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.

Not necessarily. The rage comes from 20+ years of facing abusive Eldar lists. Marines being busted is VERY recent.

I know where the 'rage' comes from, but it seems wrong headed.

Imagine explaining to a new player, who happens to have picked Eldar, that the reason it's ok that much of their codex sucks, is because several editions ago, they were too good.

I've never played Eldar, but my experience with Drukhari is that players often bemoan certain rules as unfun or broken in isolation, and without context; my Venoms may be tricky to hit, but they can also be routinely destroyed by bolter fire.

 harlokin wrote:
I know where the 'rage' comes from, but it seems wrong headed.

Imagine explaining to a new player, who happens to have picked Eldar, that the reason it's ok that much of their codex sucks, is because several editions ago, they were too good.

I've never played Eldar, but my experience with Drukhari is that players often bemoan certain rules as unfun or broken in isolation, and without context; my Venoms may be tricky to hit, but they can also be routinely destroyed by bolter fire.

No, the explanation I give is its just GW being GW.

See, there you go again. T5 -1 hit is NOT routinely destroyed by bolter fire. It takes a large, large number of shots from bolters to do that. It's basically cost prohibitive.

I really don't understand this "armies should have to take turns to be good/bad" mentality.

 harlokin wrote:
I know where the 'rage' comes from, but it seems wrong headed.

Imagine explaining to a new player, who happens to have picked Eldar, that the reason it's ok that much of their codex sucks, is because several editions ago, they were too good.

I've never played Eldar, but my experience with Drukhari is that players often bemoan certain rules as unfun or broken in isolation, and without context; my Venoms may be tricky to hit, but they can also be routinely destroyed by bolter fire.

Just tell marine players to stop playing with Primaris in 9th and watch their heads explode in hypocrisy. Re-roll all with 100's of shots on units with more rules than anything i can play it WAY less fun than venoms.

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand this "armies should have to take turns to be good/bad" mentality.

It turns out spite is the real secondary victory condition. It's like this in other games, too. I mean, I'd glady squat BA if I could take SW with me. That's how much I despise SW.

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand this "armies should have to take turns to be good/bad" mentality.

Is there any mileage in the conspiracy theory that Eldar power level only dipped in 5th edition because GW wanted to drum up interest in all the new Dark Eldar models they were bringing out?

 harlokin wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand this "armies should have to take turns to be good/bad" mentality.

Is there any mileage in the conspiracy theory that Eldar power level only dipped in 5th edition because GW wanted to drum up interest in all the new Dark Eldar models they were bringing out?

No. It was accidental, I'm sure. Eldar were still obnoxious with fortuned units in cover.

 harlokin wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand this "armies should have to take turns to be good/bad" mentality.

Is there any mileage in the conspiracy theory that Eldar power level only dipped in 5th edition because GW wanted to drum up interest in all the new Dark Eldar models they were bringing out?

I suspect not, the bigger issue is that a lot of what made Eldar powerful (particularly the vehicles) changed from 4th to 5th, and Eldar simply never got a 5E codex update before 6th rolled around as that was back in the days when GW might only do 2 codex releases a year.

Is people really claiming that post nerfs space marines are competitively better than Eldar, Chaos or Grey Knights?


Marines are the most powerfull army in the game right now but not on the top-competitive scene. That means the top lists of the game aren't marine based but any mediocre marine army can wreck havoc in any other mediocre or even "good" army of many other factions.


And I don't understand people asking for eldar to not be dependant on Farseers (And warlocks). You want your eldars to not be dependant on psychic powers? Thats like, their whole thing. Is like asking for Grey Knights or Thousand Sons to not be reliant on their psychic powers or tau on markerlights.

 Galas wrote:
And I don't understand people asking for eldar to not be dependant on Farseers (And warlocks). You want your eldars to not be dependant on psychic powers? Thats like, their whole thing. Is like asking for Grey Knights or Thousand Sons to not be reliant on their psychic powers or tau on markerlights.

Farseers are rare gifted individuals, there's not enough of them to join every company level skirmish and they have other important stuff to be doing as well, there's all sorts of Eldar forces that wouldn't be led by a Farseer or have Psyker support. Autarch's are the dedicated military command officers of the Craftworld Eldar. they should really be capable of leading armies without a Farseer and not leaving the army crippled.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:
And I don't understand people asking for eldar to not be dependant on Farseers (And warlocks). You want your eldars to not be dependant on psychic powers? Thats like, their whole thing. Is like asking for Grey Knights or Thousand Sons to not be reliant on their psychic powers or tau on markerlights.

Farseers are rare gifted individuals, there's not enough of them to join every company level skirmish and they have other important stuff to be doing as well, there's all sorts of Eldar forces that wouldn't be led by a Farseer or have Psyker support. Autarch's are the dedicated military command officers of the Craftworld Eldar. they should really be capable of leading armies without a Farseer and not leaving the army crippled.

The same can be said with space marine captains? And nearly everything. If you don't want farseers in your army you can use warlocks that have extremely good psychic powers but if you want to gimp yourself thats on you. Eldar Autarcs are a late developement to have a marine-captain equivalent, for starters.

We have Magnuses and Marneuses and Guillmauses in nearly every "skirmish level engagement". Thats the game we are playing, with imperial knights and 30 adeptus custodes and baneblades. That complaint TBH seems rather silly to me.

 Galas wrote:
Is people really claiming that post nerfs space marines are competitively better than Eldar, Chaos or Grey Knights?

Marines are the most powerfull army in the game right now but not on the top-competitive scene.

What's the evidence for this? A couple of tournaments that occurred in the few weeks post the Doctrine Nerf and before the tournament scene essentially ended almost everywhere due to Covid-19?
All the PA books that have been released - and of course 9th's imminent arrival - may change the meta dramatically, but I think at least as of 10th March or something, Marines were still the army to beat.

 Galas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:
And I don't understand people asking for eldar to not be dependant on Farseers (And warlocks). You want your eldars to not be dependant on psychic powers? Thats like, their whole thing. Is like asking for Grey Knights or Thousand Sons to not be reliant on their psychic powers or tau on markerlights.

Farseers are rare gifted individuals, there's not enough of them to join every company level skirmish and they have other important stuff to be doing as well, there's all sorts of Eldar forces that wouldn't be led by a Farseer or have Psyker support. Autarch's are the dedicated military command officers of the Craftworld Eldar. they should really be capable of leading armies without a Farseer and not leaving the army crippled.

The same can be said with space marine captains?

Except you can run a Space Marine army without a captain and still have it function far better than an Eldar army without a Farseer

And nearly everything. If you don't want farseers in your army you can use warlocks that have extremely good psychic powers but if you want to gimp yourself thats on you.

The point was that they shouldn't have to actively gimp the army simply by not taking a certain HQ option. I'm not sure why we're demanding all Eldar armies must include a Farseer to be competitive. I can run a Guard army with several different HQ's while not taking others and still have it work well enough to function. I can run a CSM army competitively (as much as can be) without a Daemon Prince. Why must Eldar be competitively tied to the Farseer so?

Eldar Autarcs are a late developement to have a marine-captain equivalent, for starters.

Autarch's originally go back to Epic, they've been in the codex since 4th edition as we're now going into 9th, that's the bulk of the game's meaningful existence.

We have Magnuses and Marneuses and Guillmauses in nearly every "skirmish level engagement". Thats the game we are playing, with imperial knights and 30 adeptus custodes and baneblades. That complaint TBH seems rather silly to me.

The game offers the option for that, but doesn't force it. Eldar should be able to function without being tied to a single HQ choice, no army in the game should be. I'm not sure why an Eldar army isn't allowed to be competitive just because it chose to take the dedicated military command officer HQ instead of running with the pysker suppot option.

Eldar can play with autarchs and warlocks and still be competitive, at least much more than many other armies if they don't take their mandatory HQs or characters, speaking about 8th.

 Hellebore wrote:

You'll notice that, almost without exception, every time a new eldar dex is released and people 'hate' them, it's almost always because of a single unit (generally in association with a farseer), or a couple. Being able to abuse one or two units every edition might make them possible to win with, but it hides how terrible the army is and how impossible it is to play them in any other way than that one particular spam build flavour of the edition.

Giving eldar players the ability to use the whole dex isn't asking to make the whole dex as broken as those specific unit combos, it should actually reduce the broken nature of them.

I want to be able to play the army as they should play, not have to resort to crappy tricks that make people hate the army in order to get any kind of advantage.


At the moment the eldar army is the most gamiest, least representative army out there. That it can only really be competitive with unrealistic army compositions highlights this issue.

The hyperbole in this thread just makes me wince. I can totally understand why everyone hates us (and I'm an eldar player properly since 2007 and dabbled in early 90s, if any of that matters). Impossible? Terrible? Gamiest? Total nonsense.

If you want competitive - they are bloody competitive as has been pointed out. No army in the history of 40k has a longer track record at the top tables - they're the All Blacks of 40k. At GT level you can't quibble that the particular zeitgeist build isn't one you like, you'll just have to swallow that.

If you're not fussed about out right power but still moan that the 'whole dex' is rubbish, then actually the problem is you as a player. In my experience 90% of 40k games are played in an environment where both players are trying to win but not going all out to curb stomp with super optimised lists. They'll take some stuff for rule of cool, even if it's not the best; some stuff to give a bit of punch; generally trying to play in most phases of the game.

In that spirit, which craftworld units do you consider unplayable? I have had good mileage from pretty much everything. Scorpions are the 'worst' in my book but I still run them very frequently as I love the fluff - and you know what, I don't lose every game. Would I like them to be better? Yes of course, but I also want my Assault Marines to be better too or any other slightly left behind unit.

Will Banshees suffer fighting intercessors? Yes. Should you instead shoot intercessors with D Scythes/Starcannons in that particular matchup? Probably. Will those banshees murder other armies infantry? Yes they will. Honestly, the sky is not falling down, the craftworlders still have a HUGE range of high power tools. I think the new cover rules are also going to be amazing for them, and will mean I can play a more footslogging avatar list which I love.

 Galas wrote:
Eldar can play with autarchs and warlocks and still be competitive, at least much more than many other armies if they don't take their mandatory HQs or characters, speaking about 8th.

Again, is there any evidence of this? Also, Warlocks without Farseers don't function that well; without Seer Council you've got a 50/50 on getting the desirable powers off from the Runes of Battle tree. Yes, you can use that one power from Runes of Fortune that boosts casts, but the point stands; Warlock powers are more limited in usage and application. Plus, Warlock powers only can buff infantry which makes them far less universal in application in comparison to Farseers.

And autarchs post-Legends are really, really not good. Same thing with Warlocks unless you're looking at bikes or a conclave.

Eldar hate is a real thing......pretty sad really, but par for the course for wargamers I guess.

As already mentioned, most Eldar players want to use a larger portion of their codex rather than a few gimmicky units spammed as FOTM. This is not a cake and eat it too approach, this is about removing gimmicky, overpowered elements and allowing greater variety of units. It's not all doom and gloom, however. Mech Eldar is playing well (probably top build at this point in time). Wraith Eldar are also reasonable (although knight needs to be better, just not the ridiculous undercosted abomination it was in 7th). Players want Aspects (Biel Tan) to be viable again, they are not currently. Scorps, banshees, spiders, hawks, dragons just aren't great at what they do (although to be fair, dragons in a falcon/serpent can get the job done, it's just hard to compare the points cost of a dragon with melta vs a single wraithguard with cannon for a similar job, so you don't see them).

Eldar characters need some help, but mostly just the Phoenix Lords and Avatar. Farseers, warlocks, spiritseers, and autarchs all do their job fairly well (and Autarchs would be better if the relics/WTs were not hot garbage).
Guardians are not great, but if you are going to go with the guardian strong force, simply build it around Hail of Doom, Superior Shurikens, or Martial Citizenry etc. It makes them a little better.

 ewar wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

You'll notice that, almost without exception, every time a new eldar dex is released and people 'hate' them, it's almost always because of a single unit (generally in association with a farseer), or a couple. Being able to abuse one or two units every edition might make them possible to win with, but it hides how terrible the army is and how impossible it is to play them in any other way than that one particular spam build flavour of the edition.

Giving eldar players the ability to use the whole dex isn't asking to make the whole dex as broken as those specific unit combos, it should actually reduce the broken nature of them.

I want to be able to play the army as they should play, not have to resort to crappy tricks that make people hate the army in order to get any kind of advantage.


At the moment the eldar army is the most gamiest, least representative army out there. That it can only really be competitive with unrealistic army compositions highlights this issue.

The hyperbole in this thread just makes me wince. I can totally understand why everyone hates us (and I'm an eldar player properly since 2007 and dabbled in early 90s, if any of that matters). Impossible? Terrible? Gamiest? Total nonsense.

If you want competitive - they are bloody competitive as has been pointed out. No army in the history of 40k has a longer track record at the top tables - they're the All Blacks of 40k. At GT level you can't quibble that the particular zeitgeist build isn't one you like, you'll just have to swallow that.

If you're not fussed about out right power but still moan that the 'whole dex' is rubbish, then actually the problem is you as a player. In my experience 90% of 40k games are played in an environment where both players are trying to win but not going all out to curb stomp with super optimised lists. They'll take some stuff for rule of cool, even if it's not the best; some stuff to give a bit of punch; generally trying to play in most phases of the game.

In that spirit, which craftworld units do you consider unplayable? I have had good mileage from pretty much everything. Scorpions are the 'worst' in my book but I still run them very frequently as I love the fluff - and you know what, I don't lose every game. Would I like them to be better? Yes of course, but I also want my Assault Marines to be better too or any other slightly left behind unit.

Will Banshees suffer fighting intercessors? Yes. Should you instead shoot intercessors with D Scythes/Starcannons in that particular matchup? Probably. Will those banshees murder other armies infantry? Yes they will. Honestly, the sky is not falling down, the craftworlders still have a HUGE range of high power tools. I think the new cover rules are also going to be amazing for them, and will mean I can play a more footslogging avatar list which I love.

Oh christ, Banshees don't "murder infantry", you don't have the volume of attacks or the strength to do that. And Warp Spiders? Fire Dragons? Swooping Hawks? Autarchs post-Legends? Basically all the named characters minus Eldrad and Maugan Ra? C'mon man. What is the use case where those units work or are efficient?

Yeah, it's hard to whine playing Eldar because you can always supplement your list with the good stuff to counterbalance the bad. And the crutch that is Expert Crafters made a lot of the naff units usable, for sure. But it's not like these complaints are illegitimate. The triple whammy of old models, expensive models (not sold in stores because no resin/finecast in stores), and crappy rules lifted in power by bargain basement pointings makes it pretty hard to swallow starting an "iconic" Eldar army today.

 bullyboy wrote:
Eldar hate is a real thing......pretty sad really, but par for the course for wargamers I guess.

As already mentioned, most Eldar players want to use a larger portion of their codex rather than a few gimmicky units spammed as FOTM. This is not a cake and eat it too approach, this is about removing gimmicky, overpowered elements and allowing greater variety of units.

If what you say about most eldar players was true. Then all those horror stories about the past, and the stories about 8th ed would not only have no impact on how people view eldar and eldar players, but also would never give birth to the hate in the first place. Because, as you said it, the most of eldar players wouldn't be using those unfun to play against eldar armies of past and present. But this does not seem to be the case. So either everyone, but the eldar players, is suffering from an understandable eldar hate syndrom, or those Inari, alaitoc +pre 8th ed top armies, were very much played by more then just a small minority of eldar players.

And just because eldar players would want to have more then one or two good builds, out of just one codex doesn't help here either. As there seem to be whole factions, according to players older then me, that went through editions without having a single good build. So of course people feel strange when after dominating a lot of 8th ed, they hear how eldar players claim that they were done wrong by GW.

Hard to feel sympathy to eldar when your own faction was bad for 2+ years, then became fixed a bit, but then corona hit, so you didn't even get to play the fixed version. And then hear that GW is putting out a new edition.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 ewar wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

You'll notice that, almost without exception, every time a new eldar dex is released and people 'hate' them, it's almost always because of a single unit (generally in association with a farseer), or a couple. Being able to abuse one or two units every edition might make them possible to win with, but it hides how terrible the army is and how impossible it is to play them in any other way than that one particular spam build flavour of the edition.

Giving eldar players the ability to use the whole dex isn't asking to make the whole dex as broken as those specific unit combos, it should actually reduce the broken nature of them.

I want to be able to play the army as they should play, not have to resort to crappy tricks that make people hate the army in order to get any kind of advantage.


At the moment the eldar army is the most gamiest, least representative army out there. That it can only really be competitive with unrealistic army compositions highlights this issue.

The hyperbole in this thread just makes me wince. I can totally understand why everyone hates us (and I'm an eldar player properly since 2007 and dabbled in early 90s, if any of that matters). Impossible? Terrible? Gamiest? Total nonsense.

If you want competitive - they are bloody competitive as has been pointed out. No army in the history of 40k has a longer track record at the top tables - they're the All Blacks of 40k. At GT level you can't quibble that the particular zeitgeist build isn't one you like, you'll just have to swallow that.

If you're not fussed about out right power but still moan that the 'whole dex' is rubbish, then actually the problem is you as a player. In my experience 90% of 40k games are played in an environment where both players are trying to win but not going all out to curb stomp with super optimised lists. They'll take some stuff for rule of cool, even if it's not the best; some stuff to give a bit of punch; generally trying to play in most phases of the game.

In that spirit, which craftworld units do you consider unplayable? I have had good mileage from pretty much everything. Scorpions are the 'worst' in my book but I still run them very frequently as I love the fluff - and you know what, I don't lose every game. Would I like them to be better? Yes of course, but I also want my Assault Marines to be better too or any other slightly left behind unit.

Will Banshees suffer fighting intercessors? Yes. Should you instead shoot intercessors with D Scythes/Starcannons in that particular matchup? Probably. Will those banshees murder other armies infantry? Yes they will. Honestly, the sky is not falling down, the craftworlders still have a HUGE range of high power tools. I think the new cover rules are also going to be amazing for them, and will mean I can play a more footslogging avatar list which I love.

Oh christ, Banshees don't "murder infantry", you don't have the volume of attacks or the strength to do that. And Warp Spiders? Fire Dragons? Swooping Hawks? Autarchs post-Legends? Basically all the named characters minus Eldrad and Maugan Ra? C'mon man. What is the use case where those units work or are efficient?

Yeah, it's hard to whine playing Eldar because you can always supplement your list with the good stuff to counterbalance the bad. And the crutch that is Expert Crafters made a lot of the naff units usable, for sure. But it's not like these complaints are illegitimate. The triple whammy of old models, expensive models (not sold in stores because no resin/finecast in stores), and crappy rules lifted in power by bargain basement pointings makes it pretty hard to swallow starting an "iconic" Eldar army today.

It's like you don't play missions or something!? Swooping hawks do fine in an objective grabbing role, same for spiders.Fire Dragons are still 6 melta guns who can be dropped in for anti tank. They still do this, you know? 20 guardians in the webway are another decent forward unit yet I hear eldar players describe them as unplayable, it's crazy.

Will those units do ok against a grey knight double paladin bomb? No, they won't. But they are still perfectly fine choices in garagehammer gaming.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Eldar can play with autarchs and warlocks and still be competitive, at least much more than many other armies if they don't take their mandatory HQs or characters, speaking about 8th.

Again, is there any evidence of this? Also, Warlocks without Farseers don't function that well; without Seer Council you've got a 50/50 on getting the desirable powers off from the Runes of Battle tree. Yes, you can use that one power from Runes of Fortune that boosts casts, but the point stands; Warlock powers are more limited in usage and application. Plus, Warlock powers only can buff infantry which makes them far less universal in application in comparison to Farseers.

And autarchs post-Legends are really, really not good. Same thing with Warlocks unless you're looking at bikes or a conclave.

Vehicle heavy eldar lists with master crafters don't even need Farseers to work and have the job done.

As I said, Eldar are a psychic army , and even then you can play them without that much psychic, maybe not in others editions but you can right now.

Yeah it sucks 5 banshee can't kill 5 intercessors in meele (But TBH theres probably thousands of banshee for every space marine on the galaxy) . All this apologysm about eldar not being that good, just a couple broken combos is as absurd as when Tau players do it.

And I think many eldar players believe 40k is LOTR and eldars are those elves. Eldars in 40k are "good/elite" aliens, but a space marine is a space marine, not a normal human. I'm sorry in rogue trader or 2nd or the phaleolitic era did eat marines for breakfast. Back there 3 genestealer killed 10 marines in a turn without a sweat.

All Eldar aspect warriors are good and perfectly usable and that is proved in many WTC and ETC lists. The weakest ones are warp spiders and striking scorpions, but avengers, dragons, hawks and banshees all have their place and their very good uses.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Oh christ, Banshees don't "murder infantry", you don't have the volume of attacks or the strength to do that. And Warp Spiders? Fire Dragons? Swooping Hawks? Autarchs post-Legends? Basically all the named characters minus Eldrad and Maugan Ra? C'mon man. What is the use case where those units work or are efficient?

Yeah, it's hard to whine playing Eldar because you can always supplement your list with the good stuff to counterbalance the bad. And the crutch that is Expert Crafters made a lot of the naff units usable, for sure. But it's not like these complaints are illegitimate. The triple whammy of old models, expensive models (not sold in stores because no resin/finecast in stores), and crappy rules lifted in power by bargain basement pointings makes it pretty hard to swallow starting an "iconic" Eldar army today.

I understand that people want more elite units, but I find your assertion on Banshees to be incorrect. At least in the sense of efficiency of points, but in many cases also in raw wounds delivered.

They just don't "work", because people don't like taking the effort to get them to melee. Hopefully 9th changes that.

There is also a lot more in utility to the other aspects than tacking on some S4 attacks so I still find people's assessments of them misguided.

10 Primaris vs Primaris
31 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 3.4 / 170 = 0.020 * 1000 = 2.0

10 Banshees (Executioner) vs Primaris
18 * .666 * .333 * .833 = 3.3
3 * .666 * .5 * .833 * 2 = 1.7

(3.3 + 1.7) / 113 = 0.044 * 1000 = 4.4

Banshees are twice as good at killing Primaris than Primaris.

TH Sarge vs Primaris
4 * .5 * .833 * .833 * 2 = 2.8

TH Sarge vs -2A & Shout Banshees
2 * .333 * .833 = 0.6

Banshees can take 1/5 the damage from a TH than Primaris can.

10 Primars in melee vs IS
31 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 9.2 / 170 = 0.054 * 1000 = 5.4

10 Banshees (Executioner) vs IS
18 * .666 * .5 = 6
3 * .666 * .666 = 1.3

(6 + 1.3) / 113 = 0.065 * 1000 = 6.5

Banshees are better at killing IS than Primaris

Karol wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Eldar hate is a real thing......pretty sad really, but par for the course for wargamers I guess.

As already mentioned, most Eldar players want to use a larger portion of their codex rather than a few gimmicky units spammed as FOTM. This is not a cake and eat it too approach, this is about removing gimmicky, overpowered elements and allowing greater variety of units.

If what you say about most eldar players was true. Then all those horror stories about the past, and the stories about 8th ed would not only have no impact on how people view eldar and eldar players, but also would never give birth to the hate in the first place. Because, as you said it, the most of eldar players wouldn't be using those unfun to play against eldar armies of past and present. But this does not seem to be the case. So either everyone, but the eldar players, is suffering from an understandable eldar hate syndrom, or those Inari, alaitoc +pre 8th ed top armies, were very much played by more then just a small minority of eldar players.

And just because eldar players would want to have more then one or two good builds, out of just one codex doesn't help here either. As there seem to be whole factions, according to players older then me, that went through editions without having a single good build. So of course people feel strange when after dominating a lot of 8th ed, they hear how eldar players claim that they were done wrong by GW.

Hard to feel sympathy to eldar when your own faction was bad for 2+ years, then became fixed a bit, but then corona hit, so you didn't even get to play the fixed version. And then hear that GW is putting out a new edition.

....A new edition that greatly buffs your army as far as we can tell while allowing you to build the army you've said in the past you wanted and not invalidating any of those rules you got?

you're gonna get to run a paladins-only list with (most likely) 10CP, 2 more than you'd originally have had with a battalion of tax troops. With buffed terrain rules that improve elites, particularly elites with access to something like an ignore-LOS spell for example.

I have as much symphaty for Eldar players (A codex that post PA, and theirs was the first one has a TON of viable builds and units) as I have for Tau players complaining about how our codex sucks (When theres a ton of good sinergy and good units there) and then not leaving home without 3 riptides.


The reality is that Eldars can have nearly any kind of lists with the units of their army and a minimun of sinergy compete in a semi-competitive scene agaisnt nearly every other army of the game with the exception of the most broken lists. And then, they can do a ton of high competitive armies to face the most competitive armies out there and win. So what exactly do they want? To have all of their medium-competitive armies go toe to toe with the most broken stuff out there?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


*snip*

10 Primars in melee vs IS
31 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 9.2 / 170 = 0.054 * 1000 = 5.4

10 Banshees (Executioner) vs IS
18 * .666 * .5 = 6
3 * .666 * .666 = 1.3

(6 + 1.3) / 113 = 0.065 * 1000 = 6.5

Banshees are better at killing IS than Primaris

Man, sure is a shame those Primaris forgot to bring ammo for their bolters. Keep picking those cherries...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ewar wrote:


*snip*

It's like you don't play missions or something!? Swooping hawks do fine in an objective grabbing role, same for spiders.Fire Dragons are still 6 melta guns who can be dropped in for anti tank. They still do this, you know? 20 guardians in the webway are another decent forward unit yet I hear eldar players describe them as unplayable, it's crazy.

Will those units do ok against a grey knight double paladin bomb? No, they won't. But they are still perfectly fine choices in garagehammer gaming.

You're not wrong about Guardians, I'll definitely give you that. I'm not whining about those. But the whole point of this thread is that in the fluff (and in times in the past in the game), you could say more for Swooping Hawks than "they grab objectives". Lots of Eldar units do that (plus other things), so internally that's not a niche you satisfy. And externally, Hawks are completely outclassed by those stupid new Admech things. They're just lame.

 ewar wrote:
If you want competitive - they are bloody competitive as has been pointed out. No army in the history of 40k has a longer track record at the top tables - they're the All Blacks of 40k. At GT level you can't quibble that the particular zeitgeist build isn't one you like, you'll just have to swallow that.

Nobody has claimed anything different in the entire thread, only that the internal balance is terrible and that much of the codex routinely sits on the shelf most of the time. These problems can both be true.

Will Banshees suffer fighting intercessors? Yes. Should you instead shoot intercessors with D Scythes/Starcannons in that particular matchup? Probably. Will those banshees murder other armies infantry? Yes they will.

Hrm, with a mere two S3 attacks each and only T3 4+ resiliency? For a dedicated shock assault Elites unit, they're pretty pillow fisted, and units like basic Ork Boyz or Assault Marines will generally substantially outperform them once combat is joined.

 Galas wrote:
Eldar can play with autarchs and warlocks and still be competitive, at least much more than many other armies if they don't take their mandatory HQs or characters, speaking about 8th.

Hrm, at least in my experience, and looking at the army forum section and lists taken to events, this does not seem to be the case. They're practically nonexistent, and there's a reason for that, the Farseer just has way more utility than the other HQ options and too many units don't work without it. There certainly isn't the flexibility there is with most other armies and their competitive HQ options, again I can run an IG army competitively with several different kinds of HQ, I don't need to have a Daemon Prince leading my CSM's to be competitive, and there is a significantly greater proportion of SM armies making lists without a Captain work than there are Eldar lists that work without a Farseer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


They just don't "work", because people don't like taking the effort to get them to melee.

Given the effort it takes, you're generally better off investing in almost anything else to do that job

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Man, sure is a shame those Primaris forgot to bring ammo for their bolters. Keep picking those cherries...

Right, the same way this forum claims how awesome Intercessors are with their 30" guns, but then gushes over their "awesome melee profile". Which is it? Are they shooting at range or are they in melee?

I already mentioned the difficulties of getting to combat as a barrier.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Man, sure is a shame those Primaris forgot to bring ammo for their bolters. Keep picking those cherries...

Right, the same way this forum claims how awesome Intercessors are with their 30" guns, but then gushes over their "awesome melee profile". Which is it? Are they shooting at range or are they in melee?

I already mentioned the difficulties of getting to combat as a barrier.

They wreck at range, and in melee. A generalist muhreen needs to be better at everything, cos my Black Library lore says so.

 morganfreeman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah historically Eldar has been a problematic army. But that's even more reason to finally fix it in 9th instead of just making it problematic in some new way.

I can't speak for others, but what I want is not really for Eldar to be more powerful in a competitive sense, I want them to feel like an elite army of a proud, powerful, but dying race for which every one of their number matters and every death is a tragedy, not a bunch of bargain-basement weaklings who get dunked on my primaris intercessors but win through cheesy abuse of a handful of very powerful units.

And I want to be able to place literally any combination of my orks on the table and be close to as powerful as Eldar consistently have been each edition. I don't mean "any combination" as in a random hodge podge, I mean ANY kind of option which lets me be strong and competitive.

I want the same for Nids, Crons, or several other xenos races with players who would kill to have a a single edition half as powerful as Eldar consistently are.

Eldar aren't fine, but they're not in desperate need. Complaining about how they need to be reworked to live up to their lore is spitting in the face of anyone who plays legitimately weak armies. The army may not function the way you like but it's still counted amongst the "player character" factions. I legitimately hope Eldar find themselves tuned like one of the NPC factions this coming edition, so that Eldar players can have a taste of what others have been dealing with for the better part of a decade.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems an awful bitter attitude to take. "I hope they get dragged down to our level" doesn't seem very constructive compared to "I hope my faction could get some improvements too."