PDA

View Full Version : How competitive are Eldar right now?



RandomThoughts
04-07-2011, 13:43
I've had a lot of fun and success with my Eldar so far, but with all the bad press Eldar are getting from competitive players here on Warseer, I've become worried I might hit a glass ceiling any time soon.

Now, in a thread concerned with the competitiveness of Tyranids someone posted:

Tyranids are perfectly fine army, until you hit the upper tiers of skill where they don't provide the strongest players with the tools they need to overcome other strong players with better tools.

The simple fact is that 95% of Tyranid players will never be in a situation where the army just breaks down, or if they are, they just assume the dice were at fault or their opponent just outplayed them. So for most Tyranid players the army is fine. For those of us that wanna "hang with the big boys" it just doesn't cut it.

I think this sounds pretty convincing, and I wonder whether the same holds true for Eldar. I don't mind if the army can't compete in tournament level games, what worries me is the idea that I might have to play mech-spam-eldar in casual / semi-competitive games any time soon (as my regular opponents start to adjust to Eldar gameplay) just to avoid/postpone a major loosing streak.

Any feedback on that? Please?

Thud
04-07-2011, 13:59
Eldar is having a lot more trouble than Nids.

In order to succeed with Nids you need to keep an open mind, not whine about your army, and practice. Do these three things and you're fine.

With Eldar it's trickier. Some times your army just folds. It just doesn't have what you need to pull off the win. Doesn't mean that they'll always lose, though, but I've come to the point now where winning six games in a row against good opponents with good armies to win a tournament just isn't viable any more.

If you want to keep it casual, though, you should be fine. With experience and a well-composed army you should have no problems keeping your W/L rate at about 1:1.

Spell_of_Destruction
04-07-2011, 14:03
For various reasons I won't go into here, Eldar are not a top tier army in a competitive setting. They still have some competitive builds but they're not very inspiring (usually revolves around DAVU and Fire Dragons mech).

I find against good players who take lists based on a combination of effectiveness and fluff/general appeal they still do okay. Believe it or not, but not everone out there is running optimised mech lists and IG leaf blower lists. And I'm not just talking about players who don't know what they're doing.

There's sometimes this weird fun/competitive dichotomy presented on warseer that I just don't find reflected in real life - the idea is that all gamers are divided into either one group that doesn't give a damn about the challenging aspect of the game and just wants to have fun (win or lose) or the other group full of grim WAAC gamers who have nothing but scorn for fluff and narrative.

Most gamers I encounter want to enjoy a game that contains both narrative and a mental challenge - the two are not mutually exclusive. Taking a list that is less than 100% optimised does not somehow make you some kind of clueless noob. Strategy, tactical effectiveness, fluff, play style - these are all things I consider when building a list.

If you want to win at tournaments Eldar are no longer the force they once were but they still have enough in their bag of tricks to work in a (slightly) more relaxed environment.

fidesratioque
04-07-2011, 14:05
I often ask for eldar strategy and list building advice on this forum.

The answer I get is always: more Dire Avengers and more Fire Dragons.

Basically, I've given up on this place.

Spell_of_Destruction
04-07-2011, 14:17
I often ask for eldar strategy and list building advice on this forum.

The answer I get is always: more Dire Avengers and more Fire Dragons.

Basically, I've given up on this place.

It's obvious why these units are favoured over others in the competitive scene. DAVU falcons are a reliable and mobile scoring unit and Fire Dragons are among the best anti mech units in the game and relatively cheap.

Below that the other troops work to varying degrees of effectiveness. I still run a Warp Spiders and Striking Scorpions in a more 'casual' setting and sometimes even (whisper it) Dark Reapers.

Banshees are unfortunately a unit that simply doesn't reward effective execution in 5th ed and I can rarely justify the points is costs for a full squad plus transport.

I still use Avengers 'properly' (i.e. not DAVU) in casual games.

The less said about Swooping Hawks, Shining Spears and Guardians the better.

The other thing Eldar can do is lay down an ungodly quantity of s6 firepower which can still definitely be a winner if you're not playing against tourney mech lists.

Irisado
04-07-2011, 14:21
Believe it or not, but not everone out there is running optimised mech lists and IG leaf blower lists. And I'm not just talking about players who don't know what they're doing.

Agreed. There is a lot mythology on this subject. The idea that everybody is fielding homogenised army lists is simply not the case.


Most gamers I encounter want to enjoy a game that contains both narrative and a mental challenge - the two are not mutually exclusive. Taking a list that is less than 100% optimised does not somehow make you some kind of clueless noob.

Again, I completely agree here. There is a vocal minority which likes to convey this sort of message, unfortunately, so this is where I suspect that some players get this impression from.

Player skill is particularly important when fielding the Eldar in my experience. I have never felt that I have lost a game because my army list was not good enough, but I have lost games because I didn't play well enough. Play well with the Eldar and they will serve you well more often than not, but if you start making even the smallest of errors, you can end up paying a much harsher penalty than you would than if you field certain other armies.

Starchild
04-07-2011, 14:34
Eldar is having a lot more trouble than Nids.In the Dark Eldar interview with J. Goodwin and P. Kelly, they alluded to the fact that Dark Eldar basically *are* the "new" Eldar codex.

For selling models, I believe GW wants Craftworld Eldar to be underpowered for a good long while, so existing CE players will be more tempted to start DE.

That said, I still hold to the point that one can't account for every variable in a tournament. Sometimes Eldar achieve impressive tournament results despite the current setbacks.

Meriwether
04-07-2011, 14:57
I am very successful running mech and mixed-mech Eldar in casual play. There's a lot of fun to be had with the army, and against equally-matched opponents who also aren't just optimising the hell out of everything you should have a lot of fun, competitive games.

fidesratioque
04-07-2011, 16:09
Starchild, got a link to that interview? Also time in the video where he says that? Very interesting.

cynic
04-07-2011, 16:23
What i find is the things that Eldar could do well can now be trumped by other armies.

I recently played in the X Legion 2500pt tournament. My str6 spam army did ok, but was trumped by a str8 spam Sapce Wolves list (although it ended as a draw). Guard are now just as mobile - but with far more firepower.

fidesratioque
04-07-2011, 16:25
cynic, I feel exactly the same way, when you have to play much better than your opponent to win at the same points level, that's clear evidence that the two armies are not balanced properly.

Starchild
04-07-2011, 17:02
Starchild, got a link to that interview? Also time in the video where he says that? Very interesting.I'll have to give it another look but I believe it's about halfway through the first segment. The interview is in 3 segments on youtube but you should be able to find them on the GW website with a little digging.

SunTzu
04-07-2011, 17:10
I'm not much of a 40K player, but I've always loved Eldar, so I've kind-of kept track with how they get on. (Someone with practical experience can probably override pretty much everything I say here). The problem seems to be that the Aspects are very single-focus with a bare minimum of flexibility - which is fine, and everything, it's what Eldar Aspects are in the background, but it makes games very difficult.

Simple example, using two melee-focussed units: Striking Scorpions - next-to-useless against Marines, brilliant against Guardsmen (lots of attacks). Howling Banshees - never going to get their points back against Guardsmen, very good against Marines (power weapons and high Initiative). In most armies you choose a melee unit and can get reasonable results with it if it gets into combat. With Eldar, without list tailoring, it's much more difficult to do.

As a result everyone seems to take the few units that do well against everyone (Dire Avengers, with lots of shots and the fact they're a scoring unit; and Fire Dragons, because nowadays everyone has tanks that need killing, for example). This narrows down the competitive builds considerably, and relegates other Aspects to the sidelines, even though against their favoured target they may still be quite useful (I don't think there's anything in the Eldar list as all-out bad as Tau Sniper Drones or Vespid).

I'd love to take a heavily-Aspected army with loads of different infantry units led by an Avatar, but in modern 40K you pretty much have to take transports, and then you have to resign yourself to the likelihood that three of your ten units will be utterly useless in any given game (though it's likely to be a different three every time). That's quite a heavy millstone to carry around your neck.

Those are just my thoughts, anyway. Like I say, players with more, more-recent experience may have more insight than me.

nmm0822
04-07-2011, 17:35
Has anyone heard any rumors about when the Eldar might be brought up to 5th edition? My main army is the Blood Angel of which I have about 8600 points of. I just started building an Eldar army so I was just curious if any rumors are out there yet.

Irisado
04-07-2011, 17:41
The problem seems to be that the Aspects are very single-focus with a bare minimum of flexibility - which is fine, and everything, it's what Eldar Aspects are in the background, but it makes games very difficult.

It makes games difficult if you don't field a balanced army, and you expect your specialist units to be effective against multiple opposing units of different types. Unsupported Eldar units tend to achieve little, whereas Eldar units working in groups are more effective, due to being able to compensate for their respective weaknesses.


Simple example, using two melee-focussed units: Striking Scorpions - next-to-useless against Marines, brilliant against Guardsmen (lots of attacks). Howling Banshees - never going to get their points back against Guardsmen, very good against Marines (power weapons and high Initiative).

Striking Scorpions are actually good against regular MEQs, providing the Exarch is equipped with the Scorpion's Claw. Howling Banshees have a decisive edge against Feel No Pain MEQs though. As for hordes, Howling Banshees are reasonable, providing you soften the horde up first.


I'd love to take a heavily-Aspected army with loads of different infantry units led by an Avatar

That would be unusual, but not impossible. The big problem would be numbers (i.e. not many bodies in your army), and fire support (assuming you would not allow any units other than Aspect Warriors to be taken). I have a feeling that a couple of players did give an army like this a whirl a while back, but how successful it was, I don't know.


but in modern 40K you pretty much have to take transports, and then you have to resign yourself to the likelihood that three of your ten units will be utterly useless in any given game (though it's likely to be a different three every time). That's quite a heavy millstone to carry around your neck.

While I see more Eldar lists including transports than all infantry Eldar lists, some players still use the latter, and get them to work, I think that you would be surprised.

nmm0822: If there is no news on this in the Rumours board, then your question is answered :).

fidesratioque
04-07-2011, 17:54
I would much rather lose games than spam Fire Dragons and Dire Avengers.

Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus.

Drakcore Bloodtear
04-07-2011, 18:02
TBH I've only played Eldar once (just for fun) in a four-way game against GK, IG and Tyranids. The GK and IG were competitive while the nids were as good as they could be :p

My Eldar list was simply for fun, I had a Seer Council, Banshee's, Reapers and other mediocre choices
But I still managed a minor victory, unless you are a regular tournaments goer, creating your list to be as competitive as possible isn't very sensible

RandomThoughts
04-07-2011, 18:34
I'm not much of a 40K player, but I've always loved Eldar, so I've kind-of kept track with how they get on. (Someone with practical experience can probably override pretty much everything I say here). The problem seems to be that the Aspects are very single-focus with a bare minimum of flexibility - which is fine, and everything, it's what Eldar Aspects are in the background, but it makes games very difficult.

Yes - and no. In my opinion, if highly specialized units are correctly priced, they cost a lot less than the unit they are tailored to take out - in exchange for being useless when their primary target does not present itself. That is not the case with Eldar right now.


Simple example, using two melee-focussed units: Striking Scorpions - next-to-useless against Marines, brilliant against Guardsmen (lots of attacks). Howling Banshees - never going to get their points back against Guardsmen, very good against Marines (power weapons and high Initiative). In most armies you choose a melee unit and can get reasonable results with it if it gets into combat. With Eldar, without list tailoring, it's much more difficult to do.

Since you already brought it up, Banshees are a great example: The only thing they are effective against are units with high armor, no (or bad) invulnerable saves and preferably low toughness. Dreadnoughts will destroy them as much as Stormshield Terminators will, Space Marine Bikes will be near invulnerable to kill, Space Marine characters usually carry Invulnerable saves, and that's just from the army list they are most effective against.

To make Banshees work, I think they need at least Furious Charge, automatic Warcry (without the LD test) and advanced Eldar Powerweapons that ignore invulnerable saves as well as regular armor. With those three, they would be a lot more viable. They still suffer from horrible survivability-to-cost ratio and won''t get fielded without transports (which they can't assault out of effectively), but they might be able to finally kill equal points of their preferred pray without Farseer support...

I do have a slightly more positiv opinion of Scorpions - mathhammer shows that with their Exarch powerclaw they are nearly as effective against Marines in melee as Banshees, and they can take a lot more damage at the same cost. I recently started running foot-Scorpions in games against Marines, again, so that says a bit, I hope. (still, competitive players will shudder at the very notion...)


As a result everyone seems to take the few units that do well against everyone (Dire Avengers, with lots of shots and the fact they're a scoring unit;

Incorrect. They get taken because they are the cheapest troop choice that comes with a falcon. In truly competitive play, they are never supposed to fire a single shot themselves, all that is expected of them is stay quiet in the back of the van so that it can park on an objective at the end of the game. :(


Has anyone heard any rumors about when the Eldar might be brought up to 5th edition? My main army is the Blood Angel of which I have about 8600 points of. I just started building an Eldar army so I was just curious if any rumors are out there yet.

Last thing I heard is a rules update for all codices when 6th edition hits next summer and than possibly a new codex within a year or two.


Striking Scorpions are actually good against regular MEQs, providing the Exarch is equipped with the Scorpion's Claw.

What she said.


I would much rather lose games than spam Fire Dragons and Dire Avengers.

You and me, mate, you and me...

FarseerBeilTan
04-07-2011, 18:47
Ive not long got into Eldar, but i can still see a lot of potential in them.

There are some near enough redundant units now (Dark Reapers) but however there are some who still remain unmatched.

Sadly the tide of the Eldar has turned and they require Mech to be effective. The only problem is, these big CC units like Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees just get out the transport and have to hang around for a turn, getting shot up in the process and like all Eldar, Squish.

Irisado
04-07-2011, 20:07
Sadly the tide of the Eldar has turned and they require Mech to be effective.

Not necessarily true, as it depends on the gaming environment. Fully mechanised Eldar armies just tend to be easier to play for a number of Eldar players.


The only problem is, these big CC units like Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees just get out the transport and have to hang around for a turn, getting shot up in the process and like all Eldar, Squish.

Only if you disembark after the transport has moved, which tends to be a poor tactic in my experience. It's far better to wait for a turn inside the transports, then disembark, so that you can actually assault that turn. This is not easy to pull off with Striking Scorpions, due to their lack of fleet, but for Howling Banshees I find that it works pretty well.

Chainaxe07
04-07-2011, 20:09
Hi all, are we talking craftworls eldar, dark eldar or both?

cynic
04-07-2011, 21:19
Hi all, are we talking craftworls eldar, dark eldar or both?

Craftworld Eldar

Karhedron
04-07-2011, 22:48
Only if you disembark after the transport has moved, which tends to be a poor tactic in my experience. It's far better to wait for a turn inside the transports, then disembark, so that you can actually assault that turn. This is not easy to pull off with Striking Scorpions, due to their lack of fleet, but for Howling Banshees I find that it works pretty well.
Well said. And if your opponent falls back from the impending assault then you have him on the back foot. If you are playing an objective game then sooner or later he is going to have to grit his teeth and get charged or end up running away from the objectives.

The_Lemon
04-07-2011, 23:07
Your oponent can also block the single exit the transport has so it is not possible to disembark the banshees/scorpions that turn. And if you use the "flower formation" with several transports then what will happen is that he will assault several vehichles or even will be able to block all the acces points with a single unit thanks to the awesome mobility everyone seems to be getting.

Irisado
04-07-2011, 23:21
Your oponent can also block the single exit the transport has so it is not possible to disembark the banshees/scorpions that turn. And if you use the "flower formation" with several transports then what will happen is that he will assault several vehichles or even will be able to block all the acces points with a single unit thanks to the awesome mobility everyone seems to be getting.

When fielding three Wave Serpents together, assuming that only one of them contains an assault unit, this is pretty difficult for your opponent to accomplish. Providing your opponent cannot get to the access point for the Wave Serpent transporting the assault unit, then there is rarely a problem, and if you position the Wave Serpents correctly, in relation to terrain, board edges, and each other, it should be pretty difficult for your opponent to achieve that which you describe.

The danger to really be aware of is an outflanking assault unit, which could ruin your plans. A couple of defences against this are to ensure that you don't hug the short board edge too closely, or have other units following on behind the Wave Serpents, and/or providing fire support, to discourage an opponent from attempting this manoeuvre.

It all goes back to the point I was making earlier. You have to play well, and you also need to think quite a number of steps ahead when playing the Eldar, especially against some of the newer armies. It is not easy to beat some of these forces, but learning how to improve your own skills is part of the game. I don't view Eldar as being hindered because their transports only have one access point.

Heafstaag
05-07-2011, 00:24
In the hands of experienced players eldar armies just leave me vexed and asking "What just happened here?"

At my game store there is an eldar player that consistently gets in the top 3 at tournaments. His army seems like a random mix up of stuff because he doesn't use fire dragon/dire avenger spam. In 5 games against him he has absolutely massacred my guardsmen in every game. They've been hard fought battles, but eventually the guardmen just melt away. (I use ogryns and a vanquisher...so my list isn't a leafblower).

The point stands however that eldar, when well led, can still be very devastating.

Spell_of_Destruction
05-07-2011, 00:27
I don't doubt that Banshees are usable and I have achieved plenty of success with them myself - I just don't think they reward the challenges you have to overcome to get them into the situations they are most suited to.

For starters there's the very real risk that their wave serpent will get blown out of the sky the turn you position them to prep for an assault. Considering the points investment you have to be very careful - if there is a reasonable percentage chance of failure then it is a poor tactical choice unless you have reached the stage in the game when you need to take a few chances (i.e. you are losing).

I think the problems with the current Eldar 'dex stem from the rule changes introduced by 5th ed (in particular the mission rules). I could use my preferred 4th ed list which will still do very well in kill point missions but it will lose 2/3 of missions because it can barely take objectives. This restriction isn't an inherently bad thing but I think it prevents Eldar from keeping in touch with the newer armies which are all balanced with the 5th ed ruleset in mind. As the power level of the armies around us increases the inability to invest points in our best units hurts more and more.


In the Dark Eldar interview with J. Goodwin and P. Kelly, they alluded to the fact that Dark Eldar basically *are* the "new" Eldar codex.

For selling models, I believe GW wants Craftworld Eldar to be underpowered for a good long while, so existing CE players will be more tempted to start DE.

Pity GW doesn't take the same attitude towards Space Marines. I suspect it will be 18-24 months before we see a new Craftworld Eldar codex (so basically in the first 6-12 months of 6th ed if the rumours about 6th ed are true). That's pure conjecture on my part and based on the fact that once Necrons and Tau have been updated (looking likely in the next 12 months) it's basically our turn (once GW have released the rumoured new Chaos and crapped out a few more Marine 'dexes).

enygma7
05-07-2011, 00:33
Eldar are for the most part fine in non-tourni play. There are a fair few bum units, but the Eldar have such an extensive choice available to them this isn't really a problem. This choice looks set to get even bigger with the upcomming forgeworld book.

Where Eldar fall down is that their anti-tank capability is flawed, being often overpriced and ineffectual. Fire dragons are great but are too expensive to use as a suicide unit, which is what will happen if you just throw them at vehicles in the early game. As a result eldar don't deal well at all with mech spam (and massed vehicles generally) which seems to be the norm in most competetive settings. Is this style of play prevalent in your society? If not, with a well chosen list and some thought put in to your anti-tank capability you should be fine.

Also, although the wave serpent is a decent vehicle its very pricy. Eldar don't get cheap taxis which further hinders them in the current mech heavy game. Personally I prefer to only give transports to those units that really need them and rely on fast moving infantry and bikes instead for mobility. If your using a decent ammount of terrain this works great and warp spiders are a fantastic unit in this kind of game (they can also do a decent job of messing up transports with sheer volume of S6 hits and jumping away).

Eldar can actually be extremely hard to beat at objective games, if only because their super resilient tanks can ram raid the objectives on the last turn if your opponent doesn't deal with them. Not exactly the stuff of legends though :)

althathir
05-07-2011, 00:56
In the Dark Eldar interview with J. Goodwin and P. Kelly, they alluded to the fact that Dark Eldar basically *are* the "new" Eldar codex.

For selling models, I believe GW wants Craftworld Eldar to be underpowered for a good long while, so existing CE players will be more tempted to start DE.

That said, I still hold to the point that one can't account for every variable in a tournament. Sometimes Eldar achieve impressive tournament results despite the current setbacks.

I wouldn't read to much into a Dark Eldar Intertview tbh, its not like they're gonna release them and then say but in another year or two we'll release CWE and you might regret DE. For most of us starting a new army is scary/expensive enough, you don't want players just deciding to wait so I can't see why they wouldn't say something similiar.


Eldar are for the most part fine in non-tourni play. There are a fair few bum units, but the Eldar have such an extensive choice available to them this isn't really a problem. This choice looks set to get even bigger with the upcomming forgeworld book.

Where Eldar fall down is that their anti-tank capability is flawed, being often overpriced and ineffectual. Fire dragons are great but are too expensive to use as a suicide unit, which is what will happen if you just throw them at vehicles in the early game. As a result eldar don't deal well at all with mech spam (and massed vehicles generally) which seems to be the norm in most competetive settings. Is this style of play prevalent in your society? If not, with a well chosen list and some thought put in to your anti-tank capability you should be fine.

Also, although the wave serpent is a decent vehicle its very pricy. Eldar don't get cheap taxis which further hinders them in the current mech heavy game. Personally I prefer to only give transports to those units that really need them and rely on fast moving infantry and bikes instead for mobility. If your using a decent ammount of terrain this works great and warp spiders are a fantastic unit in this kind of game (they can also do a decent job of messing up transports with sheer volume of S6 hits and jumping away).

Eldar can actually be extremely hard to beat at objective games, if only because their super resilient tanks can ram raid the objectives on the last turn if your opponent doesn't deal with them. Not exactly the stuff of legends though :)

Anti-tank wise its more of a problem of not being able to spread enough specials throughout the army. That said I think davu units, and maxing str 6 spam do have something to do with it. Davu units just don't impact the table enough, and the cheapest ones can't hurt a tank (well they can glance it), and str 6 spam while good isn't gonna destroy a tank quickly. Adding a few heavier weapons can have a big effect.

That said a small unit of dragons aren't that expensive unless you count the transport, they're our armies easy button. I'm really hoping hawks get updated drop about 4 points and keep haywires cause then we'd have another decent anti-tank choice to open up more varied lists, but right now dragons are undercosted.

Spell_of_Destruction
05-07-2011, 01:48
I don't think that Dragons are undercosted. They may be a no brainer choice but enygma7 touched upon why this is the case - the alternatives are underwhelming.

In other armies a BS4 melta elite for 16 pts might be undercosted but all Eldar units should get a discount due to their specialised nature. My observation over the years ever since the release of 3rd ed is that Eldar units suffer a disadvantage as a result of their uniform armament. Units in other armies that rely on a couple of heavy or special weapon armed guys to deal the damage can suffer damage without seriously comprimising the effectiveness of the squad. Aspect Warriors suffer with every loss - we don't get ablative meatshields.

Don't get me started on the brightlance - weak, overcosted and a total lack of decent platforms for it (more or less limited to Wraithlords and Serpents - everything else is BS3) make it possibly the most ineffective anti tank weapon in the game. Maybe if they came up with new brightlance toting Aspect Warriors...

___________________________________

RunepriestRidcully
05-07-2011, 09:52
I'm staring Eldar, and they are proving to be fun to play, I have only played 500pt and 1000pts games so far, but I do warn you, 500pts wth the FOC is not your friend with Eldar, especially aginst loyalist marines, or mech orks for that matter (they basically have 8" movement because of the disimbarkment rules...) Also, whilst people say Hawks are bad, I have found them to be game winners for me, albeit they always seem to arrive on turn 5 (they never scatter for their coming in, and their grande template kills at least one a few marines eery time I use) and so it could be my luck causing it, yet they seem to be doing okay.

copper.talos
05-07-2011, 10:17
I think one of the problems with the Eldar are the uniform stats of the aspect warriors, eg why the fire dragons have a WS4? Why does their exarch have 2A? Same thing can be said about banshees'/scorpions' BS. We are getting highly specialized units but with generic stats. The aspect warriors stats should reflect their specialization and of course by lowering unneeded stats, the point cost can drop.

Ravenous
05-07-2011, 10:31
For various reasons I won't go into here

Basically the problem with eldar is lack of effective spammable long range anti tank and that the army has been "priced out" by armies that can do everything they can except better and for less points.

Michaelius
05-07-2011, 10:36
Basically the problem with eldar is lack of effective spammable long range anti tank and that the army has been "priced out" by armies that can do everything they can except better and for less points.

This.

Also if GW wanted DE to replace CE in hearts of players they should have given them not sucky anti-av 11-12 firepower ;)

Irisado
05-07-2011, 12:15
For starters there's the very real risk that their wave serpent will get blown out of the sky the turn you position them to prep for an assault.

If you're in position to launch an assault without having to move the Wave Serpent first (which is, after all, the plan), then if the Wave Serpent is destroyed it does not matter, providing the Howling Banshees do not fail their pinning test. The only way it may matter is if your opponent has anti-infantry firepower which can target the Banshees if their Serpent is destroyed, in which case you have to ensure that there are multiple threats as part of your attack, and make the most of cover from the wreckage of the transport.

Something that I have noticed (and this isn't directed at you Spell_of_Destruction) is that there are a number of complaints about the effectiveness of the Eldar because most Eldar units cannot be used independently. This seems to be the main gripe from those who perceive the army as not being effective enough. I don't agree with such complaints as Eldar units are not islands, their specialisation means that they have to be interdependent. It's actually how the army is supposed to work.

The problem, if there is one, is that more players field transports than in previous editions, which renders a lot specialist anti-infantry Eldar units ineffective until you open up the transport. This makes life more difficult than it was in fourth edition, but it's still manageable, particularly against transports whose all round armour isn't all that impressive.

RandomThoughts
05-07-2011, 12:15
Don't get me started on the brightlance - weak, overcosted and a total lack of decent platforms for it (more or less limited to Wraithlords and Serpents - everything else is BS3) make it possibly the most ineffective anti tank weapon in the game. Maybe if they came up with new brightlance toting Aspect Warriors...

Well, according to the 6th edition rumor thread, they will get a slight improve once the new rulebook hits. Essentially, they never take negaitive modifiers on the damage chart, which would mean they become as good as AP1 weapons (no more +1, instead everything else gets -1 against tanks) and possibly treat glancing hits as penetrating hits.

Michaelius
05-07-2011, 12:47
Something that I have noticed (and this isn't directed at you Spell_of_Destruction) is that there are a number of complaints about the effectiveness of the Eldar because most Eldar units cannot be used independently. This seems to be the main gripe from those who perceive the army as not being effective enough. I don't agree with such complaints as Eldar units are not islands, their specialisation means that they have to be interdependent. It's actually how the army is supposed to work.


That would be true if those specialists were priced below generalists from other armies that do similar work.
But the only ones that actually meet those criteria are Fire Dragons.

Sorry but if i have to support 200 pts worth of Striking Scorpions with another 300 pts of Eldar army to get the job done that would have been acomplished by 200 pts of Grey Hunters then it means Scorpions suck.

Irisado
05-07-2011, 13:21
Sorry but if i have to support 200 pts worth of Striking Scorpions with another 300 pts of Eldar army to get the job done that would have been acomplished by 200 pts of Grey Hunters then it means Scorpions suck.

Edit: I apologise, I misread your post, please see my reply on the next page.

They're not comparable. Grey Knights are more powerful than Eldar Aspect Warriors. They are on a par with Harlequins in terms of being a higher level elite unit.

Quite why you're choosing to focus on Striking Scorpions here is a bit odd, given that they normally tend to be fielded on foot, so cost fewer points than Howling Banshees (assuming you're factoring in the cost of a Wave Serpent). Striking Scorpions kill regular MEQs and GEQs in close combat, which is what they are supposed to be able to do. If you're expecting to beat Grey Knights in an assault, then you're asking for trouble, so I don't really understand your complaint I'm afraid.

RandomThoughts
05-07-2011, 13:29
That would be true if those specialists were priced below generalists from other armies that do similar work.
But the only ones that actually meet those criteria are Fire Dragons.

Sorry but if i have to support 200 pts worth of Striking Scorpions with another 300 pts of Eldar army to get the job done that would have been acomplished by 200 pts of Grey Hunters then it means Scorpions suck.

I second that.

Highly specialized units have to cost a fraction of the units they are supposed to take out, to account for all the times they find no suitable target, and for hidden cost like transportation to get them exactly where they are needed.

Take Banshees. They are supposed to take out heavy infantry. In order to get the job done they often need full size (~190 points) + a transport (~110 points) (because of their frail nature and the fact that they have to be used precicely in the right place) + often Farseer Support (at least Doom for ~50 points), so that's 300+ points plus, a lot of careful maneuvering, a noticable failure rate (like Serpents shot down too soon) and they always run the risk of ending up stranded/shot to death/charged by Dreadnought/Stormshield Terminators/Bikes after killing a single MEQ unit of 200 points or less.

You do the math...

RandomThoughts
05-07-2011, 13:49
They're not comparable. Grey Knights are more powerful than Eldar Aspect Warriors. They are on a par with Harlequins in terms of being a higher level elite unit.

He was talking about Space Wolf Grey Hunters, their version Tactical Marines, which cost similar to Banshees/Scorpions.


Quite why you're choosing to focus on Striking Scorpions here is a bit odd, given that they normally tend to be fielded on foot, so cost fewer points than Howling Banshees (assuming you're factoring in the cost of a Wave Serpent). Striking Scorpions kill regular MEQs and GEQs in close combat, which is what they are supposed to be able to do. If you're expecting to beat Grey Knights in an assault, then you're asking for trouble, so I don't really understand your complaint I'm afraid.

But what if Grey Knights come up against your Scorpions? Or two huge Orknob Deathstars? Then you wasted 120+ points for a melee unit that wants to avoid melee at all cost... You could still run them around a flank, I guess, hoping to either strike at other stuff or distract one of the deadly units for a turn or two, but I'm still not sure that's points well spent.

I recently started pondering the option to outflank them for a change, but it lacks precision with all the random dice rolling. Spending 150 points on something that might come in exactly where and when you need it sounds a bit dicey to me. :(

(In addition, I can't run a Farseer with them if they outflank - oh, if Eldar buff powers only had a greater range!)

So there's the Wave Serpent option again, which essentially leads directly back to other problems.

Spell_of_Destruction
05-07-2011, 15:04
He was talking about Space Wolf Grey Hunters, their version Tactical Marines, which cost similar to Banshees/Scorpions.



But what if Grey Knights come up against your Scorpions? Or two huge Orknob Deathstars? Then you wasted 120+ points for a melee unit that wants to avoid melee at all cost... You could still run them around a flank, I guess, hoping to either strike at other stuff or distract one of the deadly units for a turn or two, but I'm still not sure that's points well spent.

I recently started pondering the option to outflank them for a change, but it lacks precision with all the random dice rolling. Spending 150 points on something that might come in exactly where and when you need it sounds a bit dicey to me. :(

(In addition, I can't run a Farseer with them if they outflank - oh, if Eldar buff powers only had a greater range!)

So there's the Wave Serpent option again, which essentially leads directly back to other problems.

I used to sometimes run Scorpions in a Serpent with a fortune seer. Depending on what your opponent brings, that unit can take a significant amount of damage so doesn't have to hang around in the Transport in the same manner as Banshees. Scorpions also suffer less from casualties when compared with Banshees (against MEQs anyway) because they are more reliant on the exarch.

Your previous point regarding Banshees is the exact point I was making. I don't doubt for one second that Banshees have the potential to do excellent things in a game of 40k. I have seen this first hand on many occasions. They simply aren't a unit that can reliably perform in my experience. They are a high risk unit and over the course of dozens of games 40k doesn't reward players who use such units.

Synchronising units is all well and good - it's great in fact and one of the things that I have always enjoyed about the Eldar style of play. However, as Michaelius has pointed out there must be some form of reward for using units in tandem in this manner beyond what could be achieved by two units of generalists. This simply isn't the case - Grey Hunters being a great example. They're simply better than the choices available to us and no amount of clever play can disguise that.

althathir
05-07-2011, 15:16
I don't think that Dragons are undercosted. They may be a no brainer choice but enygma7 touched upon why this is the case - the alternatives are underwhelming.

In other armies a BS4 melta elite for 16 pts might be undercosted but all Eldar units should get a discount due to their specialised nature. My observation over the years ever since the release of 3rd ed is that Eldar units suffer a disadvantage as a result of their uniform armament. Units in other armies that rely on a couple of heavy or special weapon armed guys to deal the damage can suffer damage without seriously comprimising the effectiveness of the squad. Aspect Warriors suffer with every loss - we don't get ablative meatshields.

Don't get me started on the brightlance - weak, overcosted and a total lack of decent platforms for it (more or less limited to Wraithlords and Serpents - everything else is BS3) make it possibly the most ineffective anti tank weapon in the game. Maybe if they came up with new brightlance toting Aspect Warriors...

___________________________________


A unit with str 8 ap 1 assault weapons isn't really specialised they're more point and click and things die. I can understand that agrument for other aspects but not dragons.



I second that.

Highly specialized units have to cost a fraction of the units they are supposed to take out, to account for all the times they find no suitable target, and for hidden cost like transportation to get them exactly where they are needed.

Take Banshees. They are supposed to take out heavy infantry. In order to get the job done they often need full size (~190 points) + a transport (~110 points) (because of their frail nature and the fact that they have to be used precicely in the right place) + often Farseer Support (at least Doom for ~50 points), so that's 300+ points plus, a lot of careful maneuvering, a noticable failure rate (like Serpents shot down too soon) and they always run the risk of ending up stranded/shot to death/charged by Dreadnought/Stormshield Terminators/Bikes after killing a single MEQ unit of 200 points or less.

You do the math...

I hate that people include the transport cost, and farseer cost when discussing eldar units for 2 reasons.

1) Wave serpents are not a sunk cost, it makes me want to throw out the dreaded "learn to play game" statement. Wave serpents are a bit overpriced but its not like you take them off the table after you drop off their unit, they can still affect the game.

2) Farseers aren't a dedicated unit that follows banshees and dooms targets they're a flexible hq who deny opponents psychic powers with runes of warding.

RandomThoughts
05-07-2011, 15:36
I hate that people include the transport cost, and farseer cost when discussing eldar units for 2 reasons.

1) Wave serpents are not a sunk cost, it makes me want to throw out the dreaded "learn to play game" statement. Wave serpents are a bit overpriced but its not like you take them off the table after you drop off their unit, they can still affect the game.

Well, perhaps I simply underestimate empty Serpents. In that case, I'd like to rectify this statement.


2) Farseers aren't a dedicated unit that follows banshees and dooms targets they're a flexible hq who deny opponents psychic powers with runes of warding.

Good point. However, my meta game features no psykers at all, I never take Runes of Warding and when I build a list with a Farseer inside, I usually calculate her cost based entirely on the psychic powers she brings to the table.

Irisado
05-07-2011, 15:44
He was talking about Space Wolf Grey Hunters, their version Tactical Marines, which cost similar to Banshees/Scorpions.

Now I understand, I apologise, I misread Michaelius' post.

Yes, Grey Hunters are a problem, and combined with that banner whose name I forget, certain Space Wolf units are powerful, probably too powerful. That said, this is clearly an oversight with the Space Wolf book, and you still have to measure Eldar units against opposition as a whole, so if we take the Grey Hunters as being a mistake, which every other opposing army has to cope with as well, then I still don't think that this is an Eldar specific issue.

Let's also factor in that Space Wolves have always been more of close assault oriented Chapter (except for the Long Fangs), and you would expect them to be difficult to beat in assaults.


But what if Grey Knights come up against your Scorpions? Or two huge Orknob Deathstars? Then you wasted 120+ points for a melee unit that wants to avoid melee at all cost...

No, it's not wasted, you just have to soften up the unit more than you normally would with other shooting before you engage it. Also, in the case of the Ork example, there are other units in the army which the Striking Scorpions could be used against to greater effect.


I recently started pondering the option to outflank them for a change, but it lacks precision with all the random dice rolling. Spending 150 points on something that might come in exactly where and when you need it sounds a bit dicey to me. :(

You take an Autarch to have more control over reserve rolls, and there is a two-thirds chance that they will arrive on the flank you prefer.

Spell_of_Destruction
06-07-2011, 00:48
1) Wave serpents are not a sunk cost, it makes me want to throw out the dreaded "learn to play game" statement. Wave serpents are a bit overpriced but its not like you take them off the table after you drop off their unit, they can still affect the game.

What you're saying is half true. Serpents are taken because they give a unit mobility and protect it from ranged fire. You're not really paying for the armament which is meagre for the cost.

Yes - Serpents still have a role to play in the battle after they have dropped off their payload but their primary function is as a squad upgrade. When you go mech and have 3+ serpents the points investment in vehicles with limited damage output starts to seriously affect your ability to inflict damage on the enemy (not to mention the fact that you've had to invest a ton of points in our uninspiring Troops choices).

The fact is that a lot of Eldar units NEED the transport. In a 1500pt game 400+pts invested in a few gun platforms will seriously detract from your ability to inflict damage against your opponent. This is why the current Eldar tourney style seems to be "evade" and "objective raid".

althathir
06-07-2011, 01:06
Well, perhaps I simply underestimate empty Serpents. In that case, I'd like to rectify this statement.



Good point. However, my meta game features no psykers at all, I never take Runes of Warding and when I build a list with a Farseer inside, I usually calculate her cost based entirely on the psychic powers she brings to the table.

AV 12, fast skimmers, with a heavy weapon are solid, the amount of times an empty skimmer has won me a game contesting an objective makes it hard to quantify how many points it should be worth. I mean when you think about it DAVU units (which i kinda hate) are considered one of our best options, that alone should be argument againist serpents as a sunk cost. I'm not saying that serpent is the best tank ever, or even that its priced correctly personally I think it should be bs 4, and have spirit stones standard for its current cost but it isn't some stain on the codex thats just a cost added onto the unit that takes it.

I always build lists from an all comers perspective, if I have a farseer he has runes of warding too many scary psychers out there and runes is a hard counter. A lot of times in casual games its effectively a handicap but i've found designing lists from the perspective tends to be more effective in the long run then basing it just on my meta.

@spell of destruction - ironically "evade" and "objective raid" being our tournament style actually kinda fits the fluff.

Meriwether
06-07-2011, 01:13
Empty waveserpents are a backbone of my mech eldar and mixed eldar success... They're really rather spectacular.

Spell_of_Destruction
06-07-2011, 01:15
@spell of destruction - ironically "evade" and "objective raid" being our tournament style actually kinda fits the fluff.

Perhaps, but this style as it currently exists is boring as hell to play (IMO). I far preferred the 'aggressive mobile defence' that was possible in 3rd/4th ed.

I no longer have any inclination to play Eldar in a tourney setting - the viable builds are just too boring. I still enjoy using them in more casual games where they can still be successful and an enjoyable army to use.

Meriwether
06-07-2011, 01:22
I still think that mech or mixed-mech full offense has a place in tournaments, but whenever I mention that online I get shouted down by naysayers...

Spell_of_Destruction
06-07-2011, 01:38
I still think that mech or mixed-mech full offense has a place in tournaments, but whenever I mention that online I get shouted down by naysayers...

The points levels in US tournaments may help? 1500pts is a bad pts level for Eldar.

Damon
06-07-2011, 02:28
Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus.


“Let there be justice, though the world perish.”

Awesome quote.

RandomThoughts
06-07-2011, 12:06
I still think that mech or mixed-mech full offense has a place in tournaments, but whenever I mention that online I get shouted down by naysayers...

I have a high opinion of your judgement, and mixed-mech / foot'dar full offense sounds like the exact strategy I might enjoy.

Could you illustrate your approach and the principles they are based on a bit, please?

Meriwether
06-07-2011, 12:29
Mixed-mech: Super-flamey guardians in waveserpents + a core of Eldrad + pathfinders + D-Cannons + Wraithlords. Shooting vehicles is almost strictly suppression, and you tear them apart with warlocks and take heavy advantage of tank shock (making sure you know the rules well).

Mech: Super-flamey guardians in waveserpents + fire dragons in wave serpents + 2 autarchs for reserves shenanigans.

I never use DAVU, rarely if ever use falcons at all, and have almost always deployed nearly everything from their vehicles by turn two (though they do tend to saddle back up after eliminating targets). Exceptions are when people bring preposterous deathstars, where I'll stay away and ping them with the serpents to whittle them down, and then hit them with my entire army...

It's amazing what seven heavy flamers, eight regular flamers, 24 pistols, and 27 melta weapons will do to most deathstar units.

Starchild
06-07-2011, 16:25
rarely if ever use falcons at allNeither do I. :(

I'm appalled at how far the Falcon has fallen from its high 2nd edition perch. Once upon a time it was the King of Tanks. Now its just a gimmick vehicle for exploiting the objective rules (essentially allowing Dire Avengers to do what Swooping Hawks used to do when any infantry / jump infantry unit could claim objectives.)

GW really needs to bring the Falcon back up to where it should be. My enemy should cower in fear when the Falcon stalks the battlefield, not laugh at me when it can't hit a Grox barn at point blank with the most sophisticated laser weaponry in the galaxy. :rolleyes:

Fable
06-07-2011, 22:01
Neither do I. :(

I'm appalled at how far the Falcon has fallen from its high 2nd edition perch. Once upon a time it was the King of Tanks. Now its just a gimmick vehicle for exploiting the objective rules (essentially allowing Dire Avengers to do what Swooping Hawks used to do when any infantry / jump infantry unit could claim objectives.)

GW really needs to bring the Falcon back up to where it should be. My enemy should cower in fear when the Falcon stalks the battlefield, not laugh at me when it can't hit a Grox barn at point blank with the most sophisticated laser weaponry in the galaxy. :rolleyes:

In 3rd edition it was a joke. In 4th edition it was just about right, but Holofields were simply too good. In 5th it's overpriced in just about every facet. I hope one day it's made competitive with the other tanks in Heavy Support or becomes an option as a dedicated transport.

The codex even calls it the main battle tank of the Eldar and currently it just feels... lacking.

Sildani
06-07-2011, 22:24
The Falcon shouldn't be the MBT anyway, that honor should go to the Prism. The Falcon is... dunno, an awful conglomeration of transport and gunship. It's the Mil-24 Hind of 40K, except that the Hind can fly AND shoot AND disembark its troops all at the same time, where the Falcon cannot. I don't know the role the Falcon is supposed to fill. The Hind has 4 AT missiles, rocket pods, a cannon, and a squad of Spetsnaz. The Falcon has a pulse laser, something else, a shuriken something, and Aspects, it pains me to say, are not Spetsnaz.

It's strange, in an army of specialists, we have one of the most conflicted tanks around.

Jaded Patriot
06-07-2011, 22:36
The Falcon shouldn't be the MBT anyway, that honor should go to the Prism. The Falcon is... dunno, an awful conglomeration of transport and gunship. It's the Mil-24 Hind of 40K, except that the Hind can fly AND shoot AND disembark its troops all at the same time, where the Falcon cannot. I don't know the role the Falcon is supposed to fill. The Hind has 4 AT missiles, rocket pods, a cannon, and a squad of Spetsnaz. The Falcon has a pulse laser, something else, a shuriken something, and Aspects, it pains me to say, are not Spetsnaz.

It's strange, in an army of specialists, we have one of the most conflicted tanks around.

It's like a Valkyrie or Vandetta but with less troop capacity and worse guns. :mad:

EDIT:

It also costs a lot more and is marginally more survivable. Sigh.

Spell_of_Destruction
06-07-2011, 23:59
The Falcon was fine when it was released in 2nd ed. It has suffered since then through a combination of poor ballistic skill and meagre armament. It had a brief resurgence in 4th ed due to the defensive weapon rules.

The pulse laser needs a boost because for a main weapon it is pretty underwhelming - a two shot BS3 S8 lascannon. It's a decidely 'meh' weapon that isn't particularly good against anything - it lacks the penetrative power to be a decent AT weapon and the RoF to worry Heavy Infantry. The ubiquitous Imperial twin linked lascannon is superior.

If the rumours of different levels of Lance in 6th ed are true I'm hoping it will go to Heavy 3 Lance (1).

Saying all that, for a small squad of Fire Dragons it is a more resilient transport than a Serpent.

Bob Arctor
07-07-2011, 00:33
Just going on my own experience of using them and watching other Eldar players I think Eldar are perfectly competitive right now, once you know the basics of the army.

I think Mech-Eldar is a little overrated though, a well thought out foot-heavy list is superior against most armies, though you are liable to be overrun by Nids and Orks. Not saying you should ditch the vehicles completely, but I manage just fine with a single Wave Serpent for my Fire Dragons and I've seen other players do just as well with not much more than this.

Starchild
07-07-2011, 01:21
Just going on my own experience of using them and watching other Eldar players I think Eldar are perfectly competitive right now, once you know the basics of the army.Hi there... what are these basics you speak of, and could we have some more detail on the effective foot-based builds you've seen/used? :confused:

Spell_of_Destruction
07-07-2011, 02:13
Hi there... what are these basics you speak of, and could we have some more detail on the effective foot-based builds you've seen/used? :confused:

Perhaps he means the mixed mech/foot style that some players favour? Mixed mech/static works quite well so long as you're not facing optimised lists. My static element usually consists of a cheapish Guardian squad, Avatar, Farseer with Guide and Warwalkers. 6 Warwalkers with scatter lasers is a terrifying quantity of heavy firepower. It also gives your opponent some headaches when it comes to target priority if you also have a few serpents flying around.

Apart from a few esoteric builds (such as Iyanden themed armies) foot-dar went out the window as soon as 4th edition was released. In 3rd ed we could hide our elites behind a wall of Guardians.

Ignoring the preponderance of mech in 5th edition, there is a simple equation in 40k which states that if a unit type has significantly worse than MEQ resilience it needs numbers to make up for it - otherwise it needs a transport. Hence all of our expensive T3 4+ save units need a transport. They have no other viable means of reaching their target without dying.

RandomThoughts
07-07-2011, 09:28
Just going on my own experience of using them and watching other Eldar players I think Eldar are perfectly competitive right now, once you know the basics of the army.

I think Mech-Eldar is a little overrated though, a well thought out foot-heavy list is superior against most armies, though you are liable to be overrun by Nids and Orks. Not saying you should ditch the vehicles completely, but I manage just fine with a single Wave Serpent for my Fire Dragons and I've seen other players do just as well with not much more than this.

Could you please specify the environment you play in?

I run (mostly foot) Eldar to great success in my gaming group as well, but most lists I come up against are usually rated as "pretty bad" by tournament players here on the site. Which is relative again, as they are the best lists my friends can come up with - but I guess it just shows that we're casual players.


Hi there... what are these basics you speak of, and could we have some more detail on the effective foot-based builds you've seen/used?

I'd like to second that question. I'm always curious to learn more about Eldar playstyles. :)

Michaelius
07-07-2011, 14:52
The points levels in US tournaments may help? 1500pts is a bad pts level for Eldar.

<1700 is best area for eldar.

We get relatively cheap troop choices so we can maximize our elites and heavy support.

For example in our area where we use tournament rules similar to ETC rules most powerfull build is considered to be :

Eldrad/Farseer + Avatar
1-2 units of Harlies
1-2 units of Dragons in Serpent
guardian defenders+jetbikes as troops
maxed War walkers mixed with wraithlords
sometimes Warp spiders thrown into mix.

Then again we also we have those mysterious things known as LoS blocking terrain which seems to be rather absent in all picture relations from tournaments in USA I have seen ;)

Bump the point range and we can only expand with more troops or FA which range beetween utter suckage to average.

Meriwether
07-07-2011, 15:27
I find Eldar to be particularly effective in the 2000-2500 point range, personally.

Bob Arctor
07-07-2011, 16:04
I was speaking about the basics of the Eldar army in general terms, i.e. using units in concert, making best use of cover, etc, which I'm sure you are already aware of and practice.:)

Spell of Destruction seems to have got the idea of what I was on about. I don't use the War walkers myself but a couple of the other Eldar players I know always have them. In the two clubs I usually play at most people play with 1500pt non-tailored lists as we don't always know what our opponent will be bringing. One of the clubs I go to have a lot of tourney players so I get a lot of practice against them. I also took them to a tournament last year where I did OK but not as well as I would have liked, losing some very close games.

If your interested in the list I normally use it looks like this:
Avatar
Farseer - both runes, spirit stones, Doom & Guide.
8 Fire Dragons including Exarch with Dragons breath & crack shot + Waveserpent with bright lances and spirit stones.
10 Striking Scorpions including Exarch with claw and both powers.
10 Dire Avengers including Exarch with Shimmershield and Defend.
6 Dire Avangers
10 Guardians with scatter laser + Warlock with spear and Embolden.
5 Rangers
3 Jetbikes with shuriken cannon
D-Cannon
Wraithlord with missile launcher.

Also as Michaelius says cover is very important. At the tournament I went to they didn't always have enough but at least most the buildings were tall enough to hide even a Trygon behind, whereas at our club we always use the recommended 25% terrain coverage. Most of our club terrain doesn't block los completely, but at least it means my foot troops usually benefit from the 4+ save.

Jaded Patriot
07-07-2011, 17:53
The Falcon was fine when it was released in 2nd ed. It has suffered since then through a combination of poor ballistic skill and meagre armament. It had a brief resurgence in 4th ed due to the defensive weapon rules.

The pulse laser needs a boost because for a main weapon it is pretty underwhelming - a two shot BS3 S8 lascannon. It's a decidely 'meh' weapon that isn't particularly good against anything - it lacks the penetrative power to be a decent AT weapon and the RoF to worry Heavy Infantry. The ubiquitous Imperial twin linked lascannon is superior.

If the rumours of different levels of Lance in 6th ed are true I'm hoping it will go to Heavy 3 Lance (1).

Saying all that, for a small squad of Fire Dragons it is a more resilient transport than a Serpent.

I'm not sure Heavy 3 is appropriate for it - then it just becomes a starcannon... but better. And then there is the Hornet... 6 Str 8 AP 2 shots... :chrome:

I would actually like to see the Falcon get the option for two pulse lasers on the turret (no reason the Hornet should be capable of more firepower), and another option that allows you to replace the troop bay with a 'capacitor array' that increases the power of their pulse lasers so they can act as an MBT when they need to.

Think 2 x Heavy 2 (Lance with capacitor upgrade, no troop capacity). Also needs BS 4 to justify its existence as a Heavy Support choice.

Starchild
07-07-2011, 18:25
I was speaking about the basics of the Eldar army in general terms, i.e. using units in concert, making best use of cover, etc, which I'm sure you are already aware of and practice.:)Indeedy. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. ;)


If your interested in the list I normally use it looks like this:
Avatar
Farseer - both runes, spirit stones, Doom & Guide.
8 Fire Dragons including Exarch with Dragons breath & crack shot + Waveserpent with bright lances and spirit stones.
10 Striking Scorpions including Exarch with claw and both powers.
10 Dire Avengers including Exarch with Shimmershield and Defend.
6 Dire Avangers
10 Guardians with scatter laser + Warlock with spear and Embolden.
5 Rangers
3 Jetbikes with shuriken cannon
D-Cannon
Wraithlord with missile launcher.
Looks like a fairly solid all-comers list. I'm curious about the unit of 6 Avengers. What role do they play in your warhost?


Also as Michaelius says cover is very important.From previous rumours here on Warseer (or was it Portent? I forget...), the 25% terrain guideline was included in 4th ed. 40k specifically to help Eldar (I'm assuming they were thinking of Dark Eldar too). With the minimum suggested terrain, Eldar warhosts are as effective as they should be.

I've definitely noticed a direct correlation between terrain quantity and Eldar performance in tournaments. Whenever I face an opponent on a table with lots of terrain, my likelyhood of winning the match increases dramatically.

So, if any of you are feeling charitable, why not volunteer your time to making terrain for your local tournament organizer? :evilgrin:

Bob Arctor
07-07-2011, 18:43
I may a lot of the terrain for one of the clubs I go to, some of it is quite Eldar friendly.:D

As for the 6 Dire Avengers, they fulfil the role of using up the spare 72pts I had. If I'd had another 4pts spare it probably would have been more jetbikes, but I didn't want to drop something else to make room for them. As it happened they were quite useful as a reserve to counteract any Deep strikers/outflankers or a speed bump to buy me more time against certain enemies, so they stayed in the list.:)

althathir
07-07-2011, 23:08
Perhaps, but this style as it currently exists is boring as hell to play (IMO). I far preferred the 'aggressive mobile defence' that was possible in 3rd/4th ed.

I no longer have any inclination to play Eldar in a tourney setting - the viable builds are just too boring. I still enjoy using them in more casual games where they can still be successful and an enjoyable army to use.

I've never liked playing defensively with eldar, it seems like the more aggressively I play them the more I get rewarded. Granted I've always played beil-tan style lists so that influences my playstyle. I think its partially why I have a higher opinion of banshees, they aren't a great reactive unit to fit into an "aggressive mobile defense" army.


The points levels in US tournaments may help? 1500pts is a bad pts level for Eldar.

I think eldar's sweet spot right now is between 1700-2200, we're better at the higher point levels than we are below 1500.

Spell_of_Destruction
08-07-2011, 02:16
I've never liked playing defensively with eldar, it seems like the more aggressively I play them the more I get rewarded. Granted I've always played beil-tan style lists so that influences my playstyle. I think its partially why I have a higher opinion of banshees, they aren't a great reactive unit to fit into an "aggressive mobile defense" army.

It depends what you classify as defensive. My preferred 3rd/4th ed tactics were to fly rings around the enemy, soften them up with heavy weapon fire before delivering a decisive blow with assault troops in the last few turns. I usually ran full squads of mechanised Banshees and Scorpions and a six man seer council in a Falcon. In the last two turns I would play very aggressively.

This obviously didn't always work against gunlines but Banshees have had real difficulties as aggressive assault troops ever sine GW decided that assaulting out of a moving transport was a bad thing. The 6th ed rumours suggest that units with fleet will regain this ability which can only be a good thing for Banshees.

I know all the arguments that can be put forward for Banshees in 4th/5th ed - I have used them effectively on numerous occasions. They just aren't reliable. There will be games where you have to perform high risk actions in order to get the most out of them - sometimes all will go to plan and they will perform beautifully but sometimes they will get blown out of the sky and shot to pieces. In my experience this is an unnacceptable risk if you want to regularly win games because due to the points investment losing your whole squad of banshees before they do anything will often be catastrophic.

althathir
08-07-2011, 17:11
But every unit can be shot out of the sky before they do anything. Fire dragons have the same t, sv, and tranport options so does they mean you shouldn't take them?

To me it sounds like your tactics were to try and spread out your opponent and then isolate units IME this was easier before the run rule, and when str 6 weapons were defensive. Now I think its really hard to spread them out and put much offensive pressure on them during those turns. This tends to make it an endurance contest which t3 armies aren't great at.

I try to do this during deployment by spreading my force out, but after that I'm more concerned about applying pressure.

Starchild
08-07-2011, 23:03
This obviously didn't always work against gunlines but Banshees have had real difficulties as aggressive assault troops ever sine GW decided that assaulting out of a moving transport was a bad thing. The 6th ed rumours suggest that units with fleet will regain this ability which can only be a good thing for Banshees.I for one certainly hope that particular rumour is accurate. Banshees are very vulnerable after winning an assault since under 5th ed. they can no longer sweeping advance into another unit. So hopefully the rules pendulum will swing back in their favour.


I know all the arguments that can be put forward for Banshees in 4th/5th ed - I have used them effectively on numerous occasions. They just aren't reliable. There will be games where you have to perform high risk actions in order to get the most out of them - sometimes all will go to plan and they will perform beautifully but sometimes they will get blown out of the sky and shot to pieces. In my experience this is an unnacceptable risk if you want to regularly win games because due to the points investment losing your whole squad of banshees before they do anything will often be catastrophic.Part of the problem is that Eldar have been around long enough for everyone to learn how to beat them. If I were playing as SMs vs. Eldar, Banshees would certainly be a high priorty target, if not the highest priority. So if nothing else, at least the fact that they're fire magnets can be exploited by a cunning Eldar player. :evilgrin:

In my experience it's best not to rush Banshees into danger right away (a typical approach taken by those new to the game.) In nearly every game I've played, I've seen Banshees do their best in the 3rd or 4th turn after careful positioning, hitting where least expected (or least welcome). It's always a bit of a gambit but as you said, when the Banshee assault works it pays off quite well.

Personally I do my best to never leave the Banshees unsupported. Bare minimum, I try to have a 6-strong squad of Warp Spiders nearby to draw fire or provide bodily cover saves if need be.

Shamana
09-07-2011, 13:02
I'm not sure Heavy 3 is appropriate for it - then it just becomes a starcannon... but better. And then there is the Hornet... 6 Str 8 AP 2 shots... :chrome:

Well, the starcannon hasn't been doing all that well recently, and the pulse laser costs over 50% more. Plus, the hornet is a FW product and currently in the experimental rules phase - I consider it fairly possible that it costs a bit more when the final rules come out. Even if they don't, a hornet with two pulse lasers is still costing 135 points with 2 pulse lasers, though - more than a vendetta, on a much more fragile chassis and not a transport. If pulse lasers were heavy 3 they would certainly make it more powerful than now (50% more firepower tends to do that), but I think it would still not be as good as the 'detta. Besides, I do like that "arrogance matched only by their firepower" mantra the Eldar have. GW might need to be reminded of it when they start designing the next codex - they seem to have only remembered the arrogance bit ;) .

For now, btw, I get the feeling I'd get more mileage out of harlequins with kisses than banshees. The psycho circus is more expensive on first sight, but with a shadowseer don't need a transport and have a more consistent damage output - I think actually higher against anything not in 2+ armor? Ok, they also don't automatically go first against anything with I6 (7 on the charge) or higher, but I could live with that.

althathir
09-07-2011, 14:59
Well, the starcannon hasn't been doing all that well recently, and the pulse laser costs over 50% more. Plus, the hornet is a FW product and currently in the experimental rules phase - I consider it fairly possible that it costs a bit more when the final rules come out. Even if they don't, a hornet with two pulse lasers is still costing 135 points with 2 pulse lasers, though - more than a vendetta, on a much more fragile chassis and not a transport. If pulse lasers were heavy 3 they would certainly make it more powerful than now (50% more firepower tends to do that), but I think it would still not be as good as the 'detta. Besides, I do like that "arrogance matched only by their firepower" mantra the Eldar have. GW might need to be reminded of it when they start designing the next codex - they seem to have only remembered the arrogance bit ;) .

For now, btw, I get the feeling I'd get more mileage out of harlequins with kisses than banshees. The psycho circus is more expensive on first sight, but with a shadowseer don't need a transport and have a more consistent damage output - I think actually higher against anything not in 2+ armor? Ok, they also don't automatically go first against anything with I6 (7 on the charge) or higher, but I could live with that.

Yeah pulse lasers getting boosted wouldn't be the end of the world, but I'd rather see the falcon be able to shoot everything at cruising speed like ravagers. That would dramatically rise its damage output but still allow it to quickly transport units.

Banshee vs. harlies - I think it really comes down to what else is in your list. Harlies are a bit easier to build around cause they can hurt vehicles, but if your only gonna have 1 cc unit banshees can get the job done.