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.

Yeah and inquisition players could just walk up to team events, tell grab a random guard player and a random space marine player and force them both to work for him in the event or else burn for heresy.


Fluff

Eldar are a dying race but still light years ahead of the Imperium in technology and psycher capability. Would that not suggest that all in all, their codex should be more powerful than most?

No, no and no. This is a game where armies should be balanced between each other. What you say makes no sense. You try to justify sloppy work with fluff?

Stravo wrote:
With the release of the Eldar codex and some people considering Tau to be relatively powerful into the 7th ed, I began thinking to how the fluff plays out here as well. Eldar are a dying race but still light years ahead of the Imperium in technology and psycher capability. Would that not suggest that all in all, their codex should be more powerful than most?

Their codex shouldn't be any more powerful than any other. In theory, there should be no "most powerful" codex.

Should the Eldar have powerful units and abilities? Yes. But they should also pay out the nose for them, which most would argue they don't currently and that that is a mistake.

And by the same token, yes, they're advanced and powerful, but if we're going to look at power levels like that, the Eldar are extremely limited in number and highly averse to losses. Every casualty should be painfully felt, every lost Aspect Warrior a disaster, the loss of something like an Exarch should be a calamity and the death of a Farseer should effectively be an automatic strategic defeat.

But no, no army should have an "edge" just because they're powerful in the fluff. The Eldar are certainly powerful, but they're dying and their numbers are limited. You could just as easily say that IG or Orks "deserve" such an edge, and that all of their units should recycle upon death and that you can only count their units destroyed for an objectives purposes if you kill *three* IG/Ork units because they're so expendable and numerous. You can use any logic to say that certain armies should have whatever edge you want them to have. Really however, ideally no army would have any major edge over another.

Fluffwise, every time my Eldar deploy, they've already lost.

The game decides how badly.

An Eldar player at my FLGS told me that for every Eldar a space marine kills...The eldar kill hundreds. He then said that fluffwise, stepping onto the table with space marines the Eldar had already won. He THEN proceeded to tell me that Eldar aren't OP as he deployed his wraithknight and two squads of scatbikes against my BA. >.> I'm starting to think he's THAT guy.

Did your friend eat paint chips or something? If eldar were killing 100:1 ratios of spacemarines in the fluff I think they'd be gone by now.

No mention of Daemons?

Didn't they just win adepticon?

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
No mention of Daemons?

Didn't they just win adepticon?

shhh if it's not Eldar or Necrons its not 'op'!

I agree with those who say Eldar should be exceptionally powerful, but very small. Eldar should be the "Grey Knights of Xenos armies" with incrediably potent units, but also very pricey. where an eldar player needs to be smart and avoid loses.

That's a good way to put it, Davion.