saves. But is useless against vehicles. However, a PG/combiPG loyalist squad does only a small margin (~10-20%?) less damage than the same points of DAs when shooting at a 2+ unit. Its good, but specialized.

I am well aware that CSM almost always have upgrades. Because they are better with upgrades. So if naked CSM aren't worth it, and DAs compare reasonably with them, doesn't that make the DAs look more reasonable?

Being D6" faster in a round it shoots is very nice and useful, but having 6" further range is too. These comparisons above are heavily predicated on the DAs using that speed to maintain the one range at which they have an edge over CSM. Without it, they lose easily.

Eldar do have a lot of "in-house" buffs. If its too many, a reasonable list may need to shy away from those options. Not sure that's the case with a Swordwind CAD, though.

DAs are *not* the worst aspect. Shining Spears. Shadow Spectres. Compared to those, DAs are great.

Plague marines are tougher, but killing ability is more important then toughness in 40k.
The striking scorpions are also tougher against the bigger guns considering their special rule. They can get a 3/2+ cover save without too much difficulty before combat.

Plague marines get to re-roll to wound against banshees due to poison knives. But with their 2 plasma guns, they are way more expensive than banshees. Plague marines are one of the worst targets for Banshees, yet point for point, they don't do that terribly.

Not exactly, the CSM ppm goes up. You can't compare model to model, you must compare point per point in this game. Considering most targets have cover in this game, plasma guns are not amazing. Marines don't benefit from cover.
The meta has become high volume/strength attacks, Low AP is nice but isn't really as good. Marines get a slightly better armor against scatter lasers and wraiths, but cost more ppm when all their upgrades are factored in.
I would argue shining spears are as good as DAs. Eldar bikes are amazing. Shadow spectres sure, fair enough.

Wow. Just looked at prices for Noise Marines and Plague Marines. Just wow.

At any rate, Noise Marines vs Fire Dragons:
Noise Marines aren't the same thing as Fire Dragons.
Fire Dragons are 12" range Land Raider killers. Cover kills their firepower, but they have to be super close anyways.
Noise Marines are cover-ignoring Marines. Their boltguns are quite scary to all the 5+ armors out there. And their blast master is a long ranged blast. There are many things a BlastMaster is better at than a Meltagun. As for the boltguns, even they have targets where they are better than meltaguns (GEQ targets, or stuff in really good cover). Sure, a Fire Dragon is worth more than a boltgun Noise Marine, but it also costs a lot less.

Noise Marines are more similar to Dark Reapers. A Blast master costs two basic Reapers, but is 1 per 5? I know ablative wounds are so passe, but let's do some estimation:

10v10
Blastmasterx2 Noise Marines (240 pts)
Krak missile Dark Reapers (320 pts)
Reapers go first, 5+ cover for both (usually 4+ for this kind of unit)

10 Reapers: 10(1)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = (10)(10/27) = ~ 4 dead boltguns
6 Noise (2 BM): (4-6 hits)(5/6)(1) = (25/6) =~ 4 dead Reapers.
6 Reapers: (6)(10/27) = ~ 2 dead boltguns
4 Noise: (4-6 hits)(5/6) = ~ 4 dead reapers

Noise Marines seem like a really good counter to Dark Reapers. Their killing power doesn't drop off while their 17ppm ablative wounds die, compared to the 33 (25+8) ppm Dark Reapers.

The ability to put a special weapon on every squad member makes Eldar very capable at taking out their intended targets. But the inability to take ablative wounds can be costly. When boltguns do serious damage to your squads, things are very different.

Bladestorm is hurt by cover just like Plasma Guns are. I think you'd find most CSM configurations still handle DA well.

Marines are 50% more survivable than Dire Avengers. I wouodnt call that slight. Kitted, TAC squads rarely cost 50% more per model than DAs.

(Eldar bikes are amazing, but remember that Shining Spears are 25ppm, and have a 6" range)

"When boltguns do serious damage to your squads, things are very different. "

Assuming that anyone is still using boltguns.

Also, was that a good "wow" or bad "wow"?

It was holy crap, I knew cult marines were expensive, but holy crap that's a lot of points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if Swordwind is kicking your ass, maybe you should field more boltguns?

Bharring wrote:
It was holy crap, I knew cult marines were expensive, but holy crap that's a lot of points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if Swordwind is kicking your ass, maybe you should field more boltguns?

You can't get within range without going dedicated drop pod, which is not a TAC build for BA. The movement is rate is too much to deal with.

When you start looking at other lists, you realize how stupid good the Eldar are. CSM are horribly overcosted for they actually accomplish before Eldar guns put them back in their model case.

If Dire Avengers, Banshees, Scorpions, and Fire Dragons are killing you before you can get into boltgun range, something is very, very wrong.

Bharring wrote:
If Dire Avengers, Banshees, Scorpions, and Fire Dragons are killing you before you can get into boltgun range, something is very, very wrong.

|

I was talking about Wind Riders. Admittedly, boltgun armed units will probably be shot last, but they will die nonetheless.

How is discussing Wind riders helpful when discussing lists without Windriders?

Bharring wrote:
How is discussing Wind riders helpful when discussing lists without Windriders?

Because like it or not, they will show up in Pick Up Games and should be discussed.

I really hope my meta never devolves into that.

Bharring wrote:
I really hope my meta never devolves into that.

Beggars can't be choosers

Bharring wrote:
I really hope my meta never devolves into that.

It's not "devolution"; it's a legal choice in the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I also conflated Wind Riders with Sword Wind. What's Sword Wind exactly?

Yet, when something goes from a more sophisticated, while still flawed, state to something more crude and unrefined, describing it as devolving seems fairly accurate.

I can see that, but it's REALLY hard for me to fault people for making the best list they can.

I do not know. In a competitive game, sure. Do the absolutely best you can given the boundaries of the competition. But since the the game is not balanced competitively without modifying scenarios and army construction, I can think of any number of circumstances where it is appropriate to fault someone for making absolutely the best list they can.

That's the thing. One could argue EVERY 40K match is competitive, since there is a winner and loser.

Sure, but if you have that outlook, why spend the time on a such a flawed framework? The game needs adjustments to be competitive. In my world a competition is not where some participants enter with severe handicaps. It is kind of like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Limiting your gameplay to tournaments and tournament practice seems valid, but adapting the same mindset for every pickup game seems a little pathetic. The game is not truly competitive just because you can keep score.