Is Eldar that OP all things considered?

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.

**Vitali Advenil**

DarknessEternal wrote:
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.

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.

But then where's the complaining about daemons?

Also your second point is kind of funny because that's more or less where I'm trying to go. Anyway, I'd say that the number of points laid out in average is a fine way to measure things. I don't know why you think that one army consistently scoring more points than all the others does not count as evidence. Maybe you just have a passion for statistics, and good on you for that, that there is such a thing as over-complicating matters. Plus, the author of that article keeps backing our claim, not yours.

**HuskyWarhammer**

I feel like there's a lack of real thought about why things are expressed how they are here... Let's address a few:

DE and Eldar combined are crazy OP. Probably, yes...but not because it's just Eldar. The combination has several units that combine together to become extremely powerful when used in concert, not due to one specific codex. There were also a very large number of Eldar (and combined DE) players, so a higher frequency would indeed be expected to be seen when looking at total ranks.

As far as, "there has to be some underlying reason that Eldar are the most complained about army," I agree 100%. It's the illusion that they're so insanely OP, perpetuated by those same complaints, that causes more. Your argument is circular reasoning. It's like saying A causes B but simultaneously B causes A: Eldar are OP because they're complained about, but they're complained about because they're OP. There are probably some other reasons for the complaints (e.g., equipment that looks fancier but isn't actually that great) - this is just my theory. It's more about psychology than balance.

It might also be good to give "overpowered" a definition - is anything that's better than 50% of the other codices OP? Some people seem to be saying so. Eldar are upper tier, but they're far from alone.

It's also good to keep in mind that at the LVO, the point is to cheese the best list possible - often focusing on a few specific units that are, indeed, the most broken. That's a very different discussion from the codex as a whole. Regardless, it's really nice to have people actually number crunching the LVO and bringing us this data, and I'm thankful it's there.

Here's a closing thought: looking at score distributions, playing Eldar alone was certainly nowhere nearly enough to ensure a player did well. They had a good number of low-scoring players. Renegades, on the other hand, pretty much "ensured an above-average performance." Now think on which one of these, really, is indicative of an OP army...

**Vitali Advenil**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

It's also good to keep in mind that at the LVO, the point is to cheese the best list possible - often focusing on a few specific units that are, indeed, the most broken. That's a very different discussion from the codex as a whole. Regardless, it's really nice to have people actually number crunching the LVO and bringing us this data, and I'm thankful it's there.

Here's a closing thought: looking at score distributions, playing Eldar alone was certainly nowhere nearly enough to ensure a player did well. They had a good number of low-scoring players. Renegades, on the other hand, pretty much "ensured an above-average performance." Now think on which one of these, really, is indicative of an OP army...

The Eldar. It's like comparing Ike and Meta Knight in Brawl. It's easy to do good with someone like Ike, because he's friendly to use and has some good things going for him. Meta Knight, however, is awkward to use at first but the people who know how to play him absolutely wreck house. The people who are somewhat competent at Brawl will be able to pick him up and do okay. The people who don't know anything about the game and expect to win just because he's a good character are going to die. But nobody ever argues that Ike is OP because he's only mediocre at best, while everyone argues that Meta Knight is OP.

And I've heard the circular logic argument before, and for Brawl as well. Are Eldar as OP as people make them out to be? Just like with Meta Knight, probably not, but the fact is there is truth to this hate.

**HuskyWarhammer**

Vitali Advenil wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:

It's also good to keep in mind that at the LVO, the point is to cheese the best list possible - often focusing on a few specific units that are, indeed, the most broken. That's a very different discussion from the codex as a whole. Regardless, it's really nice to have people actually number crunching the LVO and bringing us this data, and I'm thankful it's there.

Here's a closing thought: looking at score distributions, playing Eldar alone was certainly nowhere nearly enough to ensure a player did well. They had a good number of low-scoring players. Renegades, on the other hand, pretty much "ensured an above-average performance." Now think on which one of these, really, is indicative of an OP army...

The Eldar. It's like comparing Ike and Meta Knight in Brawl. It's easy to do good with someone like Ike, because he's friendly to use and has some good things going for him. Meta Knight, however, is awkward to use at first but the people who know how to play him absolutely wreck house. The people who are somewhat competent at Brawl will be able to pick him up and do okay. The people who don't know anything about the game and expect to win just because he's a good character are going to die. But nobody ever argues that Ike is OP because he's only mediocre at best, while everyone argues that Meta Knight is OP.

And I've heard the circular logic argument before, and for Brawl as well. Are Eldar as OP as people make them out to be? Just like with Meta Knight, probably not, but the fact is there is truth to this hate.

I think that's mostly fair enough. I've never been to a formal tournament, but I would have to imagine that the people who care enough to travel and enter the LVO at least have some decent competence at the game.

**Amishprn86**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I feel like there's a lack of real thought about why things are expressed how they are here... Let's address a few:

DE and Eldar combined are crazy OP. Probably, yes...but not because it's just Eldar. The combination has several units that combine together to become extremely powerful when used in concert, not due to one specific codex. There were also a very large number of Eldar/DE players, so a higher frequency would indeed be expected to be seen.

As far as, "there has to be some underlying reason that Eldar are the most complained about army," I agree 100%. It's the illusion that they're so insanely OP, perpetuated by those same complaints, that causes more. Otherwise, it's circular reasoning. It's like saying A causes B but simultaneously B causes A: Eldar are OP because they're complained about, but they're complained about because they're OP. There are probably some other reasons for the complaints (e.g., equipment like bright lances that looks fancier but isn't actually that great) - this is just my theory.

It might also be good to give "overpowered" a definition - is anything that's better than 50% of the other codices OP? Some people seem to be saying so. Eldar are upper tier, but they're far from alone.

It's also good to keep in mind that at the LVO, the point is to cheese the best list possible - often focusing on a few specific units that are, indeed, the most broken. That's a very different discussion from the codex as a whole. Regardless, it's really nice to have people actually number crunching the LVO and bringing us this data, and I'm thankful it's there.

Here's a closing thought: looking at score distributions, playing Eldar alone was certainly nowhere nearly enough to ensure a player did well. They had a good number of low-scoring players. Renegades, on the other hand, pretty much "ensured an above-average performance." Now think on which one of these, really, is indicative of an OP army...

A few things

1) DE being allies is the same of CSM to Daemons it can make them better but not so much that everyone does it, Eldar doesnt need allies.
2) OP, the op 4-5 armies are close to each other, Eldar, Necrons, Sm and Daemons being some of the most powerful, but compare to about 10 if not more other armies they are well over dbl as powerful as them. Look at CSM and Harli as stand alone armies and Compare them to Eldar, Sm and necrons.
3) I fhte point of a tournament is to bring the most powerful stuff then yes that shows what books are able to be more powerful, it doesnt matter if its 1 formation or spaming 3 different units, the 40k Rules are clear that you can do that in Bound lists.
4) Given what was said in Number 3, Eldar is one of the very few books (Next to Sm and Necrons) that has almost 0 bad units in the book. The would be "bad" units arnt actually bad, just others are better, If you place those "bad" units in any of the 16 "Bad" armies they would be instantly taken for all lists.
5) If ren is that much better from your feeling then we will see more of them in the next tournaments, that is something I would like ot see, b.c meta changes from tournament to tournament. With more people seeing these results I cant wait for the next large tournament.

Eldar isnt just OP b.c the units are good, it also is the Psychic phase and the ability to have high mobility with Move/Shoot/Move, lots of high Str weapons and even D weapons. It really is just a amazing balance of, Toughness (via Powers/jink/mobility to get cover) Mobility, Shooting and Psychic.

If you look at other armies they are missing one for more of the 4, Survival, Psychic, Movement, Damage out put.

Edit: Spelling, English is hard for me.

**notredameguy10**

DarknessEternal wrote:
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.

lol you just can't give it up can you. 40% of the top 10 were eldar. 30% of the top 20 were eldar. the exact article you posted showed elder above and beyond all other armies in the graphs.

**Martel732**

The scatterlaser is a blatantly broken weapon. It has been ever since they made it. It's just gotten much, much worse since hull points. Let's start with that.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
The scatterlaser is a blatantly broken weapon. It has been ever since they made it. It's just gotten much, much worse since hull points. Let's start with that.

Eh, the Scatterlaser only reaches broken when it's as spammable as it is. When it replaces an armies basic weapon, yeah, it's pretty broken.

**Brother Claudio**

Caederes wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I think the problem isn't that Eldar as a whole is OP, but they have one very specific build that's very powerful.

I think if you took the average power of their codex's units against, say, average Necron unit power, they'd be much more middle of the road.

I vehemently disagree with this. The Farseer is the best value psyker in the game, the Spiritseer is also pretty great. Seer Councils (including Warlocks) are one of the most potent psychic death-stars in the game. Jain Zar is hands-down the challenge queen of 40K and a phenomenal close combat character. Windriders are the best Troops choice in the game. Dire Avengers are good to great with Wave Serpents, whom still rank as a top tier dedicated transport. Rangers are an ideal objective camping unit. Eldar Sergeants - Exarchs - are the best value squad leaders in the entire game. Striking Scorpions are an above average melee unit. Fire Dragons are among the most terrifying anti-tank units in the game. Wraithguard are downright ridiculous with the right support due to being regular infantry packing Destroyer weapons. Swooping Hawks and Warp Spiders are among the most powerful Fast Attack units of any codex, and indeed among the best Jump Infantry/Jet Pack Infantry units in the game respectively. Crimson Hunters are well above average flyers and dominate against other flyers. The Hemlock Wraithfighter is a cheap flyer that packs in two Destroyer blast weapons and powerful psychic capabilities. Dark Reapers murder anything that can Jink - i.e. Jetbikes and Skimmers that are so popular nowadays - while Vaul's Wraith Support Batteries are extremely deadly for the points. Their battle tanks are all average to above average, War Walkers are superior to almost any other Walkers in the game for sheer points-to-damage output efficiency, the Wraithknight is arguably the single most under-priced model in the game. Oh, and don't forget Forge World with Hornets, Skathach Wraithknights, Nightwings, Revenants, etc....Hell, even their "bad" units - Howling Banshees, Shining Spears, Fire Prisms, Guardians, etc - are all still better than heaps of units from other codices and can be seen by external balancing as average to good units on their own merits.

I don't play Eldar or really complain about them, but saying they have a whole bunch of middle of the road units instead of an all-round strong codex is flat out wrong.

100% agree with this. They have the best or above average units in every aspect of the game!

**Martel732**

krodarklorr wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The scatterlaser is a blatantly broken weapon. It has been ever since they made it. It's just gotten much, much worse since hull points. Let's start with that.

Eh, the Scatterlaser only reaches broken when it's as spammable as it is. When it replaces an armies basic weapon, yeah, it's pretty broken.

It's stat line was broken in 4th. There are too many units where it is strictly superior to the starcannon at all times. It's just even more broken now.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The scatterlaser is a blatantly broken weapon. It has been ever since they made it. It's just gotten much, much worse since hull points. Let's start with that.

Eh, the Scatterlaser only reaches broken when it's as spammable as it is. When it replaces an armies basic weapon, yeah, it's pretty broken.

It's stat line was broken in 4th. There are too many units where it is strictly superior to the starcannon at all times. It's just even more broken now.

Is the Multilaser OP then?

**pumaman1**

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.

gonna go ahead and copy paste some of the statements you linked to in the article without modifying them.
"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. I’m nigh positive, if/when I have access to allied factions, that the strength of that force is all Dark Eldar/Eldar allied armies.
Whose Afraid of the Big Bad Tau? I hear the Tau called out a lot for being OP, for ruining the game, for being one of the codexes that must be feared and dreaded and nerfed. That’s just not born out in the data. They’re a solid army, on par with Cult Mechanicus/War Convocation, Dark Angels or Chaos Renegades, but they’re not at the big kids table – that’s held by Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Daemons. Like the Chaos Renegades, they’re a mid-table stomping army, but not a contender for the top tables."

and
"Most armies are in a good place, but there are a few that are what I’d call pathologically good – the aforementioned “big kids table”, but especially the extremely prevalent Space Marines and Eldar. Chaos Daemons, while powerful, are trickier to play than those – there’s a lot of middling-poor Daemons lists, while most Eldar and Space Marine armies are enjoying above average performance. This is born out statistically – while the smaller LVO dataset from years ago didn’t really achieve statistical significance for there being more differences in the medians than you’d expect by chance, this year’s P-value is 0.0007. That’s stupidly significant – these results aren’t just the result of random variation/player skill."

so you didn't read the article, you just looked at the graphs and made some assumptions?

**Martel732**

krodarklorr wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The scatterlaser is a blatantly broken weapon. It has been ever since they made it. It's just gotten much, much worse since hull points. Let's start with that.

Eh, the Scatterlaser only reaches broken when it's as spammable as it is. When it replaces an armies basic weapon, yeah, it's pretty broken.

It's stat line was broken in 4th. There are too many units where it is strictly superior to the starcannon at all times. It's just even more broken now.

Is the Multilaser OP then?

It is probably the best heavy the Imperium has, but one less shot and being BS 3 makes it far less dominating. The platforms is comes on aren't nearly as nice, either. The platform thing is pretty important, as that's what ruins the assault cannon as well.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The scatterlaser is a blatantly broken weapon. It has been ever since they made it. It's just gotten much, much worse since hull points. Let's start with that.

Eh, the Scatterlaser only reaches broken when it's as spammable as it is. When it replaces an armies basic weapon, yeah, it's pretty broken.

It's stat line was broken in 4th. There are too many units where it is strictly superior to the starcannon at all times. It's just even more broken now.

Is the Multilaser OP then?

It is probably the best heavy the Imperium has, but one less shot and being BS 3 makes it far less dominating. The platforms is comes on aren't nearly as nice, either. The platform thing is pretty important, as that's what ruins the assault cannon as well.

What about the Tesla Destructor? Is that weapon game breaking?

**Martel732**

Stats?

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
Stats?

24" S7 AP- Heavy 4, Tesla, Twin-linked

**Martel732**

12" less range make it hard to compare. I'd say the range makes that weapon far more fair. You at least have to move to get that thing within range. The scatterlaser starts in from turn 1 murdering everything in your list potentially. 24" range is one of the big achilles heels on the assault cannon.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
12" less range make it hard to compare. I'd say the range makes that weapon far more fair. You at least have to move to get that thing within range. The scatterlaser starts in from turn 1 murdering everything in your list potentially. 24" range is one of the big achilles heels on the assault cannon.

Well, it comes on the Night Scythe, which doesn't really care about Range. And the other platform it comes on is immune to S6 fire.

**Vaktathi**

Oh man, when Tesla still worked on snapshots and it had its S5 lash effect, Tesla Destructors were super busted.

Now theyre much less absurd

**krodarklorr**

Vaktathi wrote:
Oh man, when Tesla still worked on snapshots and it had its S5 lash effect, Tesla Destructors were super busted.

Now theyre much less absurd

Sadly.

My point is, like the Tesla Destructor and the Multilaser, the Scatterlaser is a good weapon. Good. Not broken. It's the simple fact that it can replace their basic infantry weapons on a troop unit that it becomes literally game breaking.

**Vaktathi**

Yeah, the scatterlaser as a tank mounted gun was fine, or as a single heavy weapon on an infantry guardian squad, but when it had its 6E Twin Link effect, or now available on every jetbike, makes it rather silly.

**niv-mizzet**

To OP:

Yes they are above the medium baseline across all books.

They are not as OP as the most ridiculous claim you've seen on the net.
They are not as mediocre as the lowest estimation claim you've seen on the net.

And there you are.

**Martel732**

krodarklorr wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Oh man, when Tesla still worked on snapshots and it had its S5 lash effect, Tesla Destructors were super busted.

Now theyre much less absurd

Sadly.

My point is, like the Tesla Destructor and the Multilaser, the Scatterlaser is a good weapon. Good. Not broken. It's the simple fact that it can replace their basic infantry weapons on a troop unit that it becomes literally game breaking.

It's broken. It burns down 80% of the models in the game from 36". Scatter walkers have always been a thing and many 5th ed power lists still fell to them. It kills IK dammit. An anti infantry gun.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Oh man, when Tesla still worked on snapshots and it had its S5 lash effect, Tesla Destructors were super busted.

Now theyre much less absurd

Sadly.

My point is, like the Tesla Destructor and the Multilaser, the Scatterlaser is a good weapon. Good. Not broken. It's the simple fact that it can replace their basic infantry weapons on a troop unit that it becomes literally game breaking.

It's broken. It burns down 80% of the models in the game from 36". Scatter walkers have always been a thing and many 5th ed power lists still fell to them. It kills IK dammit. An anti infantry gun.

And how does it kill an IK?

**HoundsofDemos**

Its not the weapon, its how cheap they are. At 27 a model they are the best unit in the game for there cost.

**Martel732**

Glances them out on their ernormous side arcs. I saw a guy lose two iks in one game that way. Depressing and absurd.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
Glances them out on their ernormous side arcs. I saw a guy lose two iks in one game that way. Depressing and absurd.

I guess I'm wrong on this, but I thought they had 13/13/12 armor? I never play against them, so I can't be sure. But only 13 in the front seems...odd.

**Martel732**

12 sides. On a 400+ pt model. But the game is totally pro-imperium.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
12 sides. On a 400+ pt model. But the game is totally pro-imperium.

Hmm, they're even easier to kill then. Either way, my basic troop can glance them to death, so that's not that special.

**pumaman1**

Martel732 wrote:
12 sides. On a 400+ pt model. But the game is totally pro-imperium.

Its pro-imperium because you can ally in white scars bikers to cover your flanks, or a librarius conclave to (maybe) make an invisible IK with RAW.
I know you don't play that way, but with all imperium as battle brothers, the mix and match options are very high to cover weaknesses elsewhere. where as xenos tend to have very small ally option, and some suffer for it.