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.

This is an automated message added by the articles system.

A new article titled Eldar Army Analysis has been added to the dakka articles system.

This message thread is for the discussion of content in the article.

If you have anything to add to the article, then just jump in and edit it by going to the actual article page and clicking 'edit' (the link can be found just above the article). If there is no edit link then the article is locked for now, so just add your comments or content to this thread and if they are appropriate then they should eventually get merged in.

If there is something in the article that you wish to debate or comment on, then this is the place to do it. Just hit the reply button and get chatting! You need to be registered and logged in to post in the forums so if you are an anonymous article editor then now would be a great time to register and join in dakka's great forum discussion!

Great, straightforward analysis. I found the unit-by-unit breakdown very enlightening as well. I'd like to see it expanded to include more of your insights and have a complete list of units (good and bad).

One somewhat related question, (from your comments on the TWIW podcast), you mentioned that Swooping Hawks perform very well contesting objectives at the end of the game. I don't understand how that works.... Yes, they automatically come down via deep-strike, (which is a big change). But first, you have to deep-strike within 3" of the objective - that is only just over a 1/3 chance of either rolling a hit or rolling around a 4 or less for scatter. Second, most opponents I play will spread the unit over the objective to disallow that tactic. Lastly, with the random game length, how do you know what the last turn is to do that?

Lastly, I'd like to know what you think of Rangers in 5th edition - I think the to hit roll was somewhat nerfed from the change to sniper weapon rules, but I found go to ground is great for holding objectives near the end of the game. Do you think the upgrade to Pathfinders is worth it? Wanted your thoughts.

Thanks!

Mez

Mezmaron wrote:Great, straightforward analysis. I found the unit-by-unit breakdown very enlightening as well. I'd like to see it expanded to include more of your insights and have a complete list of units (good and bad).

I can do that. Not sure when, but it is in the works to do that.

Mezmaron wrote:One somewhat related question, (from your comments on the TWIW podcast), you mentioned that Swooping Hawks perform very well contesting objectives at the end of the game. I don't understand how that works.... Yes, they automatically come down via deep-strike, (which is a big change). But first, you have to deep-strike within 3" of the objective - that is only just over a 1/3 chance of either rolling a hit or rolling around a 4 or less for scatter. Second, most opponents I play will spread the unit over the objective to disallow that tactic. Lastly, with the random game length, how do you know what the last turn is to do that?

Actually to contest the objective it can be a huge variable amount of space.

Remember, you can run after deep striking.

So it can be 4-10" of possible scatter.

Just saying.

Yes, most opponents will spread a unit over an objective to deny this tactic.

I was referring to armies that can be shot off it (by the swooping hawks dropping 3 templates on them, perhaps?), can be assaulted or tank shocked off...but really, I was talking about 'heave ho' assault armies and loot missions.

In loot missions it is very difficult to contest 3-5 objectives scattered around. Often, you (and your opponent) each control one. If I can land on one in a corner where you aren't, that makes it 2-1 and I win.

If I can get you off the objective in say turn 4 with a Wave Serpent, which you blow up in your turn 5, can't I land in the empty space (which you cannot get into in your turn, yes?) with the hawks and claim the objective?

There is more to 40k tactics than the obvious. There are many ways to deal with the objectives. Advanced tactics is one of them.

Mezmaron wrote:Lastly, I'd like to know what you think of Rangers in 5th edition - I think the to hit roll was somewhat nerfed from the change to sniper weapon rules, but I found go to ground is great for holding objectives near the end of the game. Do you think the upgrade to Pathfinders is worth it? Wanted your thoughts.

Pathfinders get a 2+ save. Give them guide and doom an enemy unit. The resulting carnage is impressive. Anyone caught out in the open without cover saves...well, they won't like it! lol

great article

Stelek wrote:Remember, you can run after deep striking.

Ha, forgot about that run after DS - I'm still in 4th edition mode. That actually makes a huge difference.... I may need another SH unit....

Thanks!

Mez

Overall, I like the analysis. I have a few question regarding your analysis of the support weapon batteries:

Which weapon do you think is the most effective?

What else would you run in army using 9 of the batteries?

BTW, nice troop break down and I agree with most of it. Also some interesting armies.

I really wish Warp Spiders would be good (they are not) and while I disagree with you in them not being able to find cover to hide in, it is very terrain dependent (and area terrain not blocking is the biggest hit for them).

On the Hawks do you think running x3 of the cheapest squads (132) w/Skyleaping an effective tactic? (Yo-yo grenades and come down at 5th turn to try to contest (or 4th).

In the Mech army you list:

HQ

Autarch, Fusion Gun. He's there to give you +1 to your reserve rolls.

Why? What in that army gains benefit from reserve bonus? (No Hawks, No Outflanking, is it just because of the Dawn of War Force Deployment?)

Personally I think the Autarch sucks (S3 T3 FTL) and is really only good when holding a Lance and on a bike.

In the MC army, do the Wraithguard cover enough of the Wraithlord to grant them cover? I know the Wraithguard are taller than the standard troop, but to actually give the Wraithlords cover you need to block 50% of them, does it hit that mark?

I'm a total Wraithguard noob, but I'm wanting to learn how to use them (thinking about purchasing some). How does the MC army do Vs Tau? (I ask this due to it looking fairly slow and guardians being pretty worthless Vs Tau).

Also have you ever run a Mech army that favors Assault? (Falcons & Waves + Assault units jumping out).

natedogg710 wrote:Overall, I like the analysis. I have a few question regarding your analysis of the support weapon batteries:

Which weapon do you think is the most effective?

What else would you run in army using 9 of the batteries?

I posted the answer here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216305.page

Jaradakar wrote:BTW, nice troop break down and I agree with most of it. Also some interesting armies.

I really wish Warp Spiders would be good (they are not) and while I disagree with you in them not being able to find cover to hide in, it is very terrain dependent (and area terrain not blocking is the biggest hit for them).

On the Hawks do you think running x3 of the cheapest squads (132) w/Skyleaping an effective tactic? (Yo-yo grenades and come down at 5th turn to try to contest (or 4th).

No. One is good enough IMO.

Jaradakar wrote:In the Mech army you list:

HQ

Autarch, Fusion Gun. He's there to give you +1 to your reserve rolls.

Why? What in that army gains benefit from reserve bonus? (No Hawks, No Outflanking, is it just because of the Dawn of War Force Deployment?)

The whole army. See, the secret is to keep the whole thing in reserve in every mission then zoom on and bye-bye enemy army.

Autarchs help with that, no?

Otherwise, yes Autarchs are not very good.

Jaradakar wrote:Personally I think the Autarch sucks (S3 T3 FTL) and is really only good when holding a Lance and on a bike.

In the MC army, do the Wraithguard cover enough of the Wraithlord to grant them cover? I know the Wraithguard are taller than the standard troop, but to actually give the Wraithlords cover you need to block 50% of them, does it hit that mark?

I'm a total Wraithguard noob, but I'm wanting to learn how to use them (thinking about purchasing some). How does the MC army do Vs Tau? (I ask this due to it looking fairly slow and guardians being pretty worthless Vs Tau).

Also have you ever run a Mech army that favors Assault? (Falcons & Waves + Assault units jumping out).

If you group the Wraithguard together, most people won't say they don't cover him. I've looked, and it's very close.

I guess I could physically measure, but that's a bit too anal for me. lol

Tau hate Wraithlords. When almost everything you have wounds on a 6 or 5+ except Railguns and there are 9 wounds to chew through (have to hit, wound, and pass cover saves) it's craptastic. Add in the fact that the Eldar will be gunning for your Hammerheads themselves and it's only a matter of time before there are Wraithlords sitting on your side of the board.

I ran a Biel'Tan Swordwind army years ago. Until you can assault out of them after moving is restored (probably 6th edition so the yang is yin and the circle is complete blah blah) no I think they're horrible units to take.

Ah, cool. I've never tried the triple hawk, and thought maybe you knew something I did not ;-)

I need to run more tests to see how effective 3rd turn jump up, 4th turn land close to objective, 5th turn contest works. Lately I seem to be destined to play "Capture and Control".

--------------------------------

AH.... crazy. So you keep everything in reserve sort of Daemon esk, yes very interesting. Of course you do open yourself up to the daemon bad luck of failing reserve rolls (1s they hurt) and that could mean a trickle in...

---------------------------------

A good friend of mine just started playing Tau and I'm finding that I'm now all of a sudden playing against Tau more than normal (Usually it's more these races in order of most played: SM, GK, Daemons, CSM, Necron, Nids, Tau).

So it's been an adjustment fighting Tau more often.

-----------------------------

Hum, I hate the concept of clowns so typically will run Shees instead (cheaper too) but you're right, bitches need there own ride, hence they usually get a Wave. It is tough to get them out and assaulting and does require you to give your opponent a chance to blow the wave up... but I've found if you have multiple Falcons supporting (and giving them other targets/things to worry about) it can work... Of course you really need to be running a Farseer with Doom to make the Shees effective but luckily that fits nicely into the Wave. Plus being able to Fortune the wave on the way in helps you keep it alive till the next turn for Shees deployment. Anyway it's something I keep trying to work with.

------------------------------

My brother... and some others in my play group can be pretty picky I bet I'd only get a 5+ cover on the Wraithlord Via the Wraithguard if I fought for it... (I don't have Wraithguard figs to actually check). Thinking about getting some and that army looks fun (and I have most of the rest of the units). Though I'd have to down size it a bit we typically been playing 1500 point games.

While I don't condone it, you can 'crouching tiger, hidden dragon' the wraithlords. Or base up your wraithguard.

Lame, but legal.

Stelek wrote:While I don't condone it, you can 'crouching tiger, hidden dragon' the wraithlords. Or base up your wraithguard.

Lame, but legal.

Yeah not my style and I personally don't believe it's legal. I think when it comes to any LOS issues if a person has heavily modified a model then in any LOS questionable situations said model should be replaced with a standard unmodified model to check LOS.

I think this cuts down on the cheese/abuse factor and I truly hope GW puts out some errata stating so, till then it's a house rule my group uses.

Yes I agree, GW should do that.

And a standard base size.

And I don't think there's a chance in holy heaven they will ever do so.

Swooping Hawks are guardsmens? ouch ... can't say i agree with that they've 2 jobs in my army and they do them well
1. Kill Vehicles ... this is their main job and i have never seen a vehicle live
2. Harry troop ... my exarch has sunrifle, it pins ... not great at killing at S:3 AP:5 but its Assault 6 so chances are good that it will kill some one and then that units got a good chance of sitting there a turn ... even with out this upgrade they still are good at killing things that come in large numbers

How do you get into combat with vehicles with T3 guys? Why aren't you being shot to pieces?

Pinning in a high LD based game with NO modifiers is a fools task. How is 2 out of 12 or 3 out of 12 a good chance?

Guardsmen are not good at killing things in large numbers. They are the same as a stormtrooper squad rapid firing hellguns. That isn't firepower, that's pray and spray.

how are T3 guys getting into combat with vehicles? they can move 12" fleet D6" assualt 6" in other words any vehicle with in 19"-24" is a target ... just make sure they're behind cover and they're fine.

pinning in high LD games ... well of course but if you pin a unit then thats a unit doing nothing for a turn. (not to mention killing some ones a bonus) (chances of being pinned LD 10 = 3/36 LD9 = 6/36 LD8 = 10/36
while 8.3%, 16.6%, & 27.7% aren't great still worth a shot)

...they have a good BS4 (& a B5) ... whats the rough save for anything that comes in more then 15 people ... 5+ so no save... S:3 isn't great but its not horrible (still can kill T6 on a 6) normal units are T3 or T4 so 4+ or 5+.

is 21p alot? yes but if used right they can be great

Behind cover + torrent of fire = Dead but you made me torrent you twice. lol

21p for a move and fire rapid firing lasgun with eldar aspect warrior statlines, a dodgy ability, and an anti-tank role that defies their anti-infantry role...yes, it is paying alot of points for alot of weirdness.

My only issue with this is the information is pretty clear to
someone who's read or played the army a bit, but it's not
really an analysis but a series of conclusions. I'm not
disagreeing with the conclusions themselves, but with the
posting.

Example:

Wraithguard

Still costs like a terminator, but doesn't perform like one.

You posted a claim, but do not seek out to prove it with
either theoryhammer, mathhammer, anecdotal hammer,
or, you know, proof of some kind.

Yes, I've been away for a bit from the article system.

There is a bit more analysis in some of the other units,
but items are missing from this.

weird unit but i love'em for it. I think i'll keep you're comment for awhile

malfred wrote:My only issue with this is the information is pretty clear to
someone who's read or played the army a bit, but it's not
really an analysis but a series of conclusions. I'm not
disagreeing with the conclusions themselves, but with the
posting.

Example:

Wraithguard

Still costs like a terminator, but doesn't perform like one.

You posted a claim, but do not seek out to prove it with
either theoryhammer, mathhammer, anecdotal hammer,
or, you know, proof of some kind.

Yes, I've been away for a bit from the article system.

There is a bit more analysis in some of the other units,
but items are missing from this.

Could you provide a more definitive list? I'll be fixing the Wraithguard entry up now.

Thank you for the feedback.

For an analysis, I'm not looking to read an article only about
why you think certain units are bad choices in the Eldar
army. I'm also looking for good units that you talk up in
terms of the stuff that you plan to use in the army
discussions that follow. I think the focus of your analysis are
those army breakdowns, so you should either leave the
unit critiques out, put them on your blog, or flesh them out
with fuller (more full?) explanations.

Glancing over the army tactics, a lot of that needs
explanation as well.

I think the issue is the audience. Right now the article
reads like you're writing for yourself, not a casual
observer or someone who's interested in playing the
Eldar army. It's not even for someone who's really
experienced with the Eldar army. It's written for
someone who's had your experience with the Eldar
army, as only that person could decode what you mean
when you say that Maugan Ra is a bad, bad man.

Illustrate an example or how a unit functions in a role
and point out the flaws and successes those units would
have.

At least, that's what I think of when I think of an army
analysis.

We could always just re-title the piece to reflect the
content if you don't agree with my overall suggestions
and want to leave the article as it is.

I like your suggestions, actually. I don't know if they are accurate judging by the number of comments/emails/pm's about this article, but after the ard boyz I will make some revisions.

malfred wrote:
It's written for someone who's had your experience
with the Eldar army, as only that person could decode
what you mean when you say that Maugan Ra is a bad,
bad man.

yep too true, means nothing to any one without the codex
but say he's :-

Maugan Ra 195 Points
WS:7 BS:7 S:4 T:4 W:3 I:7 A:4 Ld:10 Sv:2+

Special Rules
Fleet of foot, Fearless, Eternal Warrior, Acute Senses

Exarch Warrior Powers
Crack Shot (reroll to wound, ignores cover saves)
and Fast Shot (+1 shooting, can't be used with Crack Shot)

Weapon
Maugetar - Counts as a 2 hand power weapon that add +2S (making him S:6)
& in as a Range:36" S:6 AP:5 Assault 4, Pinning, Rending

most people would understand that he's unbleiveablely powerfull

That foot eldar army looks freakin nasty.

@ Tri: I don't think I should write the Codex stats down. Summary, fair use. Writing unit entries...not so much. I don't know how yakface feels about it, but when I was doing the army builder thing it was a big grey area best avoided.

@ kaiservonhugal: Thank you. It's supposed to. Eldar can make alot of nasty armies if they want to. It's a nice thing about the Eldar line, lots and lots of stuff.

Stelek wrote:@ Tri: I don't think I should write the Codex stats down. Summary, fair use. Writing unit entries...not so much. I don't know how yakface feels about it, but when I was doing the army builder thing it was a big grey area best avoided.

@ kaiservonhugal: Thank you. It's supposed to. Eldar can make alot of nasty armies if they want to. It's a nice thing about the Eldar line, lots and lots of stuff.

I've played the MC Eldar list a couple of times now (granted a slim down 1500 point version). In my version I end up only running 2 Wraithguard squads and add a Fortune Seer. Personally I find throwing fortune on the Avatar increases his life span a huge amount. Otherwise your opponent can concentrate fire and drop him. Especially if they're used to fighting Daemon MC and have lots of firepower (large number of shots).

But I'm having a good time, seems a little tricky on point capture or when having to protect your bunker while taking over theirs... but part of that could be my inexperience playing the list. First game was kill points, and it preformed very well as a huge moving castle of death. 2nd game my opponent split his forces (part defending part attacking). Thinking back, I could have kept all my together but that would have just ended in a draw... not sure the best way to split the MC list for an attack/defend move.

-Jara

Comments:

"Edit DAaddict: They are not terminators... wraithguard have toughness 6. Lead them with a warlock with enhance. You have 10 5 strength 5ws 5initiative 6 toughness beasties... won't match up well to terminators but get them in hand-to-hand with a mob of orcs and see who walks away. The weapon is short ranged but kills anything it wants to shoot at, landraider or carnifex included. Let's see what 10 wraithguard do to a tricked out carnifex in one fire phase and I will give you two turns of shooting from 10 terminators to match it. The eldar are all about taking the right unit for the task. They are not marines who can walk out 60 tacticals and put up a good show against anything. Wraithguard have a purpose. "

The point wasn't to compare how Wraithguard perform versus a few select units in a few select situations and do better than Terminators.

The point was to illustrate how Wraithguard and Terminators cost the same but are nothing alike.

Me: "Still costs like a terminator, but doesn't perform like one."

Terminators can gun down Orks and CC Fexes to death (the reverse of your examples) but this is pretty meaningless anecdotal evidence at best.

People need to know before they spend the money or the points on Wraithguard, that despite costing what a Terminator does they are not Eldar Terminators.

Thank you. I saved your comment above for posterity.

Jara,

It is a huge moving wall of death. You should play it like such. It has it's weaknesses (it's a bit slow) but it has it's strengths (it's very hard to kill or stop).

Place your objective forward, not to the rear. Preferably a place where you can take a move then a run and get back to within 3" of it in a single turn.

Often as not, if you simply move your castle to your opponent's objective...you'll totally screw him up, because who would expect you to abandon YOUR objective and go claim his? It's a bit of advanced tactics that most players don't consider, but it is a viable one.

Mobile armies can dodge the tactic of course, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Basically that means anyone with fast vehicles, who can go around your castle and get onto your objective. If their whole army isn't mobile though, you can beat what they are defending with and then take their objective.

In that kind of situation, where he's castled up on his own objective...place your objective as far from him as possible, and run right at him.

It's really quite disconcerting.

Works great for the Nid MC Assault army, in military tactics you are basically phasing forward with your force and seeing if the enemy can FBIGO. If they can't, they lose.

In 40k, you usually can't get away but instead have to fight and stand to the last man.

That is how the CC capable MC armies run themselves all over you, by bringing the biggest threats they can to the table and then using them to escort a scoring troop unit to the enemy objective.

Sneaky, neh?

Stelek wrote:Jara,

It is a huge moving wall of death. You should play it like such. It has it's weaknesses (it's a bit slow) but it has it's strengths (it's very hard to kill or stop).

Place your objective forward, not to the rear. Preferably a place where you can take a move then a run and get back to within 3" of it in a single turn.

Often as not, if you simply move your castle to your opponent's objective...you'll totally screw him up, because who would expect you to abandon YOUR objective and go claim his? It's a bit of advanced tactics that most players don't consider, but it is a viable one.

Mobile armies can dodge the tactic of course, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Basically that means anyone with fast vehicles, who can go around your castle and get onto your objective. If their whole army isn't mobile though, you can beat what they are defending with and then take their objective.

In that kind of situation, where he's castled up on his own objective...place your objective as far from him as possible, and run right at him.

It's really quite disconcerting.

Works great for the Nid MC Assault army, in military tactics you are basically phasing forward with your force and seeing if the enemy can FBIGO. If they can't, they lose.

In 40k, you usually can't get away but instead have to fight and stand to the last man.

That is how the CC capable MC armies run themselves all over you, by bringing the biggest threats they can to the table and then using them to escort a scoring troop unit to the enemy objective.

Sneaky, neh?

Hum my brothers a pretty good player... he typically play's Grey Knights. In this last game he deployed first and split his forces with 2 APC full of troops on the right side (closer to my point) and then the rest of his forces on the left side (near his point).

I do see what you are saying though and I now think I know what my biggest error was, which was placing my objective far away from his. Placing my objective point as close as possible to his location would benefit this slow foot slogging army. Yes, very interesting. Charge his point with everything (I've done this tactic before, tend to have to with MC Daemon rushing at you) and then assuming they are close enough, move back to take it as well... could work.

So for 3-5 locations you need to capture? Just place as many close together as you can, and then attack the point which gives you access to the most?

Just a quick question: What's FBIGO?