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.

 Nevelon wrote:
Internal consistency has always been an Eldar issue. But often their “bad” units are still perfectly playable. You just don’t see them at tournaments or breaking the meta. Because at that level, you go all out and take the busted stuff 100% of the time.

I feel internal consistency was all over the place for everyone in the old editions. Its something GW has really improved on.

But the reality is "woe is me, my Storm Guardian spam list isn't working" feels contrived. Not sure I ever saw an Eldar army like that. Picking all the bad choices for Eldar was imo harder to do than for certain other factions.
Sure the *exact same army* you used in early 3rd wasn't so good in 7th - but that's 10-15 years. Buy some more models.

To hear some Eldar players, 5th was a blighted era where they were borderline unplayable - but doing some searching, they were still winning the occasional tournament. Its just you had to play well and be a bit lucky - i.e. the situation of most factions - rather than being able to lean on overpowered units.

Over the past 30 years, Eldar have been the best performing army in the game. This isn't because Eldar players are all really cool tactical geniuses with great hair.

And again this is ignoring that only some units made them that powerful. If you didn't play those they weren't.

you realise players have no control over whether some units are broken or not? A 3rd ed Eldar player who decided to use shining spears was suddenly a cheese monger in 4th simply because their rules suddenly got good. Yet the player base were quick to crucify any Eldar player who'se army happened to match the units that were broken. Not all of us can afford to rebuy armies to avoid broken units.

I used Rangers and then the craftworld codex made using those a heinous act.

The overpowered army lists for Eldar in each of those editions was the same couple of edition broken units.

At no point were Eldar armies winning tournaments in random unit configurations.

It was shining spear and falcon spam, or it was windrider spam or it was wraithknight spam. If as each edition changed your army that wasn't broken suddenly became broken due to some random gw decision and the unbroken again.

Those were the broken themes for each edition.

At no point was it Eldar spam. Each edition had an army list made for less than a quarter of their units that tarred the rest of it.

The toxic culture of GW and it's fans deciding they're allowed to pick on the players of one faction is absolutely gross. You see it with tau as well.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
.
But yeah, emotional damage from army choice, or something...

That's a disgusting thing to say. You don't know the experiences of others.

Nothing like escaping bullying in the real world to get bullied by people who are supposed to share the same interest

I’m sorry that your gaming group is so toxic.
And I would recommend trying to find one that isn’t.

Again-I’ve never encountered someone hating just for army choice. Healthy groups are possible.

 Hellebore wrote:
Yet the player base were quick to crucify any Eldar player who'se army happened to match the units that were broken

No different from any army that had a broken combo and was fielding it - no one was giving the thumbs up to siren princes and iron warriors, any player running a first turn charge blood angels list, paladin wound allocation shenanigans, invisible deathstars, decurions, war convocations, and a hundred others across the editions.

 Hellebore wrote:
I used Rangers and then the craftworld codex made using those a heinous act.

Did you run them with the ranger disruption table or just keep running them vanilla?

Message boards were often skewed by tournaments and netlisting and optimal tactics, Eldar got stick more frequently than most because they were strong to broken more often than most. But bring up the board discussion from the latter part of 5e and I doubt you'd find much (and I haven't pre-checked this, but I am confident enough). No-one took random units, no-one was flinging mud at a food-dar guardian list with massed shuriken-cannon vipers and shadow weaver batteries.

And then you had your local group and that was pot luck. If you were taking flak despite not running a WAAC list then they were the problem, if you were taking flack for running something like a sanctuary list into a chaos daemons army then perhaps they weren't the problem. Ultimately it's a two player game and everyones experiences are going to be shaped by who that second player is on any given day - it's not 'toxic GW culture' - not everyones local group are/were asshats.

Actually got in the game i was planning last week against chaos.

I switched things up a bit and swapped half my cataphron destroyers heavy grav cannons out for plasma culverins.

I managed to keep the warhound out of close combat this game so it was a much closer fight. i still bled units but i gave back about equally.

typhus and some obliterators made it into close combat but my hydraulic claws made short work of them.

I managed to pull off a narrow victory in the end.

 Hellebore wrote:
And again this is ignoring that only some units made them that powerful. If you didn't play those they weren't.

you realise players have no control over whether some units are broken or not? A 3rd ed Eldar player who decided to use shining spears was suddenly a cheese monger in 4th simply because their rules suddenly got good. Yet the player base were quick to crucify any Eldar player who'se army happened to match the units that were broken. Not all of us can afford to rebuy armies to avoid broken units.

I used Rangers and then the craftworld codex made using those a heinous act.

The overpowered army lists for Eldar in each of those editions was the same couple of edition broken units.

At no point were Eldar armies winning tournaments in random unit configurations.

It was shining spear and falcon spam, or it was windrider spam or it was wraithknight spam. If as each edition changed your army that wasn't broken suddenly became broken due to some random gw decision and the unbroken again.

Those were the broken themes for each edition.

At no point was it Eldar spam. Each edition had an army list made for less than a quarter of their units that tarred the rest of it.

The toxic culture of GW and it's fans deciding they're allowed to pick on the players of one faction is absolutely gross. You see it with tau as well.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
.
But yeah, emotional damage from army choice, or something...

That's a disgusting thing to say. You don't know the experiences of others.

Nothing like escaping bullying in the real world to get bullied by people who are supposed to share the same interest

Disgusting? That's a funny way of saying "factual" or "direct" to me...






Here's the deal. YOU DIDN'T PERSONALLY WRITE THE CODICES. Everyone understands that. And if someone says the faction is OP, then that is an attack on the book NOT on you. I didn't take it personally when an army of mine suddenly improved. You shouldn't either. Unless you personally can't handle someone saying your codex is bad on a core emotional level, in which case I'd say the problem isn't with the community. If someone flings slurs at you because of your army? TOTALLY in the right to cry "bullying", but not if someone notes an inconvenient fact.