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.

Or you could've done neither and just left it.

In any case, it's clear he was talking about the "big four" Codexes.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Or you could've done neither and just left it.

In any case, it's clear he was talking about the "big four" Codexes.

It wasn't clear to me at all.

Martel732 wrote:
" whole is no more broken than any other 7th edition codex."

BA. Most of my codex is unplayable garbage. This is a false statement.

You are also rather notorious as the whiniest Blood Angels player on the forum.

Let's do some math, shall we?

Take any 7th editon codex* (or 6th edition Tau) - Orks (Orks have a terrible codex) vs. Eldar* - Scatbikers, D-weapons, and Wraithknights

*Note that allies are not considered on either side of this equation i.e. neither side uses allies

I think you'll find the result is just as balanced as any other matchup where the 7.5 edition army doesn't bring the cheese.

Many people on here consider Orks to be fairly decent. I'd say they are better than IG or BA.

Also, it's impressive that I'm notorious.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Yaavaragefinkinman wrote:

Dragannia wrote:
See, this is people overreacting. Complaining about Battle Focus, honestly. Battle Focus is a fantastic rule, it's balanced, and frankly Eldar needed a bit of something ever since Fleet stopped being a big deal (before, they and DE were the only ones with Fleet, and no one could Run in those days, and you could assault).

I mean no one's asking Space Marines to have Doctrines stripped. It's a good, balanced rule.

No its not balanced it is a free thing that makes all eldar ridiculous. The move shoot move or move move shoot should not be some free handout its just wrong. Tau have to pay for it in the form of battlesuits and tyranids only gain it through psychic powers so why should it come with litterally no drawbacks for nearly every Eldar unit. In the same regard their Jet bikes doing the jump shoot jump thing now is stupid. Eldar are literally just better Tau in almost every way now where just a short while ago they were quite different. Oh your battlesuits are so good so let me bring my scat bikes (pun intended) with bigger range and volume of shots. Oh Riptides are such BS, let me bring my GC wraithknight that costs only 100 points more. Oh markerlights are such bs. Let me just get out my aspect warriors who are all BS5 because that is balanced.

Just own up to the fact that Eldar have a book that is naturally better than most. (And by most I mean all but Necrons who they are on par with)

Dark Eldar jetbikes have the exact same ability, and it's arguably more important for them due to their limited durability. The reason people are complaining about Eldar jetbikes being able to move in the assault phase is because of the ludicrous mobility and firepower that Scatbikers possess.

Space Marines ignore most of the section of the rules on morale and get free re-rolls thanks to their doctrines. Necrons are the most durable army in the game with their 4+ Res Protocalls. I'm failing to see how the Eldar ability to run/shoot in either order and get an automatic 6" run qualifies as overpowered. Their mobility and firepower and formations bonuses compensate for thier fragile nature; they are T3 across the board and have a 3+ save at best, so they're hardly easy to kill.

I don't think anyone, including myself, has defended the current state of the Wraithknight or denied that Eldar are a powerful army in the game. Tau have plenty of problems of their own due to increased focous on mobility ingame and their lack of options in that area. But you can't honestly tell me that the Riptide and its Forge World brethren aren't undercosted or ridiculously durable for their cost. At the end of the day, most armies are balanced against Eldar minus their OP units.

Eldar being fragile is the same as the myth that Necrons are slow. It might have been true several editions ago, but Necrons are definitely a fast army now, and Eldar aren't really fragile now.

Crash, I don't think much of "quote storms", your points ultimately aren't convincing. Many historical players don't use points as a balance mechanic and they do just fine. WHFB/Sigmar players are from a different background and obviously it's been harder for some to adapt than others. Now, at this point we're going in circles. Since I can see both sides of an argument, which is usually how adults resolve issues, the questions you SHOULD be asking are:

-- Does the 40k playerbase have the maturity to deal with complete freedom in list-building? Unbound already ruffled many feathers in 7th and bad behaviour isn't exactly rare.
-- Points have been part of list-building throughout 40k's history. Is it worth abandoning tradition and something many people enjoy as an activity in itself?
-- There's a strong perception of 40k as a competitive game and there's a community of tournament gamers already in place. Is it really worth alienating them to refocus the game on 40k as a more narrative experience?

Now, 40k can still work as a points-based game in something close to it's current form. If you'd stop quoting yourself and learn not to cover your ears and go "LALALA" when you hear something you dislike, you'd see there's two things *I* personally think GW needs to do.

-- Design the next edition of 40k from the ground up, with ultimate authority given to the game design team.
-- Start interacting with the community to ensure the right playing style and attitude from their players.

Someone else may say "reshape 40k as a flawless tournament game, so playing style and attitude are irrelevant", and that opinion is equally valid. Points adjustment is essentially a response to min-maxing and requires tracking game performance; but if you are familar with RTS balance, you'd probably understand it has it's own issues.

Yoyoyo wrote:

-- Does the 40k playerbase have the maturity to deal with complete freedom in list-building? Unbound already ruffled many feathers in 7th and bad behaviour isn't exactly rare.
-- Points have been part of list-building throughout 40k's history. Is it worth abandoning tradition and something many people enjoy as an activity in itself?
-- There's a strong perception of 40k as a competitive game and there's a community of tournament gamers already in place. Is it really worth alienating them to refocus the game on 40k as a more narrative experience?

Great points (pun not intended)

- The removal of points removes that last indicator that 40k is a competitive game. Many toxic players will move to other competitive games, just like what is happening with AoS.
- WHFB was the ancestor of 40k, and the very first GW game. They HAD to abandon the entire game, because its not selling. If 40k continues down this path as a faux-competitive game, it will go down the path of WHFB. Already, the community is very fractured. An entirely new gaming group in my area just formed, composed entirely of eldar players who were kicked out of my group, and another group.
- 40k's reputation as a competitive game is extremely poor, or non-existent. Competitive gamers play warmahordes or infinity. 40k competition is to see who can be the most obnoxious.

Points are not really the source of the problem, it boils down to min-maxing and the competitive mindset.

Eldar is a good choice for these types, so it's not surprising the faction has a bad rep with players who don't like that kind of behaviour.

Nobody's really too upset with CAD Guardians and Fire Prisms, from what I gather. Or how about the FW Firestorm? Amazing looking unit but it's not going to see play time in a min-maxing environment,

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Tau have arguably more powerful shooting, and thanks to markerlights can be just as accurate and ignore cover to boot.

BS3 across the board. Markers are on BS2/3 units or need HQ support to change that.
This statement is just wrong on so many levels. With a huge amount of access to reliable D weapons and jet bikes with better mobility, weapons, BS, and durability than any Tau troop I just don't see how you could make this statement. If we take away the Riptide, WK, Broadsides, and Scat bikes from the scenario do you still think that Tau can outshoot Eldar?

Eldar have better transports, stronger shooting, more accurate base shooting, access to psychic buffs and defense, more access to mobile units, better in CC, and less reliant on unit-unit synergy like Tau needing to dedicate their FA choices for Marker support.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Crash, I don't think much of "quote storms"

So what? Yeah, i use quotes so the context of each reply section is clear, that's a perfectly valid way to reply. How does that give you carte blanche to just randomly ignore things? Like, say for example an extremely important point I brought up and emphasized TWICE!

Yoyoyo wrote:
Many historical players don't use points as a balance mechanic and they do just fine.

Did you miss the times i referred to other balance mechanics existing? I don't know how, I kept bringing it up...

Yoyoyo wrote:
WHFB/Sigmar players are from a different background and obviously it's been harder for some to adapt than others.

If by "harder" you mean "absolutely impossible, immediately killing their interest in the game and forcing them onto a different system or out of the hobby altogether", then yes and that's exactly why this idea needs to die!

Yoyoyo wrote:
Now, at this point we're going in circles.

Because you keep refusing to acknowledge important parts of my argument! Like, say for example an extremely important point I brought up and emphasized TWICE!

Yoyoyo wrote:
Since I can see both sides of an argument, which is usually how adults resolve issues, the questions you SHOULD be asking are:

-- Does the 40k playerbase have the maturity to deal with complete freedom in list-building? Unbound already ruffled many feathers in 7th and bad behaviour isn't exactly rare.
-- Points have been part of list-building throughout 40k's history. Is it worth abandoning tradition and something many people enjoy as an activity in itself?
-- There's a strong perception of 40k as a competitive game and there's a community of tournament gamers already in place. Is it really worth alienating them to refocus the game on 40k as a more narrative experience?

Yeah, two sides. Upon seeing one was strictly and objectively the same or better for everyone (for reasons you continue to refuse to acknowledge) I picked a side. I don't need to ask those questions because I already have the answers:
-- No, nobody does and nobody ever will.
-- Absolutely not.
-- That's not even a question, how could that ever be worth it when you're not even gaining anything? You don't want to use points? Ignore 'em! Then again I suppose that still didn't click for you, since it was the thrust of the extremely important point I brought up and emphasized TWICE but you ignored because quote markup is the work of Satan or something...

Yoyoyo wrote:
If you'd stop quoting yourself and learn not to cover your ears and go "LALALA" when you hear something you dislike

You mean the extremely important point I brought up and emphasized TWICE? I quoted it because you ignored it completely the first time despite me pouring on the emphasis to make sure you didn't miss it, it being absolutely crucial to the argument and specifically saying to address it! And I'll do it again at the end of this reply and every other reply I make to you unless you directly address it head on because it's too crucial to ignore and you have no valid reason to do so.

Yoyoyo wrote:
you'd see there's two things *I* personally think GW needs to do.

-- Design the next edition of 40k from the ground up, with ultimate authority given to the game design team.
-- Start interacting with the community to ensure the right playing style and attitude from their players.

And those are both horrible, horrible ideas and here's exactly why:
-- The game has a few problems that need to be fixed, that's not something that warrants rebuilding it from scratch. And rebuilding it from scratch is a terrible, terrible idea because you're killing the game many love and are invested in without any guarantee it'll be any better. Even if it was equal or better, having a game you like killed sucks and they'd have to dump loads of stuff to re-learn from scratch too. How is that an even remotely reasonable response?
-- So rather than fix the problems with the game, bully the players into playing it a particular way? Now certainly they should interact to find out what needs updating/changing/fixing/etc but that doesn't seem to be what you're suggesting. Don't bully the players, fix the game!
The solution is in reality to just fix broken stuff as it needs it. Fix bad rules, nerf overpowered units, buff underpowered units and make tweaks as need be. Don't tear it all down because some of it is wrong and don't focus on this "attitude" nonsense while ignoring the game's faults.

And now, the extremely important point I brought up and emphasized TWICE, once again:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
2) I'm going to pile on the emphasis because you don't seem to get this point: THERE AREN'T "pros and cons" BECAUSE THE IDEA OF A GAME NOT HAVING A BALANCE MECHANIC HAS NO PROS! ANYTHING A GAME WITHOUT ONE COULD DO, A GAME WITH ONE COULD DO BETTER BECAUSE YOU CAN JUST IGNORE OR TWEAK THE BALANCING MECHANIC AS YOU PLEASE WHILE ADDING ONE TO A GAME WITHOUT ONE IS MUCH, MUCH HARDER! Now with that said, actually address that point and stop dodging it.

I'm not going to stop until you directly address it head on because it's absolutely crucial. It's the center of why I won't let this go and am rushing full-steam-ahead still as well as why the idea of a game with no balancing mechanics and depending on players to somehow magically fix it themselves needs to just die and rot in the pit of bad game design.

I'm putting you on ignore, and that's the first time I've had to do that on dakka. Sorry buddy.

kburn wrote:
- The removal of points removes that last indicator that 40k is a competitive game. Many toxic players will move to other competitive games, just like what is happening with AoS.
- WHFB was the ancestor of 40k, and the very first GW game. They HAD to abandon the entire game, because its not selling. If 40k continues down this path as a faux-competitive game, it will go down the path of WHFB. Already, the community is very fractured. An entirely new gaming group in my area just formed, composed entirely of eldar players who were kicked out of my group, and another group.
- 40k's reputation as a competitive game is extremely poor, or non-existent. Competitive gamers play warmahordes or infinity. 40k competition is to see who can be the most obnoxious.

- No, they'll keep being that way because their "attitude" hasn't been changed (as people like Yoyoyo will attest to) and will be completely unleashed now that there are no restrictions on what they can do. I keep pointing this out and they keep ignoring it... I can only presume because there is no counter and that's shot their idea down completely. If not, feel free to actually acknowledge it and counter it!
- The best way to fix it to fix the balance problem, not put water on an oil fire (thanks TheNewBlood) by stripping out the game's only method of even having the necessary balance to be a playable experience at all.
- That necessitates killing all balance why? Really that just suggests to tweak the problem with the games or the tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
I'm putting you on ignore, and that's the first time I've had to do that on dakka. Sorry buddy.

Just brilliant, I ask perfectly valid questions and you ignore them and then put me on ignore too for absolutely no good reason.

I guess it's too hard to just respond to valid complaints.

fething brilliant.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

- No, they'll keep being that way because their "attitude" hasn't been changed (as people like Yoyoyo will attest to) and will be completely unleashed now that there are no restrictions on what they can do. I keep pointing this out and they keep ignoring it... I can only presume because there is no counter and that's shot their idea down completely. If not, feel free to actually acknowledge it and counter it!
- The best way to fix it to fix the balance problem, not put water on an oil fire (thanks TheNewBlood) by stripping out the game's only method of even having the necessary balance to be a playable experience at all.
- That necessitates killing all balance why? Really that just suggests to tweak the problem with the games or the tournaments.

- AoS has removed a lot of TFGs. It actually has happened, go have a look around their forums. It can be a battle of I said, you said with regards to this point, but at least I have the backing of precedence. All AoS will do to eldar players is kick them out, because they cannot negotiate a casual battle, nor can they win tournaments without their easy-mode armies.

- TheNewBlood has a vested interest in points. He plays eldar, and wants to keep points, so he can keep playing on easy-mode. Phil Kelly has broken eldar for 7 editions straight, what makes you think he'll have a change of hear on the 8th? All points does is let him write even more and more ridiculous rules for his favourite special-snowflake faction. Points are a farce in 40k (my next point)

- Points in 40k are pretty much the opposite of balance. You get factions broken 7 editions, 20 years in a row. You get factions like orks that are unplayable 7 editions, 20 years in a row. All points does is make the power-difference between armies as large as possible. With AoS, at least they're not subject o Phil Kelly's or Robin Cruddace's whims and fancies. AoS is building up a much fairer and better comp scene, with tournament endorsed balancing systems for tournaments, and for players being able to negotiate what to bring for casual games.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

This statement is just wrong on so many levels. With a huge amount of access to reliable D weapons and jet bikes with better mobility, weapons, BS, and durability than any Tau troop I just don't see how you could make this statement. If we take away the Riptide, WK, Broadsides, and Scat bikes from the scenario do you still think that Tau can outshoot Eldar?

Eldar have better transports, stronger shooting, more accurate base shooting, access to psychic buffs and defense, more access to mobile units, better in CC, and less reliant on unit-unit synergy like Tau needing to dedicate their FA choices for Marker support.

Eldar is the specialest, most elitest, hardest to play, fragile, glass cannon, for experts only, because they're not the bestest in every single thing. I mean, how can gargangutan creatures, units with 3++, jink saves, holofields, survive when the majority of them have T3! The horror! orks have T4! OP! nurf! nurf! spess mareens drop pod can drop anywhere, unlike eldar's fast-everything, ultra-mobile army, nurf! nurf! flyrants can beat guardians in CC! nurf! nurf!

you gotta understand, their army is ultra-hard mode, super hard to play, which is why only the best of the best play them, and win all the time. you're a mere monkeigh pleb out of their group of specialest snow-flake elite players, and will never understand the tactical complexity of using a D-cannon to wipe out anything on the board. In fact, the D-cannon is so hard to use, that it cannot wipe out a titan instantly, that's how hard eldar is!

kburn wrote:
- AoS has removed a lot of TFGs. It actually has happened, go have a look around their forums. It can be a battle of I said, you said with regards to this point, but at least I have the backing of precedence. All AoS will do to eldar players is kick them out, because they cannot negotiate a casual battle, nor can they win tournaments without their easy-mode armies.

- TheNewBlood has a vested interest in points. He plays eldar, and wants to keep points, so he can keep playing on easy-mode. Phil Kelly has broken eldar for 7 editions straight, what makes you think he'll have a change of hear on the 8th? All points does is let him write even more and more ridiculous rules for his favourite special-snowflake faction. Points are a farce in 40k (my next point)

- Points in 40k are pretty much the opposite of balance. You get factions broken 7 editions, 20 years in a row. You get factions like orks that are unplayable 7 editions, 20 years in a row. All points does is make the power-difference between armies as large as possible. With AoS, at least they're not subject o Phil Kelly's or Robin Cruddace's whims and fancies. AoS is building up a much fairer and better comp scene, with tournament endorsed balancing systems for tournaments, and for players being able to negotiate what to bring for casual games.

- This I find impossible to believe. How does that even work? You take the brakes off the OP Train and it suddenly stops? All this would do is make it impossible to avoid game-breakers, on the TFG side there's nothing stopping them from bringing as many Wraithknights as they can afford and fit on the table and on the reasonable side there's no indication how many Fire Dragons is too many and even if the opponent says "that's too many" there's no telling how many need to be ditched...

- That's not points doing that, that's some undercosted units doing that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The way to fix this is to fix the broken units (like this topic is supposed to be about), not to ditch the very thing need to put a can on it...

- No, points are just a flawed implementation of balance. You wanna know the real opposite of balance? Having no balancing mechanics whatsoever, like AOS!

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

- This I find impossible to believe. How does that even work? You take the brakes off the OP Train and it suddenly stops? All this would do is make it impossible to avoid game-breakers, on the TFG side there's nothing stopping them from bringing as many Wraithknights as they can afford and fit on the table and on the reasonable side there's no indication how many Fire Dragons is too many and even if the opponent says "that's too many" there's no telling how many need to be ditched...

- That's not points doing that, that's some undercosted units doing that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The way to fix this is to fix the broken units (like this topic is supposed to be about), not to ditch the very thing need to put a can on it...

- No, points are just a flawed implementation of balance. You wanna know the real opposite of balance? Having no balancing mechanics whatsoever, like AOS!

- Like I said, this is a I-said, you-said scenario, but AoS got rid of many of the annoying TFG elf players. I have precedence on my side.

- You can say in theory all you want about adjusting the eldar codex. Fair for me is doubling the points of everything, quadrupling the points of WG and scatbikes, but will Phil Kelly do it? All Phil will do is reduce the points of everything and distribute more buffs. You idea is great in theory, but terrible in practice, because Phil doesn't care about you. He cares about his special-snowflake faction. AoS is a very blunt club, but is also a very practical solution, seeing how GW has done it, and seems to be gravitating towards it for 40k.

- Points are merely a tool for Phil and Cruddace to make the difference in army powerlevels as wide as possible, It is a tool, and nothing more. It is a tool that hasn't worked for 7 editions, 20 years. How will it work now? Again, great in theory, terrible in practice.

I miss Matt Ward.

- AoS has removed a lot of TFGs. It actually has happened, go have a look around their forums. It can be a battle of I said, you said with regards to this point, but at least I have the backing of precedence. All AoS will do to eldar players is kick them out, because they cannot negotiate a casual battle, nor can they win tournaments without their easy-mode armies.

Go around WFB forums then or places where WFB died out. AoS did not remove any TFG. In fact it is even easier to do it. Because now you can do it with one unit or three to four models, and before one had to invest in to a 2250 pts army, which not everyone wanted or could do. Also can you tell me which eldar units are not easy-mode? Sure there are a few that are worse compering to other eldar units from the same codex, but that is it. Even the "bad" melee units are offten much better and actualy playable unlike the stuff other factions got. So if someone went with the magical AoS mind set and started checking eldar armies with it, they would not only not get game with their tournament armies, but wouldn't get any game at all. Someone could probably build and army of WG and melee units footslogging across the table and it would probably work, because of focus and psyker support.

Im just gonna say this, they drop points, im out. Im not goinna jump through hoops figuring out how many Vanguard i need to bring to have a good fight with my buddy. And do you want to know why no points work in historical games? Its because the stat blocks on units arent that different. Look at Black Powder, most of those units look the same. You want to see a game with points done well? Look at KoW.

Points are not the problem, GW having its head up its is the problem.

kburn wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

- This I find impossible to believe. How does that even work? You take the brakes off the OP Train and it suddenly stops? All this would do is make it impossible to avoid game-breakers, on the TFG side there's nothing stopping them from bringing as many Wraithknights as they can afford and fit on the table and on the reasonable side there's no indication how many Fire Dragons is too many and even if the opponent says "that's too many" there's no telling how many need to be ditched...

- That's not points doing that, that's some undercosted units doing that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The way to fix this is to fix the broken units (like this topic is supposed to be about), not to ditch the very thing need to put a can on it...

- No, points are just a flawed implementation of balance. You wanna know the real opposite of balance? Having no balancing mechanics whatsoever, like AOS!

- Like I said, this is a I-said, you-said scenario, but AoS got rid of many of the annoying TFG elf players. I have precedence on my side.

I think more to the point, it's gotten rid of many players.

- You can say in theory all you want about adjusting the eldar codex. Fair for me is doubling the points of everything, quadrupling the points of WG and scatbikes, but will Phil Kelly do it? All Phil will do is reduce the points of everything and distribute more buffs. You idea is great in theory, but terrible in practice, because Phil doesn't care about you. He cares about his special-snowflake faction. AoS is a very blunt club, but is also a very practical solution, seeing how GW has done it, and seems to be gravitating towards it for 40k.

We don't know who wrote the current Eldar codex, GW stopped attributing authorship to individual codex books a while ago, and by all accounts have changed the way they do things internally such that one person generally doesn't do everything anymore. The bigger issue is that they're writing rules around marketing and sprue contents. The "omg Phil Kelly is always going to make them amazeballs" conspiracy is rather silly in such light, especially because Eldar were broken in older editions he had nothing to do with. It's an issue common to most game systems where the "mysterious elder race", usually some sort of elf-thing but usually following the same mold, has the same issue of being overdone, often simply for the sake of "well they're just supposed to better!" or because they function so differently from everything else that they have issues balancing the paradigm correctly.

You can see such issues with Eldar throughout GW's history, in various editions of D&D with elf races, Protoss in much of Starcraft 1's early lifetime, some claim it to exist in Dropzone Commander with the Shaltari faction, and a whole lot more.

- Points are merely a tool for Phil and Cruddace to make the difference in army powerlevels as wide as possible, It is a tool, and nothing more. It is a tool that hasn't worked for 7 editions, 20 years. How will it work now? Again, great in theory, terrible in practice.

points systems work rather well for most other games out there. Points aren't some mystery boogeyman that ruins wargaming, and that concept that they were such was basically unheard of until suddenly it became the flavor of the month paradigm with AoS. GW's just bad at it and doesn't care to fix anything.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We don't know who wrote the current Eldar codex, GW stopped attributing authorship to individual codex books a while ago, and by all accounts have changed the way they do things internally such that one person generally doesn't do everything anymore. The bigger issue is that they're writing rules around marketing and sprue contents. The "omg Phil Kelly is always going to make them amazeballs" conspiracy is rather silly in such light, especially because Eldar were broken in older editions he had nothing to do with. It's an issue common to most game systems where the "mysterious elder race", usually some sort of elf-thing but usually following the same mold, has the same issue of being overdone, often simply for the sake of "well they're just supposed to better!" or because they function so differently from everything else that they have issues balancing the paradigm correctly.

You can see such issues with Eldar throughout GW's history, in various editions of D&D with elf races, Protoss in much of Starcraft 1's early lifetime, some claim it to exist in Dropzone Commander with the Shaltari faction, and a whole lot more.

Quoted for Truth. Kelly wrote the Eldar 6th ed book IIRC which was far more reasonable, still really good, but more in line with everyone else. Also he wrote the 4th ed Codex, so to me he is always Big Boss Kelly.

kburn wrote:
- Like I said, this is a I-said, you-said scenario, but AoS got rid of many of the annoying TFG elf players. I have precedence on my side.

@Bold: I don't even have a clue what you mean by that, explain.
@Italics: That doesn't make it any less unbelievable, and according to Makumba I was right.

kburn wrote:
- You can say in theory all you want about adjusting the eldar codex. Fair for me is doubling the points of everything, quadrupling the points of WG and scatbikes, but will Phil Kelly do it? All Phil will do is reduce the points of everything and distribute more buffs. You idea is great in theory, but terrible in practice, because Phil doesn't care about you. He cares about his special-snowflake faction. AoS is a very blunt club, but is also a very practical solution, seeing how GW has done it, and seems to be gravitating towards it for 40k.

So what if Phil Kelly doesn't do it? We can!
1) The "GW isn't listening!" defense is just as invalid here as it was when Dman used it. To quickly re-iterate, that logic would invalidate ALL fan discussion, this topic, our Proposed Rules forum and maybe even all of DakkaDakka. The fact we have such things shows how that's bogus.
2) What's more, if you're gonna say house rules are impossible or invalid then that hurts your side even worse, due to requiring them to FUNCTION rather than just for tweaks.

kburn wrote:
- Points are merely a tool for Phil and Cruddace to make the difference in army powerlevels as wide as possible, It is a tool, and nothing more. It is a tool that hasn't worked for 7 editions, 20 years. How will it work now? Again, great in theory, terrible in practice.

No, they're a tool for balance. It may not be functioning correctly but the solution is to fix the problems, not to throw it away and with it lose any hope of any form of balance ever existing, forever condemning the game to be So Bad It's Horrible and completely unplayable.
And honestly this makes it sound like your whole wish for this horrible non-solution that screws people over with no positive effects at all is based on a grudge against a writer. You realize that's like someone wanting Ultramarines or Grey Knights squatted because of Matt Ward, right?
Speaking of...

kburn wrote:
I miss Matt Ward.

You sure about that?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
points systems work rather well for most other games out there. Points aren't some mystery boogeyman that ruins wargaming, and that concept that they were such was basically unheard of until suddenly it became the flavor of the month paradigm with AoS. GW's just bad at it and doesn't care to fix anything.

The whole post was solid, but you can have an Exalt on me just for this!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimmor wrote:
Im just gonna say this, they drop points, im out. Im not goinna jump through hoops figuring out how many Vanguard i need to bring to have a good fight with my buddy. And do you want to know why no points work in historical games? Its because the stat blocks on units arent that different. Look at Black Powder, most of those units look the same. You want to see a game with points done well? Look at KoW.

Points are not the problem, GW having its head up its is the problem.

You get it too (particularly the bold), you can have another Exalt!

 Vaktathi wrote:


- I think more to the point, it's gotten rid of many players.

-We don't know who wrote the current Eldar codex, GW stopped attributing authorship to individual codex books a while ago, and by all accounts have changed the way they do things internally such that one person generally doesn't do everything anymore. The bigger issue is that they're writing rules around marketing and sprue contents. The "omg Phil Kelly is always going to make them amazeballs" conspiracy is rather silly in such light, especially because Eldar were broken in older editions he had nothing to do with. It's an issue common to most game systems where the "mysterious elder race", usually some sort of elf-thing but usually following the same mold, has the same issue of being overdone, often simply for the sake of "well they're just supposed to better!" or because they function so differently from everything else that they have issues balancing the paradigm correctly.

You can see such issues with Eldar throughout GW's history, in various editions of D&D with elf races, Protoss in much of Starcraft 1's early lifetime, some claim it to exist in Dropzone Commander with the Shaltari faction, and a whole lot more.

- points systems work rather well for most other games out there. Points aren't some mystery boogeyman that ruins wargaming, and that concept that they were such was basically unheard of until suddenly it became the flavor of the month paradigm with AoS. GW's just bad at it and doesn't care to fix anything.

- At this point, going AoS might break or save 40k. Like I said, the community is extremely factured. Many refuse to play Eldar, and 2 of my local groups has kicked ALL eldar players out. Gotta lose some good with the bad.

- Phil wrote 4th and 6th, with both being significantly more overpowered that what preceded them. Eldar in 2nd (Rick) and 3rd(Gav) were the top codexes, but not much better than #2. 4th and 6th were out of this world better, and 7th continues with the trend. Its almost like saying cruddace didn't write 6th tyranids (he was exposed to have done so a week later on white dwarf). You can see the pattern of the authors.

Either way, regardless of who wrote it, eldar has been disgustingly powerful for 20 years in a row. What makes you think it'll change?

- Like I said, points are great for GW in theory, but terrible in practice for GW. GW needs to get its gak together, etc. but GW will never get its gak together. Rather than raging about it, or migrating to other systems, why not AoS it?

kburn wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


- I think more to the point, it's gotten rid of many players.

-We don't know who wrote the current Eldar codex, GW stopped attributing authorship to individual codex books a while ago, and by all accounts have changed the way they do things internally such that one person generally doesn't do everything anymore. The bigger issue is that they're writing rules around marketing and sprue contents. The "omg Phil Kelly is always going to make them amazeballs" conspiracy is rather silly in such light, especially because Eldar were broken in older editions he had nothing to do with. It's an issue common to most game systems where the "mysterious elder race", usually some sort of elf-thing but usually following the same mold, has the same issue of being overdone, often simply for the sake of "well they're just supposed to better!" or because they function so differently from everything else that they have issues balancing the paradigm correctly.

You can see such issues with Eldar throughout GW's history, in various editions of D&D with elf races, Protoss in much of Starcraft 1's early lifetime, some claim it to exist in Dropzone Commander with the Shaltari faction, and a whole lot more.

- points systems work rather well for most other games out there. Points aren't some mystery boogeyman that ruins wargaming, and that concept that they were such was basically unheard of until suddenly it became the flavor of the month paradigm with AoS. GW's just bad at it and doesn't care to fix anything.

- At this point, going AoS might break or save 40k. Like I said, the community is extremely factured. Many refuse to play Eldar, and 2 of my local groups has kicked ALL eldar players out. Gotta lose some good with the bad.

- Phil wrote 4th and 6th, with both being significantly more overpowered that what preceded them. Eldar in 2nd (Rick) and 3rd(Gav) were the top codexes, but not much better than #2. 4th and 6th were out of this world better, and 7th continues with the trend. Its almost like saying cruddace didn't write 6th tyranids (he was exposed to have done so a week later on white dwarf). You can see the pattern of the authors.

Either way, regardless of who wrote it, eldar has been disgustingly powerful for 20 years in a row. What makes you think it'll change?

- Like I said, points are great for GW in theory, but terrible in practice for GW. GW needs to get its gak together, etc. but GW will never get its gak together. Rather than raging about it, or migrating to other systems, why not AoS it?

Because AoS doesnt work either, jus for different reasons. 40K as a basic system works, it just needs tweaks, and honestly 7th needs less than others. Its the Codexes that are the problems not the basic rules (though they have some of their own problems, just nowhere near as bad).

kburn wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

- This I find impossible to believe. How does that even work? You take the brakes off the OP Train and it suddenly stops? All this would do is make it impossible to avoid game-breakers, on the TFG side there's nothing stopping them from bringing as many Wraithknights as they can afford and fit on the table and on the reasonable side there's no indication how many Fire Dragons is too many and even if the opponent says "that's too many" there's no telling how many need to be ditched...

- That's not points doing that, that's some undercosted units doing that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The way to fix this is to fix the broken units (like this topic is supposed to be about), not to ditch the very thing need to put a can on it...

- No, points are just a flawed implementation of balance. You wanna know the real opposite of balance? Having no balancing mechanics whatsoever, like AOS!

- Like I said, this is a I-said, you-said scenario, but AoS got rid of many of the annoying TFG elf players. I have precedence on my side.

No...no you don't.
The game hasn't been out long enough for a "meta" to develop. Honestly, one could argue that fantasy was never popular enough to have a meta (my own experiences with magic in the last edition can attest to this) like 40k or WMH has.
In order to claim precedence like you're doing you'll need something along the lines of the following;
Some sort of proof that elves are in decline. A large tournament (without house ruling) would be great, the more the better. This is impossible since, as far as I know, there has been exactly one tournament under AoS that had more than 20 players, and it had 22 pages of house rules. For a 4 page rulebook.
Some sort of record of sales that suggests that the sale of elven models has dropped much more than other armies have experienced.
Lists of forum traffic from each races' website, with druchii.net, for example, being a barren wasteland while the ogrestronghold is teeming with life.

Unless you can do these things, you don't have anything other then "I said". The forum traffic from other fantasy sites appear to be getting a lot less traffic, at least the ones I visit (ogre stronghold and bugmans).

kburn wrote:

- You can say in theory all you want about adjusting the eldar codex. Fair for me is doubling the points of everything, quadrupling the points of WG and scatbikes, but will Phil Kelly do it? All Phil will do is reduce the points of everything and distribute more buffs. You idea is great in theory, but terrible in practice, because Phil doesn't care about you. He cares about his special-snowflake faction. AoS is a very blunt club, but is also a very practical solution, seeing how GW has done it, and seems to be gravitating towards it for 40k.

He is suggesting house rules with adjusted point costs for units.
Something similar once happened to the druchii in fantasy, so it actually does have precedence.

kburn wrote:

- Points are merely a tool for Phil and Cruddace to make the difference in army powerlevels as wide as possible, It is a tool, and nothing more. It is a tool that hasn't worked for 7 editions, 20 years. How will it work now? Again, great in theory, terrible in practice.

Its a tool that has worked for many other game systems. Mordenheim isn't too unbalanced (some of the equipment options are, but everyone has access to them, and the elves need 1 house rule to be fine). Necromunda is pretty balanced. WMH is very well balanced (though I'm salty about my Acosta nerf, I JUST BOUGHT HIM PP). It hasn't worked for GW because GW doesn't try to balance.
Look at some of the fan dexes for the Chaos marines (or don't, a lot of whiners in those threads). Those dexes are a lot better than what GW puts out, and are about as strong as Marines without grav but better combat options would be (so...wolves?). These are often made by 1-3 people in their spare time.

kburn wrote:

I miss Matt Ward.

The guy who broke fantasy?

Savageconvoy wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Tau have arguably more powerful shooting, and thanks to markerlights can be just as accurate and ignore cover to boot.

BS3 across the board. Markers are on BS2/3 units or need HQ support to change that.
This statement is just wrong on so many levels. With a huge amount of access to reliable D weapons and jet bikes with better mobility, weapons, BS, and durability than any Tau troop I just don't see how you could make this statement. If we take away the Riptide, WK, Broadsides, and Scat bikes from the scenario do you still think that Tau can outshoot Eldar?

Eldar have better transports, stronger shooting, more accurate base shooting, access to psychic buffs and defense, more access to mobile units, better in CC, and less reliant on unit-unit synergy like Tau needing to dedicate their FA choices for Marker support.

I should have qualified my statement: Tau can in fact outshoot Eldar, in the absence of D-weapons/Scatbikers/Wraithknight.

Despite my personal hatred of the model, I don't think that the Riptide is broken or overpowered. What is overpowered is the ability to take three in a 1500 point list due to it being undercosted. If you had to face that, you would hate Riptides too (it was a relatively new player, so I let him off with a warning). Broadsides are only nasty because of one somewhat underpriced unit upgrade, and they have a whole host of problems (like not being Relentless)

The Wave Serpent is a better transport than the Devilfish, not least because the Devilfish is overpriced. Because of that, Tau infantry aren't as mobile as they should be. Eldar are in fact reliant on unit synergy, but more in terms of overall strategy/list-building "what units do I need to take" level. There is significant synergy due to their psychic abilities on the tabletop; I'd argue that it's a similar situation to markerlights. Kill the Eldar caster and watch the army suddenly start performing worse. The problem with markerlights is that they don't have platforms that are mobile and effective enough for their points cost to provide the kind of support the rest of the army needs.

Full Disclosure: I like Eldar. I love the way their units look, enjoy reading their excellent lore (both Craftworlds and Dark Eldar), and I play them on the tabletop in what I believe isn't a cheesy way. I have a vested interest in the army not being terrible. I'm more than willing to accept that certain Eldar units are OP; that much is obvious to anybody. But I'll reasonably debate you until the end of time (or the next edition of the game) if you try to nerf the codex as a whole, and I'm pretty sure plenty of other players will say the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

kburn wrote:

I miss Matt Ward.

The guy who broke fantasy?

I think this guy has just lost all credibility. You know, like my signature...

Battle focus is not over powered, period. It was given, and is still given to eldar because their guns are very short ranged.

The guardians aren't only trained in the weekends, almost all of them have been an aspect warrior at one point or another and all have to train extensively in order to ensure they aren't eaten by the first thing that stumbles on the craftworld.

Aspect warriors and exarchs in particular got a buff, I personally think they do read things on the internet, creepy ex boyfriend style and saw that nobody took exarchs, and if they did nobody took the upgrades for them because it was a one wound toughness three model worth 50+ points. Same with bikes, nobody took the cannon because you just wanted min squads to claim objectives. Now you may want to get some killing done, so buy the upgrade.

Windrider jetbikes and wraithknights are indeed broken, jetbikes have been since 6th ed, started with eldar at the midpoint of 5th. Once the price point dropped for bikes, I made them 4+ save.

My houserules are on page one, I rest my case on those. Feel free to comment or ask questions on any of them you want to

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" whole is no more broken than any other 7th edition codex."

BA. Most of my codex is unplayable garbage. This is a false statement.

You are also rather notorious as the whiniest Blood Angels player on the forum.

Let's do some math, shall we?

Take any 7th editon codex* (or 6th edition Tau) - Orks (Orks have a terrible codex) vs. Eldar* - Scatbikers, D-weapons, and Wraithknights

*Note that allies are not considered on either side of this equation i.e. neither side uses allies

I think you'll find the result is just as balanced as any other matchup where the 7.5 edition army doesn't bring the cheese.

Well so far I have played about 5 games against Eldar and I have won 1 of them. And that was because my SAG rolled boxcars and killed his WK and his HQ in a single phase and the next turn it scattered onto his SCAT bikes.

I played a game against a Eldar player bringing the Full Cheese, WK's SCAT bikes and was tabled by turn 3. I played the same guy who took a 1,500pt army and told me to take a 2k point army. He won by turn 4. I played again against an Eldar player who brought a "Fluffy List" all footdar and he had a Wraith Lord. Not only did he table me again he did it with relative ease.

Yes by all means I except the 1-2 idiots to jump in and say "lol you suk l2p" But im fairly good with my army and I would say I win over 70% of the time. Eldar are OP almost across the board. WK, Scat Bikes, Wraithguard, Psychic shenanigans, D-weapons, BS5 regular infantry that can JSJ ohh and if you don't feel like bringing Strength D weapons you can take AP0 Fire dragons to ensure something explodes. Even if by some miracle I can close the distance with my orks they tend to die in CC to the Eldar CC units because they all have way higher Init and ridiculous abilities to boot.



The Eldar codex is and has been broken since it first came out. ALMOST and I have to emphasize that "ALMOST" all the units in the codex need a points hike and some need a complete rework.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" whole is no more broken than any other 7th edition codex."

BA. Most of my codex is unplayable garbage. This is a false statement.

You are also rather notorious as the whiniest Blood Angels player on the forum.

Let's do some math, shall we?

Take any 7th editon codex* (or 6th edition Tau) - Orks (Orks have a terrible codex) vs. Eldar* - Scatbikers, D-weapons, and Wraithknights

*Note that allies are not considered on either side of this equation i.e. neither side uses allies

I think you'll find the result is just as balanced as any other matchup where the 7.5 edition army doesn't bring the cheese.

Well so far I have played about 5 games against Eldar and I have won 1 of them. And that was because my SAG rolled boxcars and killed his WK and his HQ in a single phase and the next turn it scattered onto his SCAT bikes.

I played a game against a Eldar player bringing the Full Cheese, WK's SCAT bikes and was tabled by turn 3. I played the same guy who took a 1,500pt army and told me to take a 2k point army. He won by turn 4. I played again against an Eldar player who brought a "Fluffy List" all footdar and he had a Wraith Lord. Not only did he table me again he did it with relative ease.

Yes by all means I except the 1-2 idiots to jump in and say "lol you suk l2p" But im fairly good with my army and I would say I win over 70% of the time. Eldar are OP almost across the board. WK, Scat Bikes, Wraithguard, Psychic shenanigans, D-weapons, BS5 regular infantry that can JSJ ohh and if you don't feel like bringing Strength D weapons you can take AP0 Fire dragons to ensure something explodes. Even if by some miracle I can close the distance with my orks they tend to die in CC to the Eldar CC units because they all have way higher Init and ridiculous abilities to boot.



The Eldar codex is and has been broken since it first came out. ALMOST and I have to emphasize that "ALMOST" all the units in the codex need a points hike and some need a complete rework.

There were a few eldar codex that were only alright in earlier editions. also, you play one of the more powerful codex.. the orks.. wanna talk about a hard time? Dark eldar. Bam.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" whole is no more broken than any other 7th edition codex."

BA. Most of my codex is unplayable garbage. This is a false statement.

You are also rather notorious as the whiniest Blood Angels player on the forum.

Let's do some math, shall we?

Take any 7th editon codex* (or 6th edition Tau) - Orks (Orks have a terrible codex) vs. Eldar* - Scatbikers, D-weapons, and Wraithknights

*Note that allies are not considered on either side of this equation i.e. neither side uses allies

I think you'll find the result is just as balanced as any other matchup where the 7.5 edition army doesn't bring the cheese.

Well so far I have played about 5 games against Eldar and I have won 1 of them. And that was because my SAG rolled boxcars and killed his WK and his HQ in a single phase and the next turn it scattered onto his SCAT bikes.

I played a game against a Eldar player bringing the Full Cheese, WK's SCAT bikes and was tabled by turn 3. I played the same guy who took a 1,500pt army and told me to take a 2k point army. He won by turn 4. I played again against an Eldar player who brought a "Fluffy List" all footdar and he had a Wraith Lord. Not only did he table me again he did it with relative ease.

Yes by all means I except the 1-2 idiots to jump in and say "lol you suk l2p" But im fairly good with my army and I would say I win over 70% of the time. Eldar are OP almost across the board. WK, Scat Bikes, Wraithguard, Psychic shenanigans, D-weapons, BS5 regular infantry that can JSJ ohh and if you don't feel like bringing Strength D weapons you can take AP0 Fire dragons to ensure something explodes. Even if by some miracle I can close the distance with my orks they tend to die in CC to the Eldar CC units because they all have way higher Init and ridiculous abilities to boot.



The Eldar codex is and has been broken since it first came out. ALMOST and I have to emphasize that "ALMOST" all the units in the codex need a points hike and some need a complete rework.

There were a few eldar codex that were only alright in earlier editions. also, you play one of the more powerful codex.. the orks.. wanna talk about a hard time? Dark eldar. Bam.

yeah we've gone over this already, I don't play the Biker heavy Tourny list nor will I ever play Green Tide again because it is so incredibly boring to play and to play against. Orks are OP? so thats why they win all those tournaments recently huh? Just drop it dude. Eldar are OP as hell and need to be hit a few hundred times with the Nerf Hammer.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" whole is no more broken than any other 7th edition codex."

BA. Most of my codex is unplayable garbage. This is a false statement.

You are also rather notorious as the whiniest Blood Angels player on the forum.

Let's do some math, shall we?

Take any 7th editon codex* (or 6th edition Tau) - Orks (Orks have a terrible codex) vs. Eldar* - Scatbikers, D-weapons, and Wraithknights

*Note that allies are not considered on either side of this equation i.e. neither side uses allies

I think you'll find the result is just as balanced as any other matchup where the 7.5 edition army doesn't bring the cheese.

Well so far I have played about 5 games against Eldar and I have won 1 of them. And that was because my SAG rolled boxcars and killed his WK and his HQ in a single phase and the next turn it scattered onto his SCAT bikes.

I played a game against a Eldar player bringing the Full Cheese, WK's SCAT bikes and was tabled by turn 3. I played the same guy who took a 1,500pt army and told me to take a 2k point army. He won by turn 4. I played again against an Eldar player who brought a "Fluffy List" all footdar and he had a Wraith Lord. Not only did he table me again he did it with relative ease.

Yes by all means I except the 1-2 idiots to jump in and say "lol you suk l2p" But im fairly good with my army and I would say I win over 70% of the time. Eldar are OP almost across the board. WK, Scat Bikes, Wraithguard, Psychic shenanigans, D-weapons, BS5 regular infantry that can JSJ ohh and if you don't feel like bringing Strength D weapons you can take AP0 Fire dragons to ensure something explodes. Even if by some miracle I can close the distance with my orks they tend to die in CC to the Eldar CC units because they all have way higher Init and ridiculous abilities to boot.



The Eldar codex is and has been broken since it first came out. ALMOST and I have to emphasize that "ALMOST" all the units in the codex need a points hike and some need a complete rework.

There were a few eldar codex that were only alright in earlier editions. also, you play one of the more powerful codex.. the orks.. wanna talk about a hard time? Dark eldar. Bam.

yeah we've gone over this already, I don't play the Biker heavy Tourny list nor will I ever play Green Tide again because it is so incredibly boring to play and to play against. Orks are OP? so thats why they win all those tournaments recently huh? Just drop it dude. Eldar are OP as hell and need to be hit a few hundred times with the Nerf Hammer.

Shame on you for not playing viable lists, then complaining about not having viable lists. Shame shame... And I never said eldar aren't op. Orks do when tournies. And dark eldar are still worse off.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Shame on you for not playing viable lists, then complaining about not having viable lists. Shame shame... And I never said eldar aren't op. Orks do when tournies. And dark eldar are still worse off.

I am not complaining about viable lists my friend, im complaining that my codex is WEAK. you either play those 2 lists or you don't compete at all. Eldar on the other hand have every unit being OP as hell comparatively. The only ACTUAL OP unit in my codex would be the Mek Gunz. And they aren't so much OP as they are under costed.