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.

Eihnlazer wrote:
I have to admit, i proxy played with the standard seerstar list and it was boring as hell.

Its an easy mode, OP army. no fun to play unless you just get hard ons from stomping most opponents.

We'll yea, seerstars are very competitive and very boring, a list the you shouldn't bring for a friendly setting. They are OP and that's why they are used in competitive settings.

Shouldn't .Yeah just like people shouldn't have played multi riptdie taudar, and demon FMCs in 6th , but everyone did anyway. Eldar wouldn't be a problem, if Kelly didn't make them so much better then anything else and from what I have been told it wasn't the first time he did it with eldar.

 Likan Wolfsheim wrote:
Once upon a time in 5th Edition IG, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights were the top dogs, whereas the likes of Dark Angels and Eldar were sub-par while Necrons and Tau were 'utter garbage,' as I overheard one fellow gamer say. I remember playing an only semi-mechanised IG army with a few Russes, a couple hellhounds, a couple chimeras, and a really ill-equipped blob-squad (not a competitive army) and yet IG frustrated people so much they still refused to play it.

Nowadays Eldar and Tau are the game-breakingly good armies, Necrons are competitive, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the good MEQ armies, but each is starting to show its age in its own ways; Dark Angels are 'ehhh' and Blood Angels are in a really bad spot. Someday Orks and Sisters of Battle might even be top-tier, Chaos Space Marines and Dark Angels could become solid competitive choices, Tau and Necrons might end up mediocre, and IG and Eldar utter garbage. Then someday after that they'll all switch places again.

This is just a part of being an active 40k player. Sometimes your army will be unfairly powerful; sometimes depressingly bottom-tier. As editions come and go there will be certain factions you always stomp and certain factions you struggle against. Is this fair? Not at all, but it's long been a part of 40k and it's no more unfair than making a pleasant (decent, friendly, good sport) player sit out an entire edition's worth of games because Games Workshop happened to make his faction more powerful than most others. Just keep calm and carry on, and eventually IG will be top dog again and Eldar merely 'okay.'

I'd offer pointers on army composition and whatnot--I think IG has a lot of good tools it can bring to bear against Eldar--but it seems a lot of this sort of advice has already been given and, well, disregarded.

Of course depending on the army, you have more chances to roll the dice.

Eldar were OP in 2nd, 3rd (craftworld), 4th, and now 6th/7th for example, because Phil Kelly "Really" likes his Eldar.

master of asgard wrote:
Btw OP, Eldar jetbikes don't have battle focus.

They do, but cannot use it. I think it's to let ICs join them and not lose BF.
Battle Focus lets them run, but jetbikes cannot run, just turbo-boost.
In 6th, the best a bike can do is:
Move, turbo, assault-move
or
Move, shoot, assault-move
Units that can Run can do both if they have Battle focus.
But, in 7th, they cannot turbo and assault-move in the same turn?

There's also
Move, shoot, assault, H&R

I actually really like the OP's list. I hope that if I played him, I brought a list he'd have fun playing against, even if I brought my Eldar.

Most people agree Eldar are OP. Most people agree that the matchup wouldn't be fun for the Guard player. After that, though, there is disagreement.

OP, and others, contend that this list shows that Eldar, as a force, aren't fun, and this is an example as to why.

I, and others, contend that this example doesn't implicate Eldar as a whole, as its not necessarily representative.

Is that a good summary of everything so far?

From that, it seems worth noting that he Eldar list is a min-maxxed list (it is spam, although id argue its not an OP unit chosen for spam/ not a very 'maxxed' list). The Guard list was a TAC beer & pretzels list.

I usually hate the former regardless of codex, and love the latter. Its a lot more fun for me to throw some units on the table and just see what happens, for me, than to have planned out through t5 before the first die is cast, and see the plan through fruition. Other people are the reverse. Different strokes for different folks.

Perhaps the problem is who you played? As I posted earlier, what if you hit a similar list from another codex (Raptors + Sorcs from CSM, as I posted earlier, would probably be even rougher, fishing for invis instead of fortune)?

Would OP enjoy something more like this:
Rangers
Guardians
Hawks
Dragons in Falcon
Some PL
?

With some Eldar options being downright broken right now, most of the worst WAAC and other crap will probably be seen in Eldar, but that isn't all Eldar have to offer. They do have the problem of being entirely dependant on controlling the engagement (outside WAAC serpent/knights/jetbikes) to be effective, which can feel rough, and Psykers are now higher risk/ higher reward with the new Invis, but I truly believe a lot of fun can be had for the OP playing against the right Eldar player, even using his current list. Especially using his current list.

Spam is a problem in any codex, yes. And Eldar are OP, yes. But I firmly believe Eldar can still be good at friendly levels.

Side note - how many battle reports do you see that have non-WAAC Eldar? The .ore competitive people gravitate to the forums, and those looking for a pub stomp will always be around. Those will be a serious problem in any game or meta. But 40k isn't a strong technical game, but being one won't fix all these problems.

A second note - Eldar only dominated the second half of sixth. For over half the edition, I was repeatedly warned away from Eldar, because, while they had some nice tricks, their army as a whole was quite flat. Now, though, almost everyone looking to start 40k is told that Eldar is right for them. Big change.

 Skinnereal wrote:

master of asgard wrote:
Btw OP, Eldar jetbikes don't have battle focus.

They do, but cannot use it. I think it's to let ICs join them and not lose BF.
Battle Focus lets them run, but jetbikes cannot run, just turbo-boost.
In 6th, the best a bike can do is:
Move, turbo, assault-move
or
Move, shoot, assault-move
Units that can Run can do both if they have Battle focus.
But, in 7th, they cannot turbo and assault-move in the same turn?

There's also
Move, shoot, assault, H&R

If you turbo boost, I don't believe you can do the assault-jump move:

" Controlling their Bikes at such speeds takes all the riders’ concentration and skill, however. Bikes and Jetbikes therefore cannot shoot, charge or execute any other voluntary action until the end of their turn after Turbo-boosting."

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

master of asgard wrote:
Btw OP, Eldar jetbikes don't have battle focus.

They do, but cannot use it. I think it's to let ICs join them and not lose BF.
Battle Focus lets them run, but jetbikes cannot run, just turbo-boost.
In 6th, the best a bike can do is:
Move, turbo, assault-move
or
Move, shoot, assault-move
Units that can Run can do both if they have Battle focus.
But, in 7th, they cannot turbo and assault-move in the same turn?

There's also
Move, shoot, assault, H&R

If you turbo boost, I don't believe you can do the assault-jump move:

" Controlling their Bikes at such speeds takes all the riders’ concentration and skill, however. Bikes and Jetbikes therefore cannot shoot, charge or execute any other voluntary action until the end of their turn after Turbo-boosting."

This is what I meant, not battle focus. The move, shoot, and 2d6 move back into cover.

The hit and run point is that he can easily stay in combat through all of my shooting phases, only disengaging at the end of my assault phase. So shooting them isn't a viable option.

And to my original point with this thread, that playing against Eldar is not fun. I tried to play the campaign mission and prefer to use more casual games. I could have easily taken 150 infantry models and just wrapped the objectives I was defending in unholy amounts of infantry, if my goal was to Waac. It didn't help that the custom mission was written so only infantry could take objectives, the guy plopped his bikes on the table and convinced the DM that bikes should count too.

In all seriousness OP, if you are looking for a balanced game that allows you to field whatever army you like and have a reasonable chance of winning... You are playing the wrong game. 40K will never be the game you want.

Not to go too far off topic....but 40k is an absurdly easy game to play outside of actual list building. Which, for a long time, I also thought was absurdly easy until I went to warseer and saw some of the....apologetic players there.

Unless you are handicapping yourself financially or for fluff reasons, building a list takes about 1 hour for new players. For veterans, it's more likely a few minutes.

Playing the game requires a vague knowledge of what's dangerous for each codex and list. Often you see a few soft options in most pick up games that can be safely ignored.

The most complicated part of 40k is knowing the rule book...to think this game has a steep learning curve is just baffling.

Tlr, bro, do you even Warmahordes?

I disagree. The OP played the wrong player, not the wrong game.

40k has a wide variety of players with very different reasons for enjoying the game. Some metas would love his list.

Bharring wrote:
I disagree. The OP played the wrong player, not the wrong game.

40k has a wide variety of players with very different reasons for enjoying the game. Some metas would love his list.

I would love to play the OP. From his posts etc he sounds like a lot of fun to play. Plus it would still be a challenge for my armies haha.

It does have a lot to do with the players and what they want from the game more than anything else.

To be fair, the Eldar list I run would probably struggle with OP's list.

I have more Mastery Levels, however, for the most part, his army has longer range.

Most of my 1000 point list is 12" range, with a few weapons with longer range, which are (for the most part) not efficient against blobs.

I'm one of those players who would be viewed as an anti-fun player by the OP. I understand some people want a fun fluffy game. That's why I ask them what time of game they want before hand.

 Random Dude wrote:
I'm one of those players who would be viewed as an anti-fun player by the OP. I understand some people want a fun fluffy game. That's why I ask them what time of game they want before hand.

That last sentence makes you the ideal gamer. Open to playing in a way that leaves both people happy.

Its how we make the game inviting to all skill levels and players where I am. Simply ask, never assume.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I'm one of those players who would be viewed as an anti-fun player by the OP. I understand some people want a fun fluffy game. That's why I ask them what time of game they want before hand.

That last sentence makes you the ideal gamer. Open to playing in a way that leaves both people happy.

Its how we make the game inviting to all skill levels and players where I am. Simply ask, never assume.

I wish everyone would do it. Do Eldar players have to take Wave Serpents all the time? No. Do I have to take Riptides all the time? No.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I'm one of those players who would be viewed as an anti-fun player by the OP. I understand some people want a fun fluffy game. That's why I ask them what time of game they want before hand.

That last sentence makes you the ideal gamer. Open to playing in a way that leaves both people happy.

Its how we make the game inviting to all skill levels and players where I am. Simply ask, never assume.

I wish everyone would do it. Do Eldar players have to take Wave Serpents all the time? No. Do I have to take Riptides all the time? No.

Pretty much. And likewise, do eldar players need to take less wave serpents every time? Do tau need to leave their riptides home every time?

Nope. Compromise is key. If one compromises, the other will soon follow. This creates a good gaming atmosphere. Regardless of the game.

From my experience, it's almost never the game. It's usually the player(s) that determines if you have a fun experience or not. I play IG, Eldar, CSM, and a bunch of other armies, and as far as I can see in my community, if ever people avoid playing someone, it's because of that individual person, not the game or codex. I would agree that the Eldar is really strong in the edition of 40k, but not for every single build. I imagine it will get boring (for both the player and the opponent) to play exactly the same way every time. So in a non-competitive environment, what Random Dude said is pretty relevant. Especially so in a campaign situation. I tend to have fun winning or losing, playing Eldar or IG or whichever, against whichever army. Of course, there have been exceptions. Then again, I usually have some great people to play with, and it's all great fun.

 Random Dude wrote:
Its how we make the game inviting to all skill levels and players where I am. Simply ask, never assume. I wish everyone would do it. Do Eldar players have to take Wave Serpents all the time? No. Do I have to take Riptides all the time? No.

Does GW have to write horribly broken rules? No.

 Yonan wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Its how we make the game inviting to all skill levels and players where I am. Simply ask, never assume.

I wish everyone would do it. Do Eldar players have to take Wave Serpents all the time? No. Do I have to take Riptides all the time? No.

Does GW have to write horribly broken rules? No.

Ruining a good moment here dude...



Spunky Bass, bang on too. All on the player. Good players, good games. Sour players, sour games. Unfortunately it takes two good players to make a good game, but only one sour player to make a sour game. Takes effort.

I will preface this post by stating that Eldar clearly have the strongest stand-alone codex around.

That said, Guard/AM, are more than equipped with tools to take down every the best Eldar army. Their access to allies, orders, psykers and cheap resource effective units makes them an absolute powerhouse against almost any army an Eldar player can throw up.

The OP's list looks like a friendly list for a club game. The Eldar players list looks like a gimmick list, that I would expect to run riot against the AM list. He did get lucky rolling fortune (he SHOULD have rolled for Invisibility).

It sounds as though the OP, had he been running a stronger list would have been able to take care of the spears. Throw an Inquisitor into that blob, and they don't run away. Prescience those lascannons and issue orders, and you'll start dropping some of the spears. Include a Wyvern or two, and start piling on wounds. Include a Pask-Punisher, and he will shred a few of Spears each turn.

Don't turn up to a knife fight with a spoon. Take your lickings, do some thinking, and you'll come up with an answer for whatever keeps beating you. You're not going to win games by complaining online and rambling about how you're hard done by with what's probably the 2nd/3rd best codex around at the moment.

That said, if you're going to be one of those players that cries cheese and refuses to play against an army because you think you can't win... Your opponent won't want to play a game against you either. Nobody likes a sore loser, especially the guy who is tabling you.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I disagree. The OP played the wrong player, not the wrong game.

40k has a wide variety of players with very different reasons for enjoying the game. Some metas would love his list.

I would love to play the OP. From his posts etc he sounds like a lot of fun to play. Plus it would still be a challenge for my armies haha.

It does have a lot to do with the players and what they want from the game more than anything else.

The problem is the extreme lack of balance in 40k causes us to blame the players far more than we should.

I wouldn't describe myself as "WAAC", but I definitely play to win. If I didn't play to win, I'd get bored very fast as it would simply become an excuse to line up my models on a table.

If I'm playing against someone who I know doesn't play to win, sure, I can just not try very hard and occasionally do intentionally wrong things to avoid trouncing them. But in the list building stage, I do find it kind of hard to self nerf my army because it's simply in my nature to look at the options and see what is and isn't best. I do it without even thinking about it (other than some weird loophole lists, it's usually pretty obvious which is the better of 2 options in 40k which is really a testament to the internal imbalance).

Not playing hard is one thing, I can deal with that and you come across it in all games. But self nerfing your army due to the terrible imbalance is a fault of the game, not the gamer, at least IMO.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I disagree. The OP played the wrong player, not the wrong game.

40k has a wide variety of players with very different reasons for enjoying the game. Some metas would love his list.

I would love to play the OP. From his posts etc he sounds like a lot of fun to play. Plus it would still be a challenge for my armies haha.

It does have a lot to do with the players and what they want from the game more than anything else.

The problem is the extreme lack of balance in 40k causes us to blame the players far more than we should.

I wouldn't describe myself as "WAAC", but I definitely play to win. If I didn't play to win, I'd get bored very fast as it would simply become an excuse to line up my models on a table.

If I'm playing against someone who I know doesn't play to win, sure, I can just not try very hard and occasionally do intentionally wrong things to avoid trouncing them. But in the list building stage, I do find it kind of hard to self nerf my army because it's simply in my nature to look at the options and see what is and isn't best. I do it without even thinking about it (other than some weird loophole lists, it's usually pretty obvious which is the better of 2 options in 40k which is really a testament to the internal imbalance).

Not playing hard is one thing, I can deal with that and you come across it in all games. But self nerfing your army due to the terrible imbalance is a fault of the game, not the gamer, at least IMO.

... I dont know anyone that doesnt try to win. I also dont know anyone who takes a list that hamstrings their enemy. Take a fair list that matches your enemy then fight hard.

Its simple really. Anyone can do it.

Except who defines "fair list"?

That's my point. What I would call a fair IG list is still something more optimised than what the OP brought to the table. Then you have some spammy fluff lists that are significantly less powerful than other spammy fluff lists. Which one is fair and which one is not?

Trying to "match your opponent", IMO, is silly. I don't know how well optimised the opponent's force might be. I don't know how capable my opponent might be of actually exploiting the list they've chosen on the table top itself.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except who defines "fair list"?

That's my point. What I would call a fair IG list is still something more optimised than what the OP brought to the table. Then you have some spammy fluff lists that are significantly less powerful than other spammy fluff lists. Which one is fair and which one is not?

Trying to "match your opponent", IMO, is silly. I don't know how well optimised the opponent's force might be. I don't know how capable my opponent might be of actually exploiting the list they've chosen on the table top itself.

You and your opponent define a fair list.

Well thats your fault for a lack of communication. I personally discuss my lists weeks in advance and my opponent and I set up the board to suit our scenario and we are both clear on what units each of us are taking etc.

If you arent gonna talk about your lists before the game then you are gonna run into problems.

If you discuss and plan, you will not run into problems. The solution is very simple. Even when playing people I dont know we talk before the game at the very least. Once we played one game we exchange numbers and go from there so next time we can make the game better.

 Swastakowey wrote:
... I dont know anyone that doesnt try to win. I also dont know anyone who takes a list that hamstrings their enemy. Take a fair list that matches your enemy then fight hard.

Its simple really. Anyone can do it.

How do you propose to take a fair list for my enemy when I may not even have met them? Should we be expected to make lists that are fair against all armies on the power scale from charge of the light brigade rough riders to triptides and heldrakes and everythign in between (and beyond)? You'd want to have at least 5 lists based on power scale alone (let alone other lists you might want to play) and would need to take at least triple the points worth of models to have enough different lists to cover that.

 Yonan wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
... I dont know anyone that doesnt try to win. I also dont know anyone who takes a list that hamstrings their enemy. Take a fair list that matches your enemy then fight hard.

Its simple really. Anyone can do it.

How do you propose to take a fair list for my enemy when I may not even have met them? Should we be expected to make lists that are fair against all armies on the power scale from charge of the light brigade rough riders to triptides and heldrakes and everythign in between (and beyond)? You'd want to have at least 5 lists based on power scale alone (let alone other lists you might want to play) and would need to take at least triple the points worth of models to have enough different lists to cover that.

I have only played about 20 people without meeting them in my life. Usually it was as simple as reducing the points so we could quickly change up lists to match. This one guy last year had no Aircraft or AA. So I simply reduced the points and took out my aircraft. Was pretty easy. Outside of that, no problems.

So yea, a little talk goes a long way.



Alternatively you could be lazy and just have a crappy game. Or play another game. The choices are there for you to decide

How would you modify an IG Armoured Battle Group or Necron AV13/flyer list for someone with minimal anti-tank? or with a bad list? Would cutting out two of the six scythes do it, even though there were still 4 left, 6 barges and 2 CCBs? Methinks it would take a bit more adjusting so not quite as simple as you'd like to make it out to be.

I dont know. Figure it out. I can do it.

Or alternatively dont build douchy lists (jk)

Its not my problem to fix your issues. Stop asking me.

I fix mine with the people that matter. The people facing me from the other side of the battlefield.

I mean, bring up odd situations all you want. Communication is the only thing that will fix your games (if you dont enjoy them). If you dont want to communicate, then reap the benefits of that decision. No point waiting on GW mate, because they aint gonna do crap for ya.

You said you thought it was easy, I'm just pointing out that it often isn't. If I want to play someone at a lower power level than I'd ordinarily play at, I need to take a completely different list - that's my point. Cutting out my flyers is 600 points. Cutting out my armour is another 700 points. That doesn't leave much of a list left.

Yes playing a high powered list against a low powered list is going to be a bad game for everyone involved - a situation I've never been in because it's obvious up front what a player wants and what their list can do. That situation existing is 100% GWs fault. Players can try to work around it but it's far from convenient when you have to carry dozens or hundreds of models with you.

edit: carry not curry. Curry is always convenient.

It is easy. I could balance whatever lists I felt like. I aint gonna do it because you want me to prove a point. If you hate the game balance so much, why make a list with so many flyers etc in it?

May as well keep fueling the inbalance arms race if you do stuff like that.

Think what you will dude, but it is easy. Just have a think first.

Its simple.

Or play another game... Plenty of ways around it.

As long as a player is playing 40k, I will blame him for anything he does to ruin the game after game 1 has been settled. Call me harsh, but I have never had to complain to anyone. Simply because talking works. In my experience. If yours differ, work around it.