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.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
People have been suggesting that, actually 2 Heavies per 5 guys in general sounds reasonable.

You still have to pay the bloated IoM points for those weapon systems. So you are trading to gain mediocre firepower and losing durability/pt.

And yet you're the only one who has a problem with it, so the suggestion stands.

It would be an improvement, but I'm still not sure I'd use them. I question whether any other serious players would, either. Additional input would be useful. Would you tack on an additional 40 pts for only two assault cannons?

Well, helps that there were SEVERAL OTHER SUGGESTIONS MENTIONED!

Bharring wrote:
Scorpion's Claw. An exarch leading it is 57pts. Plus the rest of his units. I've heard a lot of complaints about that striking at initiative.

Pretty sure an eldar exarch has a solid....6 initiative. Str 6 ap2 at ELDAR initive is good.

One model with s6 ap2 on initiative 6 might be a little better than one model with S8 AP2 on initiative 4 in some regards (strike first or same as I5/6, vs IDing T4, still wounding T5/6 on 2+, doing much, much more vs T7+, and destroying vehicles).

But at 57pts for s6 ap2, and the rest of the squad being 17ppm for s4ap-, compared to a full squad at S8AP2 on initiative at 35ppm? With a 2+/5++? And much better shooting? And T4?

Probably not the best example, but still should show that it wouldn't be right.

Also:
IoM don't typically pay more for their weapons.
ML:
IoM: 15pts in an infantry squad. 25pts to get Flak as well.
Eldar: 30 pts to add to Infantry, and get flak
Heavy Bolter: Overcosted at 10pts
Eldar Shuriken Cannon - 15pts on infantry
IoM Plasma Gun: 15pts
Rail Rifle: 15pts
Plasma Cannon costs as much as a Star Cannon
Brightlance/Darklance and Lascannon

Wind riders certainly pay too little for their heavy weapons, among other problems. They are not the only unit in the game.

But if a SL costs Guardians 20pts, and an AC costs Termies 20pts, how is the SL too cheap an upgrade, while the AC too expensive?

" They are not the only unit in the game. "

Sometimes I wonder when I play.

" how is the SL too cheap an upgrade, while the AC too expensive?"

The platforms are overcosted to begin with and/or terrible and deploying the AC. Plus, the range is really crippling in my experience.

Martel732 wrote:
" They are not the only unit in the game. "

Sometimes I wonder when I play.

Then you should probably look for different opponents.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" They are not the only unit in the game. "

Sometimes I wonder when I play.

Then you should probably look for different opponents.

Not really an option. Besides, why should they self-nerf?

The AC doesn't have a good spamable platform. That is certainly true. But its definitely worth 20pts in my book.

Bharring wrote:
The AC doesn't have a good spamable platform. That is certainly true. But its definitely worth 20pts in my book.

It's not, though, because it lacks a good, spammable platform. These points values don't exist in a vacuum. It's a measure of their value on the battlefield, and the AC, the way it is deployed, has very little value.

Martel732 wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" They are not the only unit in the game. "

Sometimes I wonder when I play.

Then you should probably look for different opponents.

Not really an option. Besides, why should they self-nerf?

Because their stuff is OP and it's clearly taking a toll on you to boot. No shame in asking them to tone it down.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" They are not the only unit in the game. "

Sometimes I wonder when I play.

Then you should probably look for different opponents.

Not really an option. Besides, why should they self-nerf?

Because their stuff is OP and it's clearly taking a toll on you to boot. No shame in asking them to tone it down.

They blame GW for the OPness, not themselves. Tournament prep is the usual focus, so there's no real reason to tone it down. I'm not really sure what toning it down means for Eldar vs BA anyway.

Yes, it is GW's fault, but if they refuse to tone down on being asked then they're being pricks, simple as that.

They view the game in units that are "worth taking" or "not worth taking". They don't view any Eldar troop worth taking compared to a scatterbike. It's a matter of efficiency.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
If it's giving you a hard time, ask them to tone it down or just refuse to play them.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
If it's giving you a hard time, ask them to tone it down or just refuse to play them.

I have seriously thought about quitting. GW has taken a giant dump on BA twice now. BA aren't even fun in a casual game anymore because their assault units are just awful now. I've collected around 40+ terminators since 1995 and you see how useful those are.

Whatever you do, complaining about problems you actively try NOT to fix isn't going to help.