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.

 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.

I'll raise your anecdotal evidence with my own. A friend of mine (who used to frequent these boards regularly) has a fluffy eldar list that I regularly beat, with IG.

Neither of our anecdotes are worth anything to the discussion.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The bigger issue is that they're writing rules around marketing and sprue contents.

This sentence didn't get enough attention.

All the design philosophy in the world is irrelevant if the design team isn't actually in charge.

425 base cost WK
Removal of Blade Storm USR
Scatter lasers for bikes going up 10 points per model or limited

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

stop it your making sense.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The bigger issue is that they're writing rules around marketing and sprue contents.

This sentence didn't get enough attention.

All the design philosophy in the world is irrelevant if the design team isn't actually in charge.

Aye. Almost everything that comes out of GW these days, be it rules, art, fluff, etc feels increasingly directed by markating and management, and is increasingly less functional, interesting, and attractive

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

stop it your making sense.

Shhh...it only happens sometimes

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

But... But.... Mah special snowflake speehse elves

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

Well, I might be going into "devil's advocate" territory here but not necessarily.
While they might have the same "effective range" as if they simply had 6 inches more on their range, this requires them to close that extra 6 inches, getting them closer to enemies and enemy weapons.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

As I said before, their guns have always been short ranged. The issue was before 6th edition if you moved with a rapid fire gun you could only fire half range. When 6th came out they decided to give the eldar the mobility they are known for instead of just increasing g the range on their weapons.

In conclusion, the guns used to equal the range of other units weapons, the core rules changed, they gave eldar an ability to account for it instead of just making the guns longer range.

Battle focus IS NOT OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

But... But.... Mah special snowflake speehse elves

How many games did you get in 6th with the 4th ed eldar book? Special snowflake my arse, without battle focus you would never see an infantry unit on the table.

Jetbikes should be 4+
Scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons
Wraithknight should be 395

Everything else is just a FAQ.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

As I said before, their guns have always been short ranged. The issue was before 6th edition if you moved with a rapid fire gun you could only fire half range. When 6th came out they decided to give the eldar the mobility they are known for instead of just increasing g the range on their weapons.

In conclusion, the guns used to equal the range of other units weapons, the core rules changed, they gave eldar an ability to account for it instead of just making the guns longer range.

Battle focus IS NOT OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

But... But.... Mah special snowflake speehse elves

How many games did you get in 6th with the 4th ed eldar book? Special snowflake my arse, without battle focus you would never see an infantry unit on the table.

Jetbikes should be 4+
Scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons
Wraithknight should be 395

Everything else is just a FAQ.

What about D weapons and Firedragons getting special snowflake AP0? Or how about the Allying with DEldar so they can plop Wraithguard randomly around the map to flame things with their stupid D scythes?

I think every army should have 1-2 things they are really good at, 1-2 things they are good at and everything else should be meh or garbage. Right now Eldar are good at everything and thats why people are hating on them. Without list tailoring there is no way to really play a game against Eldar and not be immediately at a disadvantage.

kburn wrote:

- 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.

Your argument is akin to saying "This sandwich is overcosted! Money is a bad idea!"

Points are a balancing mechanic. The devs have just been ignoring them for the last seven editions.


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.

Read and answer:

 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.

Thank you Selym.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

As I said before, their guns have always been short ranged. The issue was before 6th edition if you moved with a rapid fire gun you could only fire half range. When 6th came out they decided to give the eldar the mobility they are known for instead of just increasing g the range on their weapons.

In conclusion, the guns used to equal the range of other units weapons, the core rules changed, they gave eldar an ability to account for it instead of just making the guns longer range.

Battle focus IS NOT OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

But... But.... Mah special snowflake speehse elves

How many games did you get in 6th with the 4th ed eldar book? Special snowflake my arse, without battle focus you would never see an infantry unit on the table.

Jetbikes should be 4+
Scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons
Wraithknight should be 395

Everything else is just a FAQ.

What about D weapons and Firedragons getting special snowflake AP0? Or how about the Allying with DEldar so they can plop Wraithguard randomly around the map to flame things with their stupid D scythes?

I think every army should have 1-2 things they are really good at, 1-2 things they are good at and everything else should be meh or garbage. Right now Eldar are good at everything and thats why people are hating on them. Without list tailoring there is no way to really play a game against Eldar and not be immediately at a disadvantage.

Except the eldar are just the xenos equivalent to space marines. They have the breadth of units to facilitate any strategy you want, and the allies to make it work. But you do have to pick what you want them to have to start. I have never said eldar aren't stronger than other armies. If you look at my houserules, you will see what I've done to make things less rediculous.

What makes me mad is that people would rather make the eldar a laughing stock and their own army ungodly instead of simply trying to balance them accordingly.

As for fire dragons, they are sisters of battle with melta guns. They fill the same slot, don't get the ignores cover or outflank, but gai n and additional +1 to the damage chart and battlefocus. When you look at their role on the table as a suicide unit that is designed to kill a target and then be annihilated, them having a rule to help in that regard shouldn't be a serious issue. Combimelta vets do the same thing, but can kill anything else they need to as well because of special ammunition and are more durable and capable in combat to boot.

If you are taking allies into account for an army's capabilities, then why arent the dark eldar considered th e over powered option? Why not when they are what eliminate the weaknesses inherent in some eldar unit choices? Why aren't blood angels over powered when they are the best way to give droppods to all the armies of the imperium? Eldar units are either slow and durable, or fast and squishy. They all pack a lunch but the balance should be how long it takes to get there. They have points discrepancies (again, I fix those at home) and some of their rules are a bit shoddily worded (again, I poi t to my houserules) but for the most part they are actually balanced.

If there is something in my houserules you disagree with, let me know what and why and I am willing to adjust accordingly

I wouldn't mind the Eldar's current incarnation if either the points costs or their rules reflected the dying race aspect of their existence.

Having "suicide" units seems completely at odds with their situation.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

As I said before, their guns have always been short ranged. The issue was before 6th edition if you moved with a rapid fire gun you could only fire half range. When 6th came out they decided to give the eldar the mobility they are known for instead of just increasing g the range on their weapons.

In conclusion, the guns used to equal the range of other units weapons, the core rules changed, they gave eldar an ability to account for it instead of just making the guns longer range.

It would seem that the better change then would have just been to fix the individual weapons that had range issues. Even then, such weapons are relatively limited in number, it's largely just shuriken catapults, and they increased the range for Dire Avenger catapults to 18" from 12" quite some time ago specifically to address that. Why pistols, meltaguns, flamers, Ranger long rifles, and the like needed to benefit as well, when they already match their Imperial counterparts, is difficult to fathom.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:



What makes me mad is that people would rather make the eldar a laughing stock and their own army ungodly instead of simply trying to balance them accordingly.

Most of the suggestions here I don't think would do anything of the sort, particularly with Eldar psyker support still intact.

As for fire dragons, they are sisters of battle with melta guns. They fill the same slot, don't get the ignores cover or outflank, but gai n and additional +1 to the damage chart and battlefocus.

I assume you mean Dominions? Dominions are FA, not Elite (those are the Celestians...which are abysmal ). They're 23ppm with a meltagun, not 22, and at barebones cost 105pts for a squad with 4 meltas next to a naked squad of Fire Dragons at 110 with 5 meltas. They have inferior WS, Init, and Ld. Their Ignore Cover ability is one-use and reliant on a Leadership test, and they can only include 4 meltaguns, not up to ten. They also can't get formation bonuses that make them BS5.

Really, the only way in which they have any leg up on the Fire Dragons is an Ld-test reliant, one-use ability to ignore cover.

When you look at their role on the table as a suicide unit that is designed to kill a target and then be annihilated, them having a rule to help in that regard shouldn't be a serious issue. Combimelta vets do the same thing, but can kill anything else they need to as well because of special ammunition and are more durable and capable in combat to boot.

The Combi-melta Sternguard Vets are 32ppm, not 22, and can't get BS5 for zero additional points increase. The BS5 and AP0 makes Fire Dragons as effective at one-shotting tanks as BS4 Destroyer weapons (slightly less so against AV14, moreso against AV13 and under, notably moreso against anything open-topped) . A barebones 110pt squad of 5 Fire Dragons like that are exploding AV14 vehicles at 3.12x the rate that a 105pt IG Carapace Melta-vet unit is and inflicting HP loss at more than twice the rate of the guardsmen.

 Selym wrote:
Read and answer [Crash's rant]

Selym dude, I am more than a little tired of seeing Crash getting any traction from that unenlightening and immature freakout, but if you really don't get it here's one last shot.

The facts are exactly as you said, 40k has a balancing mechanism, points, which isn't working. Why isn't it working? I can guarantee you it's NOT because the design team don't understand the concept of costing. The issue is as Vak pointed out, the design team is forced to argue balance against other company priorities, such as sales and marketing. Now guess what. GW probably moves more product through hype and power creep, than by stability. Plenty of players like buying the new hotness and chasing the meta. The minute any faction gets a new OP model or a new OP formation like Skyhammer, all of a sudden, it's selling out. Er, what exactly is the problem on GW's end?

This would be like Blizzard releasing a new Starcraft unit every few months, which required an expensive purchase and usually dominated the game until the next update. And that's what 40k players want. If the new models don't have impressive rules, you typically see a lot of disappointment expressed. Players like buying advantage. They are saying "balance" with their mouth and voting power creep with their wallets.

In light of this I think it's very unlikely we'll see points used as a balancing mechanism, because GW is obviously using them as a sales tool. This isn't necessarily the design team's fault -- the company's ultimate responsibility is to it's shareholders, not consumers of WH40k.

Next, what Crash "asked" is ultimately misleading; balance is not a goal in itself. It's simply a means towards creating quality gameplay and good experiences. And what's good is subjective. Some players like min-maxing their lists, playing standard mission types and dealing with a constantly evolving meta. Some like recreating historical battles completely independent of points values and standardized terrain, or building themed lists that reject min-maxing but instead obey the "rule of cool". One of these groups needs a rigorously applied external balance mechanism for fair gameplay. The other just needs a social understanding. And as a player you can do both these things, they're not mutually exclusive. But these game styles do NOT play well together at the same time.

I'd think the design people at GW understand this very well. A corporate entity is not a hivemind; don't ever assume the decisions taken by a company reflect the opinions or wishes of those inside it, and don't assume they can talk too freely about their real thoughts, either.

The real question is not "do points work". Of course they do. Does "no points" work? Yes, that can work too. But both these systems break down when poorly applied, or when players don't play towards the same goals. The "no points" is not about balance in the end, it's about how 40k is positioned -- it clarifies the type of game style that 40k is meant to be.

Keep in mind while I'm arguing for this point, I personally think there are alternative ways to both preserve the tourney scene while encouraging and clearly distinguishing casual or custom scenario play. Nobody needs to get left behind or feel left out -- and I think that's where Sigmar clearly went wrong, and where GW failed a sizeable part of their audience.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Read and answer [Crash's rant]

Selym dude, I am more than a little tired of seeing Crash getting any traction from that unenlightening and immature freakout, but if you really don't get it here's one last shot.

The facts are exactly as you said, 40k has a balancing mechanism, points, which isn't working. Why isn't it working? I can guarantee you it's NOT because the design team don't understand the concept of costing.

That's a bold guarantee to be making, considering every edition of everything being released from them ever. This is including 2nd edition, where the company was relatively small and was most likely not being lead by the marketing team.

Yoyoyo wrote:

The issue is as Vak pointed out, the design team is forced to argue balance against other company priorities, such as sales and marketing. Now guess what. GW probably moves more product through hype and power creep, than by stability. Plenty of players like buying the new hotness and chasing the meta. The minute any faction gets a new OP model or a new OP formation like Skyhammer, all of a sudden, it's selling out. Er, what exactly is the problem on GW's end?

The problem on GW's sale is that, while that unit might sell quite quickly, the sales of the overall game line have been decreasing. Their revenue is not doing great, and they are destroying their own game through these OP cycles. You saw something similar in hearthstone when the new expansion was released; the new cards were really good, so a lot of players left since their old collections that they worked hard for were crap now.
Other mini games don't do this with new releases. Gaspy 2 and Skarre 1 were original releases, still the strongest in cryx for WMH. Hayley 3, while fun, is not seen more than Siege or Stryker 2. Their sales are going up, while GW is going down.

Yoyoyo wrote:

This would be like Blizzard releasing a new Starcraft unit every few months, which required an expensive purchase and usually dominated the game until the next update. And that's what 40k players want. If the new models don't have impressive rules, you typically see a lot of disappointment expressed. Players like buying advantage. They are saying "balance" with their mouth and voting power creep with their wallets.

You can make things equally strong but different in function, especially in a game like this. If Blizzard did that, people would stop playing starcraft in discuss. Sure, those units would sell quickly, to the few remaining players that are left, but the overall game would tank. Like what we are seeing with GW.
People are voting against power creep with their wallet. Sales are down.

Yoyoyo wrote:

In light of this I think it's very unlikely we'll see points used as a balancing mechanism, because GW is obviously using them as a sales tool. This isn't necessarily the design team's fault -- the company's ultimate responsibility is to it's shareholders, not consumers of WH40k.

Points are used as a balancing mechanism for a vast majority of war games for a reason. Only historicals, as far as I know, don't use them. AoS isn't doing well with many players...I believe the last tournament had 22 pages of house rules, for a 4 page rulebook.
We can point the finger at different members of the design team quite easily. Why did nids go from great to garbage? Cruddance. Why are eldar and wolves strong? Kelly. Why did demons break fantasy? Ward. Keep in mind that the last one was a death knell for fantasy.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Next, what Crash "asked" is ultimately misleading; balance is not a goal in itself. It's simply a means towards creating quality gameplay and good experiences. And what's good is subjective. Some players like min-maxing their lists, playing standard mission types and dealing with a constantly evolving meta. Some like recreating historical battles completely independent of points values and standardized terrain, or building themed lists that reject min-maxing but instead obey the "rule of cool". One of these groups needs a rigorously applied external balance mechanism for fair gameplay. The other just needs a social understanding. And as a player you can do both these things, they're not mutually exclusive. But these game styles do NOT play well together at the same time.

You are very wrong here, outside of the fact historical battles chose not to use points.
Balance helps casual players MORE than competitive players. Competitive players tend to buy 1 or 2 lists and just play that until editions change. Casuals who like the setting have huge collections and field what they think looks cool, or just what they think looks cool and nothing else. Usually units that look cool are pretty bad in this game, for whatever reason.
Take marines. Best unit is the Centurions. They look hideous, and are a terrible model. People who care about the setting especially hate them. Terminators, one of the fluffy cool units that draws kids into the game, is terrible. And has been forever.
If the game was balanced to any degree, you could build a list with a theme in mind and have it work, instead of spamming the really strong unit or cheap formations.

Worse yet, a casual player who plays eldar or necrons will roll a Chaos player quite easily. Their dex is overall just better at everything. A competitive player doesn't have that problem; they would never play Chaos Space Marines and instead would use Codex Marines for their army. In what world does this help anybody?

Yoyoyo wrote:

I'd think the design people at GW understand this very well. A corporate entity is not a hivemind; don't ever assume the decisions taken by a company reflect the opinions or wishes of those inside it, and don't assume they can talk too freely about their real thoughts, either.

A company is the decisions of everyone inside of it summed up. The design team and marketing team must work together to make a good product. Other companies manage this quite well, GW fails.
You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that GW understands anything very well.

Yoyoyo wrote:

The real question is not "do points work". Of course they do. Does "no points" work? Yes, that can work too. But both these systems break down when poorly applied, or when players don't play towards the same goals. The "no points" is not about balance in the end, it's about how 40k is positioned -- it clarifies the type of game style that 40k is meant to be.

A historical game? A game where you don't play your armies, but recreate battles from the fluff that number way over what most players own? That's not what I signed up for.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Keep in mind while I'm arguing for this point, I personally think there are alternative ways to both preserve the tourney scene while encouraging and clearly distinguishing casual or custom scenario play. Nobody needs to get left behind or feel left out -- and I think that's where Sigmar clearly went wrong, and where GW failed a sizeable part of their audience.

Fantasy has been dead since demons. The game was broken, usually by the magic system, for a few editions now.


Also, you may want to tone down the condescending tone. Most of the people on this site are engineers, programmers, managers, and professors. You'd be surprised how many of us understand how companies are supposed to work, and why GW doesn't.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Read and answer [Crash's rant]

You're arguing that, because points are being misused in 40k, that points shouldn't be used at all.
Crash's statement is that a game /with/ points has more advantages over a game that /does not/ have points.
In a game with points, you have a base to work with, making balancing modifications easier, and possibly mathematically modelled.
In a game with points, you can ignore the points, and have a scenario based game.

In a game without points, you can only do the latter.

Further, you seem to be under the impression that we give a toss about what is good for GW.

We don't. The thread is asking "how can we make Eldar balanced". Your response is "remove points".

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

This would seem to defeat the point of making such weapons short ranged in the first place

As I said before, their guns have always been short ranged. The issue was before 6th edition if you moved with a rapid fire gun you could only fire half range. When 6th came out they decided to give the eldar the mobility they are known for instead of just increasing g the range on their weapons.

In conclusion, the guns used to equal the range of other units weapons, the core rules changed, they gave eldar an ability to account for it instead of just making the guns longer range.

It would seem that the better change then would have just been to fix the individual weapons that had range issues. Even then, such weapons are relatively limited in number, it's largely just shuriken catapults, and they increased the range for Dire Avenger catapults to 18" from 12" quite some time ago specifically to address that. Why pistols, meltaguns, flamers, Ranger long rifles, and the like needed to benefit as well, when they already match their Imperial counterparts, is difficult to fathom.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:



What makes me mad is that people would rather make the eldar a laughing stock and their own army ungodly instead of simply trying to balance them accordingly.

Most of the suggestions here I don't think would do anything of the sort, particularly with Eldar psyker support still intact.

As for fire dragons, they are sisters of battle with melta guns. They fill the same slot, don't get the ignores cover or outflank, but gai n and additional +1 to the damage chart and battlefocus.

I assume you mean Dominions? Dominions are FA, not Elite (those are the Celestians...which are abysmal ). They're 23ppm with a meltagun, not 22, and at barebones cost 105pts for a squad with 4 meltas next to a naked squad of Fire Dragons at 110 with 5 meltas. They have inferior WS, Init, and Ld. Their Ignore Cover ability is one-use and reliant on a Leadership test, and they can only include 4 meltaguns, not up to ten. They also can't get formation bonuses that make them BS5.

Really, the only way in which they have any leg up on the Fire Dragons is an Ld-test reliant, one-use ability to ignore cover.

When you look at their role on the table as a suicide unit that is designed to kill a target and then be annihilated, them having a rule to help in that regard shouldn't be a serious issue. Combimelta vets do the same thing, but can kill anything else they need to as well because of special ammunition and are more durable and capable in combat to boot.

The Combi-melta Sternguard Vets are 32ppm, not 22, and can't get BS5 for zero additional points increase. The BS5 and AP0 makes Fire Dragons as effective at one-shotting tanks as BS4 Destroyer weapons (slightly less so against AV14, moreso against AV13 and under, notably moreso against anything open-topped) . A barebones 110pt squad of 5 Fire Dragons like that are exploding AV14 vehicles at 3.12x the rate that a 105pt IG Carapace Melta-vet unit is and inflicting HP loss at more than twice the rate of the guardsmen.

Eldar long rifles can't benefit from battle focus, and the avenger shuriken catapults were given their range to make them better than most army's sidearms. You can't add the benefit some units might get for formations as a talking point about unit viability. I don't say the space marine tactical squads are broken because they have objective secured or free transports. The eldar are mobile. That has been a part of their fluff since I started playing this game, and is the reason I started them as an army. Battle focus allows them to get within range with their weapons quickly without the need for a transport. The army needs that because we don't have cheap ones in codex.

As for firedragons and other units, don't those sisters get outflank, allowing them to get their target efficiently even without a transport. If I want to get my fire dragons the ability to deepstrike without problem, I have to buy a 60 point character, a 35 point upgrade, and a 40 point troop unit. So that unit of firedragons, in order to do what deepstriking melta sternguard can do cost me 245 points and another codex. The sterguard in a drop pod are 190 AND they have more durability, melee ability, and viable targets due to weapon loadout than the fire dragons do. For the unarmored melta vets, they can take 7 casualties before losing any ofb their efficiency at killing vehicles. Fire dragons do one thing better than everyone else, and that is kill vehicles. They do not do it cheap, they are not going to survive long after, and they are certainly not overpowered.

 Selym wrote:
You're arguing that, because points are being misused in 40k, that points shouldn't be used at all.
Crash's statement is that a game /with/ points has more advantages over a game that /does not/ have points.
In a game with points, you have a base to work with, making balancing modifications easier, and possibly mathematically modelled.
In a game with points, you can ignore the points, and have a scenario based game.

In a game without points, you can only do the latter.

Thank you again Selym, he seems to be so preoccupied with dismissing what I said as an "immature freakout" because I had the stones to use the perfectly valid tool of emphasis that he can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote.

 Selym wrote:
We don't. The thread is asking "how can we make Eldar balanced". Your response is "remove points".

Honestly? That's not what I'm saying. I'm more interested in pulling apart problems, than offering solutions.

 Selym wrote:
In a game with points, you have a base to work with, making balancing modifications easier, and possibly mathematically modelled.

We already have that. And yet, this thread exists.

Akiasura wrote:
If the game was balanced to any degree, you could build a list with a theme in mind and have it work, instead of spamming the really strong unit or cheap formations.

That's not how competitive games works. You take the units that have the most effective synergies or best counter the enemy's units. Your feelings and your preferences run second to knowledge of effectiveness.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Selym wrote:
In a game with points, you have a base to work with, making balancing modifications easier, and possibly mathematically modelled.

We already have that. And yet, this thread exists.

Correlation =/= cause.
Yes, 40k uses points. Yes, there are balancing issues.
Did points cause the balancing issues? No. Poor writing, lack of playtesting and sales bias did.

I don't disagree with that Selym, in fact I thought I already said as much myself. The questions are this:

1) What type of game is 40k trying to position itself as?
2) What kind of freedom does the 40k design team at GW actually possess to implement changes to the company's structure, which could better balance the game in the future?

I don't think you're going to find the answers to these questions on dakka.

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.

Uh what your an imperial player saying your army is unplayable? Grow a back bone I play csm don't see me complaining about actually having to use tactics to win. Oh sorry I forgot I don't play sparkly vampires

Champion of Slaanesh 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.

Uh what your an imperial player saying your army is unplayable? Grow a back bone I play csm don't see me complaining about actually having to use tactics to win. Oh sorry I forgot I don't play sparkly vampires

I play dark eldar. Don't see me complaining either.

Champion of Slaanesh 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.

Uh what your an imperial player saying your army is unplayable? Grow a back bone I play csm don't see me complaining about actually having to use tactics to win. Oh sorry I forgot I don't play sparkly vampires

That was a bit harsh. Blood Angels didn't get all the new shiny toys that Vanilla got. In fact, they lost stuff. And considering he plays in a highly competitive meta, I'm sure he has an uphill battle every game.

You're also talking about a game where tactics matters little most of the time.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't disagree with that Selym, in fact I thought I already said as much myself. The questions are this:

1) What type of game is 40k trying to position itself as?
In its current arc, a company scale pitched battle, with capacity for skirmish engagements and heroic encounters. The schizophrenic ruleset this causes is one of the major balancing issues in 40k.

2) What kind of freedom does the 40k design team at GW actually possess to implement changes to the company's structure, which could better balance the game in the future?
No freedom whatsoever. If they have leeway to make half a codex balanced, there will be 2-5 items in there that GW insisted on having that result in codex creep or codex failure. This thread has shown that it is relatively easy to locate the major issues, and resolve them. Something anyone with 3-5 games of playtest per unit could have figured out. Luckily this thread is about what we would do, because if it is about what GW would do, the answer is "release new kit, make it super op, screw everything else" and "Ultramarines get an equivalent or counter item",

I don't think you're going to find the answers to these questions on dakka.
Just did

 krodarklorr wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh 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.

Uh what your an imperial player saying your army is unplayable? Grow a back bone I play csm don't see me complaining about actually having to use tactics to win. Oh sorry I forgot I don't play sparkly vampires

That was a bit harsh. Blood Angels didn't get all the new shiny toys that Vanilla got. In fact, they lost stuff. And considering he plays in a highly competitive meta, I'm sure he has an uphill battle every game.

You're also talking about a game where tactics matters little most of the time.

Idk about tactics maybe it could just be the fantasy player in me but I use quite a few tactics lol. My area is quite competitive itself not OTT competitive but there's some quite tough lists. Yes Blood Angels lost some stuff so did csm heck my csm list is actually mostly marine stuff with 1 daemon unit in the entire thing (oblits)

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh 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.

Uh what your an imperial player saying your army is unplayable? Grow a back bone I play csm don't see me complaining about actually having to use tactics to win. Oh sorry I forgot I don't play sparkly vampires

That was a bit harsh. Blood Angels didn't get all the new shiny toys that Vanilla got. In fact, they lost stuff. And considering he plays in a highly competitive meta, I'm sure he has an uphill battle every game.

You're also talking about a game where tactics matters little most of the time.

Idk about tactics maybe it could just be the fantasy player in me but I use quite a few tactics lol. My area is quite competitive itself not OTT competitive but there's some quite tough lists. Yes Blood Angels lost some stuff so did csm heck my csm list is actually mostly marine stuff with 1 daemon unit in the entire thing (oblits)

I'm not saying tactics are non-existent, but Fantasy made them to much more prevalent (rip fantasy). Minus the OP spells and gross codex imbalance (surprise), fantasy had quite a bit of tactics. Where and when to charge, using chaff units, where to move units, which units to buff this turn, where and when to take cover, ext. 40k is more like: When to head for objectives, what to keep in reserves, which unit to burn down this turn. Most of the mentioned tactics for fantasy do not matter in the slightest for 40k.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh 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.

Uh what your an imperial player saying your army is unplayable? Grow a back bone I play csm don't see me complaining about actually having to use tactics to win. Oh sorry I forgot I don't play sparkly vampires

That was a bit harsh. Blood Angels didn't get all the new shiny toys that Vanilla got. In fact, they lost stuff. And considering he plays in a highly competitive meta, I'm sure he has an uphill battle every game.

You're also talking about a game where tactics matters little most of the time.

Idk about tactics maybe it could just be the fantasy player in me but I use quite a few tactics lol. My area is quite competitive itself not OTT competitive but there's some quite tough lists. Yes Blood Angels lost some stuff so did csm heck my csm list is actually mostly marine stuff with 1 daemon unit in the entire thing (oblits)

I'm not saying tactics are non-existent, but Fantasy made them to much more prevalent (rip fantasy). Minus the OP spells and gross codex imbalance (surprise), fantasy had quite a bit of tactics. Where and when to charge, using chaff units, where to move units, which units to buff this turn, where and when to take cover, ext. 40k is more like: When to head for objectives, what to keep in reserves, which unit to burn down this turn. Most of the mentioned tactics for fantasy do not matter in the slightest for 40k.

I do agree to some extent there but quite a few tactics do exist in 40k. I will say though that obviously the list you bring in 40k is more important than fantasy but in general I play my csm like I used to try to play my dark elves fast with tactical hard hitting strikes lol