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.

DCannon4Life wrote:
The Problem of Vagueness operates when some dipstick says, 'One of X doesn't make a difference'. We demonstrate the absurdity of this premise by showing how it leads to, for example, a hairless man being classified as 'not-bald', because some dipstick said that pulling one hair off of a man's head doesn't make him bald.

Do YOU get that I'm making fun of posters that say this one tournament doesn't make a difference?

I do get that, but you don't seem to get why a tournament held one week after a release where at least 2 out of the 5 Eldar players weren't even using the new codex might not be super relevant in determining how a codex isn't OP? For all anyone here knows, none of the Eldar players might have been using the new codex. And, even if some of them did, it just might possibly be that they didn't have the time to assemble and paint 30 scatterbikes in six days. Which is, ya know, what people have been whining about with the new Eldar. In addition to the WK, of course. But that wasn't allowed in its new GC shape, so...

And as for your continued insistence on using the slippery slope fallacy, one data point is not very useful. One data point where you completely ignore any relevant variables is worse than meaningless; it is misleading at best.

 ImAGeek wrote:
But one tournament doesn't make a difference. That one hair doesn't make a difference. If the original post had a few data points it would be different but coming in saying 'Eldar didn't win this one tournament so they aren't broken' is like saying 'we took one hair from this mans hair so he must be bald', to use your analogy.

I agree. But if it's the same thing after 30 tournaments, the people who don't like Eldar will still not like Eldar.

It's not that people don't like Eldar because they are awesome in tournaments. They don't like Eldar because it's easy for an unskilled, inexperienced player to overperform, and because (a) you can have a playable spammy list, something that isn't possible in most factions, and (b) it feels unfair that a faction has very few -- if any -- weak/broken units, because this isn't a feature of most factions.

It's the same reason people don't like Tau. They're barely a blip in the competitive scoring scene, yet the Tau hate is strong because any idjut can play them Likewise, you don't seem people ragging on Space Marines, even though they perform well, because they are not particularly easy to play, and mistakes in deployment or one round where you make a bad decision can cost you the game. Plus, even though you might score very well, usually, you don't get to table your opponent (very, very rarely in 6).

 Accolade wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
Do YOU get that I'm making fun of posters that say this one tournament doesn't make a difference?

There's your problem. You don't GET to make fun of other posters, it goes against Rule #1. Think your posting over before attacking another person over their opinion on plastic miniatures.

Pretty much what Accolade has written - but please keep in mind, everyone, that the oftentimes the best option is to use the MODERATOR ALERT button on any post that you think might be breaking the rules of the site.

It is NEVER OK to 'attack back' and make it personal.

Thanks!

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
I do find it funny that the Eldar bashers are now saying "the codex has only been out for a week" yet it took less than 30 minutes for these same people to come up with lists they think are all broken, lol.
If it is that broken, it would not have mattered, the results should have been better based on the scorn thrown about on this forum.
One event does not make a trend, but it's nice to see that the sky hasn't fallen yet.

Coming up with a list is easy. A lot of them used a lot of Jetbikes, which you have to buy, assemble etc, which you might not be able to do in a week. We need to see the lists they used really.

This reminds me, I believe Reecius has a contest going on over at Frontline Gaming for anyone who can beat his Eldar jetbike/wraithknight army, I wonder how that's been going.

Reece beat five armies; drop marines, Centstar, Daemons, and Tau (can't remember that last one) with some pretty poor Eldar lists. He lost the sixth game (Khorne: Daemonkin) due to a mistake on his part. He forgot his troop weren't Obsec.

http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/profile/past_broadcasts

Last one was Bike Marines with 2 Sicarans and a Fire Raptor. Reece made a ton of lucky saves in that one though.

Two weeks of speculative internet ragequitrabblerabble proves nothing.

A few tourneys with eldar *not* taking top spots proves nothing.
A few tourneys with eldar ... ... taking top spots proves nothing.

What's to prove?
a. "Eldar are OP and will dominate/break the meta ... " etc.
b. "Eldar about the same in power as the last book and will win accordingly."
c. I won't even bother with 'it's a mid-tier/weak book' ...

How about 4 to 6 months of tourney data coming in? Maybe 3 GTs and a handful of RTTs? More?

How about common sense adjustments?**

... crickets ...




**
ITC did just that.

 Brothererekose wrote:
Two weeks of speculative internet ragequitrabblerabble proves nothing.

A few tourneys with eldar *not* taking top spots proves nothing.
A few tourneys with eldar ... ... taking top spots proves nothing.

What's to prove?
a. "Eldar are OP and will dominate/break the meta ... " etc.
b. "Eldar about the same in power as the last book and will win accordingly."
c. I won't even bother with 'it's a mid-tier/weak book' ...

How about 4 to 6 months of tourney data coming in? Maybe 3 GTs and a handful of RTTs? More?

How about common sense adjustments?**

... crickets ...




**
ITC did just that.

All we have to go on right now is one tournament that doesn't have the Eldar lists provided (to my knowledge). If there are 3-4 big tournaments where things go fine, sure I'll say that fears of the Eldar are overblown. But to come at it with just this one tournament with essentially no other information that "ELDAR DIDN'T WIN, YOUR FEARS WERE STUPID" is really not conducive to a reasonable conversation.

EDIT: one tournament just after release, and again it would help to see if the lists take advantage of what people feel is OP with the new Eldar book.

 Brothererekose wrote:

ITC did just that.

The ITC nerf called for D-Weapon nerf, but they did NOT nerf scatter bikes. The vote was practically tied (with 760 for Yes, limit of 1/3, and 768 for No limit).

The underline is mine:

So, this is telling of quite a few things. First of all, I will say from a personal perspective that I am disappointed that this came to be as I genuinely believe that while Jetbikes won’t break 40k or anything hyperbolic like that, they will be the next Wave Serpents of 40k. Now granted, while I think the 6th ed Wave Serpents were arguably more impactful, Jetbikes with Scatter Lasers will be extremely prevalent and are too points efficient. They are not unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, though.

...

On the up side, this proves a number of important points. For one: those folks that are opposed to the ITC polls on the grounds that players only vote in their own self-interest should take note. Clearly, that is not the case. Gamers do not always vote simply to benefit themselves or hurt their opponents. As not everyone players Eldar, not even close to half of ITC members, we can see here that not everyone voted for their own interests. Players voted with their conscience.

I have said over and over -- and playtested it too -- scatter bikes are easier to deal with than Wave Serpents, which were annoying but not game breaking by a long shot. The great thing with coming up against someone with a WS spam list in a PUG was that I *knew* that I not only could win, but would most likely win: I knew pretty much exactly what they would do, how they would deploy, etc. And, with a 1 LoW restriction, the new Wraithknights are less powerful than the old Wraithknights (because frankly, I'd rather have the ability to take 2 or 3 of the old ones).

End of the day? I think you'll see fewer Eldar take top 3 in the current ITC format (with scatter bikes), than less.

 Talys wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

ITC did just that.

The ITC nerf called for D-Weapon nerf, but they did NOT nerf scatter bikes. The vote was practically tied (with 760 for Yes, limit of 1/3, and 768 for No limit).

The underline is mine:

So, this is telling of quite a few things. First of all, I will say from a personal perspective that I am disappointed that this came to be as I genuinely believe that while Jetbikes won’t break 40k or anything hyperbolic like that, they will be the next Wave Serpents of 40k. Now granted, while I think the 6th ed Wave Serpents were arguably more impactful, Jetbikes with Scatter Lasers will be extremely prevalent and are too points efficient. They are not unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, though.

...

On the up side, this proves a number of important points. For one: those folks that are opposed to the ITC polls on the grounds that players only vote in their own self-interest should take note. Clearly, that is not the case. Gamers do not always vote simply to benefit themselves or hurt their opponents. As not everyone players Eldar, not even close to half of ITC members, we can see here that not everyone voted for their own interests. Players voted with their conscience.

I have said over and over -- and playtested it too -- scatter bikes are easier to deal with than Wave Serpents, which were annoying but not game breaking by a long shot. The great thing with coming up against someone with a WS spam list in a PUG was that I *knew* that I not only could win, but would most likely win: I knew pretty much exactly what they would do, how they would deploy, etc. And, with a 1 LoW restriction, the new Wraithknights are less powerful than the old Wraithknights (because frankly, I'd rather have the ability to take 2 or 3 of the old ones).

End of the day? I think you'll see fewer Eldar take top 3 in the current ITC format (with scatter bikes), than less.

Being able to take a second Wraithknight is NOT a big deal. Cheap HQ on a bike allows a second CAD, and if you were gonna buy six bike squads anyway just buy a second cheap HQ, split them in the middle, and buy that Wraithknight. Don't pretend they're less powerful.

Everyones here talkin about the Eldar, and I'm just sitting here trying to understand what kind of ork list could come in first. Also whats with Necrons in 4 of the top 10 spots have their croisonts developed stealth tech? how didn't anyone notice that they were still damn powerful.

 Yaavaragefinkinman wrote:
Everyones here talkin about the Eldar, and I'm just sitting here trying to understand what kind of ork list could come in first. Were there just tons of mek guns?

A link to the Ork list was posted earlier.

 Yaavaragefinkinman wrote:
Everyones here talkin about the Eldar, and I'm just sitting here trying to understand what kind of ork list could come in first. Were there just tons of mek guns?

It was a warbikers and tankbustas list. Zhadsnark da Rippa from FW with an almost maxed unit of warbikers, a warbiker boss with Da Lucky Stikk, some warbiker troops (courtesy of da Rippa) and then a Great Waaagh! detachment to get a warbiker big mek with Da Mega Force-Field (4++ against shooting for models within 6") and a warbiker boss with Da Big Bosspole for a Fearless deathstar unit. 2 min. squads of gretchin and 5 units of 8 tankbustas in trukks. I imagine the 'bustas went for first blood every game due to Glory Hogs and de-meched the opponent, the 4 min. squads of warbikers grabbed objectives along with the gretchin and the deathstar did what deathstars do.

The winning Ork list is here: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chuck-Arnett-Best-Overall-Storm-of-Silence-Orks-2015.pdf

The forge world guy Warboss Zhadsnark Da Rippa gives them a 2+ up jink the lucky stick can make it 2+ reroll on jink so dont care about scatter bikes and power claws and tank busters kill knights.

Which kind of goes to show that bikes / jetbikes are the new hotness of 7th edition, more than anything.

Bikes able to dish out high volume of mid strength firepower, with additional units designed to take out heavy armour. Hmmmm.... Scatterbikes + Wraithguard? Basically the same thing, on a "strategic" level?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Being able to take a second Wraithknight is NOT a big deal. Cheap HQ on a bike allows a second CAD, and if you were gonna buy six bike squads anyway just buy a second cheap HQ, split them in the middle, and buy that Wraithknight. Don't pretend they're less powerful.

You are wrong -- or unfamiliar with ITC tournament rules (which is what I was talking about), which state:

Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken, chosen from the following list of allowed units.

Before Eldar 7e, you could take 3 wraithknights if you wanted. 7e Eldar, Wraithknights are 0-1. You can never take 2, even if you take a second detachment.

There are no exceptions at this point to permit more than 1 WK that I am aware of (in the ITC tournament format). My assertion is that 2-3 WK from 6e > 1 WK from 7e. The 6e WK was an awesome unit at an awesome price. My second assertion was that 6e WS > 7e Scatterbike.

Taking it as a whole, 6e Wave Serpent + multiple WK spam > 7e Scatterbike + 1 Wraithknight. Even if you add Seer Council and jetbike Farseers, if you want to throw that in. In my humble opinion.

 Talys wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Being able to take a second Wraithknight is NOT a big deal. Cheap HQ on a bike allows a second CAD, and if you were gonna buy six bike squads anyway just buy a second cheap HQ, split them in the middle, and buy that Wraithknight. Don't pretend they're less powerful.

You are wrong -- or unfamiliar with ITC tournament rules (which is what I was talking about), which state:

Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken, chosen from the following list of allowed units.

Before Eldar 7e, you could take 3 wraithknights if you wanted. 7e Eldar, Wraithknights are 0-1. You can never take 2, even if you take a second detachment.

There are no exceptions at this point to permit more than 1 WK that I am aware of (in the ITC tournament format). My assertion is that 2-3 WK from 6e > 1 WK from 7e. The 6e WK was an awesome unit at an awesome price. My second assertion was that 6e WS > 7e Scatterbike.

Taking it as a whole, 6e Wave Serpent + multiple WK spam > 7e Scatterbike + 1 Wraithknight. Even if you add Seer Council and jetbike Farseers, if you want to throw that in. In my humble opinion.

So basically when you have to throw restrictions on everything, because god forbid GW write some decent balanced rules, 6e Wave Serpent + multiple WK spam > 7e Scatterbike + 1 Wraithknight.
That's pretty absurd logic, don't you think?

 ImAGeek wrote:
But one tournament doesn't make a difference. That one hair doesn't make a difference. If the original post had a few data points it would be different but coming in saying 'Eldar didn't win this one tournament so they aren't broken' is like saying 'we took one hair from this mans hair so he must be bald', to use your analogy.

So the question is, if one tournament doesn't make a difference, how many tournaments will? And more importantly how many tournaments have actually been 'ruined' by the brokenness of this codex?

ONe piece of evidence may not be conclusive, but if it's more than the opposition has provided, then who has the weaker argument?

chanceafs wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
But one tournament doesn't make a difference. That one hair doesn't make a difference. If the original post had a few data points it would be different but coming in saying 'Eldar didn't win this one tournament so they aren't broken' is like saying 'we took one hair from this mans hair so he must be bald', to use your analogy.

So the question is, if one tournament doesn't make a difference, how many tournaments will? And more importantly how many tournaments have actually been 'ruined' by the brokenness of this codex?

ONe piece of evidence may not be conclusive, but if it's more than the opposition has provided, then who has the weaker argument?

Still the person saying 'this one piece of half evidence proves everything!' Most people who were complaining about the Eldar dex were because you can tell something's power before you play it, most of the time, so actually, they had proof. The codex.

Either way, I do think declaring the competitive scene ruined by Eldar before games have even been played is silly. I just think trying to claim everyone was wrong about it based on one tournament one week after the codex dropped is sillier.

I think the point some people here are trying to make is that this tournament had severe restrictions on 7th edition Eldar and on top of that the 5 players who were eldar had the opportunity to play as 6th edition Eldar. SO, that teamed with the fact that this is only a single sample, and without even statistics on the lists that the Eldar players brought, it is not really relevant when talking about whether or not the Eldar codex is Ridiculously broken or just regularly broken.

 ImAGeek wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
But one tournament doesn't make a difference. That one hair doesn't make a difference. If the original post had a few data points it would be different but coming in saying 'Eldar didn't win this one tournament so they aren't broken' is like saying 'we took one hair from this mans hair so he must be bald', to use your analogy.

So the question is, if one tournament doesn't make a difference, how many tournaments will? And more importantly how many tournaments have actually been 'ruined' by the brokenness of this codex?

ONe piece of evidence may not be conclusive, but if it's more than the opposition has provided, then who has the weaker argument?

Still the person saying 'this one piece of half evidence proves everything!' Most people who were complaining about the Eldar dex were because you can tell something's power before you play it, most of the time, so actually, they had proof. The codex.

Either way, I do think declaring the competitive scene ruined by Eldar before games have even been played is silly. I just think trying to claim everyone was wrong about it based on one tournament one week after the codex dropped is sillier.

I agree that the OP was probably far more sweeping in his statements then he should have been, but the hyperbole and vitriol surrounding this new codex has been so extreme, that it's been rather difficult to take a measured and/or calm approach to the situation. IT seems that anybody who attempts to is either summarily ignored, or assumed to be in the extreme opposite whoever is reading their post. (Kind of like politics when you think about it).

Maybe we should all just wait until a few more tournaments have come in and the meta has had a chance to adjust before arguing about whether or not the sky has fallen.

Well, unless the tournaments severely restrict the Eldar codex I think we can safely assume they will be playing better at tournaments then last codex (MY OPINION) but yes we should wait for more tourny data. However, the hatred i think is probably the weirdest part of this whole thing. Everyone should be pissed at GW not at the Eldar players. They weren't the ones screaming for buffs, they weren't the ones writing the codex. So why the hatred?

Though only bad feelings I have towards Eldar players are the handful that are trying to defend the codex buffs saying nothing changed. At the very least you can admit that the codex got buffed pretty much across the board.

anyway, my two cents. Happy Wargaming everyone

Sunhero wrote:
The results for the 50+ two day ict tournament are in with only one of the new Eldar coming in the top ten.
They will probably still prove to be a top tier army but they will not be completely dominant as some of the hysteria suggested.

Storm of Silence 2015 Results: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Results-Storm_WLDsort.pdf

orks won. necrons and skitarii came second, with four necrons in top ten.

I understand that one data point is not a pattern but this shows you cant just turn up with 40 scatter bikes a wraithknight and some
D-Scythes and beat every one.

So many holes in this.

Do we know if they were using the old codex or new codex? Do we know what the Eldar lists were? Do we know there were any scatterbike+Wraith unit lists?

You can't say this disproves anything without having some sort of proof that a list "with 40 scatter bikes a wraithknight and some D-Scythes" was even present.

This event is also an ITC event, which has rules and restrictions that don't apply outside of said event, and with things like Invisibility and Destroyer significantly nerfed.

TL;DR These results don't tell us squat.

I'm still amazed that people can take Swiss tournaments as gospel truth. The entire point behind Swiss style is that it's used when you don't have time to play EVERYONE, so instead the tournament design "assumes" that you would beat anyone you outrank by default, even though that's probably hilariously false in a 40k Swiss.

To put it a short way. In a 6 round 50 man Swiss, you don't have to beat the other 49 people. You just have to beat 6.

It is possible to bring a rock-list, and keep getting matched against scissors lists, who themselves had been eating paper lists until they each ran into you. You can in fact win a 50 man 6 round Swiss tourney where 43 of the other competitors would have wrecked you.

Onto eldar. Tourney players aren't as crazy as people think. We don't buy $500 of models and get them painted overnight as soon as a codex/supplement drops just to make sure we win every event ever. Those guys are super-rare, like not even "one-at-every-event."

Also not everyone is willing to be branded as "TFG WAAC player" just to get a good shot at winning a few hundred bucks of store credit.

And there is still SOME learning to do, even with super lists. Identifying when to reserve and not reserve bikes, for example. Also slight list optimizations that weren't totally obvious to you in the first 20 minutes of reading the codex.

You're going to see the same thing in a few months with eldar that we're seeing with necrons now. As people slowly update their tourney lists with new scatbikes etc, and get in the small required amount of practice, you'll start noticing more and more eldar victories.

If you look back at lvo when the crons came out, and the couple ITC events right after, they didn't do so hot overall either. In the more recent event results, they now crowd the top tables.

WAAAAAAAGH!!!!

Prepare your anuses for your new greenskin overlords, gits

It's those damn Nobs man, they are too strong together with Ghazghkull.

Gotta seriously increase the points cost of both or they will continue to stomp tournaments.

I'm joining the greenskin bandwagon, since they are obviously the currently most powerful codex!

Watch out humies, here comes the newest Ork
Gonna stomp your tourneys like the Foot of Gork!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So basically when you have to throw restrictions on everything, because god forbid GW write some decent balanced rules, 6e Wave Serpent + multiple WK spam > 7e Scatterbike + 1 Wraithknight.
That's pretty absurd logic, don't you think?

Very few people play RAW, because in such cases, Unbound would be legal. We're talking specifically about the tournament scene and tournament results. In the tournament scene, prior to Codex: Craftworlds, most tournaments had a restriction on Superheavy/Gargantuan Lords of War to 1 (and a bonus if you don't use one, and your opponent does).

What I have been saying is that under the ITC Tournament format, making no other changes, 7e Eldar are weaker than 6e Eldar as an ITC Tournament faction when specifically comparing Wave Serpents and Wraithknights to Scatterbikes and Wraithknights. I'm being extremely narrow in the comparison, because let's be honest, 2 months ago, what everyone complained about was the Eldar TFG who loaded up on wave serpents and Wraithknights.

I will repeat again: Wave Serpents and Wraithknights (and Scatterbikes + 1 Wraithknight) are not game breaking lists, and are not even super spectacular awesome. They can be handled by skilled players with competitive lists that are NOT tailored just for Eldar spam -- as proven in ITC results, as you can't change your list to fit your opponent. They're just really easy to play, and advantage noobish players desirous of an easy win against noobish-to-intermediate players.

It's like the MtG player who grabs powerful list off the Internet, and buys those specific cards. They'll overperform destroy unskilled or poorly equipped players, and be destroyed against skilled players, who usually don't play exactly a netdeck anyhow. Why? Because their opponent will see what they have, recognize that they aren't very good, and be able to predict exactly what they're going to do.

Now, if we step back from the precipice of spam decks, again, specific to the ITC format and latest rule changes, 7e Windriders are better than 6e Windriders -- significantly so -- and a 7e Wraithknight is better than 6e Wraithknight, with the major caveat that you can only take 1. Overall, are 7e Eldar tougher or not? The Wraithknight "nerf" to being a Gargantuan LoW is a big one. But since they have a lot of cool stuff, I would say, "we don't know yet". My gut tells me that they're better than before, just not in an epic, "I win button" sort of way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm joining the greenskin bandwagon, since they are obviously the currently most powerful codex!

Watch out humies, here comes the newest Ork
Gonna stomp your tourneys like the Foot of Gork!

Nerf the Orks!!! They are obviously an OP faction. 8e should reduce all Ork shooting ranges to 1".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:


This event is also an ITC event, which has rules and restrictions that don't apply outside of said event, and with things like Invisibility and Destroyer significantly nerfed.

TL;DR These results don't tell us squat.

I think this event happened before Destroyer got nerfed. I agree that the results are not terribly meaningful, but assuming at least 1 player played 7e Eldar, we should at least concede that Eldar aren't now so powerful that any idjut playing Eldar can just declare victory before the game starts. That was kind of the prevailing theory going around

Well no, because while I agree that statement is over the top, it was specific lists being said to be auto win, and we don't know the list that 7e Eldar players took at this tournament.

Nobody commenting on the fact 50% of the t8 were Necrons?...

It's really not a question of will eldar break competitive play. There is no question that they will. They are hands down better than anything else that isn't decruion and their match-up vs decruion is laughably one sided in favor of eldar. It is not a question - it is fact. For top end tournaments where everything is expected to be painted to a pro level - it's not realistic to assume that craft-world armies are ready for competition.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's really not a question of will eldar break competitive play. There is no question that they will. They are hands down better than anything else that isn't decruion and their match-up vs decruion is laughably one sided in favor of eldar. It is not a question - it is fact. For top end tournaments where everything is expected to be painted to a pro level - it's not realistic to assume that craft-world armies are ready for competition.

If by 'fact' you mean, 'currently untested hypothesis', then yes... it is most definitely a fact.