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.

Okay, I think we're close to a consensus here, putting aside whether you'd need to tailor your list or not as a matter for debate, which of your comments is true:

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

Which means even with those top 2-3 units removed the Eldar would still wipe the floor with Marines because it's all OP.

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

That without the Eldar outliers, list tailoring set aside for now as I say, Marines are capable of competing with the Eldar list and thus only a small number of Eldar units are OP.

They can't both be true.

"Marines are capable of competing with the Eldar list and thus only a small number of Eldar units are OP."

Not without tailoring, which, to me, puts Eldar into the range of OP.

I won't put aside the issue of tailoring because if I have to tailor to beat a given list, they are *OP*.

Both of my comments are true, because my first comment was taking into account all possible unit builds. And my second statement is EXACTLY how I meant it. If I can tailor for Eldar, and ban their top 3 units, marines can compete. But having to tailor is unacceptable.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Okay, I think we're close to a consensus here, putting aside whether you'd need to tailor your list or not as a matter for debate, which of your comments is true:

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

Which means even with those top 2-3 units removed the Eldar would still wipe the floor with Marines because it's all OP.

You can't divorce Riptides and Wave Serpents from the Codices though. The Codex is OP because it contains those OP units, in the same way that the theoretical Tactical Marine I mentioned earlier would make Codex: Space Marines OP. The Codex is the sum of its units, and if some of them are OP then the Codex is going to be OP too.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Fielding Killer lists in a known casual envrionment and keeping on doing it is the epitome of WAAC players.................. and thats being polite

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Fielding Killer lists in a known casual envrionment and keeping on doing it is the epitome of WAAC players.................. and thats being polite

I can't blame players for taking options that GW made legal. No one can know a priori how much to self-nerf, and so I don't think players should have to give GW an assist in balancing a game that we paid big bucks for.

You could also look at it as trying to get others to improve their game.

Your solution is for Eldar players to take pity on the less fortunate players. WHY are there less fortunate players to begin with?

I disagree. If you know your meta and/or who you're likely playing against, you can properly change your list. Furthermore, if you know you can do something that will improve your opponent's enjoyment more than it will harm yours, being a decent person would put the onus on you to do it (outside a competitive environment).

For some (those that love to crush their opponent or love tactics that are now OP), self-limiting may not meet that threshold (the first example are jerks, and the second example will often still self-limit often), but most people who are fun to play with should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if your main concerns are Battle Focus and pseudo rending, against marines, you do know a Tac squad, even, with either a PG or any heavy weapon, will out-kill Avengers at any range point for point (even more so for Guardians). And that's one of the worse matchups in the Marine list vs Eldar. Most TAC lists from marines stack up reasonably against most TAC Eldar lists that don't include the currently-op options mentioned above.

Bharring wrote:
I disagree. If you know your meta and/or who you're likely playing against, you can properly change your list. Furthermore, if you know you can do something that will improve your opponent's enjoyment more than it will harm yours, being a decent person would put the onus on you to do it (outside a competitive environment).

For some (those that love to crush their opponent or love tactics that are now OP), self-limiting may not meet that threshold (the first example are jerks, and the second example will often still self-limit often), but most people who are fun to play with should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if your main concerns are Battle Focus and pseudo rending, against marines, you do know a Tac squad, even, with either a PG or any heavy weapon, will out-kill Avengers at any range point for point (even more so for Guardians). And that's one of the worse matchups in the Marine list vs Eldar. Most TAC lists from marines stack up reasonably against most TAC Eldar lists that don't include the currently-op options mentioned above.

Maybe my meta's just THAT different. But I have to game for fliers, MCs, FMCs, and hordes. The wacky niche of the Eldar just can't be accounted for by a TAC marine list without exposing itself against too many other threats.

It's also a problem that, in general, a heavy weapon for a tac squad is a waste. Sure, if I were tailoring for Eldar with no serpents I'd use heavy bolters, but most of the time the heavy bolter is a fail weapon.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You can't divorce Riptides and Wave Serpents from the Codices though. The Codex is OP because it contains those OP units, in the same way that the theoretical Tactical Marine I mentioned earlier would make Codex: Space Marines OP. The Codex is the sum of its units, and if some of them are OP then the Codex is going to be OP too.

But you can though, if you/your opponent does't field any they are gone and could be as good as you like. I already said this, by your definition an army of Swooping Hawks and Banshee's is OP because of Wave Serpents they aren't even fielding and I think we all know better than that...

Martel732 wrote:
Both of my comments are true, because my first comment was taking into account all possible unit builds. And my second statement is EXACTLY how I meant it. If I can tailor for Eldar, and ban their top 3 units, marines can compete. But having to tailor is unacceptable.

But they aren't, either the entire codex is OP as you claim or without their small minority of OP units you think marines can punch at their weight class, you can't have both.
What is this imaginary Eldar list that would force you to tailor so badly looking like? I'm curious, I want to see what you think would be wiping the floor with you so badly outside of the big 3, I'm sure there are many Eldar players curious to know what gems they are apparently missing. For a TAC list of course because that's how you are limiting the marines.

Also if you play in a pure tourney environ what horde list are you seeing?

Codex: Eldar is OP.

Whether a codex is OP or not is defined by the strength of its strongest units and how many of the codex's units fit into the 'very strong' category. That is because those units are are what people are taking in a competetive environment. It is irrelevant that Banshees are weak, because they are never seeing the table where it matters in the context anyway. In a non-competetive environment OPness is far less of a concern since there is more willingness for adjusting to the differing power levels among codices.

A Dire Avenger - Wave Serpent - Seerstar - Warwalker - Warpspider and so on - army does not equal the entirety of the Codex in a casual environment, but in a competetive environment... For all intents and purposes, here it does, because those units are what you are going to see.

Anything beyond that is being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Codex: Eldar is OP.
...
Anything beyond that is being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

No, it's being accurate, that's a significant and important difference. The statement "Eldar are OP" is lazy, inflammatory and most importantly, wrong.
You are doing the same thing as many others and talking as if tourney play is the One True Meta, it really isn't.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
because they are never seeing the table where it matters in the context anyway

Units can't be OP in casual games? You should be more careful about deciding what games matter, your bias is showing...

If I field an army of Pathfinders, Swooping Hawks and Banshee's by that definition my army is OP, which is simply wrong and you know it. Just because those units don't show up on *your* table don't assume they are absent from everyone else's or that their games are somehow less important.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Codex: Eldar is OP.
...
Anything beyond that is being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

No, it's being accurate, that's a significant and important difference. The statement "Eldar are OP" is lazy, inflammatory and most importantly, wrong.
You are doing the same thing as many others and talking as if tourney play is the One True Meta, it really isn't.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
because they are never seeing the table where it matters in the context anyway

Units can't be OP in casual games? You should be more careful about deciding what games matter, your bias is showing...

If I field an army of Pathfinders, Swooping Hawks and Banshee's by that definition my army is OP, which is simply wrong and you know it. Just because those units don't show up on *your* table don't assume they are absent from everyone else's or that their games are somehow less important.

Fine. If playing to win, Codex: Eldar is overpowered. If playing specificly to avoid it being overpowered, it isn't. Happy now?

There are also some claims throughout the thread that not just the top 3/4 are over-the-top-overpowered, which is being debated in parallel. I'm just not seeing DAs/Guardians in that light.

Also, my non-WAAC Marines do about as well as my non-WAAC Eldar, so it is reasonable to have a non-OP Eldar list. I, too, would love to see what non-WAAC Eldar lists are stomping your marines - perhaps if we looked at both lists and their matchup, we can see where the disagreement is?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Fine. If playing to win, Codex: Eldar is overpowered. If playing specificly to avoid it being overpowered, it isn't. Happy now?

Still no, since I'm going down the road or correcting inaccurate terminology.
Many casual players are playing to win once the armies hit the board, they just don't sacrifice army composition to that end, so that statement is also inaccurate. A casual player is not automatically just moving units at random throwing dice, saying they aren't playing to win is an extremely backhanded dig at them.

"Eldar and Tau are the top tourney meta (Competetive would also work here I guess) armies due to a handful of too good or OP units which are spammed in these lists."

Makes the point, explains why, is accurate and most importantly doesn't snidely look down on any group of players by making sweeping assumptions.

Bharring wrote:
Also, my non-WAAC Marines do about as well as my non-WAAC Eldar, so it is reasonable to have a non-OP Eldar list. I, too, would love to see what non-WAAC Eldar lists are stomping your marines - perhaps if we looked at both lists and their matchup, we can see where the disagreement is?

This is also my experience and something I'm very keen to see, Martel is one of the big advocates of the opposite so when we get into the US timezones I'm hoping to see something.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Fine. If playing to win, Codex: Eldar is overpowered. If playing specificly to avoid it being overpowered, it isn't. Happy now?

Still no, since I'm going down the road or correcting inaccurate terminology.
Many casual players are playing to win once the armies hit the board, they just don't sacrifice army composition to that end, so that statement is also inaccurate. A casual player is not automatically just moving units at random throwing dice, saying they aren't playing to win is an extremely backhanded dig at them.

"Eldar and Tau are the top tourney meta (Competetive would also work here I guess) armies due to a handful of too good or OP units which are spammed in these lists."

Makes the point, explains why, is accurate and most importantly doesn't snidely look down on any group of players by making sweeping assumptions.

Congratulations on being one of the more annoying people to have a conversation / debate with on a forum.

Eldar and Tau are so overly-broken that people cannot appreciate any other codex because it will not be able to stand up to them. Period.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Codex: Eldar is OP.
...
Anything beyond that is being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

No, it's being accurate, that's a significant and important difference. The statement "Eldar are OP" is lazy, inflammatory and most importantly, wrong.
You are doing the same thing as many others and talking as if tourney play is the One True Meta, it really isn't.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
because they are never seeing the table where it matters in the context anyway

Units can't be OP in casual games? You should be more careful about deciding what games matter, your bias is showing...

If I field an army of Pathfinders, Swooping Hawks and Banshee's by that definition my army is OP, which is simply wrong and you know it. Just because those units don't show up on *your* table don't assume they are absent from everyone else's or that their games are somehow less important.

It's nothing about bias.

I am an extremely uncompetive player. But OPness becomes much less important in casual games. A Riptide is a problem for me sure, but as long as the rest of the army is not OP as well, I can handle it.

That is the difference. What you are doing is semantics, not an actual game debate, pedantic semantics no less. It is irrelevant and you might as well stop since this is not an actual debate, just you over and over again trying to get others to word their posts in your preferred manner.

 Voidwraith wrote:

Congratulations on being one of the more annoying people to have a conversation / debate with on a forum.

Eldar and Tau are so overly-broken that people cannot appreciate any other codex because it will not be able to stand up to them. Period.

Now, now, play nice. I know the internet isn't fond of accuracy but that's not my style.

At a tournament where you are talking about an army made up of the 3 top Eldar units and the 3 top Tau units yes, for *everywhere else* no. The overwhelming majority of both books sit squarely in the balanced or weak categories so calling the entire codex OP in a sweeping statement is simply wrong. Saying "period" after that doesn't change the inaccuracy of the statement.

BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I am an extremely uncompetive player. But OPness becomes much less important in casual games. A Riptide is a problem for me sure, but as long as the rest of the army is not OP as well, I can handle it.

But a tourney list doesn't run 1 Riptide, in fact if you face 3-4 with a casual list you are in fact going to have an even *more* one sided experience, the Riptide does not become any less OP.

Wanting to correct a sweeping generalization like "Eldar are OP" when the book has units that are in the overwhelming majority balanced is not pedantry. The overwhelming majority of armies that can be made with that book are perfectly fine balance wise, there is a small outlier yet you consider it an accurate statment to just the whole on that outlier.

Plus, if you field a unit of pathfinders, banshees etc, your army isn't OP.

Your codex is.

More semantics, yay.

 Voidwraith wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Fine. If playing to win, Codex: Eldar is overpowered. If playing specificly to avoid it being overpowered, it isn't. Happy now?

Still no, since I'm going down the road or correcting inaccurate terminology.
Many casual players are playing to win once the armies hit the board, they just don't sacrifice army composition to that end, so that statement is also inaccurate. A casual player is not automatically just moving units at random throwing dice, saying they aren't playing to win is an extremely backhanded dig at them.

"Eldar and Tau are the top tourney meta (Competetive would also work here I guess) armies due to a handful of too good or OP units which are spammed in these lists."

Makes the point, explains why, is accurate and most importantly doesn't snidely look down on any group of players by making sweeping assumptions.

Congratulations on being one of the more annoying people to have a conversation / debate with on a forum.

Eldar and Tau are so overly-broken that people cannot appreciate any other codex because it will not be able to stand up to them. Period.

Quoted for truth. Got to test drive my buddy's eldar vs nids at 1500. I won 13-5 barely trying. My list only had 2 serpents, no knights, and only one jetbike squad (no seers in it). Sure you can run lists that aren't WAAC, but the dex, intended or not, is inherently cheesy as hell. Not nearly as bad as tau though and at least we both had fun (for the first 4 turns).

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Plus, if you field a unit of pathfinders, banshees etc, your army isn't OP.

Your codex is.

If my codex is OP my army cannot not be OP. Phrase you statements however you want, I gave an example, but be accurate, sweepingly declaring the entire book OP isn't accurate.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
Quoted for truth. Got to test drive my buddy's eldar vs nids. 1500..I won 13-5.and I was hardly trying. I ran.all of 2 serpents, no wraithknights and only 1 unit of bikes (no council).

So you played one game with *only* 290pts (almost 1/5) of the OP units we are talking about in your army and won so they must be OP? C'mon, thats an almost textbook definition of anecdotal.

Martel732 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Fielding Killer lists in a known casual envrionment and keeping on doing it is the epitome of WAAC players.................. and thats being polite

I can't blame players for taking options that GW made legal. No one can know a priori how much to self-nerf, and so I don't think players should have to give GW an assist in balancing a game that we paid big bucks for.

You could also look at it as trying to get others to improve their game.

Your solution is for Eldar players to take pity on the less fortunate players. WHY are there less fortunate players to begin with?

Sorry but your statement "You could also look at it as trying to get others to improve their game". -means "Everyone should just play with the same broken units from a couple of Codexes as I do" brilliant solution - not,

My solution is for non WAAC people to discuss what sort of game you want and play to that - so that EVRYONE has more fuin - only the very worst WAAC players just want to whitewash their opponents every game.

I agree GW made the intial mistake/s but some players compound the problems by being WAAC................

Bharring wrote:
There are also some claims throughout the thread that not just the top 3/4 are over-the-top-overpowered, which is being debated in parallel. I'm just not seeing DAs/Guardians in that light.

Also, my non-WAAC Marines do about as well as my non-WAAC Eldar, so it is reasonable to have a non-OP Eldar list. I, too, would love to see what non-WAAC Eldar lists are stomping your marines - perhaps if we looked at both lists and their matchup, we can see where the disagreement is?

I don't play any non-competitive Eldar players. So I don't have an answer for this. I'm saying that I think *I* could make a list that beats marines at an unacceptable rate without those three units. Maybe I'm wrong. But looking at if from the other end, the marines have so many units that just aren't *good*. They're just *there* taking up space in the codex.

And I face tourney net lists mixed in with people stuck with older lists. So I still have to plan for Orks/Nids, since I have no idea who I'm matched up against. In some ways, this is WORSE than pure tourney because I can rule nothing out. I think the Eldar are better at preparing for every kind of list than the marines, when the marines are supposed to be the generalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You can't divorce Riptides and Wave Serpents from the Codices though. The Codex is OP because it contains those OP units, in the same way that the theoretical Tactical Marine I mentioned earlier would make Codex: Space Marines OP. The Codex is the sum of its units, and if some of them are OP then the Codex is going to be OP too.

But you can though, if you/your opponent does't field any they are gone and could be as good as you like. I already said this, by your definition an army of Swooping Hawks and Banshee's is OP because of Wave Serpents they aren't even fielding and I think we all know better than that...

Martel732 wrote:
Both of my comments are true, because my first comment was taking into account all possible unit builds. And my second statement is EXACTLY how I meant it. If I can tailor for Eldar, and ban their top 3 units, marines can compete. But having to tailor is unacceptable.

But they aren't, either the entire codex is OP as you claim or without their small minority of OP units you think marines can punch at their weight class, you can't have both.
What is this imaginary Eldar list that would force you to tailor so badly looking like? I'm curious, I want to see what you think would be wiping the floor with you so badly outside of the big 3, I'm sure there are many Eldar players curious to know what gems they are apparently missing. For a TAC list of course because that's how you are limiting the marines.

Also if you play in a pure tourney environ what horde list are you seeing?

I would say that a list that contains warp spiders, autarchs, guardian jet bikes, dire avengers, vypers, war walkers, *warp prisms*, wraithlords, wraithguard, guardians, and farseers can still rack of marine kills VERY quickly. At this point, it's a combination of lack of marine firepower (troops still worthless) and Eldar firepower and buffs that put the marines at a disadvantage. It's obviously not as huge a disadvantage as before, but I feel that most marine TAC lists would not have the tools to beat such Eldar lists more than 40% of the time.

I think Eldar have better units than C:SM across the board, and by extension, better than DA and CSM. As a marine player, I'm defining that as OP. Maybe the marine codex is underpowered. It's all relative.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Now, now, play nice. I know the internet isn't fond of accuracy but that's not my style.

At a tournament where you are talking about an army made up of the 3 top Eldar units and the 3 top Tau units yes, for *everywhere else* no. The overwhelming majority of both books sit squarely in the balanced or weak categories so calling the entire codex OP in a sweeping statement is simply wrong. Saying "period" after that doesn't change the inaccuracy of the statement.

You're right. It's me, my brother, everyone else, and all their brothers that are wrong.

At some point, when a large number of people agrees on something, it stops being anecdote and becomes evidence. At least on things like this.

Shall I try a poll thread and see what people think?

Why, do you think, that the tournament results show 'Eldar' rather than 'Select overpowered units found in Codex: Eldar'?

There's always going to be people who just won't accept the common convention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Fielding Killer lists in a known casual envrionment and keeping on doing it is the epitome of WAAC players.................. and thats being polite

I can't blame players for taking options that GW made legal. No one can know a priori how much to self-nerf, and so I don't think players should have to give GW an assist in balancing a game that we paid big bucks for.

You could also look at it as trying to get others to improve their game.

Your solution is for Eldar players to take pity on the less fortunate players. WHY are there less fortunate players to begin with?

Sorry but your statement "You could also look at it as trying to get others to improve their game". -means "Everyone should just play with the same broken units from a couple of Codexes as I do" brilliant solution - not,

My solution is for non WAAC people to discuss what sort of game you want and play to that - so that EVRYONE has more fuin - only the very worst WAAC players just want to whitewash their opponents every game.

I agree GW made the intial mistake/s but some players compound the problems by being WAAC................

If there were no broken units, this wouldn't be an issue. Players, in my experience, don't always have or own the models to change up the game in the way you describe. I don't we're going to agree on this because I just don't see how it's a player's job to police GW's idiocy.

Why is it that when Marines or guard were doing this same stuff to the xenos races (i.e. forcing them to tailor to beat you) that it was OK and anyone that objected was told to learn to play better, but now that Eldar and Tau are actually hard to fight (they need more than guys with bolters and rolling dice) we need to ban them?

The Imperial bias is annoying and getting ridiculous.

I'll tell you all what you told us for the last 3 editions. Learn to play better.

 Kyrolon wrote:
Why is it that when Marines or guard were doing this same stuff to the xenos races (i.e. forcing them to tailor to beat you) that it was OK and anyone that objected was told to learn to play better, but now that Eldar and Tau are actually hard to fight (they need more than guys with bolters and rolling dice) we need to ban them?

The Imperial bias is annoying and getting ridiculous.

I'll tell you all what you told us for the last 3 editions. Learn to play better.

This is blatantly false. Marines haven't been a powerhouse since 3rd edition really. The guard did usher in the new era of maximum firepower, but they have been eclipsed by other more shooty lists. And Eldar have had a LOT of turns at the top of the heap.

I don't want to ban anything. I want lists to be balanced. That's all. And I did object to how silly space marines were in 3rd. It was a complete overcompensation for 2nd.

There is no "playing better" against blatantly overpowered units. Especially 2++ rerollable saves. They just don't die.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
At some point, when a large number of people agrees on something, it stops being anecdote and becomes evidence. At least on things like this.

Really, a handful of people on the internet agreed with me? Something being the opinion of large groups of people has 0 impact on whether it is true or not, never has been, never will be, lets rock out that flat world "evidence".

Run a poll, see if people think the Eldar dex is OP when minus the top units.

Voidwraith wrote:
You're right. It's me, my brother, everyone else, and all their brothers that are wrong.

Does sound that way, see above for how relevant you throwing proxy votes into a ring is.

3 OP units do not an OP dex make, they just make half an OP tourney force.

We had a guy on here posting about how he was worried he'd be considered WAAC just for playing Eldar, that's the negative effect kneejerk, blanket generalization responses have on our hobby.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't play any non-competitive Eldar players. So I don't have an answer for this. I'm saying that I think *I* could make a list that beats marines at an unacceptable rate without those three units. Maybe I'm wrong. But looking at if from the other end, the marines have so many units that just aren't *good*. They're just *there* taking up space in the codex.

So you don't see any of these lists but you think they are better than Marines, that doesn't carry a whole lot of weight. The Eldar codex is good, I don't deny it, some units are very good (Warp Spiders, Jetbikes) and a small number are probably sitting in OP or too good territory (The punching power of the Serpent for example) but most of them are just in the middle, hard hitting but fragile.
I think you might just be seeing that greener grass personally, Eldar do outpunch marines but they are almost universally squishier.

40-60 is pretty close, I personally think it's even closer but that's just my opinion, especially when you consider asymmetrical balance in which Eldar have always been really good at killing well defended targets.

 Kyrolon wrote:
Why is it that when Marines or guard were doing this same stuff to the xenos races (i.e. forcing them to tailor to beat you) that it was OK and anyone that objected was told to learn to play better, but now that Eldar and Tau are actually hard to fight (they need more than guys with bolters and rolling dice) we need to ban them?

The Imperial bias is annoying and getting ridiculous.

I'll tell you all what you told us for the last 3 editions. Learn to play better.

Because 2nd was Xenos (Eldar, SW before update), 3rd MEQ (BA, CSM), 4th (Tau/Eldar), 5th (GK/SW/Nec), 6th (Tau/Eldar)

Eldar and SW have been the more consistent winners, alongside tau.

 Kyrolon wrote:
Why is it that when Marines or guard were doing this same stuff to the xenos races (i.e. forcing them to tailor to beat you) that it was OK and anyone that objected was told to learn to play better, but now that Eldar and Tau are actually hard to fight (they need more than guys with bolters and rolling dice) we need to ban them?

The Imperial bias is annoying and getting ridiculous.

I'll tell you all what you told us for the last 3 editions. Learn to play better.

As a Black Templars player, my you're adorable.

"So you don't see any of these lists but you think they are better than Marines, that doesn't carry a whole lot of weight. The Eldar codex is good, I don't deny it, some units are very good (Warp Spiders, Jetbikes) and a small number are probably sitting in OP or too good territory (The punching power of the Serpent for example) but most of them are just in the middle, hard hitting but fragile.
I think you might just be seeing that greener grass personally, Eldar do outpunch marines but they are almost universally squishier.

40-60 is pretty close, I personally think it's even closer but that's just my opinion, especially when you consider asymmetrical balance in which Eldar have always been really good at killing well defended targets. "

Why any Eldar player play without Wave Serpents? Even in a non-spamming list?

I'm not convinced that in a game with pseudo rending, baledrakes, mass S6/7 and Riptides, that Eldar are functionally that much squishier than marines. What they DO get is more wounds per point, which seems to be carrying the day in 6th. Also, there are many units in the Eldar codex that are quite resilient compared to their marine counterparts. I'm not sure that is a fair statement.

So in an edition with punchiness wins unless you are the privileged few with 2++ rerollable. Because defenses in this game are a losing battle. Tournament result after tournament result shows this, as does games I have observed between very competent players.

Once you bring the idea of self-nerfing into the picture, we can't compare anymore because everyone will have a different level of self-nerfing.

What I claimed was that I could build an Eldar list without the three mentioned units and then dominate marines in a 60/40