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.

Don't forget that in 3rd, Eldar had the infamous Waithlord spam list that dominated the GW forums, causing so many arguments, and thus, having them shut down their community outreach for more than a decade

2nd... Eldar had Warp Spiders that killed anything that failed initiative tests.... I hated having my Necrons killed on pretty much a 2+ by Warp Spiders lol

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Anyone remember that small period at the start of 5th when orks were awesome... I member

Nob bikers, man. I was blown away the first time I ran against them. Very nearly started a biker army with the FW models.

....They weren't even good. It was simply wound shenanigans that let them maintain a HIGH level of killiness longer then similar units. They were a T5, 2 Wound model with a 4+ save, they weren't exactly fearsome, they just took a lot of killing

You basically just said something wasn't good, then proceeded to explain why that unit was, in fact, good. To clarify, I never said they were amazing, but no one can deny that they were a powerful, versatile unit that could fit in most Ork lists and could be as small or large as your point level needed to be.

Ultimately, they were fun, and the modelling opportunities and available models were awesome (though expensive). Nob bikers were definitely one of a few aspects of Orks in that edition that made them a solid codex.

 BuFFo wrote:
Don't forget that in 3rd, Eldar had the infamous Waithlord spam list that dominated the GW forums, causing so many arguments, and thus, having them shut down their community outreach for more than a decade

2nd... Eldar had Warp Spiders that killed anything that failed initiative tests.... I hated having my Necrons killed on pretty much a 2+ by Warp Spiders lol

Actually they killed the forums when GW put in a serious nerf against Nid warriors that was completely unnecessary and had the entire forum up against them until GW removed the nerf. They shut down the forums almost immediately after that.

 Mmmpi wrote:
4th was better balanced across the codex, but wave serpent spam dominated.

I watched an entire apocalypse army bounce off 4e falcon formation until sororitas exorcists rolled up with +1 on the glancing damage chart to break them down.

5e eldar probably peaked with the warp hunter, and endless complaints that their heavy weapons weren't as cheap as the 3e dark eldar (who could field something like 27 lances/dissies, 5 fast skimmers, and 40 scoring troops at 1000pts... and not all that much more beyond 1k).

pm713 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

Not sure about 8th, but in 6th/7th every unit was worth taking.

Rangers, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians, Illic Nightspear, Wraithlords, Wraithblades. All of those weren't worthwhile in either 6th, 7th or both. Eldar in 6th was based hugely on Wave Serpents and 7th was largely WK, Scatbikes and Warp Spiders with another two units being swapped around.

Seems like you don't get what a bad unit is. For Bad consult 6-7 ed possessed and flash gitz.
Out of what you've listed as bad only Illic was remotely like this.

 koooaei wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

Not sure about 8th, but in 6th/7th every unit was worth taking.

Rangers, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians, Illic Nightspear, Wraithlords, Wraithblades. All of those weren't worthwhile in either 6th, 7th or both. Eldar in 6th was based hugely on Wave Serpents and 7th was largely WK, Scatbikes and Warp Spiders with another two units being swapped around.

Seems like you don't get what a bad unit is. For Bad consult 6-7 ed possessed and flash gitz.
Out of what you've listed as bad only Illic was remotely like this.

I did some maths. Even on the move flash gitz outgun rangers point for point vs GEQ, MEQ and TEQ in 7th. Standing still they could do twice the damage vs GEQ and MEQ. It seems like you don't get what a bad unit is.

Rangers were much more durable, had 36' gunz and a sniper rule. Besides, they were troops with a bunch of hrlpful special rules. It's hard to make flash gitz look even remotely as good as rangers. You're just spoiled with good stuff. It's like saying hey, look, i've done some math and tactical marines are more durable than scatbikes. That's why scatbikes are worse.

 koooaei wrote:
Rangers were much more durable, had 36' gunz and a sniper rule. Besides, they were troops with a bunch of hrlpful special rules. It's hard to make flash gitz look even remotely as good as rangers. You're just spoiled with good stuff. It's like saying hey, look, i've done some math and tactical marines are more durable than scatbikes. That's why scatbikes are worse.

A. Tactical marines weren't more durable, the bikes had the same T and save but could jink.
B. Rangers were only more durable if you were shooting at them in cover and I don't see why you ever would. If you were wanting to take an objective they were sitting on charge them with anything and they fall over. If not they don't do enough damage to be worth shooting.
C. Most of the special rules were to do with movement, snipers don't move. Already addressed shrouded in B. Infiltrate just means they are easier to charge because they are closer.
D. Even if in the end they come out slightly better than gitz that still doesn't make them an okay unit, just slightly less bad.

Karol wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe am biased then, I look at the eldar codex and can't find a single bad unit comparing to the ones in my codex. Plus eldar can always go Inari, something my army can't do.

But you can go and play whatever army is top tier in your area.

Not with the models I own, or is this some sort of sarcasm thing? I often miss those. Plus am sure it is not just my army feels that way, I have looked through lists that are being played and the eldar ones, depending on scenarios or missions, seem to use the largest number of different units. While some armies have this one army where the same units and characters are taken over and over again. Now am not saying I have seen all the lists in the world, but I did talk with people that play longer then me and they said it was always the case, and became and even bigger thing when ally systems were added .

I have no problems with eldar having a lot good units, now or through history. I would like my codex to have the same number of valid army choices .

There are roughly seven valid competitive army choices for CWE right now.

-Farseer on bike
-Autarch on bike
-Rangers
-Shining Spears
-Wave Serpents
-Dark Reapers
-Warlock/Spiritseer/Warlock Conclave/Some kind of Runes of Battle Caster I think post-FAQ nerf most people have shifted to a 2-man Conclave from Spiritseers

Completely mono-tactic (always Alaitoc in every competitive list).

The number of viable units around for CWE is almost comparable to the number of viable units that appear in factions that almost everyone agrees are extremely low-tier right now. Compare to

-Guilliman
-Lieutenant
-Razorback
-Stalker
-Scouts
-Stormraven

Or

-Warboss on Bike
-Big Mek On Bike
-Weirdboy
-Stormboyz
-Ork Boyz
-KMK
-Kommandos

So while CWE have been performing pretty well, we know that their hold on the meta is pretty brittle and tied to a few specific units..most of which got nerfed in the new FAQ in one way or another. It's not yet clear how units from Drukhari or Harlequins are likely to supplant units from CWE in competitive soup builds, and much like we now see a whole lot less of codex: CSM in chaos lists, I'm thinking it's pretty likely we'll be seeing a lot less CWE in lists after Drukhari and Harlequins fully impact the meta.

You've missed a few units for eldar that have performed in tournaments.

-Guardians
-Wraithguard/Wraithblades
-Hemlocks
-Other Autarcha and Farseer builds.

Further your argument is disingenuous.

People argue books are low tier because they don't perform. SO saying "x" units are viable, when one book is placing 100th and the other first is not really a good comparison.

Beyond that there isn't really a competitive non-soup build for any army that can currently soup.

the_scotsman wrote:
The number of viable units around for CWE is almost comparable to the number of viable units that appear in factions that almost everyone agrees are extremely low-tier right now. Compare to...

The difference is that those seven eldar units shut out the top three spots of the las vegas open this year. SM Razorbacks and lieutenants... didn't.

Besides Eldar can easily add more to that list - the fliers, swooping hawks, the odd guardian blob, some of the named characters for instance.

 koooaei wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

Not sure about 8th, but in 6th/7th every unit was worth taking.

Rangers, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians, Illic Nightspear, Wraithlords, Wraithblades. All of those weren't worthwhile in either 6th, 7th or both. Eldar in 6th was based hugely on Wave Serpents and 7th was largely WK, Scatbikes and Warp Spiders with another two units being swapped around.

Seems like you don't get what a bad unit is. For Bad consult 6-7 ed possessed and flash gitz.
Out of what you've listed as bad only Illic was remotely like this.

Perhaps you could tell me how something that has S3 AP- attacks, armour ignored by almost everything in the game and no assault transport isn't bad? Or how Rangers aren't bad when you're lucky to deal three wounds with them before saves?

Should we rename this thread to: "Shame on eldar players for GW writing a codex"?

That's all that I've seen for about 3 pages.

Specialist army with an answer for just about anything being able to counter... things.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Should we rename this thread to: "Shame on eldar players for GW writing a codex"?

No, because nothing of the sort has taken place.

That's all that I've seen for about 3 pages.

Maybe because the answer to the OP about which army has consistently been good is Eldar. No one is blaming the players.

Specialist army with an answer for just about anything being able to counter... things.

But it goes further by having units in ever edition that are leagues above and beyond normal balance levels.

pm713 wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me how something that has S3 AP- attacks, armour ignored by almost everything in the game and no assault transport isn't bad?

Guardsmen? Cultists?

A.T. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me how something that has S3 AP- attacks, armour ignored by almost everything in the game and no assault transport isn't bad?

Guardsmen? Cultists?

Get to be taken en masse and have ranged weaponry? A guardsmen can sit still and pump out a lot of shots from half a board away. Storm Guardians can fail at punching you or shoot not many not amazing shots from 12" away before anyone with a gun butchers them.

pm713 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me how something that has S3 AP- attacks, armour ignored by almost everything in the game and no assault transport isn't bad?

Guardsmen? Cultists?

Get to be taken en masse and have ranged weaponry? A guardsmen can sit still and pump out a lot of shots from half a board away. Storm Guardians can fail at punching you or shoot not many not amazing shots from 12" away before anyone with a gun butchers them.

Ah, 6-7e storm guardians.

Got confused by the description of S3 AP- attacks when the unit had strength 4 rending shooting (literally a more powerful game long free version of the old sororitas most powerful faith ability), and IIRC a bunch of bonuses including four free meltaguns and power swords when taken in formation.

A.T. wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The number of viable units around for CWE is almost comparable to the number of viable units that appear in factions that almost everyone agrees are extremely low-tier right now. Compare to...

The difference is that those seven eldar units shut out the top three spots of the las vegas open this year. SM Razorbacks and lieutenants... didn't.

Besides Eldar can easily add more to that list - the fliers, swooping hawks, the odd guardian blob, some of the named characters for instance.

The relevance of the performance of CWE before the deep strike nerf, Dark Reaper nerf, Farseer Nerf, Spiritseer Nerf, the latest Ynnari nerf and the rule of 3 is about as relevant as me bringing up the early stormraven dominance of marines before the flyer nerf....i.e., not.

I don't include Guardian blobs because post DS nerf they are irrelevant.

I didn't include Swooping Hawks for the same reason.

Fire dragons - ditto, people would deep strike them.

The flyers, sure, I'd definitely say I missed Crimson Hunters. I don't really recall seeing a Hemlock making an appearance in competitive play because it's so far outperformed by CH for the cost. Maybe someone's taking it for a Jinx replacement to the now nerfed Spiritseer?

Similarly, the number of non-bike Farseers or Autarchs I've seen have been vanishingly small. Maybe someone's run a jump autarch pre DS nerf? Maybe a foot farseer? If I'd listed "Primaris Lieutenant" and "Lieutenant" as TWO viable marine units you know someone (or like, three particular someones) would be jumping down my throat.

The overall point is: CWE is showing itself to be a brittle faction in the meta. When something like the chaff-clearing alpha strike of Guardians in webway gets nerfed, it's gone, with no real replacement. When Dark Reapers and Farseers got nerfed, they stayed in everyone's list, because Farseers are the only option for ROF casters and Dark Reapers are the only actually good heavy fire support unit out of the codex.

Compare this kind of response to nerfs with, say, Guard. Conscripts get nerfed? The other two Troops choices are also good. Tallarn gets nerfed? Everyones a Catachan, or a Cadian. Manticores get nerfed? Good thing we have 4 other good heavy fire support vehicle options. Flying low-T transports enter the meta? Good thing we've got these Hydras.

This is the difference between a really strong codex and a codex with a handful of strong options. CSM/Tsons codex vs Death Guard/Nurgle Daemons. Marine codex vs Guard codex. Depth means when one thing gets nerfed, you can take something else in the codex that does the same thing and see only a very slight impact on your performance. Lack of depth means you say "Welp, that's nerfed, guess I don't have an anti-infantry alpha strike unit anymore."

Breng77 wrote:
You've missed a few units for eldar that have performed in tournaments.

-Guardians
-Wraithguard/Wraithblades
-Hemlocks
-Other Autarcha and Farseer builds.

Further your argument is disingenuous.

People argue books are low tier because they don't perform. SO saying "x" units are viable, when one book is placing 100th and the other first is not really a good comparison.

Beyond that there isn't really a competitive non-soup build for any army that can currently soup.

You're right about Guardians and Hemlocks (and the Autarch/Farseer statement is vague enough that it's basically both right and wrong), but what about a source on Wraithguard/Wraithblades in competitive lists? I could maybe maybe believe you on Wraithguard (though I haven't seen any lists with them), but I'll call BS on Wraithblades (but would love to be proved wrong)

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe am biased then, I look at the eldar codex and can't find a single bad unit comparing to the ones in my codex. Plus eldar can always go Inari, something my army can't do.

But you can go and play whatever army is top tier in your area.

Not with the models I own, or is this some sort of sarcasm thing? I often miss those. Plus am sure it is not just my army feels that way, I have looked through lists that are being played and the eldar ones, depending on scenarios or missions, seem to use the largest number of different units. While some armies have this one army where the same units and characters are taken over and over again. Now am not saying I have seen all the lists in the world, but I did talk with people that play longer then me and they said it was always the case, and became and even bigger thing when ally systems were added .

I have no problems with eldar having a lot good units, now or through history. I would like my codex to have the same number of valid army choices .

There are roughly seven valid competitive army choices for CWE right now.

-Farseer on bike
-Autarch on bike
-Rangers
-Shining Spears
-Wave Serpents
-Dark Reapers
-Warlock/Spiritseer/Warlock Conclave/Some kind of Runes of Battle Caster I think post-FAQ nerf most people have shifted to a 2-man Conclave from Spiritseers

Completely mono-tactic (always Alaitoc in every competitive list).

The number of viable units around for CWE is almost comparable to the number of viable units that appear in factions that almost everyone agrees are extremely low-tier right now. Compare to

-Guilliman
-Lieutenant
-Razorback
-Stalker
-Scouts
-Stormraven

Or

-Warboss on Bike
-Big Mek On Bike
-Weirdboy
-Stormboyz
-Ork Boyz
-KMK
-Kommandos

So while CWE have been performing pretty well, we know that their hold on the meta is pretty brittle and tied to a few specific units..most of which got nerfed in the new FAQ in one way or another. It's not yet clear how units from Drukhari or Harlequins are likely to supplant units from CWE in competitive soup builds, and much like we now see a whole lot less of codex: CSM in chaos lists, I'm thinking it's pretty likely we'll be seeing a lot less CWE in lists after Drukhari and Harlequins fully impact the meta.

I don't understand why you put the middle bit in there. It actually makes your(fairly reasonable) point sound ridiculous to compare something like a wave serpent to a stalker(which is a unit that no one has ever voluntarily played ever, I have no idea how it made it's way onto a list of 'viable' options when it's been consistently one of the worst units in the Marine dex since it came out) The comparison heavily detract from your point because all I can think about when reading over the marine/ork lists is "other than Ork Boyz, these all suck". Especially when you're putting in a reroll 1s aura character in the list of 'viable units' like it isn't just a math helper-outer.

the_scotsman wrote:
The relevance of the performance of CWE before the deep strike nerf, Dark Reaper nerf, Farseer Nerf, Spiritseer Nerf, the latest Ynnari nerf and the rule of 3 is about as relevant as me bringing up the early stormraven dominance of marines before the flyer nerf....i.e., not.

The stormraven is right there on your list of marine units.

Besides the thread is power (or lack thereof) over a prolonged period of time, not just the past couple of weeks.

Martel732 wrote:
"White Scars Gladius was a top tier list through most of 7th. "

Yeah. A gimmick.

"Space marines" were also great if you took heros from 3-4 different codexes and gave them invis and FNP.

The thread has mostly been answered.

I can think of no other faction that's as routinely top tier as CWE and Marines. There are other factions that are usually mostly OK, but nothing with their rates of success. And CWE is top dog more often than Marines between them.

That said, point of order on 6E: CWE was top dog for less than half. Their Dex came out and their Serpents were OP and had a few other shenanigans. But pre-codex (which was over halfway through 6E), they were garbage.

For consistently "bottom of the heap", Sisters and Orkz are probably near the top of the list. Guard and DE aren't that far behind - and they're currently near the top!.

SM is probably the book that never really has been/becomes trash (outside those who discount anything below SM as "not part of the game). CWE come close, again.

It's kindof amazing just how much churn "top dog" is. Between 6E/7E, we saw:
-Marines
-CWE
-Necrons
-Demons
-Tau
-Ynnair

Each have a turn as top-dog, with a few other minor players here and there.

In 8th, we've already seen:
-SM
-CWE
-Ynnari
-CSM
-IG
-Custodes

All be "top dog" at some point. That's quite a lot of variety for a short span.

When you look at the "main" armies, most get their chance in the sun. Most get their time at the bottom of the heap.

I should note that "minor factions" do tend to have it worse. Inquisition. Harlies. Sisters. Corsairs. And further note that GK was a "major faction", but appears to have been relegated to "minor faction" now.

Eldar have always been good.
I was an addicted tournament player for one decade stopping when the 7th ed came out.
My Eldar was always able to beat 90 to 95% of all armies out there no matter what.

ERJAK wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"White Scars Gladius was a top tier list through most of 7th. "

Yeah. A gimmick.

Firstly, you're not the one that decides what 'a gimmick' is. The white scars gladius was no more of a gimmick than wraithknights, or Decurions, or 2++ invuls, or any of the other crazy powerful things that were standard issue, garden variety army construction in 7th.

Secondly, there were MANY other lists that were EXTREMELY good that the marines could play. The droppod list that finished 10th at Adepticon AFTER Magnus came in, or any of the insane number of deathstars marines could run, the other versions of gladius, or centurion star, Librarius conclave daemon batteries, etc, etc, etc.

YOU might have been bad in 7th, marines were OBJECTIVELY great.

A gimmick is when you get free units. Literally - here - take 10 free razorbacks. That is a gimmick.

 Blacksails wrote:

Specialist army with an answer for just about anything being able to counter... things.

But it goes further by having units in ever edition that are leagues above and beyond normal balance levels.

Just like every army ever. Except maybe 8th GK, but the NDK HQ seems to get some love, he is just lost drift a sea of bad.

I'm wondering if Eldar has always been "baller beyond comprehension", or if at some point in every edition someone got trolled by an eldar army that was a foil to their list (either intentionally by list tailoring, or unintentionally).

But most armies have, at least, one crutch unit that seems to form the backbone of their lists. Successful armies just seem to be able to link more of these units together, and to that point, Eldar has a wide variety of units (with varying levels of efficiency each edition).

Regardless, this thread is devolving into "trash eldar", so I think I'll hit the "passive lurking" button, again.

A.T. wrote:

pm713 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me how something that has S3 AP- attacks, armour ignored by almost everything in the game and no assault transport isn't bad?

Guardsmen? Cultists?

Get to be taken en masse and have ranged weaponry? A guardsmen can sit still and pump out a lot of shots from half a board away. Storm Guardians can fail at punching you or shoot not many not amazing shots from 12" away before anyone with a gun butchers them.

Ah, 6-7e storm guardians.

Got confused by the description of S3 AP- attacks when the unit had strength 4 rending shooting (literally a more powerful game long free version of the old sororitas most powerful faith ability), and IIRC a bunch of bonuses including four free meltaguns and power swords when taken in formation.

Ooo free melta guns and power swords for a bad formation. So now you can have a special gun when you die to a breeze. The unit was a close combat unit there was no reason to use their pistol shooting as their standard. That's a bad comparison as well, if I shoot a Sister with a Bolter she gets a 3+ save but the guardian is dead. The Sister can shoot back from the same range. With best rolls the Storm Guardian gets shot at 24". moves and runs to fire it's pistol, gets shot again and then finally gets to charge if it's not dead.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Specialist army with an answer for just about anything being able to counter... things.

But it goes further by having units in ever edition that are leagues above and beyond normal balance levels.

Just like every army ever. Except maybe 8th GK, but the NDK HQ seems to get some love, he is just lost drift a sea of bad.

I'm wondering if Eldar has always been "baller beyond comprehension", or if at some point in every edition someone got trolled by an eldar army that was a foil to their list (either intentionally by list tailoring, or unintentionally).

But most armies have, at least, one crutch unit that seems to form the backbone of their lists. Successful armies just seem to be able to link more of these units together, and to that point, Eldar has a wide variety of units (with varying levels of efficiency each edition).

Regardless, this thread is devolving into "trash eldar", so I think I'll hit the "passive lurking" button, again.

Typically in these discussions, if you disagree with someone you actually discuss your perspective or offer some sort of evidence that counters the prevailing argument.

Instead, you simply complain everyone is trashing Eldar, ignore the evidence and arguments, and then publicly announce you'll be lurking because you willingly entered a thread, typed a response, and decided to hit submit on more than once occasion.

Seems odd.

It also seems odd that people get upset when their favourite faction is pointed out to be powerful.

Sniper Scouts had a rending S:X shot at 36". And actual rending, which was quite a bit better. And on 6s could choose the model to take it.

Sniper Scouts weren't good in 7th.

Sure, the Storm Guardian was a little cheaper than a Sniper Scout, but if you're afraid of it's pistol, you should see how scary <insert almost any troop in the game> is!

The 'taken in formation' means 'free' meltaguns on an t3 5+ frame, and 'free' powerswords at s3. Sure, better than nothing. But even with it, you were better off with a Power Sword/MG Tac squad - which wasn't taken for very good reasons! And that's before talking about it's free Razorback!

Few troops don't destroy Storm Guardians, even if you give them the free equipment and don't give their opponents anything. Equal points of Tacs or Guardians or Sisters or Boyz make a mockery of them.

For all the 'Gladius is just a gimmick', 'White Scars is just a gimmick', 'Grav is just one gun' arguments out there, same could be said of any army.

 Blacksails wrote:
snip

It also seems odd that people get upset when their favourite faction is pointed out to be powerful.

We're not saying the codecies haven't been good for eldar. We are challenging the people saying that every unit in the codex was at least okay because there were some very good units in the same book.