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.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

People seem to have some very selective memories when it comes to Eldar power levels over the years.

Proceeds to list how Eldar were the top or second best army in all but one edition from 2nd onward...

 Eldarain wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

People seem to have some very selective memories when it comes to Eldar power levels over the years.

Proceeds to list how Eldar were the top or second best army in all but one edition from 2nd onward...

That's what I was thinking too.

Man there a ton of eldar at my area, gotta get those sternguard filled droppods and tyberos done ASAP...
Altough they can bring TON of cheese to the table, like serpents, "those AP2 flamers"(d-scythes)? What pains me the most is wraithknight and how i ALWAYS bring down their distraction wraithknight, instead of say, warwalkers
With 24 S6 shots.. Threw a game hard last weekend,mine honourguard champion killed his autarch(I was playing BT that game,hooray for reroll to hit and rending in challenges),
2 talons came and i focused wraithknight instead of mentioned warwalkers who wiped the floor with me
Should've rushed with mine 2 templar blobs after honourguard was in their teeth... Other than that feel you get when you realize how hard you threw a game, it was great fun, just like every other 40k game

Bharring wrote:
If you're afraid of pseudo rending at 12" on a t3 5+ platform (with low LD), then you might want to take another look.

If you're afraid of pseudo rending at 18" on a t3 4+ at 13ppm (the cost of a CSM!), then you might need to rethink things.

If you're afraid of pseudo rending on an assault cannon-equivelent (one less shot, no true rending), I think you're missing something.

Pseudo rending is awesome, but its not broken. Most of the Eldar dex pays for what it can do.

Our ID options are all only-on-6 on low-volume weapons, too.

The Serpent's gunboat ability, Seer Star, and probably the 'Knight are OP, but beyond that, its not bad.

Fun reply, but you were missing something. Battle focus.

And as for the "The Serpent's gunboat ability, Seer Star, and probably the 'Knight are OP, but beyond that, its not bad", well sure, if you just take away what 90% of eldar players are going to be using, things are super balanced. *rolls eyes*

 Dunklezahn wrote:
5th Ed: Eldar were weak, don't try and sugar coat it any other way, Eldar of all flavours were just meat for the SW/BA/GK/Cron grinder

This is what people (intentionally?) fail to remember the most. A year ago Eldar were consistently voted 3rd or 4th worst army on these boards (Serpent-Dragon spam being the only reason they weren't voted second worst - footdar? you've got to be kidding me, that's a skew list and if you don't know what a skew list is, ask on the Warmachine forums).

Could also be noted that Eldar release marked half-time during fourth edition, similar to how Necrons weren't exactly great during most of fifth. Not sure if you can "give" an edition to them like that.

I'm used to that debating style here on Dakka. I just focus on the posters who are aware of how things work in practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
5th Ed: Eldar were weak, don't try and sugar coat it any other way, Eldar of all flavours were just meat for the SW/BA/GK/Cron grinder

This is what people (intentionally?) fail to remember the most. A year ago Eldar were consistently voted 3rd or 4th worst army on these boards (Serpent-Dragon spam being the only reason they weren't voted second worst - footdar? you've got to be kidding me, that's a skew list and if you don't know what a skew list is, ask on the Warmachine forums).

Could also be noted that Eldar release marked half-time during fourth edition, similar to how Necrons weren't exactly great during most of fifth. Not sure if you can "give" an edition to them like that.

LOL, one off edition? Really? As a BA player from 2nd edition, this is the world's smallest violin playing for you. Eldar could still do a lot of damage in 5th as well, but you had to use specific builds. Same boat as lists like the Nids.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm used to that debating style here on Dakka. I just focus on the posters who are aware of how things work in practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
5th Ed: Eldar were weak, don't try and sugar coat it any other way, Eldar of all flavours were just meat for the SW/BA/GK/Cron grinder

This is what people (intentionally?) fail to remember the most. A year ago Eldar were consistently voted 3rd or 4th worst army on these boards (Serpent-Dragon spam being the only reason they weren't voted second worst - footdar? you've got to be kidding me, that's a skew list and if you don't know what a skew list is, ask on the Warmachine forums).

Could also be noted that Eldar release marked half-time during fourth edition, similar to how Necrons weren't exactly great during most of fifth. Not sure if you can "give" an edition to them like that.

LOL, one off edition? Really? As a BA player from 2nd edition, this is the world's smallest violin playing for you. Eldar could still do a lot of damage in 5th as well, but you had to use specific builds. Same boat as lists like the Nids.

I'd hardly say 6 years is a short period of time. It's interesting to note when the top dog of each edition was released. I'll just go with what I'm aware of here.
3rd ('98) - 2001 (Codex Craftworld)*
4th ('04) - 2006 (Codex Eldar)
5th ('08) - 2009 (Codex: Space Wolves)
6th ('13) - 2013 (Codex: Tau and Codex: Eldar)**
* That's more or less the first supplement ever. Had really interesting ideas, but in terms of gamebalance it was a traffic accident since it moved your preferred units to troop selection and made them more powerful.
** Technically two codexes, but it's their combination through Ally-system that places highest of all.

I'll spare the violin play for you as well due to a very long time at the top tier during 5th edition. History older than 20 years isn't very interesting, to be honest. For more reasons than just that it's old since at that time game play of any kind wasn't very well developed at all, the concept of a user friendly interface in computer games was barely developing and the only very well balanced board games were mirror games and here we are arguing about one of the earliest asymmetrical games of all. I think this is more a testament to GW's failure as rules designers than anything else. Of course, that doesn't mean you're entitled to anything, but try to keep in mind that for Eldar players, 5th edition is very fresh in mind - so the current hyperbole nonsense that's going on is... insulting.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'VE STILL GOT SPACE WOLVES, GREY KNIGHTS AND NECRONS TO GO. Giving this edition to Eldar or Tau is a bit early (as we can see above). Either of those three currently unreleased codexes have a great potential to completely ruin the game for everyone involved, Tau and Eldar included.

BA weren't top tier in 5th. They were just better than C:SM and most pre-5th codices.

Took a delve through time. Surprisingly difficult to find thse threads even with mighty google, in spite of these ranking lists were quite common. BA seem to be placed most consistently at middle tier, not top tier, for any rankings which included GK and Necrons, though I do note that no one ever placed them in bottom tier which hinted at them being fairly good spot, if not dominating.

P.S. Several codexes didn't get an update during 5th edition. The codex that sets itself apart is probably the 5th edition Sisters codex which managed to place itself in bottom tier, which is practically unheard of.

Because BA were overcosted even in 5th. Just not as badly.

Martel732 wrote:
Because BA were overcosted even in 5th. Just not as badly.

Hardly. If a codex is noted as being middle tier without contest from anyone, although they were sometimes mentioned as a top tier army, they can not possibly be overpriced. Individual units can be overpriced, but viewed as a codex - no. Being mediocre usually means the codex is balanced externally.

Not if overcostedness is what was keeping them out of the top tier. The only thing that really kept 5th ed BA in the middle tier was the insane durability of their fast vehicles. Jumper lists were not viable against other good players in 5th. If that's not overcostedness, I don't know what is.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

People seem to have some very selective memories when it comes to Eldar power levels over the years.

Proceeds to list how Eldar were the top or second best army in all but one edition from 2nd onward...

It's a snappy reply but it lacks on accuracy.
Half of third, all of 4th and all of 5th is not one edition though. Eldar have had some impressive moments in the sun where they were top dog by a country mile (2nd and post craftworld 3rd) but calling them a consistently top tier army is simply not accurate.

Voidwraith wrote:
Fun reply, but you were missing something. Battle focus.

And as for the "The Serpent's gunboat ability, Seer Star, and probably the 'Knight are OP, but beyond that, its not bad", well sure, if you just take away what 90% of eldar players are going to be using, things are super balanced. *rolls eyes*

First off battle focus does not make up for losing first volley compared to every basic weapon in the game for guardians who are made of paper, it's a handy rule but don't kid yourself that you will be lucky to even get to fire if your opponent has even a boltgun and any space to move. Buying a Serpent for those guardians is the only thing that makes them good.

Second 90% of what Eldar players will use *at a tournament* that's 3 units, stop and count how many units are in the codex and look at that 90% number again. You yourself name those 3 units, so if your opponent uses no Seer star, maybe 1 serpent and 1 Knight is his list now not OP? See how that works? The overwhelming majority of the Eldar codex is absolutely fine but it's easier for people to complain about the whole codex.

Martel732 wrote:

Eldar and Tau are indeed OP, don't listen to the apologists.

Ah the old apologists defence again, 9pts for a pistol ranged gun on a t3 5+ platform, totally OP. Autarchs, Pheonix, Avatar, Wraithblade/guard, Fire Dragons, Banshee, Scorpions, Harlequins, Hawks, Vypers, Crimsons, Hemlocks, Guardians, Avengers, Rangers, Support Weapons, Reapers, Falcons, Prisms. Not a one of those units is even close to being OP and there's several more not on that list that aren't but are at least considered good.

Eldar are OP is just another blanket statement that is at best woefully inaccurate. There are a small selection of high end units, nothing more.

Do not underestimate Guardians. On their own they are outranged, sure, but I couple 20 of them with a Farseer (Or a shrouded-lock secondarily) and I find that an Invisibility + Guide makes for a hell of a nasty unit that consistently kills many times its own number of points and is very hard to force off an objective once they have taken it. Battle Focus to shoot 12" and then stay out of viable assault range? Why not.

It's only weakness is Ignores Cover weapons, which other elements of the list can be designed to counter.

They are passable fighters, I use them as the core of my army but the question is are they OP? Bearing in mind that unit you suggest is the best part of 300pts and is using one of your HQ choices. Regardless of battle focus your enemy is almost always going to get the first volley (Termagants are one of the few troopers with similar range)

The answer is a resounding no, a couple of guys with flamers or a handful of competent assaulters will see them off in no time, not to mention the casualties if you don't roll invisibility from basic weapon fire. If they were 6pts or something I'd say we had a problem, but 9pts for a model a boltgun kills on a 3+? Hardly earth shattering.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
They are passable fighters, I use them as the core of my army but the question is are they OP? Bearing in mind that unit you suggest is the best part of 300pts and is using one of your HQ choices. Regardless of battle focus your enemy is almost always going to get the first volley (Termagants are one of the few troopers with similar range)

The answer is a resounding no, a couple of guys with flamers or a handful of competent assaulters will see them off in no time, not to mention the casualties if you don't roll invisibility from basic weapon fire. If they were 6pts or something I'd say we had a problem, but 9pts for a model a boltgun kills on a 3+? Hardly earth shattering.

How does a flamer get the first volley though?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
They are passable fighters, I use them as the core of my army but the question is are they OP? Bearing in mind that unit you suggest is the best part of 300pts and is using one of your HQ choices. Regardless of battle focus your enemy is almost always going to get the first volley (Termagants are one of the few troopers with similar range)

The answer is a resounding no, a couple of guys with flamers or a handful of competent assaulters will see them off in no time, not to mention the casualties if you don't roll invisibility from basic weapon fire. If they were 6pts or something I'd say we had a problem, but 9pts for a model a boltgun kills on a 3+? Hardly earth shattering.

How does a flamer get the first volley though?

Clutching at straws a little by trying to compound separate points but I'll indulge you, with a jump pack or from a transport. Either of those methods are very much capable of bypassing the Guardians entire fire range and delivering a template of 3+ death. The first volley however would come from bolters, shootas, pulse rifles, hell even the mighty lasgun can be used to kite guardians. 12" is painfully short and if you focus to get in range then you are almost certainly going to get your teeth kicked in by anyone with any kind of melee ability because you are now sitting 12" from the enemy. Also running a larger block like suggested will often leave you with many shooters out of range unless you clump up very badly or have guys within spitting distance at the front.

Do not kid yourself that the guardian is some kind of mighty infantryman, they are very flimsy and more than likely never going to need a second shot because getting in range to fire the first is the last place they want to be.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
They are passable fighters, I use them as the core of my army but the question is are they OP? Bearing in mind that unit you suggest is the best part of 300pts and is using one of your HQ choices. Regardless of battle focus your enemy is almost always going to get the first volley (Termagants are one of the few troopers with similar range)

The answer is a resounding no, a couple of guys with flamers or a handful of competent assaulters will see them off in no time, not to mention the casualties if you don't roll invisibility from basic weapon fire. If they were 6pts or something I'd say we had a problem, but 9pts for a model a boltgun kills on a 3+? Hardly earth shattering.

How does a flamer get the first volley though?

Clutching at straws a little by trying to compound separate points

Not any more than you ignoring everything with Battle Focus that isn't a guardian, but whatever.

Second 90% of what Eldar players will use *at a tournament* that's 3 units, stop and count how many units are in the codex and look at that 90% number again. You yourself name those 3 units, so if your opponent uses no Seer star, maybe 1 serpent and 1 Knight is his list now not OP? See how that works? The overwhelming majority of the Eldar codex is absolutely fine but it's easier for people to complain about the whole codex.

Yes and no

Yes there are lots of good, average and plain bad units in Eldar but the really broken units - Seers and Wave Serpents see lots of casual/ everyday play - same as Riptides.

True if they fixed OP units it woul dbe a better game but theere does not seem to be any chance that GW are going to bother

That's because we're talking about Guardians, you included, lots of snappy one lines but not a whole lot of substance coming from your replies, you are defending the claim the entire Eldar codex is OP, Guardians are part of that, my whole list of units is part of that. If guardians are not OP then saying the Eldar are OP is wrong.

You wanna talk about Battle Focus on other troops?

Dire Avengers, better on them, they are still gonna lose first volley to anyone with a 24", slightly less flimsy but now we are up at CSM points costs. Calling a T3 4+ model that costs almost as much as a space marine OP is a touch much, good but OP, really?

War Walkers, now we're talking, similar in power to JSJ but less reliable, here's a unit that can really take advantage and you'll notice they aren't on the list, I personally find calling a vehicle as flimsy as War Walker OP a bit much but it's at least good enough to warrant leaving out.

Warp Spiders, another good unit but even then Battle focus is a fine tuning device, their power comes from their high move and assault move, handy but hardly game breaking, also not on my list.

What about Rangers, practically worthless on them, helps a little when redeploying but not much else.

Have any other preferences?

Mr Morden wrote:Yes there are lots of good, average and plain bad units in Eldar but the really broken units - Seers and Wave Serpents see lots of casual/ everyday play - same as Riptides.

Gotta disagree, you your opponent is rocking serpent spam and/or optimised JetSeer Council that's not a casual list, that's a tourney list..
That's my point though most of the units are fine and well balanced, allowing a statement like "Eldar are OP" to stand without caveat implies the tournament setting is some kind of "One True Meta" which is completely false and is a pet peeve of mine.

If someone wants to say "Taudar are OP at tournaments" and I'll probably nod my head in agreement but calling the entire codex OP for 2-3 badly balanced units, nah.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
That's because we're talking about Guardians, you included, lots of snappy one lines but not a whole lot of substance coming from your replies, you are defending the claim the entire Eldar codex is OP, Guardians are part of that, my whole list of units is part of that. If guardians are not OP then saying the Eldar are OP is wrong.

So if Tactical Marines were reduced to 1 PPM and got an Assaul 24 Str D 72" weapon Codex: Space Marines wouldn't be OP because Assault Marines are bad? Really?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So if Tactical Marines were reduced to 1 PPM and got an Assaul 24 Str D 72" weapon Codex: Space Marines wouldn't be OP because Assault Marines are bad? Really?

Exactly, Tactical Marines would be OP. It's really a matter of specificity.

For example if I run all scouts as troops in this mythical codex by your definition my army is OP because it's Space Marines, even though in this dex scouts cost 200pts each. By my definition the army is very weak because scouts are UP.

Real Eldar codex example, I run:

Illic
6x 10 Pathfinders

It's an Eldar codex army, is my army OP?

You know what? I could make an Eldar list without wave serpent, seer council, or Wraithknight that would STILL mop up meq lists. That's how little firepower marines have compared to the average Eldar unit.

Or perhaps for an apples to apples comparison, try Eldar without their top 3 units vs marines or Tau without THEIR top three units. OOPS, still an OP codex. That's assuming you can even find the top 3 units in the marine codex without sparking a nerd rage debate.

"The overwhelming majority of the Eldar codex is absolutely fine but it's easier for people to complain about the whole codex. "

Must be nice, because the majority of the marine codex is subpar. So yeah, I'm gonna complain about a codex full of "fine" units while my choices are the BA, a codex full of utter trash, or C:SM, a codex mostly full of subpar choices.

Martel732 wrote:
try Eldar without their top 3 units vs marines or Tau without THEIR top three units. OOPS, still an OP codex. That's assuming you can even find the top 3 units in the marine codex without sparking a nerd rage debate.

Tau without Riptides, Broadsides, or Pathfinders (or would you want a buff commander to be in 3rd place?)..that's actually already what I run anyway most of the time, except for one riptide. Of course I use forgeworld stuff, so that probably doesn't count.

Ummm....
I'm confused. See, my tournament (even thoe I've never had a game at a GW) is 'nids, and my fun army is eldar, have I got it backwards, I only will run wraiths units (only 1 wraithknight) and warp spiders. Will I be considered WAAC if I turn up with that?

WAAC doens't exist. Either you are fielding the best army you can or not. There are reasons to field sub-optimal lists, but fielding good lists does not make you mean or whatever.

Martel732 wrote:
You know what? I could make an Eldar list without wave serpent, seer council, or Wraithknight that would STILL mop up meq lists. That's how little firepower marines have compared to the average Eldar unit.

Anecdotal, I've beaten all the races in 40k with Nids, that does not make them the strongest codex. Irrelevant.

Martel732 wrote:

Or perhaps for an apples to apples comparison, try Eldar without their top 3 units vs marines or Tau without THEIR top three units. OOPS, still an OP codex. That's assuming you can even find the top 3 units in the marine codex without sparking a nerd rage debate.

Except that's not like for like unless you are saying the top 3 things in the marine dex are OP, which you aren't. Remove the top 3 "OP" things from the Eldar dex and compare it to a Marine dex with all it's OP units removed, which you say there are none, so thats the whole dex.

Martel732 wrote:

"The overwhelming majority of the Eldar codex is absolutely fine but it's easier for people to complain about the whole codex. "

Must be nice, because the majority of the marine codex is subpar. So yeah, I'm gonna complain about a codex full of "fine" units while my choices are the BA, a codex full of utter trash, or C:SM, a codex mostly full of subpar choices.

Even if we assumed I don't vehemently disagree for a start the BA codex is currently still waiting on it's 6th edition codex so that's not really like for like either and the marine dex is perfectly capable of punching at the "minus OP" weigh class. There seems to be some kind of group think idea that Guardians kick ass compared to Marines which given they die if hit by a stiff breeze and have half the range is pretty funny to me. With that kind of mindset people are never going to be happy because they only want to see the greener grass.
Both codicies have some nice choices and some weaker choices.

"Anecdotal, I've beaten all the races in 40k with Nids, that does not make them the strongest codex. Irrelevant."

It's not irrelevant because I'm telling you that I can SHOW you that the Eldar still have better units even without their top 3.

The marines still have a top 3 that we could remove. Perhaps, TFC, bikers, and cent devs. That effectively removes grav from the marines codex. And their barrage weapon. Now run them against Eldar without Seer council, serpent, and knight. I don't even think the knight is that OP, but whatever.

And marines don't die if they get hit by a stiff Eldar breeze? You have ever been on the *receiving* end of Eldar firepower? Because you post like you haven't.

Martel732 wrote:

It's not irrelevant because I'm telling you that I can SHOW you that the Eldar still have better units even without their top 3.

No, you're saying you could and expecting us to take it as gospel to prove your point, it's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Martel732 wrote:

The marines still have a top 3 that we could remove. Perhaps, TFC, bikers, and cent devs. That effectively removes grav from the marines codex. And their barrage weapon. Now run them against Eldar without Seer council, serpent, and knight. I don't even think the knight is that OP, but whatever.

They do have a top 3 but by your own admission they aren't OP so why are you excluding them, if the Eldar list is OP throughout it should smash marines with the top 5, 7, 10 removed and marines at full strength, which it will not. Take out the OP minority and they stack up.

Martel732 wrote:

And marines don't die if they get hit by a stiff Eldar breeze? You have ever been on the *receiving* end of Eldar firepower? Because you post like you haven't.

No, by your own repeated admission it's save spams that kill your guys and a 3 guardians will die for every "stiff breeze" that kills a marine in that case.
Don't try to belittle the knowledge of the people you are talking to, speak to the facts not assumptions about their experience with the game.

If you allow me to tailor for Eldar without their "OP" units, I would agree.

But because of the meta of 6th, I still maintain a TAC marine list doesn't stack up to a TAC Eldar list minus the three unspeakable units.

One huge reason for this is the efficacy of shurikens against MCs. Another is battle focus. Due to the lack of efficacy of marine troops, marines are always behind the Xeno 8-ball in a TAC situation.