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.

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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

Martel732 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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

But you can easily augment your blood angels with allies and get rid of alot of BAS weaknesses where as csm as far as I'm concerned I only have 2 real allies R&H and daemons. I never use R&H and I rarely ally the few Nurgle Daemons I have in as my great Unclean One seems to annoy people

Martel732 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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

I concur. BA have terrible performance, and the IG codex isn't compatible with itself.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

Martel732 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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

But you can easily augment your blood angels with allies and get rid of alot of BAS weaknesses where as csm as far as I'm concerned I only have 2 real allies R&H and daemons. I never use R&H and I rarely ally the few Nurgle Daemons I have in as my great Unclean One seems to annoy people

Having allies does not mean a codex is any good.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

I concur. BA have terrible performance, and the IG codex isn't compatible with itself.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

Martel732 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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

But you can easily augment your blood angels with allies and get rid of alot of BAS weaknesses where as csm as far as I'm concerned I only have 2 real allies R&H and daemons. I never use R&H and I rarely ally the few Nurgle Daemons I have in as my great Unclean One seems to annoy people

Having allies does not mean a codex is any good.

I never said that I was pointing out as a imperial player he has a easy time removing his armies weaknesses via allies

True enough. Still makes some of us fairly annoyed though. Especially as "Codex: Allies" costs a minimum of £60-£75...

It does me too why do you think I rarely ally my daemons in lol. Heck I refuse to play daemons as a solo army as they either end up being stupid or rubbish.

I run a almost pure mech Nurgle csm army so I can feel the pain purist BA players must feel but then again I started csm as my first proper 40k army with their previous book

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

Martel732 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

Imperium in no way means the codex is good.

But you can easily augment your blood angels with allies and get rid of alot of BAS weaknesses where as csm as far as I'm concerned I only have 2 real allies R&H and daemons. I never use R&H and I rarely ally the few Nurgle Daemons I have in as my great Unclean One seems to annoy people

That's not BA being good. As soon as I start "augmenting" with allies, I might as well get rid of all the BA units. They are just liabilities.

"as a imperial player he has a easy time removing his armies weaknesses via allies"

My wallet doesn't think it so easy.

Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

Be warned, this is the guy who thinks land raiders cause you to auto-lose.

 Selym wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

Be warned, this is the guy who thinks land raiders cause you to auto-lose.

Wow guess my chaos marines didn't get the memo lol

To be fair, he supposedly plays in a local scene where people are always balls out competitive with scatbikes, D scythe wraithguard, wraithknights, decurions, and the other top table lists. I wouldn't run a land raider in today's top table meta either.

See I'm probably lucky there my meta has most things all the way from space mutts to a nasty white scars biker army lol so my land raider is actually useful

 Selym wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

Be warned, this is the guy who thinks land raiders cause you to auto-lose.

Land Raiders basically ARE an auto loss. Very little firepower, too expensive for the fragility, and compete with the Spartan Assault Tank, which can get Melta immunity.

Land raiders are NOT auto lose I've only ever lost mine turn 1 once and that was yesterday after I went at full speed + flat out to 1 grab a objective 2 to get my lord and his terminator retinue in range to charge the skitarri/grey knight lines turn 2

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

Be warned, this is the guy who thinks land raiders cause you to auto-lose.

Land Raiders basically ARE an auto loss. Very little firepower, too expensive for the fragility, and compete with the Spartan Assault Tank, which can get Melta immunity.

My Templars use two Land Raiders.
They are useful. Could do with being cheaper, but my army would be worse without them.

 Selym wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

Be warned, this is the guy who thinks land raiders cause you to auto-lose.

Land Raiders basically ARE an auto loss. Very little firepower, too expensive for the fragility, and compete with the Spartan Assault Tank, which can get Melta immunity.

My Templars use two Land Raiders.
They are useful. Could do with being cheaper, but my army would be worse without them.

And when you read the stats and options of the Spartan, you weep for what purpose the Land Raider could possibly fulfill.

Arguing about land raiders in your flgs games is silly. Your local meta can make them anywhere from godlike to dead on arrival.
In the widespread competitive meta, they don't have a place in a list trying to get to the top. That much is certain.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Arguing about land raiders in your flgs games is silly. Your local meta can make them anywhere from godlike to dead on arrival.
In the widespread competitive meta, they don't have a place in a list trying to get to the top. That much is certain.

Well, yea, not with Wraithcannons around.

Actually there is a eldar player who goes Wraith heavy but he hardly ever comes in lol. Then there's another Eldar player who uses guardians with aspect and fire prism support lol. And there's quite a few vanilla marine and admech players plus atleast one Necron player and a couple of nid ones. So my meta is quite diverse

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Eldar long rifles can't benefit from battle focus,

Can they not? I must have missed that. Either way, still applies for the other weapons.

and the avenger shuriken catapults were given their range to make them better than most army's sidearms.

And with Battle Focus they largely match everyone else's range, and are in fact superior at that "over 12" range. It's hard to see this rule as compensating for any general lack of range on the part of the army as a whole.

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.

They have to finagle the army a whole lot more to get that, whereas Fire Dragons can get it without changing the unit or model composition of many existing armies.

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.

Even with Battle Focus, I don't see people taking most Eldar units without transports. It's almost without exception used to augment transport disembark or movement after disembark, not to initially cross the board to engage (where really a run augment would provide more value).

As for firedragons and other units, don't those sisters get outflank, allowing them to get their target efficiently even without a transport

This assumes their target is within easy range of a flank, really it's typically most used to get more movement turn 1, which Eldar having Fast Skimmer transports matches pretty well. I don't recall ever seeing Dominions having been used footslogging.

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.

Or you can just take one of the two best transports/medium tanks in the game and engage a target just about anywhere on the board by turn 2. With my Fire Dragons I've never felt the need for a deep strike option, I've never had a problem getting them to their targets on time.

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.

Mostly only at longer ranges. Within meltagun range, the meltas work pretty well except against large numbers of weeny infantry. The Sternguard only get to fire their meltas once, and are only more durable against attacks S5 and lower (which isn't unimportant, but with the weapons these units are equipped with, T is a rather irrelevant stat in many respects). For purpose of which these units are taken and utilized, the Fire Dragons are drastically superior.

For the unarmored melta vets, they can take 7 casualties before losing any ofb their efficiency at killing vehicles.

Hrm, in theory? Maybe. In practice, often those meltas are the first thing to go between having to stretch to get within range and casualty removal rules. Likewise, the Fire Dragons can lose 3 Meltaguns before they're worse at inflicting HP damage on AV14 tanks and 4 meltaguns before they're worse at inflicting Explodes results.

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.

They do it several multiples more effectively than equivalent units at largely equivalent prices, they're still pretty excellent against heavy infantry and MC's, and their AP0 special rule and ability to make them BS5 were absolutely unwarranted, nobody thought they had any problems killing tanks when they didn't have those in the previous book.

 Selym wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Arguing about land raiders in your flgs games is silly. Your local meta can make them anywhere from godlike to dead on arrival.
In the widespread competitive meta, they don't have a place in a list trying to get to the top. That much is certain.

Well, yea, not with Wraithcannons around.

My BA are on a first name basis with those damn things.


And, yes, I think LRs are awful. I always snicker a bit on the inside when my opponent has them. It's a really expensive way to do one assault. Assuming it doesn't get stuck on a bush.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Well what kind of lists are you fielding? If your trying to go assault heavy then is it any wonder your struggling. Have you tried fielding a mech army

By mech, I do frequently hide units in Rhinos. Any other marine tank at this point is a bit suspect at best. AV 11 sides suck.

Yoyoyo 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.

I can't speak to some competitive games, but in WMH you can run themed lists. You may have to pick certain casters, but if you want a theme, it's usually very doable. The game is balanced enough that most ideas or concepts can be played.

40k that is not the case, because 40k has a noticeable disparity between good choices and bad. Saim Hann or iyanden will destroy an ultra marine or tyranid swarm themed list. Yet all are fluffy. Balance would fix this, not hurt it in any way.

But turn one negation is a quick way to guarantee superiority. The eldar fast dedicated transports are way more expensive than the dedicated transports other similarly coated units utilise. After the drop, longer range benefits matter because there will be little in the way of targets for foot spotters afterwards.

When you look at lists in 6th ed, how many exarchs did you see? None, because they were considered not worth the points. So now if you want to run the aspect warrior host you not only need three units, some of which you may not have wanted, and all of them have to take the search also, which while better than before is still something you may not have wanted to add to your army. Especially if you had all of your aspect warriors built without them. If I am spending 220+ points on a delivery system and unit to allow them to (maybe) kill a single vehicle, I expect it to be damn good at its specific job. That's the point of a specialist unit.

As for the long rifle, it is heavy, thereby excluded from being used in conjunction with battle focus.

Dire avengers are still more susceptible to small arms fire than marines, and are still out ranged by most troop units. In order to get their double tap, they have to get within 18", meaning they are a 6" movement away from being double tapped themselves. Even if they run afterwards they will still be in range to be shot at and they do NOT want to be shot at. They are as survivable to small arms fire as carapace vets or fire warriors but are 5 points more expensive per model. They should be more capable then their opposite units.

Even if Dire Avengers have some practical advantage over marines or what have you, they are NOT the problem unit in the Eldar codex.

Right. I fixed the problems in my houserules (see page one)

I am just trying to show where discrepancies actually lie with the army.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Right. I fixed the problems in my houserules (see page one)

I am just trying to show where discrepancies actually lie with the army.

Foot DA are actually usually in big trouble vs BA because sometimes we can save bladestorm wounds with FNP and assaulting them at S5 wipes them up quickly. But I guess that's why no one uses them.